Asking Questions--Can Satan see the future?

I am a volunteer writer for the website GotQuestions. People who come to that website can browse a huge data base of already asked and answered questions or they can submit a question which is assigned to a writer to answer. I thought as I had opportunity to answer some of these questions, I would share them in a series of posts under the label "Asking Questions". Just as an FYI, I present the questions in the form they are asked without correction of spelling or grammar. I pray that you are encouraged.


Q--I have a friend that told me that satan has the ability to see the future as God. I don`t believe it and the Saul story is always brought up and how he contacted a medium if he was going to win the battle. I don`t know any scriptures to disprove this so is there any or is this true, that satan can see into the future?

A--I believe the passage you're talking about is I Samuel 28.  Yes, Saul does consult a medium but you should observe that he asks her to call up the prophet Samuel (vs. 11).  So he wasn't inquiring of Satan.  Now, it is true that demons and presumably Satan know some things about the future such as the fact that there will a future judgment (Matthew 8:29).  However, there is nothing in scripture that indicates that Satan or demons have a comprehensive knowledge about the future that is equal to God's omniscience.

Fundamental Friday's--The Fallacies of Higher Criticism part II

In the early 1900's. a twelve volume work on theology titled The Fundamentals was published. This massive work, in my most humble of opinions, is just as relevant today if not more so with the ever increasing attacks on the faith of Christians--and that's just from folks inside the church. I wanted to publish some excerpts from this work that I think will be greatly encouraging to you.

A second fundamental fallacy of the higher criticism (the study of the origin of the biblical texts) is its dependence on the theory of evolution as the explanation of the history of literature and of religion. The progress of the higher criticism towards its present sate has been rapid and assured since Vatke (Die Biblische Theologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt) discovered in the Hegelian philosophy of evolution a means of biblical criticism. The Spencerian philosophy of evolution, aided and reinforced by Darwinism, has added greatly to the confidence of the higher critics. As Vatke, one of the earlier members of the school, made the hypothesis of evolution the guiding presupposition of his critical work, so today does Professor Jordan (Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought," T. and T. Clark, 1909) the very latest representative of the higher criticism. "The nineteenth century," he declares, "has applied to the history of the documents of the Hebrew people its own magic word, evolution. The thought represented by that popular word has been found to have a real meaning in our investigations regarding the religious life and the theological beliefs of Israel." Thus, were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. The "assured results" of the higher criticism have been gained, after all, not by an inductive study of the biblical books to ascertain if they present a great variety of styles and vocabularies and religious points of view. They have been attained by assuming that the hypothesis of evolution is true, and that the religion of Israel must have unfolded itself by a process of natural evolution. They have been attained by an interested cross-examination of the biblical books to constrain them to admit the hypothesis of evolution. The imagination has played a large part in the process, and the so-called evidences upon which the "assured results" rest are largely imaginary.


But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the history of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly unable to account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, the greatest poets of the world, yet all of them writing in the dawn of the great literatures of the world. It is a fallacy when applied to the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account for Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to deny that they could have been such men as the Bible declares them to have been. The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to- the history of the human race in general. Our race has made progress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but progress under the influence of supernatural revelation is one thing, and evolution is another. Buckle ["History of Civilization in England."] undertook to account for history by a thorough-going application of the hypothesis of evolution to its problems; but no historian today believes that he succeeded in his effort, and his work is universally regarded as a brilliant curiosity. The types of evolution advocated by different higher critics are widely different from one another, varying from the pure naturalism of Wellhausen to the recognition of some feeble rays of supernatural revelation; but the hypothesis of evolution in any form, when applied to human history, blinds us and renders us incapable of beholding the glory of God in its more signal manifestations.The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

What does "double honor" in I Timothy mean?

I’m a self professed geek. I ask questions that would cause most people to think “Why are you bothering to wonder about that?” I remember things that most people would find completely trivial (J.S. Bach was born in 1685 and died in 1750. Now you know.). I was reading something the other day by John MacArthur related to I Timothy 5:17 where he seemed to be making the point that “double honor” means double salary. There are Christians who believe that this means to literally pay an elder who rules well twice as much as other pastor’s make. I decided I wanted to investigate for myself and see if I could determine what the word honor meant in the verse in question.

