I'm learning evolution right now in biology, and I'm just wondering what a Christian's perspective should be on these issues...such as natural selection, the age of the Earth, macroevolution/microevolution, etc..are there things I learn that I shouldn't believe?
Hi friend. I understand what you're going through as I studied science during high school and university. I've written several previous posts on this matter, so please read the following:
3. In #2-3, I have a link to this useful article by Mark Driscoll. It answers most - if not all - your questions from a Christian perspective. At the end of the article, there are dozens of links that you'll find helpful. Among these resources are Internet resources:
I'm sure you have many more questions, but start with some of these resources. Take your time and digest them slowly. Above all, remember to continually rely on Jesus - who is the light of the world (John 8:12). Your friends/teachers/textbooks may poke fun of Christianity and how science has destroyed it, but this is a false dichotomy. You can be a follower of Christ AND a student of science. Don't let others tell you otherwise.
"Just doing some random wondering... but in the process of "accepting" Christ, you must believe you are sinful, repent... all that stuff.. but one of the final steps is giving your life to God... how does that work and to what extent must your life be "given" to him?"
I consulted a friend of mine who has taken several years of deep searching and transformation before committing (i.e. surrendering) his life to God.Here are our collective thoughts on “how to” surrender (or give) our lives to God.From our understanding of God’s character in Scripture, we recognize that our purpose (as His children) is to bring glory to Him in every single aspect of our lives.
We presume that we each understand, acknowledge and believe that we are sinners; and deserve fair punishment.However, out of God’s faithful grace and mercy, we have been offered hope in salvation!As we continue to give our lives to God, we need to acknowledge our sin, humble ourselves, ask for God’s forgiveness, and work towards ongoing repentance.The many steps in the process of truly “accepting” Christ is not simply accepting Him for who He is (for “Even the demons believe that…” James 2:19); but it also requires that we be transformed to be more and more Christ-like because of who He is and what He has done.Let us discuss this topic of surrender and acceptance in two categories:surrender as submission and surrender as an act of praise.These “forms” of surrender to God are not separate; they are (essentially) the same and should be thought of as such.
Surrender as Submission
Surrender is often viewed as a relinquishment (abandon) of one’s own will and a submission of their heart, thoughts, and deeds to the desire of another.This is no different as we discuss our surrender of our lives to God.
In 2 Samuel 10, Israel is in battle against the Syrians and Ammonites.David’s army needs to split to deal with both forces; therefore, Joab sets himself up against the Syrians while Abishai sets up against the Ammonites.Their plan is to help each other as the need arises, but verse 12 commits the battle to God.
“…and may the Lord do what seems good to him.”
Despite all the things running through our minds of what we think we know, the effort we put into accomplishing certain tasks, the sleep we lose, the contingency plans we put into place; we know that we are infinitely inadequate and full of sin.In our surrender to God, we must acknowledge that He is sovereign and full of love.Joab’s example is a great example of the surrender we must have despite the labour we undertake in order to make certain things happen.We must maintain the attitude that God may have plans that are drastically different than what we had envisioned.Think of Daniel’s friends’ response to Nebuchadnezzar when they refused to bow to his idol.
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18)
Even at the threat of being burned alive in a raging furnace, these friends did not waver from their faith.Their refusal to bow to the idol stemmed from their complete surrender to the sovereign will of God.They knew that, regardless of the outcome, their lives were not their own and that God would be glorified.
The call for us to forfeit our lives is real and serious.In Luke 14:26, Jesus gives us this ultimatum, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”The submission of every facet of our being is required in order to follow Christ.God must be first and everything in our lives.
“Can we give anything to Christ? When the psalmist cried out, "What shall I render to the Lord for all of his benefits to me?" the reply was, "I will lift the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord" (Psalm 116:12-13). So, translating that into Christmas: Jesus gives us the gift of himself and we ask, "Now what can I render [submit] to Jesus for all the benefits of his fellowship?" Answer: Ask him for his help. That's the gift he wants. The reason Christ wants this is because he always wants to get the glory while we get the benefit. Glory comes to him when we depend on him rather than try to enrich him. If we come to him with gifts—as though he needed something—then we put him in the position of a needy person, and we're the benefactors. He always wants to be [and is] the one who is infinitely self-sufficient. Therefore the only gifts that we can bring Jesus are gifts of praise, thanks, longing, and neediness. A fountain is not glorified by us hauling buckets of dirty water up the mountain and pouring them in. A fountain—a spring in a mountain—is glorified, rather, by us lying down at the edge of the stream, putting our face in, drinking our fill, and getting up and saying, "Ah!" That's called worship. Then we take a bucket, dip it in, walk down the hill to the people in the valley who don't know that the spring exists, and we say, "Taste this! It's right up there, and his name is Jesus!" The kind of gift that the fountain wants is drinkers, because then he looks truly overflowing, rich, and self-sufficient. And that's exactly what he wants to look like.”
