Modern science once taught that the Earth was flat, and the church backed that teaching.  What does the Bible actually say about that?

Sincerely,
Throwing A Curveball

Dear Throwing A Curveball,

It was the Catholic church (not the Lord’s church) that supposedly backed the “flat earth” dogma.  Without getting into too much history, let’s just say that even that isn’t completely accurate.  The Catholic church argued with Galileo over whether or not the Earth was the center of the universe, but pretty much everyone agreed at that point that the Earth was round.  The idea that religious people are ineptly backward when it comes science is a myth propagated by those who would have people believe that only atheists can be logical and scientific.
However, back to your question.  The Bible refers to the “circle of the Earth” in Isa 40:22.  The word used for ‘circle’ is the same Hebrew word for a sphere.  Though the Bible is a book about spiritual things, when it touches on science it is always accurate.

     In your response to a question about calling clergy “father”, you once again led the reader to accept your personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture. Unless you are claiming your interpretations are infallible?  Why not give your reader a more complete picture of what Scripture has to say on this subject?  Why not point out that Jesus Himself used the term “father” in a spiritual sense?  Unless you are saying that the rich man was Abraham’s physical (biological) son (Lk 16:24-25)?

Why does Paul refer to christians in Corinth as his children? Are they all his biological children (1 Cor 4:14-15)?

What about the apostle John? Are they all his biological children (1 Jn 2:1)?  What about the Old Testament?  Joseph tells his brothers, “So it was not you who sent me here, but God, and He has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” in Genesis 45:8.  Job has a similar statement, “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16).

I think you guys know better than that.  I think you know Jesus, John, and even Paul all used the term “father” in a spiritual sense.  Again, I find it interesting that you leave these verses out in order to “hit a home run” against a faith system you disagree with.  The Catholic Church is not, nor ever has been “wrong” concerning this issue.  How could they be?  If every christian is meant to search the Scriptures and determine doctrine based on the Scriptures, why are your interpretations correct and my interpretations incorrect?  I see the term “father” used in a spiritual sense all throughout the Bible.  Thus, if I am interpreting Scripture the same as you are, who are you to tell me I am wrong?  You even admit in a previous response to a question (“Trust No Man”): “We aren’t infallible here at AYP; we are just men.”  You might want to consider your previous statements before going and making an “infallible” proclamation concerning the practices of others.

Sincerely,
Swiss Guard

Dear Swiss Guard,

Oh, Swiss Guard, how we have missed you and your anonymous rants.  It is too bad that you never provide your e-mail address, so we could personally search the Scriptures together… it seems like all you want is to use our website to publicly voice your frustrations – but we digress.

First off, we have dealt with the way that Peter, Jesus, and John used the term ‘father’ – feel free to read the post from January 13^th, 2011 entitled “Parental Paradox” for an explanation of all those verses that you say we leave out.  We’ve handled this concern before.  We don’t avoid verses – we just keep them in context… unlike the Catholic church.

As far as Lk 16:24-25, the rich man was a Jew, and he would have considered Abraham his biological ancestor – just like all the Jews did (Jhn 8:39).  And Job 29:16 is literally saying that Job treated the poor like they were his children.

Now lastly, let’s deal with the idea of interpretation.  The Bible tells us that it isn’t a matter of private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20).  What you think and what we think doesn’t matter at all – what matters is what God said.  That is why we always give lots of verses to back up our answers, so readers can check the Scriptures for themselves.  People are fallible, but the Bible never changes and we encourage people to double-check for themselves.  But that doesn’t mean that we can each believe whatever we want and all be okay – if that were the case, there would be no such thing as right and wrong at all!  Instead, God’s Word is right though every man be found a liar (Rom 3:4).  Just like a roadmap or an instruction manual – it says what it says… not what you want it to say.

In the end, Catholicism is a false religion because it isn’t built upon the Bible.  Any religion that doesn’t use the Bible as its standard of measure is false (Gal 1:8).  The Catholic church tells people that they can’t eat certain foods, and it tells their priests that they can’t marry – which is wrong (1 Tim 4:3).  The Catholic church teaches that the Pope is directly in contact with God and that people should follow him… once again, wrong.  Christ is our direct connection to God (Heb 1:1-4), and the Bible is what we should follow (2 Tim 3:16-17).  Everything about the Catholic church’s organization is in direct opposition to the Scriptures.  The question isn’t how old a church is; the question is whether or not Christ is its head (Eph 5:23).  There is only one pattern for the church (Eph 4:4-6), and the Catholic church is not it.  But, don’t take our word for it – take His.

Jesus says in Matt 23:9 not to call anyone “father”.  A buddy tells me that since Catholics call their priests “father”, they’re disregarding this verse (not that I care about this because, for me, they can call their clergy any name they want).  But I hate to be the one to ask this because this may seem idiotic, but does this also mean that we cannot call our dads “father”?

Sincerely,
Honoring My Father

Dear Honoring My Father,

Calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong because it is referring to ‘father’ in a spiritual sense.  That is what Christ is condemning in Matt 23:8-10.  Christ is rebuking people who elevate themselves above others within the church.  Catholic priests place themselves in a position of spiritual superiority and authority above others. That is wrong and exactly what Christ told His disciples never to do.

On the other hand, the term ‘father’ is perfectly fine when used to refer to a physical parent. The Bible itself uses the word ‘father’ almost 1,000 times, and the vast majority of those times refer to fleshly parents. Gen 2:24, Gen 9:22, Lev 20:9, Pr 17:25, Mk 10:29, Lk 11:11 are just a few examples. Our fathers are a blessing from God given to us for a time to guide and discipline us (Heb 12:9-10). They are worthy of honor and the title ‘father’ (Eph 6:2).

     Why do christians celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December, and the Bible does not mention that day?  Why do we have to follow the Catholic church?  It was a day they used to celebrate the sun.

Sincerely,
Un-Sunny Disposition

Dear Un-Sunny Disposition,

Many people believe Christmas to be a spiritual holiday, but the Bible never commands us to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25^th (the truth is, no one knows when Jesus was born, but it was most likely in the spring or summer because the shepherds were out – Lk 2:15).  Christians are commanded to remember Jesus’ death every first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 11:24-25)… we are never commanded to remember His birth on an annual basis.  Christmas is not a biblical holiday.  There is nothing wrong with celebrating it as a family holiday, but it is wrong to teach that there is a biblical foundation to it.

Christmas can be traced back to the Roman pagan holiday of Winter Solstice (also known as ‘Saturnalia’ because it was in worship of the god, Saturn).  As Catholicism tried to integrate itself into a pagan Roman world, Christmas was instituted by Pope Julius I on December 25^th as a way to assimilate the pagans into a Catholic worldview.  In short, Christmas has never been a truly biblical holiday; it is a manmade tradition with no bearings upon your salvation.

     What is a stigmata?  Is it satanic or something?

Sincerely,
Stymied Over Stigmata

Dear Stymied Over Stigmata,

Stigmata are supposedly miraculous bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus, such as the hands and feet.  The term is often heard in association with the Roman Catholic church which considers it a potential sign of sainthood because it is supposedly a miraculous sign from God that the person is a saint.  The Catholic church gets this from taking Paul’s statement in Gal 6:17 completely out of context.

People throughout the centuries have attempted to recreate Christ’s wounds on themselves or associate unexplainable physical abnormalities (bruising, bleeding, etc.) with Christianity.  This is totally false.  God never calls for us to recreate the crucifixion in our own lives.  We are called to be servants of the Christ who already paid that price for us (Gal 2:20).

I love church, and I love being part of God’s family, but I really dislike being a certain type of christian.  I don’t understand why there are so many different beliefs for one religion (like Catholic, Methodist, and so on); is it possible to just be a christian and not any thing specific?  Is there a special church that’s just christian?

Sincerely,
No Party Affiliation

Dear No Party Affiliation,

All we should ever be is just christians… you are absolutely right for being frustrated.  The denominational world is confusing… exactly the opposite of God’s church (1 Cor 14:33).  The term ‘denomination’ comes from the idea that a church believes that it is a subgroup of a larger religious body.  Lutherans worship and teach differently than Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc., but they all believe themselves to be christians – this is wrong.  Jesus said that there is only one path to heaven (Matt 7:14).  Denominationalism teaches that how you act and worship are matters of opinion, but Jesus said that how you act and worship are matters of truth (Jhn 4:24).  The only way to avoid denominationalism is to find a congregation that simply teaches what the Bible says – no creeds, no opinions, no personal agendas.  If we truly love Christ, we will follow His commandments (1 Jn 5:2).

Everything a church does (worship, membership, how they teach to be saved, how they spend their money, even their name) needs to have Bible verses backing them up (1 Tim 3:15).  A church needs to be able to explain the reasons for why they do what they do (1 Pet 3:15).

Our congregation here in Monroe goes by the name ‘Monroe Valley church of Christ’ because ‘church of Christ’ is a Biblical name for a congregation (Rom 16:16).  We worship by singing (Col 3:16), studying the Bible (1 Tim 4:13), praying (2 Thess 3:1), taking communion (only on Sundays – Acts 20:7), and taking up a collection (also only on Sundays – 1 Cor 16:1-2).  We teach that you must hear God’s Word (Rom 10:17), believe God’s Word (Jhn 3:16), repent of your sins (Mk 6:12), confess Jesus as your Savior (Lk 12:8), and be baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21).  We do all these things because they are practices found in the Bible.  As you said, you don’t want to go to a church that offers their own thoughts – you want God’s thoughts.