First of all, the English word “honor” translates a Greek word “time” (5092). Strong’s dictionary defines it as follows: a value, that is, money paid, or (concretely and collectively) valuables; by analogy esteem (especially of the highest degree), or the dignity itself. This word and its related word “timao” (5091) are used 58 times in the New Testament. Of those 58 times, forty-two times (72.41 % Oh, what do you expect, I am an accountant.) are about giving respect or reverence and have nothing to do with money. The remaining sixteen times (27.59%) the words are used in a way related to money or other material possessions. However, in the uses outside of I Timothy 5:17 there is no instance where these words are used to indicate that there was an ongoing payment of some sort being made. For instance, in Acts 4:34, the word is used to describe the money that is brought in by people after they sold possessions so that that money could be distributed among the poor. It’s pretty sure that they didn’t sell the possessions on some sort of payment plan and brought the monthly payment they received in and gave it to the apostles but rather they brought the lump sum proceeds from the sale. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the use of “honor” in the verse in I Timothy 5:17 means a salary.

Furthermore, the context of the verse seems to indicate otherwise. In verse 18 of this chapter, Paul makes two statements which are in scripture. He writes “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deu 25:4) and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (see Luke 10:7 for a similar statement by our Lord). Since Paul uses these two statements to support his claim that elders who rule well are worthy of double honor we should assume they are intended to be parallel. People read the second statement about a worker and say “See, that proves Paul is talking about paying elders double salary.” However, let’s think through the first example Paul uses. An ox was given a regular meal. That ox did not depend on what he ate while he was working in the field as his primary source of food. So, as a friend of mine over at The Assembling of the Church writes, the point Paul is likely making is this: We wouldn’t prevent an ox from eating while it worked and we wouldn’t withhold wages from someone who has earned them. In the same way, we should not withhold double honor from an elder who is ruling well.

Is the honor Paul speaking of monetary? I would say probably although it does not have to be exclusively monetary. However, it does not appear, based on the evidence in the Bible, to mean that Paul is saying that their salary should be doubled. However, as believers we should show love to those elders who do work hard to teach the Bible and we should show that love in any ways that they Lord give us the opportunities. One of the most affirming folks at the church I was privileged to pastor would occasionally give me a $20 after the service during the season where he would sell his crops and tell me to treat myself and my wife to lunch. His kindness encouraged me. I exhort you to find ways to do the same to those who teach you the word.

The Clarity of Scripture--A Review of Chapter 6 of Grudem's Systematic Theology

In chapter 6 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Dr. Grudem puts forth the case for the clarity of scripture. For instance, he notes that the God instructs parents to teach the Bible to their children. Further, he notes that the epistles of Paul were written to be read to the entire congregation. However, while the bible is accessible to even children, this accessibility is not a result of a person’s intellectual aptitude but rather is a result of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Grudem notes that there are many people with high IQ’s who completely missed the point of scripture during Jesus’ ministry on earth (Paul and other Pharisees). In addition, there was confusion in applying the biblical truth to the inclusion of Gentiles in the church and how that related to the Old Testament law. Grudem then points out that we can take practical encouragement from this doctrine. First of all, he states that this doctrine should help Christians focus on doctrinal disputes that really matter. If the bible is silent on a topic we can be encouraged to seek unity while allowing for differences of opinion on a matter. Secondly, we should be encouraged by the fact that the bible is not accessible only for people with advanced theological education. Rather, any Christian who is willing to prayerfully apply themselves to study can be sure that they can come to understand the bible and grow in their faith. Finally, while the bible may be simple enough that any Christian can study it and understand it, it is also filled with enough intellectual challenges that even the brightest biblical scholar will never exhaust themselves of things they can learn from God’s word.


I took particular encouragement from Grudem’s statement on page 110, that we should never assume that only professional theologians with advanced technical knowledge of biblical languages can read and understand the Bible. I used to regularly point this out to my congregation when I would preach that any insights or knowledge I had were not the result of my IQ but that they too could hear God speak to them through the Bible if they were willing to put in the study and work to understand the scriptures prayerfully. I believe helping Christians realize this and encouraging them to investigate the scriptures themselves is very important.

Fundamental Friday's--The Fallacies of Higher Criticism

In the early 1900's. a twelve volume work on theology titled The Fundamentals was published. This massive work, in my most humble of opinions, is just as relevant today if not more so with the ever increasing attacks on the faith of Christians--and that's just from folks inside the church. I wanted to publish some excerpts from this work that I think will be greatly encouraging to you.

I. The first fallacy [of Higher Criticism (the study of how the text of the Bible was produced)] that I shall bring forward is its analysis of the Pentateuch.


1. We cannot fail to observe that these various documents and their various authors and editors are only imagined. As Green has said, "There is no evidence of the existence of these documents and redactors, and no pretense of any, apart from the critical tests which have determined the analysis. All tradition and all historical testimony as to the origin of the Pentateuch are against them. The burden of proof is wholly upon the critics. And this proof should be clear and convincing in proportion to the gravity and the revolutionary character of the consequences which it is proposed to base upon it."