As we seek to surrender our lives to God, we undertake a lifetime journey of sanctification.Practically speaking, this involves denouncing ones sins, reading the Bible, increasing time spent in prayer, getting involved at church, etc.Essentially, this includes doing all that God intends and commands of us through His Word.However, these are actions – tangible things.It is important to correctly understand what God wants from us and remember that there is nothing He doesn’t already have completely.In short, God wants the glory, honour, and praise from anything and (potentially) everything that we are and that we do.He wants to be glorified.
At the root of what God really wants is a desire for us to glorify Him – to seek His help and guidance for everything!As a result of Christ being glorified, we receive the benefits of his glory – which are innumerable and amazing.Through that, we may end up doing varying things and through all of these things, give him glory, honour, and praise because He is both telling us to do this, and helping us to do this.
The question was posed, “…to what extent must your life be “given” to him?”This implies either that we want to give just enough to satisfy God or we want to know when we can stop.With regards to both points, it is important to remember that God cannot be more glorified, satisfied, pleased, etc.Our attitude towards Him will not make Him a stronger, better, more loving God.Additionally, we cannot give God more glory than He already has.We need to ask ourselves if we truly want to give God our all – or if we’d rather just give him a compartmentalized slice of our lives.Our entire life is to be a reflection of His blessing and a willingly surrendered instrument in doing His work.Give it your all.Persevere, act, and speak because you know what has been so graciously and lovingly given to you. See how you have been saved completely from your rotting sinful self, at what cost, and for what reason you were saved. Don’t hold back and you will be blessed!
I would recommend you find a consistent time when you are relatively free of responsibilities and quieted. For me, this is at night before bed, because I am most free of distractions and everything is quiet. You probably don't want to do your devotionals between classes or when in a busy place, as you will naturally have several other things in your mind stealing away your attention. I know many Christians who prefer the mornings, as it gives them a God-focused start to the day before busyness and the pace of life picks up. Whatever you choose, consistency is pretty key, because devotionals are something we should strive to do regularly as Christians; not just when the opportunity presents itself conveniently. As a young Christian, setting strong spiritual habits and disciplines now will have spiritual payoffs for your relationship with God down the road, when life only gets busier and busier, and a clear Biblical direction is needed.
-------------------------------------
For more information on "devotionals", keep reading on. After answering your question of when, it may be important to backtrack to explain WHAT it is.
"Devotionals", or "quiet time" is a modern-day term that we use to describe spending personal time with God. It tends to look different for everyone, but will include some common elements:
- learning about God's word (reading the Bible)
- looking into your own life (introspection/reflection)
- spending time in communication with God (prayer)
So if devotionals is a modern-day term, and not a term mentioned in the Bible, WHY do we do it? Well, the principles/bare essentials of devotionals are timeless, and find their root in the Bible:
- God wants us to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27)
- God wants our dedication/commitment (Matt 10:37-39)
- God wants us to know Him (John 17:3)
- God wants us to pray to him (Phil 4:6-7)
Practically speaking, how do we do devotionals? We talked about WHEN and WHY, but let's go through the others to figure out a clear action plan.
WHO - You, just you. No distractions. There are settings for corporately getting to know God better (like Sunday mornings), but devotionals are times for growing your intimate relationship with God, and learning to hear from Him.
WHERE - Not somewhere you would easily get distracted, like a basketball court or in front of the TV. Somewhere quiet ideally, and a place where you are comfortable.
HOW - So we've talked about learning about God's word, reflection, and praying. You'll need your Bible for learning about God's word, perhaps even a devotional book or commentary to help guide your reading. For reflection, consider getting yourself a journal to write in once in a while (or everyday); repenting of sins is also a very Biblical way of reflecting. You can get creative with how to pray; but using the Bible in your prayers is a great way to pray if you are unsure exactly what/how to pray.
Good question! I’ll try to answer this in two ways: biblically from 1 Peter 3:15-18 but also with three of my own personal suggestions.
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
1. Be Christ-centred – “set apart Christ as Lord.” The best ways to be a good witness to friends is to be a Christ-centred Christian so it’s obvious you love the Lord and live for Him.
2. “Be prepared to give an answer.”How do you prepare? Develop a good grasp of the Gospel so you can explain from the Bible about who Jesus is – God’s Son, the Lord, Saviour or Redeemer, etc. – and why He came – to point us to God as The Way (John 14:6), to die for our sins, etc.
3. Be gentle and respectful – “But do this with gentleness and respect.”You get a better reaction with honey than vinegar! You must be courteous and respectful toward our friends in talking about their differing beliefs, not ever insulting them or their religion – that gets you nowhere fast! Show a genuine interest in what they believe but gently point out how Christianity is very different. (Usually the difference revolves around earning one’s way to heaven – good deeds outweighing the bad = DO – or being saved by God’s grace = DONE!)
4. Be an example – “keeping a clear conscience ... good behaviour.” Our faith makes a difference in how we live our lives – it’s not just something we believe inside but it affects how we live.