There are other congregations like ours scattered across the country and the world.  Most of them use the name ‘church of Christ’, but then again, many churches that use that name aren’t faithful.  A Bible name for a church isn’t enough to make it faithful.  We have helped others, like yourself, looking for New Testament Christianity find faithful congregations in their area by contacting other preachers and christians that we know.  We’d be happy to do the same for you.  If you feel comfortable, just let us know what general area you live in, and we will try and get you in touch with a congregation that lives like your Bible reads (our e-mail is askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org).  It is frustrating, confusing, and exasperating to deal with denominationalism.  Thanks be to God that there is a better option!

I have been attending a Charismatic church with my husband.  I saw one of the posts where you mentioned it’s sinful.  Is that really so?  We are so confused now if the Charismatic church doesn’t do any good.  So which churches are good, and which should we attend?  Lutheran?  Also, what’s the difference between Christian and Catholic?  Catholics pray to God through the mother Mary?  I was told they pray to the same God.

Sincerely,
Where To Next?

Dear Where To Next,

Yes, the Charismatic church is not from God.  The Charismatic movement believes that in order to be saved, you must have the Holy Spirit take control of you and give you spiritual gifts.  They also teach that God still gives people prophecies and visions, even though we have the complete Bible.  Both of these teachings are false and dangerous.  Please read “Lying Wonders” and “Just Gibberish” for further details on that particular religious group.

The Catholic church also isn’t from God because they don’t do what the Bible says (read “Catholics Or Christians?” for some of the reasons why the Catholic church is a false religion).

Many churches profess to serve God, and they profess to love God – but it isn’t enough to say that we love God; our actions must back that up.  Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (Jhn 14:15)  A faithful person and faithful churches must have the right attitude toward God and the right biblical behavior (Jhn 4:24).

Churches that are faithful are ones that use the Bible and the Bible only.  They don’t add to God’s Word, and they don’t subtract from it (Rev 22:18-19).  They don’t replace God’s teachings with their traditions (Mk 7:8).  The denominational world is very confusing because most churches have replaced sound Bible teachings with manmade traditions.  They hold the Bible in their hand, but these churches don’t do the things that we read about the church doing.  For an in-depth look at the problem, read “Down With Denominationalism”.  If you would like, we would be happy to get you in touch with a congregation in your area that could talk to you about these things further.  If that would be of use, please feel free to e-mail us at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org.

How do you confess to God?  Do you have to confess in church, or can you do it in the comfort of your house?  What if you are not Catholic?  Will He still forgive you?

Sincerely,
Where’s The Priest?

Dear Where’s The Priest,

The Bible teaches that we should confess our sins to God through prayer, and we should ask for forgiveness (1 Jn 1:9).  This is a simple process that can (and should) be done whenever we pray.  Jesus mentioned asking for forgiveness when He taught the disciples to pray (Lk 11:2-4).

The Catholic process of confession is very different from what you read in your Bible.  Catholicism teaches that many sins cannot be forgiven unless a priest hears your confession – this couldn’t be farther from the Bible truth.  Catholicism long ago departed from the Bible; the Catholic religion is based upon manmade teachings and traditions that have gone beyond what God wrote (1 Cor 4:6, Rev 22:18-19).

When my grandpa passed away, we believe he came back here on earth temporarily for two reasons:

1. Right when he died, my uncle said nothing about it to his wife or kids; he was planning on telling them later, but Ellie (four at the time, I think) ran up to him and said that Grandpa died!  She sounded happy because she didn’t know what it meant.  My uncle asked how she knew, and she replied, “Grandpa told me!” and skipped away. My uncle asked his wife if she told Ellie, and she said, “No.”
2. At his funeral, my older cousin, Maddie, was walking with Ellie, and Ellie said, “Ooh, angel!” and Maddie asked, “Oh, you want to see the angel?” as she led her over to the angel statue. “No, over there!”  Ellie jerked away from her and pointed to midair where there was nothing.

Do you think that was my grandpa coming back to pay her a visit?  If so, why her?  Grandpa was a very great Catholic, and their whole family is as well.  Thank you.

Sincerely,
Grandchild

Dear Grandchild,

Your experience is fascinating, and we can’t explain to you exactly why Ellie said what she did, but we can ease your mind that it wasn’t your grandfather returning from the dead.  Luke 16:1-31 tells us what happens to both the faithful and the wicked when they die.  Jesus told His disciples about the death of two men: Lazarus (a faithful man) and a wicked, rich man.  When they died, Lazarus was immediately escorted by angels to Paradise (Lk 16:22), and the rich man immediately awoke in torment (Lk 16:23).  An important detail is that the rich man was told that neither he nor Lazarus could return to earth to visit the living (Lk 16:27-31).  Once we die, we go to face God and await the judgment (Heb 9:27).  Which is why it is so important that we prepare ourselves by becoming christians (read “Five Steps To Salvation” for details) and becoming active members of His church (read “Finding The Church” for how to find a faithful congregation).

I have been struggling with something lately.  I grew up in the Catholic church and left it because there were many things I couldn’t find biblical (purgatory, papal infallibility, unmarried priests, and so on).  I became Baptist and have bounced between various churches, but all of them were churches that believed in grace and being saved versus earning heaven through works.  I did miss the history and tradition of Catholicism but still didn’t agree with the doctrines.  I have been reading/listening to podcasts on Orthodox Christianity (Greek, Russian, etc.), and it seems like everything I like about Catholicism but none of the things I saw as made up.  According to their history, they are the original church, and Catholics broke off about one thousand years after Christ, basically as a power grab in Rome.  (Papal infallibility came in handy with that.)  I have been reading about Martin Luther and the reformation also.  Sooo, what I am trying to get at is… if the churches I am going to are the grace-based evangelical/protestant/whatever-you-call-them churches didn’t really come around until over 1500 years after Christ, I am led to believe this is not the church of the New Testament that the apostles established.  My next logical assumption would be to seek out the true church that still performs church the way Jesus taught them… if that exists.  Any thoughts or guidance would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Searching For The Original

Dear Searching For The Original,

We absolutely love your attitude!  If only everyone wanted to be a part of God’s original church.  You are on the right track by seeking to find a church that performs what Jesus taught – the question is: how do we do that?  Almost every church professes to be the right church, and almost every church professes that God wrote the Bible… so the way to tell which church is really God’s church is to compare their behavior to what the Bible says.  The Bible is the pattern that every sound congregation should follow (2 Tim 1:13).  The Catholic church is one of the oldest churches, but as you mentioned, their behavior doesn’t match the Bible’s teachings.  Greek Orthodox churches also have a lot of history behind them, but it is a history of tradition, not a history of biblical purity.  What you want to do is find a group of people that are dead-set on doing only what the Bible says, no more, no less.

Everything a church does (worship, membership, the steps they teach for salvation, how they spend their money, even their name) needs to have Bible verses backing them up (1 Tim 3:15).  A church needs to be able to explain the reasons for why they do what they do (1 Pet 3:15).
As an example, our congregation here in Monroe goes by the name ‘Monroe Valley church of Christ’ because ‘church of Christ’ is a Biblical name for a congregation (Rom 16:16).  We worship by singing (Col 3:16), studying the Bible (1 Tim 4:13), praying (2 Thess 3:1), taking communion (only on Sundays – Acts 20:7), and taking up a collection (also only on Sundays – 1 Cor 16:1-2).  We teach that you must hear God’s Word (Rom 10:17), believe God’s Word (Jhn 3:16), repent of your sins (Mk 6:12), confess Jesus as your Savior (Lk 12:8), and be baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21).  We do all these things because they are practices found in the Bible.  As you said, you don’t want to go to a church that offers their own thoughts – you want God’s thoughts.
There are other congregations like ours scattered across the country and the world.  Most of them use the name ‘church of Christ’, but then again, many churches that use that name aren’t faithful.  A Bible name for a church isn’t enough to make it faithful… but it is a beginning.  We have helped others, like yourself, looking for New Testament Christianity find faithful congregations in their area by contacting other preachers and christians that we know.  We’d be happy to do the same for you.  If you feel comfortable, just let us know what general area you live in, and we will try and get you in touch with a congregation that lives like your Bible reads (our e-mail is askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org).

Who are the Knights Templar?

Sincerely,
Historian

Dear Historian,

The Knights Templar was an order of knights that were endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1129 and fought during the Crusades.  They were also known for building large fortifications across Europe.  There is a modern mystique surrounding the Knights Templar because they were a very secretive religious society… but all historical sources point toward them going out of existence centuries ago.

In any case, the Knights Templar have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.  The Bible was completed over a thousand years before the Knights Templar were created by the Catholic church.  The Crusades and the Knights Templar are both good examples of how the Catholic church did (and does) things that have zero connection to the Word of God.  God tells us to never add or subtract from His Word (Rev 22:18-19).  All faithful churches take that command very seriously.

To follow up on your response about calling men ‘father’ (the post entitled “Parental Paradox”), are you saying it is all right to refer to men as ‘father’ as long as you are not putting them above God?  Including, not only a biological parent but even a person of spiritual fatherhood?  Some folks in my Lutheran congregation refer to our pastor as ‘father’ or ‘reverend’ or even ‘brother’ but never revere him above God as you pointed out in your post.