2. Moreover, we know what can be done, or rather what cannot be done, in the analysis of composite literary productions. Some of the plays of Shakespeare are called his "mixed plays," because it is known that he collaborated with another author in their production. The very keenest critics have sought to separate his part in these plays from the rest, but they confess that the result is uncertainty and dissatisfaction. Coleridge professed to distinguish the passages contributed by Shakespeare by a process of feeling, but Macaulay pronounced this claim to be nonsense, and the entire effort, whether made by the analysis of phraseology and style, or by esthetic perceptions, is an admitted failure. And this in spite of the fact that the style of Shakespeare is one of the most peculiar and inimitable. The Anglican Prayer Book is another composite production which the higher critics have often been invited to analyze and distribute to its various sources. Some of the authors of these sources lived centuries apart. They are now well known from the studies of historians. But the Prayer Book itself does not reveal one of them, though its various vocabularies and styles have been carefully interrogated. Now if the analysis of the Pentateuch can lead to such certainties, why should not the analysis of Shakespeare and the Prayer Book do as much? How can men accomplish in a foreign language what they cannot accomplish in their own? How can they accomplish in a dead language what they cannot accomplish in a living language? How can they distinguish ten or eighteen or twenty-two collaborators in a small literary production, when they cannot distinguish two? These questions have been asked many times, but the higher critics have given no answer whatever, preferring the safety of a learned silence;

"The oracles are dumb."

3. Much has been made of differences of vocabulary in the Pentateuch, and elaborate lists of words have been assigned to each of the supposed authors. But these distinctions fade away when subjected to careful scrutiny, and Driver admits that "the phraseological criteria * * * are slight." Orr, [The Problem of the Old Testament," page 230] who quotes this testimony, adds, "They are slight, in fact, to a degree of tenuity that often makes the recital of them appear like trifling."

Asking Questions--Sanctification

I am a volunteer writer for the website GotQuestions. People who come to that website can browse a huge data base of already asked and answered questions or they can submit a question which is assigned to a writer to answer. I thought as I had opportunity to answer some of these questions, I would share them in a series of posts under the label "Asking Questions". Just as an FYI, I present the questions in the form they are asked without correction of spelling or grammar. I pray that you are encouraged.

Q-Is there a different in being saved and living a saved life? Please send verses. Thank you and God Bless

A-Well, if you mean do truly saved people continue to grow in their Christian faith, I would say that if someone is truly saved that they will certainly grow and mature as they live their faith out. In II Peter 1:5-7, Peter lists some qualities of a truly saved person, similar to the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5. Observe what he says in verses 8 and 9.

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. (NASB)

In other words, a person who is saved ("these qualities are yours") will be "living the saved life" as you said ("are increasing"). Someone who does not exhibit these qualities is either not really saved ("blind") or they have forgotten the true value of their redemption on the cross ("short sighted").

Hebrews Chapter 8: A Better Covenant

A few weeks ago, I had the chance to sub for my Sunday School teacher teaching the book of Hebrews.  I taught Hebrews Chapter 8 and quite frankly, I got in the middle of the lesson and goofed up.  You can get the audio from the lesson by clicking here.

See, here's what happened, I was making the point that the Old Covenant of Moses did not do what the New Covenant did--transform a person spiritually.  However, as you can hear, some of the people (well, one guy) got the idea that I was saying that you were not saved the same way under the Old Covenant (by grace, through faith) as you are under the New Covenant (by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ). 

So, since I wasn't clear, I goofed up.  Now, why would I post something where I goofed up.  Because, it shows that not everyone hits a home run everytime they take an at bat.  Further, I believe that God's word has the power to change lives regardless of how bad I goof stuff up.

Fundamental Friday's--Evidence for Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

In the early 1900's. a twelve volume work on theology titled The Fundamentals was published. This massive work, in my most humble of opinions, is just as relevant today if not more so with the ever increasing attacks on the faith of Christians--and that's just from folks inside the church. I wanted to publish some excerpts from this work that I think will be greatly encouraging to you.


The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is supported by the following, among other weighty considerations:


1. The Mosaic era was a literary epoch in the world's history when such Codes were common. It would have been strange if such a leader had not produced a code of laws. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets and the Code of Hammurabi testify to the literary habits of the time.

2. The Pentateuch so perfectly reflects the conditions in Egypt at the period assigned to it that it is difficult to believe that it was a literary product of a later age.

3. Its representation of life in the wilderness is so perfect and so many of its laws are adapted only to that life that it is incredible that literary men a thousand years later should have imagined it.

4. The laws themselves bear indubitable marks of adaptation to the stage of national development to which they are ascribed. It was the study of Maine's works on ancient law that set Mr. Wiener out upon his re-investigation of the subject.