5. Be ready to be ridiculed – “to suffer for doing good.” Just be aware that some will make fun of you because of being a Christian and that is okay. In fact, in some countries being a bold witness can bring intense persecution. Are you ready to maybe be ridiculed or even rejected for the sake of Christ?
6. Be able to share the Gospel in a nutshell – “Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.” The core of Christianity is Jesus Christ! Steer your conversation from merely being a cerebral discussion of comparative religions (about what they believe versus what Christians believe) to talk about the wonderful Person of Christ – you’ve got to get to Jesus and speak about how precious and unique He is!
Three personal suggestions on how to share your faith with your friends:
1. Be a good friend! This sounds so simple but this is how you can have a BIG impact. True friends share what’s really important to them; so, if you’ve been a really good friend s/he will likely be open about hearing about your faith in Christ. And if s/he is not keen about Christianity, still be a good friend!
2. Pray lots for your friend! Ask God to open up opportunities to share Christ with your friends and then look for when He opens those doors for you to talk about Jesus. As well, pray that God will open your friend’s heart to be willing to listen. Maybe even ask God to even give your friend a dream or a vision of Jesus because that really has an impact (something like 75% of Muslims background believers [MBB’s] report having had a dream or vision of Christ); so, why not pray for one for your friend!
3. Do some reading about your friend’s faith and talk with your friend about each others beliefs. Pastor Rodney Woo in The Color of Church tells how he did this: ‘Hasan and I became friends and engaged in multiple conversations concerning the similarities and the differences between the Islamic faith and Christianity. The conversations were very open and dialogical ... I shared on several occasions about the historical facts of Christianity and the life of Jesus. I always emphasized that God’s love was most clearly expressed by Jesus dying in our place ... and that He wants an intimate and personal relationship with you’ (pg. 195,196). There are lots of things you can read or study to be more prepared to share your Christ with your friends of other faiths. For example Lee Strobel’s books that start with the titles, “The Case For ... Christ ... Faith ... Christmas,” etc., and there are easier youth editions!
Check out this link on various faiths and how to dialogue with them; it has some good information:
Note: My initial response to the question was more than twice as long with several quotes especially from this link. If you’d like the longer version, please e-mail me.
...Second, the argument made by many theologians is that God hates anything that is sinful, and only loves Christians because of imputed righteousness through Christ. As such, this hatred extends to all unjustified sinners, even those who have been elected but not yet come to repent and accept Christ. Keeping this in mind, I guess the proper question to ask is: Does God love unjustified sinners, those who in their current state do not accept Christ (regardless of whether they will in the future repent)?
A. Thanks for your follow up question and I apologize if my answer has been confusing. I will try to clarify and hope that we can resolve this issue.
Fundamentally, God hates sinners. Because God is righteous and without sin, He hates anyone that sins. Passage such as Psalm 5:5 and Proverbs 6:16-19 talk about the sins that God hates. As a result, God must punish the sinner for what they have done. This is part of His justice and righteousness. He is holy and the sin offends Him.
At the same time, in His wrath and righteousness, God is also loving and merciful. The punishment of sin is death (Romans 6:22-23). Those who sin should die, which means that all sinners must pay for their sins. In His love, God gives us Jesus Christ, who dies on the cross in place of our sins. Justice is served, and the price was paid. The wages of sin are death...and the death has come in the form of Jesus Christ. Our penalty for our sins have been fulfilled.
And so, while God has a hatred for sinners and sins, He also has a love for those He has created. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. God is just, and in his justice, the sin has to be punished with death. Jesus comes to save us from this death and dies in our place out of love. It's a mystery how this works, that God could perfectly love a person as someone He has created and can redeem, but also hate him for his unbelief and sinful lifestyle. As we are imperfect humans, we cannot understand or do this. But we have the opportunity to accept God's love in His judgement of us.
This is a massive question that cannot be answered in much detail on a blog such as this one. So please read the articles quoted throughout this post. In the meanwhile, allow me to explain several important points regarding science and religion.
There was a time when to question the existence of God in educated society was ludicrous. In particular, to see science as anything other than discovering the handiwork of God was not really even considered. Science was done for the glory of God, and to uncover the excellence of God’s craftsmanship. This was so obvious a statement that it was taken for granted.
This did not happen as part of a simple process from theism to atheism in understanding the world. The public shift in this direction came partly from misunderstanding the Bible, and largely from the propaganda of determined atheists who capitalized on this misunderstanding and managed to sway public opinion successfully. The pragmatic decision, taken so long ago, to leave first causes out of science has seeped through to become an (unjustified) absolute.
Science today is thoroughly naturalistic. The supernatural, we are told most firmly, has no place in science.
2. There is no real conflict between science and religion.
Birkett continues:
For practical reasons, it may make sense for scientists to talk about natural causes only, for natural causes are what they are interested in. What does not make sense is to turn this into an argument that claims that science therefore proves that natural causes are the only ones.