Sincerely,
Taking Titles

Dear Taking Titles,

In order to understand why it is wrong for religious leaders to take the name of ‘father’, we need to put that statement in context.  Jesus said to not call anyone ‘father’ (Matt 23:9) at the same time as He condemned the scribes and Pharisees for loving the praise and honor of men (Matt 23:4-6).  When ‘father, ‘rabbi’, and ‘master’ are given as titles of prestige and honor, this is exactly what Jesus was condemning.  The titles you mentioned are often used in exactly the same manner – ‘reverend’ especially.  The word ‘reverend’ is never even found in the Bible.  The only one who deserves our reverence is God (Heb 12:28).  Anytime that religious leaders take on titles like these, it is a sign that they are seeking to distinguish themselves from other christians.  This is the exact opposite of what the apostles did (Acts 10:25-26).

I am glad you have corrected your statement about Constantine “forcing” all to convert to Christianity.  There is a very fine line between statements of historical truth and statements meant to lead a reader to a conclusion by implication and exaggeration.  My only issue with your line of reasoning has to do with how you determine what is historically reliable and what is not.  You cannot have things both ways.  When presented with historical sources and actual named witnesses to a questioner laying a foundation of an organized church before Constantine, you rejected the history outright and claimed it was contradictory and unreliable (see your response to “A History Of Error” in the Catholic archive).  Then in response to other topics (canon of New Testament and Constantine’s activities), you relied on extra-biblical historical accounts.  So on one hand, you are relying on history to make some points, while on the other hand, you are rejecting history to disprove other points.  I am hoping you see this contradiction as I really don’t want you guys to keep sawing off the very branch you are sitting on in an attempt to influence your readers away from a faith you don’t agree with.  Why do you accept the testimony of the witnesses to Constantine’s subtle ways of influencing conversion?  What makes you think those extra-biblical accounts are reliable?  How do you know the early church historians (bishops and clergy) that attest to an organized church before the famous edict are unreliable?

Sincerely,
Cite Your Sources Please

Dear Cite Your Sources Please,

We appreciate your concern over our use of extra-biblical history.  Let’s see if we can quickly clarify.  We use historical resources as reliable sources in regards to Constantine because that is the ONLY history of Constantine we have.  The Bible never directly deals with Constantine; therefore, we are left to use secular history as our only guide.  You may have misunderstood our statements about Constantine – we do believe Constantine forced people to obey his state-run religion.  As we mentioned in the last post, he forced them by using inducements.

The times that we have stated that the early church historians were being unreliable or contradictory is when we do have a biblical account to compare it to.  The Bible is always the first and foremost guide in church history, and the Bible soundly condemns Catholicism’s practices.  Therefore, people who lived and taught anything in opposition to the Bible are wrong, no matter whom they are.  There were early church historians that were beginning to move toward the Catholic way of functioning before the era of Constantine (Constantine simply is the historical demarcation point when things began to quickly move downhill), but the fact that early church writers taught things contradictory to Bible teachings discredit them in doctrinal matters.  We can trust early historians in secular history unless they prove otherwise (i.e. contradict the majority of historians); we can trust early historians in religious history unless they prove otherwise (i.e. contradict Scripture).  Hopefully, that gives you some clarity as to why it seems like we are “cherry picking” the history that we want.  Everything gets compared to Scripture – even early church writers.

After reading your interesting replies to my questions, I was wondering how mainstream Christian denominations view each other in terms of the issue of salvation through Jesus.

Does your denomination view Christians who are Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, etc. as all attaining eternal salvation because of their faith in Jesus?  Do they all view your denomination and each other that way, or might Catholics, for example, view everyone else as losing salvation because they reject Catholicism, the sacraments, etc.?

I am aware that some Protestants refer to Catholicism as ‘Papism’, so would that mean that some Protestants view Catholics as “unsaved”?

Sincerely,
Just Wondering Jew

Dear Just Wondering Jew,

Each denomination views other denominations in an “equal but different” light – however, we here at AYP aren’t part of that denominational world.  Much of mainstream Judeo-Christian religious groups have given up on taking the Bible seriously and literally – a philosophical shift that God warned against (2 Tim 4:3).  The term ‘denomination’ comes from the idea that a church believes it is a subgroup of a larger religious body (i.e. Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians are all subgroups of Protestantism). Lutherans worship and teach differently than Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc., but they all believe themselves to be christians – this is wrong.  Jesus said that there is only one path to heaven (Matt 7:14).  Denominationalism teaches that how you act and worship are matters of opinion, but Jesus said that how you act and worship are matters of truth (Jhn 4:24).  The only way to avoid denominationalism is to find a congregation that simply teaches what the Bible says – no creeds, no opinions, no personal agendas.  If we truly love Christ, we will follow His commandments (1 Jn 5:2).

Everything a church does (worship, membership, how they teach to be saved, how they spend their money, even their name) needs to have Bible verses backing them up (1 Tim 3:15).  A church needs to be able to explain the reasons for why they do what they do (1 Pet 3:15).
Our congregation here in Monroe goes by the name ‘Monroe Valley church of Christ’ because ‘church of Christ’ is a Biblical name for a congregation (Rom 16:16).  We worship by singing (Col 3:16), studying the Bible (1 Tim 4:13), praying (2 Thess 3:1), taking communion (only on Sundays – Acts 20:7), and taking up a collection (also only on Sundays – 1 Cor 16:1-2).  We teach that you must hear God’s Word (Rom 10:17), believe God’s Word (Jhn 3:16), repent of your sins (Mk 6:12), confess Jesus as your Savior (Lk 12:8), and be baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21).  We do all these things because they are practices found in the Bible.  Denominationalism is prevalent in society today because it caters to tastes and opinions of the moment… but that doesn’t make it right.

In a previous post, you stated “Both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church trace their history back to the days of Caesar Constantine.  …Constantine made Christianity the national religion and forced all people to join it.  By forcing people to join Christianity, Constantine removed all traces of the volunteer Bible-based faith that Christ died for.”
The edict of Milan issued by Constantine only proclaimed religious toleration in the Roman Empire.  There is no historical record of Constantine “forcing” anyone to become christian.  Constantine was actually against conversion by coercion: “It is one thing voluntarily to undertake the conflict for immortality, another to compel others to do so from fear of punishment”.  As a student of history, could you please clarify for me your historical sources for your previous statements regarding this period of Christianity?

Sincerely,
Cite Your Sources Please

Dear Cite Your Sources Please,

You are correct that the edict of Milan only proclaimed toleration and that Constantine is on record as saying that conversion by coercion was a bad thing, but like all good politicians, what Constantine said and what he did were two different things.

Constantine issued the edict of Milan legalizing Christianity and then subsequently began to provide “inducements” to conversion.  These inducements included:

1. Government-conferred benefits for church leaders (this included immunity from military service)
2. Cash gifts to congregations
3. Building elaborate buildings for churches
4. Christians received career advancements within the government over and above pagans
5. Exile of preachers that upset him (even subsets of Christian beliefs – such as Arianism)

These inducements are well-documented in various sources, but one good book to look at is “Christianizing the Roman Empire” by Ramsay MacMullen.  It is also important to note that the edict of Milan, which legalized tolerance, was only the beginning of a movement to make Christianity a state religion.  The edict of Milan promoted tolerance in 313 AD, but by 380 AD, emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official state religion, and in 392 AD, all other worship was made illegal.  Constantine was the tip of the spear for a movement to turn Christianity into a government entity (eventually Catholicism) over the next hundred years.

Do you think it’s possible for the Shroud of Turin to be real?  I know there isn’t really any biblical evidence to prove it or not, but in your opinion, do you think it’s possible?

Sincerely,
Cloth Collector

Dear Cloth Collector,

No, we don’t think it is real.  The reason we don’t is because – as you said – there is no evidence.  The Shroud of Turin is supposed to be the cloth that was placed over Jesus’ face at burial, but the only group who has been saying this is the Catholic church.  The Shroud has been dated to the Middle Ages… not the first century.  The Shroud supposedly has Jesus’ face etched into the cloth – the Bible never mentions such a supernatural feat occurring at Christ’s burial.  In short, there isn’t any historical evidence that points toward its validity, and there isn’t any Biblical evidence.  No evidence, no truth.

Paul mentions a brother in Christ named Linus in 2 Timothy 4:21.  According to christian historical sources, Linus went on to become the second bishop of Rome, possibly ordained by Paul himself.  The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 AD wrote: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”  Linus is presented by Jerome as “the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church, by Eusebius, as “the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter by John Chrysostom as “second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”, while the Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office.  There seems to be an extensive list of bishops of Rome from Peter to the Emperor Constantine, attested to by early church fathers such as Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History), Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.  Why do some christians believe the Catholic church began with Constantine in the fourth century when there is clear historical evidence to the contrary?

Sincerely,
Swiss Guard

Dear Swiss Guard,

Actually, there isn’t clear historical evidence… most of those early church writers were very vague (and sometimes even contradictory) about what the church was doing at that time.  Furthermore, the church is supposed to have bishops… just not Catholic bishops!  1 Tim. 3:1-7 outlines the biblical requirements for a bishop – even if Linus was a bishop (also known as an elder – Tit 1:5) in the congregation in Rome – that doesn’t mean it was a Catholic church.  The Catholic church with a pope, cardinals, archdioceses, etc. didn’t begin to truly form until the days of Constantine when the Roman empire tried to control Christianity by making it the state religion (a practice that has been repeated in many countries throughout time).