5. The little use that is made of the sanctions of a future life is, as Bishop Warburton ably argued, evidence of an early date and of a peculiar Divine effort to guard the Israelites against the contamination of Egyptian ideas upon the subject.

6. The omission of the hen from the lists of clean and unclean birds is incredible if these lists were made late in the nation's history after that domestic fowl had been introduced from India.

7. As A. C. Robinson showed in Volume VII of this series it is incredible that there should have been no intimation in the Pentateuch of the existence of Jerusalem, or of the use of music in the liturgy, nor any use of the phrase, "Lord Of Hosts," unless the compilation had been completed before the time of David.

8. The subordination of the miraculous elements in the Pentateuch to the critical junctures in the nation's development is such as could be obtained only in genuine history.

9. The whole representation conforms to the true law of historical development. Nations do not rise by virtue of inherent resident forces, but through the struggles of great leaders enlightened directly from on high or by contact with others who have already been enlightened.

The defender of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has no occasion to quail in presence of the critics who deny that authorship and discredit its history. He may boldly challenge their scholarship, deny their conclusions, resent their arrogance, and hold on to his confidence in the well authenticated historical evidence which sufficed for those who first accepted it. Those who now at second hand are popularizing in periodicals, Sunday School lessons, and volumes of greater or less pretensions the errors of these critics must answer to their consciences as best they can, but they should be made to feel that they assume a heavy responsibility in putting themselves forward as leaders of the blind when they themselves are not able to see.

Ancient Words, Changing Worlds--Overview of Chapter 3

A few months ago, I posted a book review of a book published by Crossway titled Ancient Words, Changing Worlds by Stephen J. Nichols and Eric T. Brandt.  I wanted to share with you some observations I've made after having read the book again.

In chapter 3 of the book Ancient Words, Changing Worlds, the author gives an overview of the doctrine of inerrancy in the 20th century. He begins by looking at the development of controversies surrounding inerrancy in various Protestant denominations in America: the SBC, the PCUSA, and the Lutheran Church. He further discusses the reaction against the concept such teaching by Daniel Fuller, Jr, that some scripture was revelational (the texts dealing with how a person can be saved) and that some scripture was non-revelational (texts that assert matters of science and history). According to Fuller, revelational scripture was inerrant whereas nonrevelational scripture was not. In response to this and other challenges to the doctrine of inerrancy, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy was formed in 1978 and in that same year the ICBI held a conference in which a document called the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was written which defined biblical inerrancy. Prominent leaders from various evangelical denominations signed the document demonstrating that though they disagreed on various points of doctrine they all recognized that the source of divine truth was the Bible and that the Bible was inerrant. The author discussed some objections to inerrancy and proposed possible solutions such as observing that while the term “inerrancy” might not be found in the writings of church fathers in historical documents, the concept appeared to be recognized as valid. The author further asserts that while there are issues within the biblical text that do not have an immediately obvious solution that “…a life of faith means trusting in God…” (p. 81). In other words, just because we don’t know the answer that does not mean that there is no answer.


As I read this chapter, I began to think about the objections that are proposed against biblical inerrancy. It appears that many of those arguments boil down to the idea that “It’s just too hard to maintain that the bible is inerrant”. In other words, they deny inerrancy because it solves certain problems for them. I was reminded as I read the chapter, however, that to deny inerrancy creates many more theological problems that it solves. I affirm inerrancy based on my conviction that God speaks truth and therefore, since the bible was inspired, whatever is in the bible must be true, regardless of my inability to reconcile some textual, scientific, or historical difficulty.

Ancient Words, Changing Worlds--Overview of Chapter 1

A few months ago, I posted a book review of a book published by Crossway titled Ancient Words, Changing Worlds by Stephen J. Nichols and Eric T. Brandt.  I wanted to share with you some observations I've made after having read the book again.

Chapter one of this book outlines the development of the arguments for biblical inspiration that began in the mid-19th century with theologians from Princeton Seminary. The author indicates that the need for discussion about this crucial doctrine came about as a result of scientific and cultural developments in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. The theory was that scripture was written for ancient men and that men and women of the modern age had moved beyond such a superstitious document. However, Charles Hodge, his son A.A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield contented that scripture was not a time bound document that spoke only to ancient people but rather was God-breathed, propositional truth that still applied today. A.A Hodge and B.B. Warfield co-authored a series of 8 articles in The Presbyterian Review discussing, among other things, the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture. They demonstrated that the bible was an inspired text and that inspiration was verbal (the words of the text) and plenary (all of the text). Of course, they were met by challenges to these key doctrines. For instance, Joseph Henry Thayer called these concepts a “yoke which they—unlike their fathers—are unable to bear”. Also, Henry Fosdick described belief in these two doctrines as trading “the shekinah for the Shrine”—the true beauty of the truth of scripture was not in the words of human authors but in the timeless, spiritual truth that they contained. This sort of mystical “what does it mean to you” approach to scripture is seen within the church, even today.