Science cannot incorporate supernatural phenomena, for whatever science can study and analyze is defined as natural. For instance, magnetism was once thought of as an occult force, but in becoming analyzable and quantifiable, in coming under the aegis of science, it came to be thought of as natural. In the nineteenth century it became very popular to try to verify the existence of spirits scientifically. People would set up scientific apparatus to try to detect changes in electricity or such things in an effort to find scientific evidence for these phenomena. If they had found such evidence, however, the thing would now be an object of scientific study. It would be part of the “real" world that science studies. It is no longer supernatural. It is just another, albeit bizarre, phenomenon of the world. If there is scientific evidence for something, then it is something in this world, and it is studied as natural.
Whatever is supernatural, if it is genuinely supernatural (i.e., beyond this world), then it is not able to be studied by the activity that studies this world. Science is unable to disprove the spiritual, for if the spiritual agency does something in this world, then the evidence for the spiritual agency is precisely the evidence for what is defined as a natural activity. Whatever science discovers is natural. This is not an argument. It is a matter of definition.
Pastor Mark Driscoll, in his book Doctrine, puts it this way:
There is no conflict between Christianity and science itself. This is because the Christian worldview, which believes that God created the world with natural 'laws' and orderliness, is what undergirds the entire scientific enterprise. For example, inductive reasoning and the scientific method are based on the assumption of the regularity of the laws of nature. . . . Without this kind of regularity, we could not learn from experience, including the experiences of scientific testing. This also helps to explain why in cultures where creation is said to be an illusion or disorderly chaos because it was not created by an orderly God, the sciences have not historically flourished; indeed, the scientific method depends upon the kind of underlying worldview that a creating and providentially ruling God of the Bible provides.
These authors argue is that science and Christian theology use different - but not incompatible - methods to study the world. This is true in all facets of human life: the method must conform itself to subject matter. For instance, you wouldn't decide on what to wear on your date the same way you would determine the answer to the math problem.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about maintaining both a scientific and a Christian outlook. I think that, in the midst of all the arguments over whether or not the two conflict, there is a deeper agreement between what science and Christianity have to say about the world, an agreement that is often overlooked.
Science, as we have seen, to be a means of finding truth, requires a certain faith that the universe manifests a deep rational order that we as human beings can understand. Christianity maintains that the universe was created by God to reflect His glory and that as human beings we have been created in God's image with the capacity to understand how it does so. And when we look at the universe from a scientific point of view, when we probe into the depths of reality, we find that the universe does seem to resonate deeply with certain structures in our own minds, such as mathematics and even some of our conceptions of beauty. We find that the universe is, in fact, a beautiful place, and that the laws which underlie it are both simple and eloquent. Einstein once remarked that the most unintelligible thing about the universe is the fact that it is intelligible. This amazing fact is perfectly understandable in light of a Christian worldview, however. And from a personal perspective, I can say that one of the things that draws me to science, is that through it, I acquire a new appreciation for the glory of God that manifests itself in creation.
3. The Bible is not a science textbook. It was never meant to be read as one. Driscoll writes:
The Bible in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, was not written with the intention of being a scientific textbook. Rather, it is a theological narrative written to reveal the God of creation, which means its emphasis is on God and his relationship with humanity and not on creation. Genesis is far more concerned with the questions of who made creation and why he made creation than exactly when he did. Therefore, as Galileo said, "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
4. What Christians must reject is not scientific discoveries, but naturalism: The belief that ALL phenomena can be explained in terms of presently operating natural causes and laws.
Driscoll states: "There is total conflict between Christianity and scientific naturalism, which states the only true knowledge is that which comes through observable experiments. When natural science is the arbiter of all truth claims, religion becomes superstition and God is omitted from discussion."
Boyce calls this "scientism" and contends it must be rejected:
This position is known as "Scientism," and it is one that many in our modern western culture, either consciously or unconsciously, assume to be the case. Often, for example, we use the word "scientific" as a synonym for the word "rational." Something can only be proven, we think, if it can be "demonstrated scientifically." In our culture, science is often regarded as the final judge in all matters of truth. To disagree with science, is to disagree with reason itself. Despite its popularity, however, this position is false, for two basic reasons:
First, it is false because it is self-refuting. The statement "the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge of the world" is itself a statement which can not be known through the scientific method. By its own standards, then, scientism is a position which must be accepted solely on the basis of blind faith, and one which cannot be known to be true.
Second, this position is false because it contradicts many things in our own experience. How do you know that you are in love with someone or that someone genuinely loves you? How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for? None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable.
Let me just close by saying this: I am a student of science. I earned my undergrad degree in life sciences, so I studied neuro-anatomy, physiology, microbiology, pathology, etc. I've studied theories like evolution and met many people who believe that religion is stupid and that naturalism is the way to go. But I am a Christian. For the reasons listed above, I believe that my faith is reasonable and sound.
Besides the resources listed, I recommend Lee Strobel's Case for Faith. It has two chapters on miracles and evolution.