In the end, Catholicism is a false religion because it isn’t built upon the Bible.  Any religion that doesn’t use the Bible as its standard of measure is false (Gal 1:8).  The Catholic church calls its priests “father” which is wrong (Matt 23:9).  It tells people that they can’t eat certain foods, and it tells their priests that they can’t marry – which is wrong (1 Tim 4:3).  The Catholic church teaches that the Pope is directly in contact with God and that people should follow him… once again, wrong.  Christ is our direct connection to God (Heb 1:1-4), and the Bible is what we should follow (2 Tim 3:16-17).  Everything about the Catholic church’s organization is in direct opposition to the Scriptures.  The question isn’t how old a church is; the question is whether or not Christ is its head (Eph 5:23).  There is only one pattern for the church (Eph 4:4-6), and the Catholic church is not it.

My question is probably going to be a difficult one, and being that I’m rejoining the Lord and seeking Him at this crucial time in my life, I need some direction in scripture that will clarify this question.  I keep coming back to it, but I have yet to find the answer myself.  Is the Catholic church’s practice of Veneration, “respectfully bowing or making the sign of the cross before a saint’s icon, relics, or statue,” a violation of the commandment, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them”?

Sincerely,
Statue Struggle

Dear Statue Struggle,

Yes.  Worship and veneration of “saints” and other Catholic relics is wrong.  God very specifically says that we should not serve anyone other than Him (Lk 4:8).  Paul even told the Athenians that their statues of worship were a sign of their ignorance of the one true God (Acts 17:23).  Catholicism doesn’t get its teachings from the Bible; they get them from a manmade organization in Vatican City, specifically the Pope.  Catholicism is wrong, and many of their practices are in direct violation of Scripture (such as forbidding marriage and abstaining from certain foods – 1 Tim 4:3).  Feel free to peruse other questions on the Catholic church in our archives under the Catholic category… you’ll find that time and time again Catholic practices disregard Bible truths.  Religion without adherence to the Bible isn’t faithful (Rom 10:17), and it isn’t pleasing to God (2 Tim 3:16-17).  It is our job to look intently into the Scriptures and test all religions against them (Acts 17:11, 1 Jn 4:1).  Catholicism fails the test.  If you would like help finding a congregation that passes the test, or you would like to study further, please e-mail us at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org.

Thank you for your answer regarding the first church in history, but I have another question.  Did the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church start at the same time, or did one form first and then the other?

Sincerely,
Ground Zero

Dear Ground Zero,

Both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church trace their history back to the days of Caesar Constantine.  As we mentioned in the last post, Constantine made Christianity the national religion and forced all people to join it.  By forcing people to join Christianity, Constantine removed all traces of the volunteer Bible-based faith that Christ died for.  With national sanctions, political power, and a religious hierarchy that included cardinals, bishops, archbishops, etc., Constantine’s endorsement of Christianity suppressed Christ’s religion.  This time period gave birth to a national religion that was more about politics and power than faith, hope, and love.  Paul warned christians that an apostasy like this was coming and to beware of anyone that would set themselves up as head of the church (2 Thess 2:3-4).

This national religion continued until about the 11^th century when there became a dispute over whether the city of Rome would lead this church or the city of Constantinople would.  This argument (and other smaller ones) broke the national religion into two groups.  The Roman Catholic church followed the Pope from Rome, and the Greek Orthodox church chose to have more localized bishops control their territories.  In any event, both churches can be traced to the same non-biblical beginnings which have confused many people for many generations.

What exactly was the first Christian church in history?  Was it the Roman Catholic church?  Was it the Eastern Orthodox church?  Or was it a Gnostic sect?

Sincerely,
Ground Zero

Dear Ground Zero,

The first church in history is the one founded on the day of Pentecost in the second chapter of Acts.  Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox church didn’t begin until hundreds of years later under the reign of emperor Constantine when Constantine tried to control Christianity by making it the national religion… complete with government councils and sanctions.

The only pattern for the church that can be trusted is the one that can be found in the Bible.  All denominations, sects, and schisms are caused by deviating from the Bible.  The apostle Paul proclaimed that there is only one pattern for the church’s teaching, worship, and behavior (Eph 4:4-6).  A church must follow the Scriptures as its blueprint (1 Tim 3:15)… that is the only way to make sure it is pleasing to God.

My husband, three girls, and I are born-again christians, but in our Hispanic heritage, most of our family is still Catholic.  Please let us know what the deal is with their belief system because to us, it seems that the ends don’t meet… and that a lot of what their religion entails is clearly wrong and contradicts what we are learning in the Bible and what we feel and discern as we walk in the Lord.  My husband and I were specifically discussing the topic of “The Virgin of Guadalupe”.  Did she really appear in the shroud in Mexico?  Is that name made up?  Is she the same as the Virgin Mary?  And why do Catholics (our family included) worship the Mother of Jesus more so than Jesus Himself?  I don’t like that at all… doesn’t Jesus prefer for us to love Him before all things and people?  I grew up Catholic, but I never ever felt this serious and passionate about loving our Lord and God, neither did I feel such a hunger for knowing everything about Him!  I’m so glad I am finally saved and know it!!!   Praise be to Him always and forever!  If you can help us with this curiosity, thanks…

Sincerely,
A Disciple

Dear A Disciple,

Congratulations on making such a bold move to make the Bible as the guide for your life.  That commitment to biblical integrity is what sets you apart from your Catholic extended family.  Catholicism places the pope as the head of the church; Christianity places Christ as the head of the church (Eph 5:23).  All Catholic practices exist because the papal hierarchy believes them to be right; sometimes those beliefs agree with the Bible, but many times they don’t.  Catholicism tells priests to not marry, and it forbids certain foods – practices specifically condemned by Paul as false teaching (1 Tim 4:1-3).  Catholics are taught to call their religious leaders ‘father’, but the Bible says that is wrong (Matt 23:9).  Catholic practices like infant baptism (and the teaching that children are born sinful), Vatican councils, cardinal vs. venial sins, etc. have no foundation in the Bible.

Worshipping various Catholic “saints” is a practice that is (as you know) very common in Catholicism, but God tells us that we should worship only Him (Matt 4:10).  In fact, Peter was rebuked when he offered to make a monument to honor Moses and Elijah on an equal level with Jesus (Matt 17:4-6).  Various Catholic monuments, shrouds, relics, etc. are unsubstantiated items that have no Biblical bearing.  Simply put, those items are only “holy” because the Catholic church says they are.  We derive our authority from the Bible, and that is where faith starts (Rom 10:17).

As for worshipping Mary… Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim 2:5).  We pray to the Father through Jesus… not through Mary or any other Catholic figure.  We are told to confidently approach God directly (Heb 4:16).  We should ask of God and pray to Him through the name of Jesus (Jhn 14:13-14).  Praying to (or through) Catholic saints is wrong.  As you said, Jesus wants our love before all things and all people.

Catholicism is so deeply rooted in many Hispanic communities that you will find it a constant part of your job as a christian to give Bible answers in hopes of freeing them from this false religion (1 Pet 3:15).  What an opportunity to shine your light for the glory of God (Matt 5:16)!

Why does the church not teach when Christmas first started?  They only teach that it’s Jesus’ birthday.  But they don’t teach who actually started Christmas.  Everything that I have been studying about Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus; it’s all about money.  When I type ‘what is Christmas’ into a search engine, Santa Claus is the first thing that is shown, not Jesus.  Congress was actually started on December 25^th, 1870, and America decided to make that the Christmas federal holiday.  Jesus was never born around December.  All my life, I have been told lies about Christmas.  Can someone out there tell me the truth about Christmas?

Sincerely,
The Grinch

Dear The Grinch,

Many people believe Christmas to be a spiritual holiday, but the Bible never commands us to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25^th (the truth is, no one knows when Jesus was born, but it was most likely in the spring or summer because the shepherds were out – Lk 2:15).  Christians are commanded to remember Jesus’ death every first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 11:24-25)… we are never commanded to remember His birth on an annual basis.  Christmas is not a biblical holiday.  There is nothing wrong with celebrating it as a family holiday, but it is wrong to teach that there is a biblical foundation to it.

Christmas can be traced back to the Roman pagan holiday of Winter Solstice (also known as ‘Saturnalia’ because it was in worship of the god, Saturn).  As Catholicism tried to integrate itself into a pagan Roman world, Christmas was instituted by Pope Julius I on December 25^th as a way to assimilate the pagans into a Catholic worldview.  In short, Christmas has never been a truly biblical holiday; it is a manmade tradition with no bearings upon your salvation.

I grew up in a Catholic home.  I was raised mostly by my paternal aunt and my uncle (her husband).  I did grow up with my birth mother from ages 10-15.  I became rebellious with my birthmother and left home with my boyfriend (at the time) because of his constant verbal and physical abuse.  I gave birth to my first daughter at seventeen.  During this time, my birthmother found Jesus and was converted.  She forgave me, and she and I have never been closer.  I was also converted into Christianity, and I have successfully grown in the Lord.  However, when I left my abusive relationship, I didn’t return to my mother’s house.  I went back to my aunt’s house with my daughter.  I have remarried, and my husband and I have two more girls.  We live at my aunt’s house.  They like us living here, and we are happy, thanks to the Lord.  We are extremely blessed.

I love my aunt and uncle who have tirelessly helped us in so many ways.  They appreciate the new attitude and our family’s fruits as christians, but they try to avoid us when we try to share the good food of the gospel with them.

