This page is dedicated to the opportunity for our readers to ask the minister a question for their personal enlightenment or simply to see if he's awake. To submit a question, send an email to bereacc@casscomm.com and in the subject area type, "Ask the Minister," and in the body state your question. Your question will be condensed if necessary to save space, your name will not be used, and your question will be answered. Please do not ask "nonsense" questions (e.g., "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?.") God does not deal in the illogical and, though limited by his humanity, our minister doesn't either.
Updated 6:00 a.m., August 7, 2006
Question: I know that God gives us power to make our own decisions, but what about this divine spirit that is in all of us. If God has given each of us a spirit and this divine spirit is one of three parts that make up a person, how can something that is part divine do evil or bad things that some people do?
The questioner's "spirit that is in all of us" is probably best viewed as a life principle that can also be translated "breath." Some scholars say that this spirit is divine since it comes from God. Others say that it is the principle which makes us "in the image of God," thus it's divine. Both positions leave much room for debate and each position begs many questions. Just for starters, everything comes from God and everything is not divine. And, animals have "breath" and Scripture does not tell us that they're created in the image of God. However, Scripture does tell us explicitly that when God breathed into man the breath of life (Gen. 2:7), man became a "living being" or "living soul." Remove the "breath" and man dies. If one refers to this breath as "spirit," this concept of spirit (animating principle or animating spirit), is not to be confused with the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, God's gift to Christians to serve as a helper throughout one's Christian life. (See John 16:7-15) But even in the case of Christians, sin is possible, though the Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 4:30, Paul tells us that it is possible to "grieve" the Holy Spirit. We're also aware that even though Christians are exhorted not to keep on sinning, they do sin (1 John 2:1).
There are some interesting assumptions in the second sentence of the question. God has given us a spirit, but that spirit should probably be addressed as "breath." That the spirit/breath is "divine" is a matter of conjecture. That a person is made up of "three parts" has been (and still is) a point of contention among scholars for centuries. Equally-learned scholars argue for a bi-partite man as for tri-partite. When Jesus returns, we might just have to ask Him to explain the answer. After He stops laughing at His argumentative brothers and sisters, He might just surprise us all when He gives us the correct answer. (Some will, no doubt, still want to debate the issue!)
The crux of the question, though, is why people sin. This question, too, has plagued man from the beginning. "Free will" or "choice" has often been given as the answer, but it begs the question, "Why, using free will, do humans choose sin?" Now we enter the ongoing debate concerning what some theologians consider to be the total depravity of man, on one hand, with others arguing against total depravity, on the other hand, asking why God would create a totally depraved human being. Why, indeed, would man sin? Though the questioner does not do so, many would put the onus back on God. James, the brother of Christ, cautions against this error and gives us a Scriptural basis for the origin of sin as respects man. Read James 1:13-15.
(Does this lead to other questions?)
Question: Ed, do you believe in "ghosts?"
This question takes only a short direct answer. Here it is. Only the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit).
Question: The news has likened the recent tsunami to the "end of the world" or a disaster of "Biblical proportions." What say you, Ed?
The media uses verbiage "loosely" to say the least. The term "end of the world" is probably being used to describe the disastrous effects of the tsunami. The effects of the atomic bombs dropped in WWII were described in similar terms. Why? Because the end of the world is best described in terms of disaster. The common acceptance, based on Scripture, is that the world will eventually be destroyed by fire. The Scripture passage used is found in 2 Peter 3:10-12. What most of those who use this passage to paint the disaster fail to do is to include verse 13 which is a part of the context. (Maybe it's politically correct to use the term "end of the world" but not so to use verse 13.) That verse reads, "But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." (NASB) (See also Rev. 21:1) The toll from the tsunami is expected to reach 100,000 lives. Disastrous, indeed! When one considers the loss of life and the effect this has on other lives, sympathy and prayer for the grieving is the order of the day. That the disaster is of Biblical proportions may be correct when comparing it to some of the Biblical disasters, but not in comparison to all. In the worldwide flood described by Moses which occurred during the time of Noah, only eight people survived. (But, of course, the liberal media will never admit to a worldwide flood.)
In my humble opinion, the major concern is the spiritual state of the people who died. Of those in that place who were Christian and died, God has prepared a place for them. Consider the fate, according to Scripture, for those who are outside Christ. Consider also the grief of those who have no hope in Christ. Though the families of Christians will grieve also, those victims' families who do not know the Lord Jesus as personal savior have no comfort. (I Thessalonians 4:13-18)
A side effect of this disaster is that some will point to it and claim it's a sign of the "end of the age." And it could well be. Jesus warned of natural disasters as the time approaches. (Matthew 24) The key to the chapter, however, is given in Jesus' words beginning in Matt.24:42.