[Answered by Pastor HM, B.Sc.H. Queen's University]
I was studying the website, CARM, and it looked as if they opposed women as pastors. Can you please offer some insight into this topic? I believe that women should be allowed to pastors. As well, I know that in at least one of the quoted verses (1 Tim. 2:12-14) there is another reason that women used to not be able to speak in churches - because they were not educated in the past. So I don't get it, what is the point CARM is trying to make and shouldn't women be able to preach (and be pastors)?
This is a hotly debated topic in the church today. I've answered this question in the past. Please read the answer here. In essence, there are three views on this matter.
1. The complementarian view, which states that all ministries are open to qualified men and women with the only exception of the office of the elder/pastor. This is the view CARM holds. Read all their articles here. I implore you take an extended time to read through CARM's arguments before coming to conclusions. They've taken a lot of time to address objections; state their position clearly, etc. I do not believe that CARM is saying that women are not allowed to be pastors because they were uneducated in the past. Rather they are saying that it was and always will be a matter of authority and headship. In other words, the complementarian view affirms the equal value of women and men in God's sight, but argues that God created the two genders with different roles. Subsequently, the office/role of a pastor is for men only:
1 Tim. 2:12-14 is where Paul explicitly states that he does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet ("quiet" is hesuchia, not complete silence, but respectful quiet) – because Adam was created first. When a woman is a pastor and/or elder, she is in a place of authority over men. Paul clearly tells us this authority in the church structure is not the place for a woman because Adam was made first. This is not a cultural issue. Remember, Eve sinned first, but sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve (Rom. 5:12), because Adam was in the position of authority. This is why husbands are the head of the wife even as Christ is head of the church (Eph. 5:23). The place of authority in the church and family is not the place of the woman.
There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression," (1 Tim. 2:12-14 -- all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB). This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Acts 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity," (1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict," (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things," (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women.
Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
2. The egalitarian/liberal view is that men and women are partners together in every area of ministry, INCLUDING the office of the elder/pastor. Those who support this view (see this example) will say that Paul did not select female elders/pastors b/c he was working within the confines of the culture of his day. The implication here is that if Paul were alive today, he would have chosen women elders/pastors. Another argument is that Paul (and Jesus) co-labored with women in vital ministry positions (e.g. Priscilla, Lydia, Euodia, Phoebe, etc.).
3. The third view is the most conservative view: Women are not permitted to be a deacon, elder/pastor, serve communion, lead worship, pray or even speak in a church service. Women should, instead, focus on building ministries for women and children ONLY.
Summarily, the theological debates will continue and there will be continual disagreement on this issue. However, what we can agree upon is that this is not an issue on which our salvation depends, and therefore, there can be room for disagreement. HOWEVER, where you land on this issue of women in ministry does reflect how you view Scripture, gender, marriage and ministry. It is, therefore, an important matter in which you must take a stance. I would urge you to consider your stance in view of Scripture. Whichever view you hold, you must be able to back it up with what the Bible says.
I remember someone mentioning that the earth will tremble more as the day of Jesus' return gets closer. There was just another earthquake in China - it feels as though the earth is crumbling beneath our feet. Are all these earthquakes these past few months a coincidence (like...part of a chain reaction) or do they actually mean something? Not gonna lie, it's getting kind of freaky at this point.
Matthew 24:3-8 gives insight into this matter. Here, Jesus tells us that He will return one day and the end of the age will come:
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.
As you can see, the signs associated with Jesus' return are:
1. false messiahs (v. 5) 2. reports of wars (v. 6-7) 3) natural catastrophes (v. 7), including earthquakes.
Given the news of recent earthquakes in Haiti and China, does this mean Jesus' return is upon us? Perhaps. I say this because nobody knows for certain. Scripture tells us that it will come like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:42-43) and as fast as lightning (Matthew 24:27). The only thing we know for sure is that Christ WILL return one day to judge the world. For those who have repented and put their faith in his salvation, they will be taken to heaven in glory at this time. For those who have not, however, only eternal separation from God awaits them.
What this all means is that predicting the exact time of judgment is not important. We can speculate all we want, but that isn't what we're called to do. It's not important. What is important is ensuring that you do delay the time of your salvation (2 Cor. 6:2). If you are saved, friend, there's nothing to be worry about or to be scared of. Jesus will come and take you home.
...why did he create Lucifer knowing that he would turn bad? Also did God not make a mistake by creating humans? Where's the proof that God is all-knowing? Is he perfect?
These are tough theological questions. Allow me to answer the last two questions first.