My question is as follows: what should we do?  I feel like they are good people, but they are better Catholics; they worship all kinds of “saints” and speak of the Virgin Mary more than our Lord Jesus.  They never read their Bibles, and they misunderstand a lot of “scriptures” (the few that the priest reads at their church).  A lot of things they believe in are not right.  I know this is wrong, but what do we do??

Sincerely,
Nice Niece

Dear Nice Niece,

The greatest impact you can make is to live your life and let Christ’s Word speak through your actions.  People have to want Christ to come into their lives for the gospel to take root (Rev 3:14).  We cannot force anyone to change; Christianity is a voluntary religion.  The first century church was marked by its kindhearted and godly reputation… and it affected those around them (Acts 5:13-14).  Family is traditionally the most difficult evangelism project – even Jesus admitted that His hometown was the least likely to listen to Him (Mk 6:4).  Don’t shy away from spiritual conversations with your aunt and uncle, but don’t force them either.  Live authentically, and they will notice and consider.  Jesus said that letting our lights shine brings glory to God (Matt 5:16).

Is there a place in the Bible that says a pastor or priest should guard himself lest he seek the riches of kings or something like that?

Sincerely,
On Guard

Dear On Guard,

Every christian is a priest (1 Pet 2:9), and the Bible warns us to flee from the love of money (Heb 13:5).  When we begin to seek wealth and make it our king, we dethrone the Lord and place money above spiritual things (Lk 16:13).

Pastors (also known as elders – Tit 1:5) are specifically warned to avoid “greedy gain” (Tit 1:7).  Money is not inherently wicked, but the love of money can be devastating upon our spiritual lives (Lk 12:16-21).

In your opinion, is there a right denomination?  I have attended several different types of churches: Baptist, Church of Christ, Non-Denominational.  I’ve talked to Jehovah Witnesses and listened to Catholics on TV.  They all teach something different, but I am not looking for a place that offers their own thoughts.  I just want to know what God wants me to know.  I have been so confused by all these different teachings; I am unsure of what to believe.  Now, I like ya’ll; so far you are the only ones that haven’t completely confused me or contradicted the Bible.  How can I find a church like how you teach?  I want to go to church so bad, but after I attend for a little while, I notice some churches will start to say things completely different from what my Bible teaches.  And I am left wondering what to believe anymore.  Any help?

Sincerely,
An Honest Soul

Dear An Honest Soul,

The denominational world is confusing… exactly the opposite of God’s church (1 Cor 14:33).  The term ‘denomination’ comes from the idea that a church believes that it is a subgroup of a larger religious body.  Lutherans worship and teach differently than Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc., but they all believe themselves to be christians – this is wrong.  Jesus said that there is only one path to heaven (Matt 7:14).  Denominationalism teaches that how you act and worship are matters of opinion, but Jesus said that how you act and worship are matters of truth (Jhn 4:24).  The only way to avoid denominationalism is to find a congregation that simply teaches what the Bible says – no creeds, no opinions, no personal agendas.  If we truly love Christ, we will follow His commandments (1 Jn 5:2).

Everything a church does (worship, membership, how they teach to be saved, how they spend their money, even their name) needs to have Bible verses backing them up (1 Tim 3:15).  A church needs to be able to explain the reasons for why they do what they do (1 Pet 3:15).

Our congregation here in Monroe goes by the name ‘Monroe Valley church of Christ’ because ‘church of Christ’ is a Biblical name for a congregation (Rom 16:16).  We worship by singing (Col 3:16), studying the Bible (1 Tim 4:13), praying (2 Thess 3:1), taking communion (only on Sundays – Acts 20:7), and taking up a collection (also only on Sundays – 1 Cor 16:1-2).  We teach that you must hear God’s Word (Rom 10:17), believe God’s Word (Jhn 3:16), repent of your sins (Mk 6:12), confess Jesus as your Savior (Lk 12:8), and be baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21).  We do all these things because they are practices found in the Bible.  As you said, you don’t want to go to a church that offers their own thoughts – you want God’s thoughts.

There are other congregations like ours scattered across the country and the world.  Most of them use the name ‘church of Christ’, but then again, many churches that use that name aren’t faithful.  A Bible name for a church isn’t enough to make it faithful.  We have helped others, like yourself, looking for New Testament Christianity find faithful congregations in their area by contacting other preachers and christians that we know.  We’d be happy to do the same for you.  If you feel comfortable, just let us know what general area you live in, and we will try and get you in touch with a congregation that lives like your Bible reads (our e-mail is askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org).  It is frustrating, confusing, and exasperating to deal with denominationalism.  Thanks be to God that there is a better option!

What is the prayer a preacher says when someone is pronounced dead?

Sincerely,
Dying Breath

Dear Dying Breath,

You are probably thinking of the Catholic practice of Last Rites… which is not a Biblical practice, but a man-made hocus-pocus tradition.  The Catholic church teaches that someone who is dying should be given “last rites” which includes a prayer and the Eucharist (their twist on the Lord’s Supper) administered by a Catholic priest.  This practice cannot be found in the Scriptures.  The Bible doesn’t give an example of a prayer that needs to be said when someone is pronounced dead or near death… although, it would be entirely appropriate to pray at that time.  Mourning is one of the most important parts of the human experience because it reminds us of our own mortality (Eccl 7:2) and the importance of being prepared to face God (Heb 9:27).

Why do Catholics pray to Mary?  I have read articles that say they pray to her as an intercessor, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bible that says to do this.  How do they justify this Biblically?

Sincerely,
Who’s That Girl?

Dear Who’s That Girl,

Praying to or through Mary is wrong.  Technically speaking, Catholics are not taught to pray to Mary – but to ask Mary to intercede on their behalf before God.  Catholicism teaches that Mary (and other Catholic saints) have more “clout” with God than us, and therefore, Catholics are instructed to ask these Catholic-appointed saints to pray for them.  Having said all that, many Catholics are confused about their own doctrine and do, in fact, pray directly to Mary.  Either behavior is in direct contradiction to the Bible.

Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God (1 Tim 2:5).  We pray to the Father through Jesus… not through Mary or any other Catholic figure.  We are told to confidently approach God directly (Heb 4:16).  We should ask of God and pray to Him through the name of Jesus (Jhn 14:13-14).  Praying to (or through) Catholic saints is sinful.

Why do the Catholics call their pastor “Father” when in the Holy Bible Jesus tells us in Mathew 23:9, “Do not call anyone on Earth your Father”????  Thank You.

Sincerely,
Not A “Father” Figure

Dear Not A “Father” Figure,

The Catholics say it because the Catholics are wrong.  Matt 23:9 commands us to never give people the position of father other than the Father in heaven.  The Catholic church also calls their religious leaders ‘priests’ when the Bible clearly states that all christians are priests (1 Pet 2:9).  They also reserve the title of ‘saint’ for only the most pious of Catholics… all christians are saints (1 Cor 14:33, 2 Cor 13:13).  The word ‘saint’ simply means ‘someone set apart for a special purpose’.  Throughout the millennia, the Catholic church has added these doctrines of men and turned its back on the Scriptures.  We are commanded to never add or subtract from God’s Word, or we will be condemned (Rev 22:18-19, Gal 1:8).  The Catholic church has done that very thing.

Many religions wear symbols of their dedication or “religiosity”.  Despite their sincerity, some may wear prayer beads, crosses, or tattoo themselves as reminders or as objects of worship.  Yes, it is wrong to worship anything but God; however, is it wrong to wear a cross just because it’s pretty?  Or would it be an unwise idea due to the societal connotations?

Sincerely,
A Little Glam

Dear A Little Glam,

Wearing a cross is not inherently a sin, but there are some principles that reveal it to be not a very good idea.  The problem with crosses and other religious garb are threefold:

1. As you stated, some people use crosses, rabbit’s feet, rosary beads, etc. as forms of worship and superstition.  This is wrong.  God soundly condemns superstition, the occult, and idol worship (1 Cor 10:7, Acts 19:19, Matt 4:10).
2. God tells us that it is our character that should proclaim our Christianity – not our clothing (1 Pet 3:3-4).  In an attempt to look the part of being faithful, many people wear crosses, slap “WWJD” bumper stickers on their cars, and tattoo themselves with the words “Jesus Freak”… which rarely leaves the impression they intended.  Let the world know you are a christian because of who you are and how you live.
3. Crosses are designed to be beautiful, ornate, and elegant nowadays – which thoroughly negates the message of the cross.  The cross of Christ was anything but pretty.  It was a torture device intended to inflict the highest degree of pain possible upon the Son of God.  We here at AYP sometimes wonder if Jesus had been killed by electrocution if everyone would have little electric chairs hanging around their necks…

Suffice it to say, wearing religious jewelry, at best, sends a mixed message – at worst, it sends the wrong message.

Why can’t women be popes or nuns or whatever?