As I read this chapter, I was amused by what I perceived as arrogance of those who question the authority of scripture on the basis of so-called scholarship. I was reminded of something I read a few weeks ago in The Fundamentals “A third objection remains…all the scholarship is on one side. The old-fashioned conservative views are no longer maintained by men with pretension to scholarship. The only people who oppose the Higher Critical views are the ignorant.” The prevalent idea, even among some Christians, is that scripture just can’t have a supernatural origin and be true in the face of overwhelming evidence. Therefore, you have liberal Christians preaching a false gospel that cannot save because they reject the source of divine truth—God’s word.

Fundamental Fridays--What does Literary Analysis Prove?

In the early 1900's. a twelve volume work on theology titled The Fundamentals was published. This massive work, in my most humble of opinions, is just as relevant today if not more so with the ever increasing attacks on the faith of Christians--and that's just from folks inside the church. I wanted to publish some excerpts from this work that I think will be greatly encouraging to you.

But even on the assumption of the practical inerrancy of the Massoretic text the arguments against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch drawn from the literary analysis are seen to be the result of misdirected scholarship, and to be utterly fallacious. The long lists of words adduced as characteristic of the writers to whom the various parts of the Pentateuch are assigned are readily seen to be occasioned by the different objects aimed at in the portions from which the lists are made.


Here, however, it is necessary to add that besides the E and J documents the critics suppose that Deuteronomy, which they designate "D", is an independent literary production written in the time of Josiah. Furthermore, the critics pretend to have discovered by their analysis another document which they Call the Priestly Code and designate as "P". This provides the groundwork of most of the narrative, and comprises the entire ceremonial portion of the law. This document, which, according to these critics did not come into existence till the time of Ezekiel, largely consists of special instructions to priests telling them how they were to perform the sacrifices and public ceremonials, and how they were to determine the character of contagious diseases and unsanitary conditions. Such instructions are necessarily made up largely of technical language such as is found in the libraries of lawyers and physicians, and it is easy enough to select from such literature a long list of words which are not to be found in contemporary literature dealing with the ordinary affairs of life and aiming directly at elevating the tone of morality and stimulating devotion to higher spiritual ends. Furthermore, an exhaustive examination (made by Chancellor Lias) of the entire list of words found in this P document attributed to the time of Ezekiel shows absolutely no indication of their belonging to an age later than that of Moses.

The absurdity of the claims of the higher critics to having established the existence of different documents in the Pentateuch by a literary analysis has been shown by a variety of examples. The late Professor C. M. Mead, the most influential of the American revisers of the translation of the Old Testament, in order to exhibit the fallacy of their procedure, took the Book of Romans and arbitrarily divided it into three parts, according as the words "Christ Jesus," "Jesus," or "God" were used; and then by analysis showed that the lists of peculiar words characteristic of these three passages were even more remarkable than those drawn up by the destructive critics of the Pentateuch from the three leading fragments into which they had divided it. The argument from literary analysis after the methods of these critics would prove the composite character of the Epistle to the Romans as fully as that of the critics would prove the composite character of the Pentateuch. A distinguished scholar, Dr. Hayman, formerly head-master of Rugby, by a similar analysis demonstrated the composite character of Robert Burns' little poem addressed to a mouse, half of which is in the purest English and the other half in the broadest Scotch dialect. By the same process it would be easy to prove three Macaulays and three Miltons by selecting lists of words from the documents prepared by them when holding high political offices and from their various prose and poetical writings.The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

Thoughts on Church Discipliine

Matthew 18:15-17 makes it pretty clear to me that the purpose of church discipline is to restore a fallen Christian who has been overtaken in some sin. We should go to them privately first, with humility, to show them their fault. If they do not repent, we should take two or three witnesses with us to again try to call them to repentance. If they do not repent, we should involve the church as a measure of last resort to call them to repent of their sin. If they don’t, we should withdraw fellowship from them and, as Jesus says, as a prospect for evangelism. They have demonstrated by their refusal to repent that they are not saved in the first place. Therefore, we don’t need to call them to repent of this particular sin but should call them to repent of their sins and trust in Christ as their Savior.


Matthew 18:15-17 does not say how long this process should take. I’ve only seen it happen in one church and it took several months to get to the stage where the church was called in to call the person to repent. I would say depending on the sin the amount of time might vary but I can’t imagine any place where the process would go on for more than 6 months.