1. Where is the proof that God is all-knowing?
There is no definitive proof of God's omniscience (How can a human being possibly know that God knows all things? It just doesn't work that way!) That being said, Scripture does REVEAL that God does have foreknowledge of all things. God's knowledge of events is described as his "omniscience," or his ability to fully know all things actual and possible in "one simple and eternal act." God is "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16) and knows all things (1 John 3:20). He knows all things ACTUAL, meaning all things that exist and all things that happen. He also knows all things that will happen in the future (Isa. 46:9-10) - even the smallest details of life (Matthew 10:30). In addition, God knows all things POSSIBLE, meaning God knows information regarding events that might happen but that do not actually happen. Jesus himself spoke about God's knowledge of possible events in Matthew 11:21, "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." Jesus is saying that Tyre and Sidon WOULD HAVE repented if Jesus' own miracles had been done there.*
2. Is God perfect?
YES. God is perfect in all ways, even in his omniscience or his knowledge of all things actual and possible. The apostle John once wrote "God is light and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). "Light" - in this context means that God is both morally pure and fully aware of everything.
3. Why did he create Lucifer knowing that he would turn bad? Also did God not make a mistake by creating humans?
I know you are wondering how can God be perfect if he made his creatures with the full knowledge that they would one day sin. The answer: Just because God is knew that his creatures would sin against Him does not make God imperfect. After all, the reason God created the universe (and everything in it) was for his glory (Psalm 19:1). Even though we may not understand it fully, God's glory is displayed in the act of redeeming his creation. At this point, please read the following article by GodQuestions. Thankfully, they have already answered your question in a concise, biblical manner. Their conclusion?
1. The rebellion of Satan and the fall of mankind were foreknown and foreordained by God.
2. Those who would become the people of God, the elect, were foreknown and foreordained by God.
3. The crucifixion of Christ, as atonement for God’s people, was foreknown and foreordained by God.
So we are left with the following questions: Why create mankind with the knowledge of the fall? Why create mankind knowing that only some would be ‘saved?’ Why send Jesus knowingly to die for a people that knowingly fell into sin? From man’s perspective, it doesn’t make sense. If the meta-narrative moves from paradise to paradise lost to paradise regained, why not just go straight to paradise regained and avoid the whole paradise lost interlude?
The only conclusion we can come to in view of the above assertions is that God’s purpose was to create a world in which His glory could be manifest in all its fullness. The glory of God is the overarching goal of creation. In fact, it is the overarching goal of everything He does. The universe was created to display God’s glory (Psalm 19:1), and the wrath of God is revealed against those who fail to glorify God (Romans 1:23). Our sin causes us to fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23), and in the new heaven and new earth, the glory of God is what will provide light (Revelation 21:23). The glory of God is manifest when His attributes are on perfect display, and the story of redemption is part of that.
The best place to see this in Scripture is Romans 9:19-24. Wrath and mercy display the riches of God’s glory, and you can’t get either without the fall of mankind. Therefore, all of the above assertions—fall, election, redemption, atonement—serve the purpose of glorifying God. When man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in not killing him on the spot. God’s patience and forbearance were also on display as mankind fell deeper into sin prior to the flood. God’s justice and wrath were on display as He executed judgment during the flood, and God’s mercy and grace were demonstrated as he saved Noah and his family. God’s wrath and justice will be revealed in the future when He deals with Satan once and for all (Revelation 20:7-10).
God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden of Eden. With that knowledge, God still created Lucifer and Adam and Eve because creating them and ordaining the fall was part of His sovereign plan to manifest His glory in all its fullness. Even though the fall was foreknown and foreordained, our freedom in making choices is not violated because our free choices are the means by which God’s will is carried out.
I know you'll be frustrated as you wrestle with this issue. In my own experience, I have found the proper/best response when you have questions about why God allows certain things to happen is to be humble and trust in Him. God has perfect knowledge of all events AND He has our goodness in mind. This is reason enough to stay humble and trust Him - no matter what happens.
[Answered by Pastor HM] *Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 190-191.
I know this question is hard, but my classmate keeps on asking me these questions and I just don't know how to answer them! Please help! Thanks guys for making such a wonderful website!
Hello, friend. Thank you for encouraging us with your kind words. I've answered this question in this previous post. Please read it carefully. In addition, please consider this article ("How Do I Know God Exists?") by Josh McDowell (McDowell was an atheist until a friend challenged him to examine the claims of Christianity. After he did so, the evidence was so convincing he became a Christian and dedicated his life to showing others that there is no dichotomy between faith and intellect). I'd also recommend getting your friends a copy of Lee Strobel's "Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity."
This friend happens to be a non-believer who would like to pray for another friend (a believer) who is going through some difficult times.
If your friend is a nonbeliever, the first prayer I would suggest for him or her to pray is “God if you are real, then reveal yourself to me. I don’t know if you’re real. I don’t understand everything. But I’m open to believing.”
If your friend comes with a humble attitude rather than a mocking one, I believe God will arrange the circumstances in his life so that she will get to know God. This is where God will use people like yourself to tell your friend about your own relationship with God and how to get to know Him for herself. At some point you’ll want to explain to her about turning away from our sins and trusting in God for our salvation. You’ll want to show care to your friend and the person she is praying for, yet at the same time not give the impression that God is some magic genie who will answer all our prayers. What I suggest you do is to pray with your friend and model prayer for her. Most people learn how to pray by hearing someone else pray not reading some book.