Sincerely,
Women’s Rights

Dear Women’s Rights,

Women can be nuns, but nuns are Catholic – not christian (the pope is also not a christian, but a Catholic).  In the church, the leadership is made up only of men.  Elders, deacons, and preachers are all men (1 Tim 3:1, 1 Tim 3:12, 1 Cor 14:34).  This isn’t because men are better than women; it is because men and women have different responsibilities.  Being an elder, deacon, or preacher does come with honor, but it also comes with a stricter judgment (Jas 3:1, Heb 13:17).  We all have roles to fulfill in the church, and each role is different.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE BIBLE TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT YOLKS?  I AM SEEING A GUY THAT IS A BAPTIST, AND WELL, I’M CATHOLIC, AND HE STATED TO ME THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF OUR RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES!  HE THEN MENTIONED ABOUT THE BIBLE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFRENT YOLKS BUT DID NOT EXPLAIN.  I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY.  WHAT DO DIFFERENT RELIGIONS HAVE TO DO WITH LOVING ONE ANOTHER?  IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE FOR A BAPTIST PREACHER TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCES IN A RELATIONSHIP HAVE TO DO WITH LOVING ONE ANOTHER?  WHAT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DIFFERENT YOLKS IN THE BIBLE?

Sincerely,
SOMEONE THAT REALLY LOVES HER PARTNER REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS

Dear Someone That Really Loves,

You aren’t going to get an answer from a Baptist preacher here (we are just christians at AYP), but the Bible agrees with your Baptist boyfriend on this one.  God says that we should never be “unequally yoked” (2 Cor 6:14).  Our relationship with God needs to be the central focus of our life (Matt 22:37-38).  Marriage, which is the potential end result of your romantic relationship, is the most intimate union this side of heaven (Eph 5:31).  Marriage to someone that doesn’t have the same values as you is compared to two oxen being yoked to the same wagon with each oxen pulling the cart in a different direction – it will never work!  Solomon is the great example of this.  Solomon was the wisest man on the earth (1 Kgs 4:30-34).  Yet, even with all his wisdom, Solomon’s idol-worshipping wives tore his heart away from serving God (1 Kgs 11:4).  If it can happen to Solomon, it can happen to anyone.

But here is the bright side!  Catholicism isn’t following the Bible… BUT the Baptists aren’t either.  You can tell your boyfriend that he isn’t doing what God says.  Both Catholicism and the Baptist denomination are man-made religions that only take pieces of the Bible and disregard the rest of It.  It is only when we accept the whole Bible that we can be pleasing to God (Ps 119:160).  The world is full of religions that are leading people astray with false teachings.  God tells us that there is only one pattern for His church, and that pattern can be found in the Bible (Eph 4:4-6).  God is not the author of the religious confusion that we see in the world today (1 Cor 14:33).  If you and your boyfriend want to get on the same page spiritually, we would be ecstatic to help teach you about the church of the Bible and how to find one in your area.  Simply e-mail us at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org.

Thank you so much for answering my question in a timely manner.  Every Sunday during our worship service at church, we recite the Apostles’ Creed, and I cannot see anything in it that goes against the Bible.  Am I missing something important?   When we recite, “I believe in the holy catholic church…”, I am under the impression it means I believe in the universal church.  I am of the Methodist faith, and I really want to do what is right in keeping with the Bible.  Am I correct re: the Apostles’ Creed?  Thank you so much for helping me.

Sincerely,
Creed Control

Dear Creed Control,

There are several things unscriptural about reciting the Apostles’ Creed.  First of all – it really isn’t the apostles’ creed at all.  Paul said that the only thing he preached was the message of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 2:1-2).  He also said that if anyone preached anything other than that message, they were wrong (Gal 1:6-8).  So a creed named the Apostles’ Creed is already hypocritical – the only creed the apostles had was the Word of God.

Furthermore, there are several phrases within the Apostles’ Creed that are vague at best – and at least one sentence that directly contradicts the Scripture.  We have highlighted it below in bold:

THE APOSTLES’ CREED

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
 the Maker of heaven and earth,
 and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
 born of the virgin Mary,
 suffered under Pontius Pilate,
 was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
 and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
 from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Ghost;
 the holy catholic church;
 the communion of saints;
 the forgiveness of sins;
 the resurrection of the body;
 and the life everlasting.  Amen.

When Jesus was dying on the cross, He told the thief next to Him, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43).  Jesus clearly said that He was going to be in Paradise after dying on the cross… not in hell.  The Apostles’ Creed is a direct contradiction of Scripture.
This just goes to highlight the problem with human creeds – at very best, they say the exact same thing as Scripture (in which case… they are redundant and unnecessary), and more likely, they say things that are wrong.  The best thing mankind can do is throw off all creeds and accept nothing but the Bible.

I need to know what the difference is between the Nicene Creed and the creeds of Christendom, and why were the creeds of Christendom created?  Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,
Noting The Nicene

Dear Noting The Nicene,

The difference between the Nicene Creed and all other creeds found throughout various denominations is that the Nicene Creed is older.  A creed is simply a statement of beliefs that unifies one group together under a common belief system.  The Nicene Creed is one of the very first, if not the first, creed written as an addendum to Christianity.  The Nicene Creed, written in the 4^th century A.D., was an attempt to unify all churches under emperor Constantine.  It was the beginning of Catholicism.  All creeds, by very nature, start a new religious movement.

And that is the problem with creeds… they modify Christianity and create a new and different religious movement.  God clearly states that we should never add or subtract from His Word (Rev 22:18-19, Deu 4:2, Deu 12:32, Josh 23:6).  The Bible is supposed to be our only belief system; any creed alters what God intended.  Any message (even if it claims it is christian) that isn’t the Bible is a perversion (Gal 1:6-9).  All creeds are human inventions that create new religions instead of bringing unity.  God intends for there to be one pattern for the church – the pattern found in the Scriptures (Eph 4:4-6).

I was baptized in a Baptist Christian church; currently I am converting to Catholicism.  I was wondering, the nun that runs the program said my baptism in the Baptist church should be fine as long as it was with water and the spirit.  I was wondering if you could tell me if that is the way I was baptized, or am I going to have to be re-baptized into the Catholic church?  Thank you.

Sincerely,
Between Faiths

Dear Between Faiths,

If we understand you correctly, you want to know if your baptism in a false religion will qualify you for conversion to another false religion.  We really couldn’t say; we try and provide Bible answers here.  Neither Catholic nor Baptist doctrine is our specialty.  You’ll notice the Bible never refers to God’s people as Baptists or Catholics – God’s people are known as christians (Acts 11:26).  God doesn’t teach that all denominations are acceptable.  In fact, God hates denominationalism.  There is only one church pattern (Eph 4:4)… one church pattern that follows the New Testament’s teachings.  Many say that they serve God, but saying that you serve God is not the same as being a christian (Matt 7:21-23).  Christianity rejects the traditions of men (Mk 7:8).  If you want to serve God and go to heaven, you have to reject Baptist creeds and Catholic catechisms – no more listening to those who forbid marriage and tell you to abstain from certain foods (1 Tim 4:2-3).  Seek God through the purity of His Word and His Word only (Jhn 14:15).  Read “What Must I Do To Be Saved” to see what the Bible requires of us for salvation.  Don’t accept groups that pick and choose what verses they want to hear and avoid the rest – they pervert the gospel (Gal 1:6-7).  The sum of God’s Word is truth (Ps 119:160).  Accept no substitute.

If I don’t have my child christened, will he go to hell?

Sincerely,
Nervous Mother

Dear Nervous Mother,

All children go to heaven.  David’s son died and went to heaven (2 Sam 12:23).  ‘Christening’, also known as ‘infant baptism’, is nowhere to be found in the Bible.  Children are not baptized; adults are.  Baptism is only for believers (Mk 16:16).  You must be old enough to understand and repent (Acts 2:38).  Infants can neither believe nor repent.  It is adults, men and women, who hear the gospel news and then obey it through baptism (Acts 8:12).  Baptism must be requested by the individual wanting it (Acts 8:36)… babies cannot request baptism.  All babies go to heaven; baptism is for those of us who have grown up, rebelled, sinned, and need our sins removed (Acts 22:16).

Why are there so many churches on the earth today?  Shouldn’t we all be unified and agree on what Christ said we should do?

Sincerely,
Unity Matters

Dear Unity Matters,

There was only one church in the first century, and today there are well over 33,000 different denominations all professing to belong to Christ.  This is not only tragic, it’s wrong.  Christ died for one church, and He gave us one doctrine (Eph 4:4-6).  Christianity can only be preserved in the “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3).  This means that the only way we can have unity is to use the standard the Holy Spirit has given us – the Bible.

All the denominations have their own creed books, statements of faith, organizational structures, and opinions.  Christ’s church has none of those.  It has one book, the Bible, as its rule and standard for all behavior.  It is our guide for all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).  It is the book that was handed down once and for all to the saints (Jude 3).  We cannot have faith without hearing this Word (Rom 10:17), and we cannot please God without obeying its commandments (Jhn 15:14).

The Catholics trust their Vatican leadership, the Protestants reform a broken system, and the community churches pledge loyalty to their communities and social programs.  The only solution to the religious confusion is a radical step… restoration of Bible-only principles.  Let us go back to the Bible for everything that we do, and if we cannot find Bible authority for something… we must refuse to practice it.  A church that finds its roadmap and structure in the Bible alone is the real solution to the division that exists in the religious world.  When the Bible speaks, let us speak – and when it is silent, let us be silent.

How do the seven deadly sins correlate to the Bible or Ten Commandments?

Sincerely,
Number Cruncher

Dear Number Cruncher,

The “Seven Deadly Sins” is a phrase created by the Catholic church.  The “Seven Deadly Sins” are sometimes referred to as “cardinal sins” because the Catholic church has deemed them as greater sins than others. These seven “cardinal” sins are lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.  The Catholic church teaches that these seven sins can only be forgiven through the act of confessing to a priest.