Question: I often receive emails that come with a "pass it on" warning note attached. Some sound just like chain letters. Some are very nice, others sound almost as if they question my faith. Do you get them? What do you do?
Very interesting. Yes, I get them. I
think just about everyone has seen these kinds of emails. For the most
part the senders mean well. Also, for the most part their messages fall
into the realm of junk mail or worse, spam. There are those messages
which do seem to be well-meaning and there are those which would be better left
unsent. I've listed below some of the more common remarks that usually
accompany some of these.
1. "If you really believe, you'll pass this on. If you don't believe,
delete it." (They never say what it is you "believe" or "don't believe."
Don't be trapped by this feeble attempt at imposing a guilt trip on you.)
2. "If you send this on and add your name to the bottom of the prayer list, by
the end of the week there will be over umpteen billion people
praying for you." (There are not umpteen billion people in the
world.)
3. "If you're not ashamed of Jesus, pass this on to ten others and back to
the one who sent it to you." (This one is very popular and I suppose
it's meant to show the sender whether he/she has you in his/her control.)
Most of these emails are harmless. What is especially annoying about them is that those who originate them (not those who are drawn to relay them) often deprecate the faith of others and in most cases show a dismally deficient knowledge of the Bible. There is no Scriptural basis for any of the remarks listed above. Most of them use misapplication of Scripture passages, Biblical verses taken completely out of context, and personal "feelings" about Christianity on which the senders base their willingness to serve as originators or forwarders of "stuff." Some who send these messages are, no doubt, genuinely concerned for others and might even be spiritually moved by what they read. Many don't have enough to do! Most of the emails, but not all, are extremely naive, if not juvenile, in their approach.
Please note that my answer is based on my experience with the hundreds of these that I receive. In many cases, I refer to them as falling into the category of "I-have- to-say-something-religious-to-the-preacher." (The most often asked question in this category is the favorite of the rare church attendee who says, "Yeah, but where did Cain find his wife?") What do I do with these emails? I delete ninety-nine percent of them. One percent may end up in one of my sermons as an illustration. If I receive a legitimate prayer request via email, I pass that on to all of our church family who have email capability. I also include prayer requests in our announcement time during our worship services and regularly update our prayer list on our web site.
Thanks for this timely question. My unsolicited advice to the originators of these messages would be to spend the time it takes to write and send them in the study of Scripture and in prayer time.
Question: Would you care to comment on the Terri Schiavo case?
Yes I would. Thanks for asking.
The U. S. Constitution plainly states that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Note first of all that this statement explicitly assigns that endowment to the One we collectively call God, by one name or another. One of those God-endowed rights is the right to life. The so-called "quality of life" is not constitutionally defined. One would assume from the simple language of the constitution then, that no individual human being has the right to deny the right to life of another. One has also been taught that the courts are mandated with interpreting and upholding of the constitution, which appears to be written in simple language. This begs the question, "Why are the courts not upholding Terri's constitutional right to life?"
More importantly, for the Christian, the Bible, long before the time of our constitution, recognized the sanctity of life and prohibits the unjust taking of human life. The real issue here is that life is God's turf, therefore "unjust" is defined in His terms. I would argue, from this perspective, that the removal/withholding of Terri's feeding is unjust, anti-Biblical, immoral, and sinful since the withholding of that feeding will lead inevitably to the end of her life, and that usurps God's authority.
Look at the situation. The patient, though disabled, is a living, breathing, human being. Her mental state is not even a factor. To think is not a prerequisite to life. Many in nursing homes are incapacitated in the same way and are being fed in the same manner and no one is running around in a feeding-tube-pulling frenzy. (Note that I didn't say it's not done.) What appears to be missing from many theories as offered in the media, is that a human life, (Biblically and constitutionally recognized as a God-given right), is at stake.
Some argue that "pulling the plug" is done regularly as in the case of living wills, family consensus, and even upon the express wish of the patient. Just because something is done regularly does not make it right. Murders are done regularly; thefts are commonplace; and, many in today's society snicker and wink when confronted by adulterous situations. This does not make all this right. Sin is sin, one neither more nor less evil than another, even if some men have taken it upon themselves to classify that sin according to perceived grievousness. Living wills, often mentioned in this case and notwithstanding, are legal instruments, not moral instruments. Removing respirator support in the face of the inevitable, as with dying patients, is viewed as simply not prolonging the inevitable. (The right or wrong of that will not be answered in this life.) When a person in conscious charge of his/her faculties, suffering from an incurable disease or in a futile situation, asks for assistance in death (and is given that assistance), the law may and often does charge the assisting individual with "assisting suicide," and that individual can be arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime. Ask Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Further, at the risk of stretching something as serious and tragic as the current situation, let's ask ourselves a question that God Himself may ask someday. "Why is it you, My creatures, will charge with a crime a person who refuses to feed or water a cat or a dog, but you will deny food or water to a living, breathing, human being?"