I assume the question here means to pray “with” God as opposed “to” God. The Bible tells us that God does pray. Romans 8:26 says the Spirit is interceding for us when we don’t know what to pray for. Romans 8:34 tells us Jesus is now in heaven and he is also interceding for us. So God is the one to whom we pray, but He is also the one who helps us in our prayers.
When we are praying “with” God I take it to mean that we are praying God’s will, we are praying what God really wants us to pray for not just our selfish needs. So what is God’s will?
Some aspects of God’s will are a mystery to us and we won’t know it until it happens but there is an aspect of God’s will that is revealed to us – This is revealed to us in God’s Word. So we just have to know God’s Word well enough to know what His will is.
One example of praying “with” God or praying God’s will is to pray the Lord’s prayer.
Our Father who art in heaven – Praise your heavenly Father, what can you praise Him for? Hallowed be thy name – Pray that His name would be honoured in your life Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven – Pray for righteousness and justice to be done on earth, especially when you see evil taking place Give us this day our daily bread – Pray for your daily needs And forgive us our trespasses – Confess your sins to God As we forgive those who trespass against us – Ask for strength to forgive others And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil – Pray for spiritual protection For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever amen.
Here are other examples of praying God’s will as revealed in God’s Word:
Depending on which statistical source you trust, anywhere from 1-3% of North American women who have abortions choose do so because they were raped or the victims of incest. In Canada, one hundred thousand abortions are performed annually, which means between 1,000 to 3,000 are the result of rape or incest.
The question is, are abortions for these reasons morally permissible? A couple of preliminary observations. First, some people are under the mistaken belief that the great majority of abortions are because of rape or incest. This just isn’t the case. In fact, it is rarely the case.
Second, rape and incest are terrible, terrible evils. According to the United Nations, some 24,000 women were raped in Canada in both 2001 and 2002. This doesn’t include all the rapes that were unreported or unrecorded. It also doesn’t tell us how many women are the victims of incest. These are sad, shocking, horrifying figures, and a sign of our nation’s fallenness. (In fact, Canada has one of the highest rape rates in the world.) No woman should ever be abused.
However, in cases where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest, she should not commit another act of evil by aborting her child. If the unborn child, at any stage of pregnancy, is a living human being, a person who ought to be protected, as I argued in my last response, then abortion is to kill a defenseless child. It’s murder. And the fact is, abortion in the case of rape or incest is punishing someone—the unborn baby—who’s innocent.
Some will say, “But every time the woman looks at her child she’s going to be reminded of the violence that was done to her.” Yes, that may be so. But that doesn’t justify abortion. Imagine a woman who’s been raped, becomes pregnant, and decides to keep her baby. A week after he’s born, she realizes that he’s too painful a reminder of her assault, so she decapitates him. In such a case, we would—I hope—be appalled and condemn what she’s done. Give him up for adoption, we’d say, or go to counseling. You can’t kill your one week-old baby.
But birth doesn’t make a baby a human being. Conception does. Why is it wrong to kill a born child but not an unborn one? You could only say the latter is permissible if you assign different moral value to the unborn. Yet, biologically and theologically, that simply isn’t defensible.
I should note, too, as an aside, that contrary to popular belief, abortion is legal at every stage of pregnancy, right until birth. In fact, the baby isn’t recognized as a “person” under Canadian law until her entire body has been delivered. Yes, you read that correctly. In practice, in most Canadian provinces you won’t be able to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion after 20 weeks (though in some places you can still procure an abortion up to 24 weeks). Nevertheless, as several prominent Canadian legal cases have demonstrated, the (deliberate or accidental) death of an unborn child is not treated the same as that of a child who’s been born. Three prominent Canadian legal cases are worth searching for on the Internet: R. v. Sullivan (1991); Tremblay v. Daigle (1989); and R. v. Drummond (1996).
[Answered by Dr. Stephen Tu, Trinity Pacific Church]
There are presently four different kinds of emergency contraception pills (ECPs) available throughout the world. Two of them are available in Canada (and the United States), one is only available in Europe, and the fourth only in China. The two ECPs available in Canada work in similar ways. In simple terms, they either keep the ovaries from ovulating or prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg. In both those cases, conception hasn’t occurred. However, a third option is also possible—and here the science is still in its nascency—namely, that ECPs may prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted on the uterine wall. There are many who don’t want to call this last scenario an abortion; but terminology aside, it does prevent a human life that’s been conceived from continuing and having a chance to develop.
Unfortunately, much of the available literature on ECPs is unnecessarily vague about how they work. In Vancouver, where I live, for instance, Vancouver Coastal Health—which runs all the hospitals in the Greater Vancouver Region—publishes a brochure on one of the two ECPs available in Canada, called “Plan B.” You can find a copy of this brochure here. Under the “How does it work?” section, they say:
It may keep the ovaries from letting out an egg, keep the sperm from meeting the egg, or stop the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.