Thoughts on Psychology and Phsyciatric Medication

Psychology, as I understand it from my very limited study, roots its methods in the idea that man can be fixed, is basically good, and can pull himself up by the bootstraps. While there are things I learned in psychology classes about how the brain processes information that have helped me as I studied for tests or as I tried to teach different kinds of students, the majority of psychology runs counter to what the Bible says. The clearest statement of mans real problem, the fact that sin has so corrupted us that we are unable to make ourselves or anything else “right”, is in Genesis 6:5 where we’re told that God saw that the thoughts and intents of man’s heart was only evil continually. Not much has changed in less than 10,000 years.


The things that psychology calls “disorders” are, more often than not, sins. An inability to control your anger is not a problem to be medicated with psychotropic drugs. It is a sin to be repented of to the glory of God. Therefore, I would say that the use of most psychotropic meds as they are used is not in line with what scripture teaches about man and his need to repent of his sins and trust Christ to save him.

I should add that I noticed there was at least one sleep aid, Ambien, listed as a psychotropic medication. I can find nothing in scripture that would forbid using that drug for what it was intended (a diagnosed sleep problem). Cymbalta is used to treat fibromyalgia sometimes. Since I’m not a doctor, I can’t speak with any degree of authority about using that drug to treat that problem.

Finally, with regards to that class of drugs, I have observed and heard of women with post partum depression who, as I understand it, were suffering from a chemical/hormonal imbalance that caused them to feel profoundly sad. I cannot say that I know for a fact that such chemical imbalances cannot occur in women or men for that matter. Further, as far as I know the Bible is silent on that sort of thing as well. In such a case, those drugs have been used to treat those patients and I can’t see that being any different than using meds to treat a metabolic disorder such as diabetes if in fact there was some sort of chemical imbalance. Since I am not a physician, I would be completely incompetent to make any determination as to whether that is what someone was suffering from. However, I could encourage to trust God and His power to have victory over any difficulties that they encounter.

As far as psychological counseling as opposed to biblical counseling, I used to think that if you had a problem you needed to work out, you should go to a counselor. Over the past few years, I have come to the position that I realize that men and women are sinful and that what we need is not to, for instance, control our tempers but to repent of outbursts of wrath (Eph 4:31). We don’t need to learn to compromise and get along in our marriages, but husbands need to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25-26) and serve them. Wives need to submit to their own husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5-22-24). Therefore, what man needs is not to try to figure out how to fix their lives, but rather they need to submit to the instruction in the Bible of how to die to themselves and live as servants of God in repentance and faith. This is completely counter to what psychology teaches. As we read in II Peter, God, in the scriptures, has given us everything that pertains to life and godliness. Therefore, bringing the Bible to bear on our problems, which are often the result of sin, is the most appropriate way to handle them.

Milestone Post--The Big Five Oh Oh!!!

I am in awe that this blog has lasted for 500 posts.  What is even more amazing to me is that anyone has actually read any of them.  I mean, seriously, you're looking the worlds biggest goofball right here.  I've got nothing useful or important to say.  I pray, however, as we have looked at scripture together that you have heard the voice of God.  Thanks for reading and I look forward to seeing you when I get to the 1,000th post.

Fundemental Friday's--Mosaic Authorship of the Pentatauch Part II

In the early 1900's. a twelve volume work on theology titled The Fundamentals was published. This massive work, in my most humble of opinions, is just as relevant today if not more so with the ever increasing attacks on the faith of Christians--and that's just from folks inside the church. I wanted to publish some excerpts from this work that I think will be greatly encouraging to you.

On bringing the light of this evidence to bear upon the subject some remarkable results are brought out, the most important of which relate to the very foundation upon which the theories concerning the fragmentary character of the Pentateuch are based. The most prominent clue to the documentary division is derived from the supposed use by different writers of the two words, "Jehovah" and "Elohim," to designate the deity. Jehovah was translated in the Septuagint by a word meaning "Lord", which appears in our authorized version in capitalized form, "LORD." The revisers of 1880, however, have simply transliterated the word, so that "Jehovah" usually appears in the revision wherever "LORD" appeared in the authorized version. Elohim is everywhere translated by the general word for deity, "God."


Now the original critical division into documents was made on the supposition that several hundred years later than Moses there arose two schools of writers, one of which, in Judah, used the word "Jehovah" when they spoke of the deity, and the other, in the Northern Kingdom, "Elohim." And so the critics came to designate one set of passages as belonging to the J document and the other to the E document. These they supposed had been cut up and pieced together by a later editor so as to make the existing continuous narrative. But when, as frequently occurred, one of these words is found in passages where it is thought the other word should have been used, it is supposed, wholly on theoretical grounds, that a mistake had been made by the editor, or, as they call him, the "redactor," and so with no further ceremony the objection is arbitrarily removed without consulting the direct textual evidence.