With due respect to those in the legal profession, though I cannot understand how courts cannot see their commission to uphold the constitutional right to life, I would remind all that everything in life is not a legal issue. The letter of the law is crucial, but when we allow it to replace the Spirit of the Law, we're all in trouble. For a spiritual/mental exercise, read Romans 2.
Maran atha! (1 Cor. 16:22, NASB)
Question: Can (may) anyone baptize?
In Matthew 28:16-20, the Great Commission passage, we read that "the eleven disciples" went to Galilee to meet the risen Christ. It's at this location and point in time that our Lord gives "the eleven" the command to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; . . ." (Matt. 28:19-20, NASB) Two points of interest dealing with the posed question may be seen here. One, the eleven disciples are given the command and the authority to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach. Two, these eleven are to teach their newly made disciples to observe all that the eleven have been commanded. From this one may see Scriptural authority to baptize given to the eleven disciples and the obligation to pass that command to baptize to all the disciples which are subsequently made. We arrive at that conclusion partly through an understanding of simple language and through logical inference.
Some stop at the authority given to the eleven. Others derive from this some sort of apostolic succession theory which allows that authority to be passed on only to an elite group. This concept is often "proved" by the selection of Matthias to assume the "office" of Judas "who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus." (Acts 1:12-26, NASB) But may we, using Scripture arrive at a logical conclusion that anyone may baptize? If Matthias were the only disciple ever made, one might say, "No." But the context of the great commission leads us to say that this would not be so, since "the eleven" were commanded to make disciples of (in) all the nations. In light of that context, we may infer that all "new" disciples made are, in turn, also commanded to make more disciples, baptize them, and teach them to continue in the observation of all that Jesus had commanded His "eleven." By extension, then, the apostolic succession (and its incumbent rights, privileges, authority) applies to all Christians. Is there Biblical basis to support that and does it lend itself to the concept that anyone may baptize? Or, as in some denominations, are only those in an elite apostolic line permitted to baptize? The following case may be made to allow for logical inference.
In Acts 8:1 we're introduced to that great persecutor of the Church called Saul (later Paul). We know the history of his conversion since Luke relates it in the remainder of Acts. Let's cut to the chase. In Acts 9 Ananias is sent to Saul. Saul regains his sight and becomes Jesus' "chosen instrument. . .to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; . . ." (Acts 9:15, NASB) Ananias goes to Saul, Saul regains his sight, "and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened." (Acts 9:18,19, NASB) Question: Who baptized Saul/Paul? Was it someone in an elite apostolic succession? Was Ananias an "apostle?" Was he a bishop or a priest, or maybe a forerunner of all "Protestant" ministers? Did Ananias send an e-mail to Peter or one of the other eleven to come and do the baptism of Saul? Acts 9:10 tells us only that Ananias was a "disciple at Damascus." But could it have been that there was an "apostle" present or at least nearby? What does Paul say? For this we need to go to his Galatian letter. In Galatians 1:11-24 Paul defends his ministry. Notice that he says he is not lying when he writes that he did not even meet any of the apostles until at least three years after his conversion. (See Gal. 1:15-20)
Once again we're left with the question of who baptized Saul/Paul. Logical inference: A "disciple" named Ananias or some other "disciple" who may have been present. Logical inference: Any disciple may baptize and is, indeed, commanded to do so. Who baptizes, according to Paul, is of no import. (1 Cor. 1:10-17) Some take the question of who may baptize even further by asking if women may baptize. Take the time to read Acts 16:14,15. Now ask this question. Was Lydia a disciple? The obvious answer is, "Yes." Using a simple device we conclude, from the Great Commission, that as a disciple she not only may (is permitted to) baptize, she is commanded to baptize, teach and command new disciples to do the same. We use what philosophers/logicians and "wannabes" call a simple syllogism. It could be worded this way (using only the word "may" while overlooking "commanded"):
All disciples may (are permitted to) baptize.
Lydia is a disciple.
Lydia may (is permitted to) baptize.
Further:
All disciples may (are permitted to) baptize.
Women may (are permitted to) be disciples.
Women may (are permitted to) baptize.
NOTE: Those who see some baptismal power in the "elite" will not accept my first premise. From my perspective they are forever consigned to ride horses which resemble camels. For the rest of us, if any of my premises (which are based on the above logical inference) are incorrect or unstable, the entire syllogism fails. If it fails, I may have to ride one of those camels as well. :-)
(The above question resulted from a discussion in our adult Christian Education Hour class.)