What they fail to say is that in the third case, the egg is already fertilized. It is, biologically and theologically, a living human being. A very, very small and undeveloped one, yes, but one nevertheless.
Part of the difficulty in thinking about ECPs lies, surprisingly, in how pregnancy is defined. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), pregnancy doesn’t begin when a sperm fertilizes an egg (what is commonly called conception, or fertilization). Pregnancy, according to the ACOG, begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the uterus, typically five to seven days after fertilization. If this definition strikes you as weird, it should. (You can read about this controversy here.) If you accept their definition, it conveniently allows for drugs and medications like ECPs to be used without being seen as abortifacients. But if you think, as I do, that it is more correct and precise to say that pregnancy begins when life begins, you must say that pregnancy begins at conception. That being the case, ECPs, while not always allowing a zygote to die, may in some cases do just that (which is very much an abortion), and hence, should not be seen as Biblically or ethically permissible. (This, in fact, raises the whole issue of contraception in general, and whether any form of contraception is allowed by the Bible. I can’t get into that debate here.) (For more on the ECP known as “Plan B,” see this article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, here.)
Before I wrap up this answer it bears reflecting on why anyone would want to take an ECP. In virtually every instance it’s because a woman has premarital sex and doesn’t want to get pregnant. So if you’re not married, don’t have sex. You won’t get pregnant and you won’t have to worry about what to do. If you are married, why wouldn’t you want to have a baby? That question deserves very significant attention, more than I can give here. Too many people delay having children after they’ve been married for what can only be called selfish (and, therefore, sinful) reasons. But I digress.
Lastly, since we’re discussing medicine, it bears noting that almost all abortions in Canada are publicly funded, which means our tax dollars go to the legalized killing of our nation’s children. That is a harsh reality and it should break our hearts, lead us to repentance, and move us to act.
[Answered by Dr. Stephen Tu, Trinity Pacific Church]
...I guess personally I've always treated this aspect as a gray especially with my closest friends being non-Christian and they enjoy me socializing with them. Just to be clear there are lines where I don't cross, but I'm learning these days how it's sinful to be seen as an example that may tempt people into that area, especially people who struggle in that area. SO, that being said, these days, I've been praying about what I'm living for. Do I really think I'm a "bad" Christian because I go to a party once a month or so, not really still, but if I see the danger of tempting a brother or sister, than its a different light. So, after praying over it a few days, I think I'll give up partying next year to serve Christ.
A: As we grow as Christians, we start to understand that our actions do not just affect us and our relationship with God, but it really sets either a positive or negative example for others.
I'm so glad that you came to this decision. Although there is fundamentally no problem with hanging out with non-Christian, it's the setting in which you are doing it that may cause a brother or sister that is less mature in their faith to get the wrong message.
The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:9-10:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?
In the Jewish Law, food was deemed unclean, but when Jesus came, He declared that it wasn't what you put in you that made you unclean, but what came out of you. Therefore, He declared all foods was clean (Mark 7:18-20). This gives us the freedom to eat what we wanted to. However, in Jesus' day, this new concept was still taking hold and thus for people who did not know about the freedom Christ gave, they still adhered to the old laws. Paul is basically saying that although we have the freedom to eat the meat, if it causes another brother or sister to stumble, we should refrain.
This is a good sermon that you should listen to. Click HERE. It's titled "Can Jesus Smoke?", but it deals with social issues that aren't explicitly addressed in the Bible. It talks about discernment and how we can make a Godly decision in life.
Sometimes, as the more mature Christian, we just have to recognize that we set the example for those who are younger than us. And sometimes, although we are given the freedom to do so, we just need to suck it up and refrain from doing some things for the sake of our brother's and sister's growth. Amen, that you understand this and God is honoured when you put Him first.
I answered this question already in this previous post. Please read it carefully. By "other religions", I assume you mean non-Christians or those have not received forgiveness of their sin by trusting in Jesus. The answer is YES: They will be separated from God in hell. I know this seems intolerant. And harsh. Yet, please consider what I wrote in this post about "being good enough." Also read the second half of this previous post which deals with the "exclusivity of Christianity." At the end of this post, this is what I wrote:
"Christianity is actually the most inclusive of all faith systems. Other religions assume our ability to secure God's favor & love by doing the right things. What is the implication here? You can be a "good person" if you follow certain rules. Listen to what Dr. Tim Keller says (read this carefully!):
'The universal religion of humankind is: We develop a good record and give it to God, and then he owes us. The gospel is: God develops a good record and gives it to us, then we owe him (Rom. 1:17). In short, to say a good person, not just Christians, can find God is to say good works are enough to find God. So the apparently inclusive approach is really quite exclusive. It says, 'The good people can find God, and the bad people do not.' The gospel says, 'The people who know they aren't good can find God, and the people who think they are good do not.' So both approaches are exclusive, but the gospel's is the more inclusive exclusivity. It says joyfully, 'It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. It doesn't matter if you've been at the gates of hell. You can be welcomed and embraced fully and instantly through Christ.' "