But upon comparing the early texts, versions, and quotations it appears that the words, "Jehovah" and "Elohim," were so nearly synonymous that there was originally little uniformity in their use. Jehovah is the Jewish name of the deity, and Elohim the title. The use of the words is precisely like that of the English in referring to their king or the Americans to their president. In ordinary usage, "George V.", "the king," and "King George" are synonymous in their meaning. Similarly "Taft," "the president," and "President Taft" are used by Americans during his term of office to indicate an identical concept. So it was with the Hebrews. "Jehovah" was the name, "Elohim" the title, and "Jehovah Elohim"—Lord God—signified nothing more. Now on consulting the evidence, it appears that while in Genesis and the first three chapters of Exodus (where this clue was supposed to be most decisive) Jehovah occurs in the Hebrew text 148 times, in 118 of these places other texts have either Elohim or Jehovah Elohim. In the same section, while Elohim alone occurs 179 times in the Hebrew, in 49 of the passages one or the other designation takes its place; and in the second and third chapters of Genesis where the Hebrew text has Jehovah Elohim (LORD God) 23 times, there is only one passage in which all the texts are unanimous on this point.

These facts, which are now amply verified, utterly destroy the value of the clue which the higher critics have all along ostentatiously put forward to justify their division of the Pentateuch into conflicting E and J documents, and this the critics themselves are now compelled to admit. The only answer which they are able to give is in Dr. Skinner's words that the analysis is correct even if the Clue which led to it be false, adding "even if it were proved to be so altogether fallacious, it would not be the first time that a wrong clue has led to true results."

Asking Questions: The Holy Spirit

I am a volunteer writer for the website GotQuestions. People who come to that website can browse a huge data base of already asked and answered questions or they can submit a question which is assigned to a writer to answer. I thought as I had opportunity to answer some of these questions, I would share them in a series of posts under the label "Asking Questions". Just as an FYI, I present the questions in the form they are asked without correction of spelling or grammar. I pray that you are encouraged.

Q-If God is Spirit and theres the Holy Spirit, arnt they both the Spirit of God and only one Spirit. So the trinity is really one God the father and God the Son. Because the Holy spirit is God the spirit. So instead of three theres only really only two.

A-No, that is not correct. While God is Himself spirit and does not, nor has He ever had, have a flesh and blood body, He and Jesus both speak of the Holy Spirit as Someone distinct from both of them. For example, in Joel 2:28, God says "It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions". He doesn't say He will come Himself. Therefore the Holy Spirit must be seperate from God Who is spirit. Further, notice in John 14:16-17 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." Again, observe that Jesus refers to another Helper coming, meaning the Holy Spirit, not God the Father coming. Therefore, I would say that while God is Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is seperate from God.

Matthew 8:28-29 What Demons Know About Christ

Of all the miracles that Christ performed the ones that touch me the most are the healings we have recorded in the New Testament. I can just imagine the pain and fear those people lived in and how hopeless they must have felt. Then Jesus enters their situation and miraculously their lives are changed forever. In chapter 8, so far we’ve seen Jesus heal a soldier’s servant, Peter’s mother in law, and countless other people. As we examine these last few verses of chapter 8, we find Jesus demonstrating God’s power over evil spirits that were tormenting some men. We can be thankful for a Savior who came to seek and save the lost that were helpless without Him.

Now, as we observed the last time we studied Matthew’s gospel that Matthew records the Lord came “into the country of the Gadarenes” (v 28) where as Mark and Luke record that the region was called the Gerasenes. There are numerous plausible explanations as to the apparent discrepancy and we have no reason to doubt the biblical account unless we’re looking for a reason to do so. Further, Matthew records that there were “two men who were demon possessed” while Mark and Luke mention only one. Of course, they don’t indicate that there was only one so again the only reason we have to doubt what the gospel writers have recorded is if we’re looking for an excuse to do just that. There are numerous books written on the subject of textual criticism by people who have studied it in much more depth than I have. Needless to say, these are minor issues in the grand scheme of the glorious miracle we have recorded here.

In any case, notice with me the location of these men. The met him as they were coming “out of the tombs”. They had made their home in caves where people buried their dead. Not only was this not a pleasant place to live because, let’s face it, dead people just aren’t all that great of company, it also made these men social outcasts. No one would want to come visit them. The tombs were filthy, unclean, and no one would want to live there or associate with anyone who did. Furthermore, if these men happened to have been Jewish, they would have been ceremonially unclean. They, because of their location, had isolated themselves from society.