Of course, the Bible does say that those seven sins are – in fact – sins, but the Bible never elevates these sins as being worse than others.  In truth, all sins are equal and cause spiritual death (Rom 6:23).  In the eyes of man, one sin may be considered more heinous than another, but in the eyes of God, all sin is equally horrid.  The terms “seven deadly sins” and “cardinal sins” are not biblical; they are manmade.

I have a question about being saved. I have heard so many things about the requirements to be saved, and I am really confused.  I think I have the basics, but I want to be 100% sure.  I know that some websites say that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved.  I know that it does say that in the Bible, so it is true. Some people believe that this is all you have to do.  Others say that if you believe and try your best to repent and change your ways, you will be saved.  It seems like it depends on whom you ask.  This is what I “think” from all the research that I have done. I could be wrong, of course, but I think that if you do the following steps, you will be saved. Believe everything that Jesus said, believe that Jesus was “God in human form”, believe that Jesus rose from the dead and went to heaven, know that we can’t save ourselves and that Jesus died for us, believe Jesus never sinned, believe Jesus became sin for us, believe that we don’t deserve and cannot save ourselves, ask for forgiveness, and then try to live by the ten commandments as best as you can until the day you die, if you slip up ask for forgiveness, and you need to be baptized. Do you think that I am on the right path?

Sincerely,
Baby Steps

Dear Baby Steps,

The Bible outlines five things you must do to become a christian. The question, “What must I do to be saved?” is the most important question any human can ever ask. Plenty of groups will pick and choose what they want to focus on. Many groups say that all you must do is “believe in your heart” and you will be saved – unfortunately, this is cherry-picking out one requirement and leaving the rest behind. We must always remember that the sum of God’s Word provides the truth (Ps 119:160). Belief is obviously an important element to salvation, but it is not the only condition. The Bible outlines five separate requirements for salvation, and all of them are necessary.

1. Hear the Word. Faith comes through hearing, and hearing comes through the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Until someone hears God’s Word, they are incapable of obeying it.
2. Believe the Word. It is impossible for someone to become a christian unless they believe that Jesus is the Savior and Son of God (Jhn 20:31, Acts 16:31, Jhn 3:16).
3. Repent of your sins. ‘Repent’ means to ‘change your mind’. That change of mind always involves a change of action as well. Repentance is when we change our mind about what is important and submit ourselves to Jesus and His Word. Repentance is a necessity of salvation (Mk 6:12, Lk 13:5, Lk 15:7).
4. Confess Jesus to others. If we have sworn our allegiance to Jesus, we must be prepared to publicly confess Him as our Lord. If we won’t confess Jesus before men, He won’t confess us before God (Matt 10:32-33, Lk 12:8-9).
5. Be baptized in the name of Jesus for salvation. Many groups baptize people, but very few baptize people for the right reasons. Baptism isn’t merely an “outward showing of an inward faith” or “for membership”. Baptism is what saves us (1 Pet 3:21). Baptism is the point where someone goes from being lost to saved because they are buried and resurrected with Christ (Rom 6:4-5). Baptism is the final requirement to become a christian (Acts 2:37-38, Mk 16:16, Acts 2:41). There is not a single example of someone becoming a christian without baptism. Baptism is just as necessary as the other four requirements.

After that, there remains nothing else but to find a faithful congregation to assemble with (Heb 10:24) that teaches God’s Word and God’s Word only (see “Finding a Church” for more details) and to continue to grow in knowledge and practice of God’s Word (1 Pet 2:2).

I was baptized as an infant in my parents’ church.  I know that baptism is supposed to be an (adult) individual’s decision to follow the calling of God and to repent of an (adult) individual’s sin.  Still, I can’t help but think that my baptism was at least partially valid since it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  If/when I get baptized as an adult, could it be a baptism that is done just to make sure I’m saved – so not necessarily to be re-baptized, but as a just-in-case?

Sincerely,
Not A Little Kid Anymore

Dear Not A Little Kid Anymore,

There is no authority or example of infant baptism in the Bible. Infant baptism does nothing but get the child wet (and often crabby). The fact that it was done “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” doesn’t make a difference. To do something ‘in the name of God’ is to proclaim that you are doing it by the authority of God. Many people proclaim to do things by God’s authority and yet are completely wrong. Jesus Himself said that many people will say that they had God’s authority and yet will be rejected by God on the Day of Judgment (Matt 7:21-23). Infant baptism is a great example of this principle. God never condones or commands infants to be baptized, and yet (sadly) many, many churches do it and claim that they do it by God’s authority. Infant baptism is a false teaching, pure and simple. It ignores the authority of the Scriptures (1 Jhn 4:6).

Biblical baptism is for those capable of repenting (Acts 2:38). It is an adult decision and is a requirement for salvation (1 Pet 3:21, Mk 16:16). This is the only baptism that can truly be said is done “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). If someone has been baptized in this way, they never need to be re-baptized. If you haven’t been baptized in this way… you never were really baptized into Christ’s baptism in the first place.

I was talking to my brother who told me that the Bible we use now was constructed by the Catholics, and they left out numerous books and stories. When I said that it was probably stories that the other prophets covered, he said that they left one out about Jesus killing sparrows and a boy and then bringing them back to life in “Thomas’ Gospel of Infancy”:

“Later he was going through the village again when a boy ran and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, “You won’t continue your journey.” And all of a sudden, he fell down and died.”

I’m trying to make sense of this because I know the Bible is true, but was it constructed by false christians? And if so, is it still pure, true, and the whole Word of God? Please help me.

Sincerely,
Truth Only Please

Dear Truth Only Please,

The books that your brother referred to are called ‘apocryphal’ books. An apocryphal book (apocrypha means hidden) is a book that was rejected from the Bible because it was considered inauthentic. These books are not written by God and never were accepted by God’s people as divinely inspired. The Bible was not constructed by Catholics, but that is a common misconception. The most famous historical document that includes the entire list of all the New Testament books was written at the Nicene Council in 325 AD. The Nicene Council is considered to be one of the defining moments that led to the formation of the Catholic church, and therefore people say that Catholics constructed the New Testament. It just isn’t true though.

The Nicene Council did write down a list of the New Testament books, but they didn’t create that list – they just reiterated what people had already known and accepted for a couple hundred years. Most of the New Testament books were written as letters to different congregations that personally knew the apostles and prophets that wrote the letters. Paul would even mention his penmanship as being distinctive (Gal 6:11). Those churches were able to tell the difference between a letter that was actually written by an apostle and one that was a forgery. The church of the first century collected, copied, and distributed these letters just as God intended (Col 4:16, 1 Thess. 5:27). Well before Catholicism showed up on the scene, the books of the Bible were uniformly accepted, and the apocryphal books had been rejected. God made sure that His Word was properly preserved and established.

Is it wrong for a church to employ a youth minister? In the Bible, we have examples of those who labor in the Word being paid for their efforts. I understand that the term ‘youth minister’ is somewhat denominational-sounding, and many times those who hold that position are nothing more than activities directors. That being said, if the ‘youth minister’ is in charge of actually putting together curriculum and teaching, then is it appropriate for a local congregation to pay for that service?

Sincerely,
Youthful Exuberance

Dear Youthful Exuberance,

If you have someone doing the work of a minister, then he is worthy of his hire (Lk 10:7, 1 Tim 5:18). The title of ‘youth minister’ is indeed often used for those who are party planners for teens or activities directors to motivate the younger generations. That sort of ‘youth minister’ role is completely unbiblical and never seen within the New Testament.

If you have a ‘youth minister’ in charge of teaching and preaching in the local congregation, then he is a minister – just call him by that title. One of the great tragedies in religion has been to add titles and classifications that simply don’t exist within the Bible. Popes, archbishops, reverends, cardinals, etc. are all positions that were created by adding new titles and terminology that doesn’t exist within the Bible. Very often, the path away from the Word of God has been paved by simply adding things that aren’t necessary (Rev 22:18-19). We don’t need youth ministers, mission leaders, small group pastors, etc. – we need deacons, elders and evangelists (Php 1:1, 2 Tim 4:5). If a man is doing the job of a minister/preacher, then call him a minister/preacher and leave it at that. And yes, a congregation certainly can support someone fulfilling that Biblical role.

From birth to age twenty-eight, I was a practicing Catholic. Whenever God in His three parts was referred to (by teachers, fellow believers, priest, sermons etc.), it was with the word ‘Trinity’. At the age of twenty-eight, I converted to being a christian only.  Since that time, when God is spoken of in His three parts, it has been with the word ‘Godhead’. Both seem to be talking about the same mysterious thing – one God but three distinct persons – Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (dove at Jesus’ baptism). When I look in the concordance, I can find the word ‘Godhead’ used by several different versions of Bible translations but never find the word ‘Trinity’. The only way I can research ‘Trinity’ is to use secular or Catholic sources. Can you please tell me where the differences/similarities are between the two words? Thanks for your time and effort to sort this out.

Gratefully,
Then and Now

Dear Then and Now,

The words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Godhead’ are both attempting to grapple with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique individuals and yet also one. The word ‘Godhead’ comes from a Greek word used in Col 2:9 which means ‘the state of being God’. Some translations use the word ‘Deity’ instead of ‘Godhead’.