Also, we should take note of their reputation. These men were rough dudes. They were known for physical violence that no one wanted to travel anywhere near them. In Mark and Luke, it is recorded that chains had been used on one of the men and he was able to break those restraints. In short, these were a couple of guys you did not want to meet walking down a dark alley. However, luckily for them, the Lord did meet them and heal them in a glorious manner.

Further, these demon possessed men made a very interesting proclamation. There is actually quite a bit that we can learn from what they assert here. Also, the demons, speaking through the men, give evidence as to who Jesus really was. First of all, these creatures knew the identity of Jesus—the y called Him by name as recorded in Mark 5 and Luke 8. The men who were possessed had never met Jesus yet these demons knew who He was. In addition, the demons recognized the divinity of Christ as recorded here in Matthew. When they said “What business do we have with each other?” they were using an expression commonly used in that day that basically said “What do we have in common between us?” Now, they could have meant they would leave Him alone if He left them alone. However, they then call Him “Son of God”. I believe what they were saying is they recognized that He was divine, self existent, and the Creator of the universe whereas they were merely creatures. Finally, these demons also recognized the authority that Christ had as the divine Son of God. Unlike the false prophets described in II Peter 3, these fallen angels knew that there was a judgment coming and that it was Christ was would be doing the judging. They said to him “Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

Clearly, these demons recognized Who Christ was, What He was, and what kind of authority He had. In other words, these demons had a better grasp of the nature, person, and work of Christ than most liberal theologians. However, Christ did not come to save those demons but rather to set these men free from their power. We’ll examine him doing that next time.

Fundemental Friday's--Mosaic Authorship of the Pentatauch

In the early 1900's. a twelve volume work on theology titled The Fundamentals was published. This massive work, in my most humble of opinions, is just as relevant today if not more so with the ever increasing attacks on the faith of Christians--and that's just from folks inside the church. I wanted to publish some excerpts from this work that I think will be greatly encouraging to you.

During the last quarter of a century an influential school of critics has deluged the world with articles and volumes attempting to prove that the Pentateuch did not originate during the time of Moses, and that most of the laws attributed to him did not come into existence until several centuries after his death, and many of them not till the time of Ezekiel. By these critics the patriarchs are relegated to the realm of myth or dim legend and the history of the Pentateuch generally is discredited. In answering these destructive contentions and defending the history which they discredit we can do no better than to give a brief summary of the arguments of Mr. Harold M. Wiener, a young orthodox Jew, who is both a well established barrister in London, and a scholar of the widest attainments. What he has written upon the subject during the last ten years would fill a thousand octavo pages; while our condensation must be limited to less than twenty. In approaching the subject it comes in place to consider.

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has until very recent times been accepted without question by both Jews and Christians. Such acceptance, coming down to us in unbroken line from the earliest times of which we have any information, gives it the support of what is called general consent, which, while perhaps not absolutely conclusive, compels those who would discredit it to produce incontrovertible opposing evidence. But the evidence which the critics produce in this case is wholly circumstantial, consisting of inferences derived from a literary analysis of the documents and from the application of a discredited evolutionary theory concerning the development of human institutions.

Asking Questions--Old Testament Law

I am a volunteer writer for the website GotQuestions. People who come to that website can browse a huge data base of already asked and answered questions or they can submit a question which is assigned to a writer to answer. I thought as I had opportunity to answer some of these questions, I would share them in a series of posts under the label "Asking Questions". Just as an FYI, I present the questions in the form they are asked without correction of spelling or grammar. I pray that you are encouraged.

Q-I need to know why that there was stonings in the old testament and why they also allowed hangings and hands to be cut off for stealings. Was this man`s law at the time or God`s? Because when Jesus came he stopped the men from stoning the women and said `Those without sin cast the frist stone`. Why was it allowed to stone before Jesus came? The main question is was this Man`s or God`s laws. Thanks, Samantha

A-Samantha,

All of the Old Testament law was given by God (II Timothy 3:16). Therefore, all of the law was God's law. Now, notice something important about the situation with Jesus and the woman who was about to be stoned. In John 8:4, we read "they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act."". Now, if she was caught in the act, she was not alone. Therefore, where was the other guilty party.

They were trying to get Him to either say God's law wasn't valid or approve of them doing something that Roman law would not allow--execute capital punishment. So what He did was neither. Instead, He pointed to the sin that was in their own hearts. So, it's not so much that He stopped them but He made them realize their own hypocrisy. They weren't really interested in the law or righteousness. The fact that they only brought one of the guilty parties proved that.

Therefore, Jesus did not nulify God's law in that encountrer but made them recognize their own sinfulness.

AWANA Sermon Part 5

This is the 5th and final part of a sermon I preached about 2 years ago. If you subscribe by email, you may have to click the post title and go to the blog to view the video. I don't think it will embed in email.

I pray you are encouraged.