If we were to get technical, and this IS a technical question, ‘Trinity’ is a word created by theologians to describe the interactions among the three deities of the Bible. Alternatively, ‘Godhead’ is a direct Bible description of how all three individuals are equally God. ‘Trinity’ was first recorded as being used in 170 AD by Theophilus of Antioch. ‘Godhead’ is first recorded as being used by the apostle Paul.

‘Trinity’ is correct terminology, but it is man-made terminology. Once again, we are being technical, but technically speaking, ‘Godhead’ is the most Biblically accurate descriptor of the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I am a christian and was attending services this past Sunday when the man leading the Lord’s Supper referred to the cross as a “very ugly thing.” I understand why it would be “ugly” to us; it represents our sin which separates us from God, but it also represents Christ’s death which reunites us with God. So why then do Christians tend to refrain from wearing jewelry in the shape of crosses, etc? I understand that it would be wrong to worship a piece of jewelry (like Catholics with their rosaries), but wouldn’t it be fine to wear a reminder of His sacrifice? Or even have a cross (not a crucifix) in the church building?

Sincerely,
Cross About The Whole Subject

Dear Cross About The Whole Subject,

The problem with crosses as jewelry is that God tells us how He wants us to remember the death of Christ – through the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25). Furthermore, christians are supposed to be known by their character, not their clothes (1 Pet 3:3-4). WWJD bracelets, crosses, religious bumper stickers, etc. are often used as a substitute for actually living a faithful life.

Having said all that, wearing a cross isn’t inherently wrong. The Scriptures don’t condemn that kind of clothing, but they strongly caution us against the attitudes that are often portrayed and involved with such outward adornment. Ultimately, the jewelry is unnecessary. The apostles and first century christians certainly didn’t need such ‘holy hardware’ to remember who they were. They found the cross a scary, inhuman, and terrifying way to die. I sometimes wonder… if Christ had died in an electric chair, would we all be wearing golden electric chair charms around our necks and putting giant electric chairs on top of our church buildings? For me, that analogy keeps the issue in proper perspective.

I was reading a question to a priest, and I asked him why we call him ‘father’ when it specifically says not to in the Bible (Matt 23:8). His response was that it is for the same reason a child calls their parent ‘father’; they are the natural father and the priest is the spiritual father. While I believe calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong, why is it okay to call our birth parent ‘father’?

Sincerely,
Paternal Nomenclature

Dear Paternal Nomenclature,

Calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong because, as the priest said, it is referring to ‘father’ in a spiritual sense. That is what Christ is condemning in Matt 23:8-10. Christ is rebuking people who elevate themselves above others within the church. Catholic priests place themselves in a position of spiritual superiority and authority above others. That is wrong and exactly what Christ told His disciples never to do.

On the other hand, the term ‘father’ is perfectly fine when used to refer to a physical parent. The Bible itself uses the word ‘father’ almost 1,000 times, and the vast majority of those times refer to fleshly parents. Gen 2:24, Gen 9:22, Lev 20:9, Pr 17:25, Mk 10:29, Lk 11:11 are just a few examples. Our fathers are a blessing from God given to us for a time to guide and discipline us (Heb 12:9-10). They are worthy of honor and the title ‘father’ (Eph 6:2).

You have already given an excellent answer to a question about the NIV version, but I have another question. Someone once told me that the NIV was sinful because it supported babies going to hell. If so, where and how?

Sincerely,
Truth In Translation

Dear Truth in Translation,

The chapter in question is Romans chapter 8, and the phrase in question is ‘sinful nature’. The New International Version (NIV) translators use the phrase ‘sinful nature’ throughout Romans chapter 8 when all the major strict translations use the word ‘flesh’. The Greek word is ‘sarkos’ which literally means ‘flesh’. The transdenominational council (see previous post for more details) felt that ‘sinful nature’ better represented the idea that all human beings are born in sin… thus unbaptized babies would go to hell.

This blatant abuse of power by the NIV translators is used to propagate a denominational doctrine. When viewed through the NIV translation, Romans chapter 8 seems to specifically endorse the idea that all humans are born with a sinful nature – when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Sin is a choice, not a genetic flaw (Gen 4:6-7).

Pope Benedict XVI

A few weeks ago you answered a question about inter-faith marriages.  You listed four possible outcomes to the described situation; three of which you labeled as “BAD” and only one as “GOOD.”

The first two outcomes are below:

1. She eventually converts and obeys the gospel, becomes a christian, and is saved (GOOD).
2. You eventually convert and obey the Catholic church, and you are both lost (BAD).

Your response implies that Catholics are not Christians and that Catholics are not saved.  I realize that there is only one truth, but many denominations obey the gospel.  Truth is not limited to one denomination.

Where in the Bible do you find that there is only one church that is “properly” Christian?

Sincerely,
Accepting Our Differences

Dear Accepting Our Differences,

Where in the Bible do you see there being more than one church that is properly Christian? The burden of proof lies upon those who wish to add churches to God’s design. Paul said there was only one church, one doctrine, and one God (Eph 4:4-5). Jesus always referred to His church, not His churches (Matt 16:18). Jesus is head of the church – one head, one body (Eph 5:23). The truth is nobody even fathomed the idea of anything but one church in the first century.

When you write that ‘truth is not limited to one denomination’, you treat that assertion as an established fact… when in reality the opposite is true. Multiple religions are condemned in the New Testament. Any practices other than New Testament practices are condemned (2 Thess 2:15). Christians are warned against warping, altering, and perverting God’s established teachings for His church (Gal 1:6-9, Rev 22:18-19). Furthermore, we are promised that many will claim to have served Christ in this life and will be turned away as false Christians on the Judgment Day (Matt 7:21-23).

The practices of the New Testament church are laid out simply in the New Testament. Any congregation that wants to serve Christ need merely look at the church of the Bible and mimic its behavior (see our post here for further details on finding a faithful church). If a congregation wants to ensure its place as part of Christ’s body, it must submit to Christ’s teachings alone. There can be no man-made creeds, no human ideas and theologies, no statements of faith – just the Bible.

The Catholic church is not the same as Christ’s church, therefore Catholics are not Christians. The Catholic church accepts the pope as it’s head, placing his authority above the Bible. Their practices fit perfectly with Paul’s definition of what false religion looks like: forbidding marriages and abstaining from certain foods (1 Tim 4:1-3). Catholic priests expect to be called ‘father’, a practice in direct contradiction to the Scripture (Matt 23:9). The church of the Bible looks nothing like the Catholic church – you cannot be both a Catholic and a Christian.

I am reaching a point with my girlfriend where I am beginning to consider that she is ‘the one’ for me.  I really love her, and she challenges my faith and challenges me to be a better and more compassionate person.  I really think I want to marry her.  The problem is that she is Catholic (I am a christian).  We’ve talked about this and prayed over it, and we’re both against converting because we know that we’d be doing it for the other person and not necessarily for faith.

Is this a problem?  What is the Bible’s approach in regard to inter-faith marriages?

Sincerely,
Future In The Balance

Dear Future In The Balance,

‘Inter-faith’ marriages have disastrous results, an awful track record, and God warns against them. The Bible’s most notorious example of this is Solomon. Solomon’s idolatrous wives turned the heart of the wisest man on the planet away from God (1 Kgs 11:4). If Solomon in all of his wisdom couldn’t resist the pull of a false religion, we should consider ourselves just as vulnerable. There is too much at stake. If your heart is turned away from God, your soul will be eternally destroyed (Heb 3:12).

No matter how much you love each other, there are only four possible outcomes for your marriage, and only one of them is good:

1. She eventually converts and obeys the gospel, becomes a christian, and is saved (GOOD).
2. You eventually convert and obey the Catholic church, and you are both lost (BAD).
3. You both make compromises in your beliefs, and you no longer fully serve the Lord (BAD).
4. You both eventually renounce both of your belief systems, and are both lost (BAD).

The only positive outcome is the first one, and that isn’t any more likely to happen after you are married than before. Either she will eventually convert, or she won’t – getting married won’t increase the odds.

God warns against being ‘unequally yoked’ to someone with different values than you (2 Cor 6:14-16). Once you get married, you are ‘yoked’ to that person with a lifetime agreement. A godly marriage is designed around unity (Gen 2:24). If you aren’t unified on your core belief system, then everything else will be affected. Where will your children go to church? How much money will you contribute to the Catholic church vs. God’s church? What happens when she wants to put up Catholic emblems around the house? These are just a few of the thousands of day-to-day problems you will run into. God tells us that a christian should marry someone ‘in the Lord’ (1 Cor 7:39). If she really does love the Lord as much as she loves you, her honesty and humility will guide her to accept the truth. If not, you are both better off knowing before entering into a heartbreaking marriage.

Did the first century church celebrate special events that commemorated each person’s journey of faith?  In several Christian denominations, there are events like that called ‘sacraments’.  I am wondering specifically about the sacrament of marriage and how it fits into the first century church and also what the Bible says is proper practice for this type of event.

Sincerely,
Practices Made Perfect

Dear Practices Made Perfect,

The Bible doesn’t have any sacraments – but it does teach there are some important events in a christian’s life. The term ‘sacrament’ is not a Biblical word – it is a Catholic one. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes ‘sacrament’ thusly:

Noun, a visible sign of an inward grace, esp. one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Using that definition, we could loosely say a sacrament is equivalent to an event that is commanded by God for every christian to partake in. There are some scheduled events like that in the Bible:

• Baptism to become a christian (Rom 6:4)
• weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7)
• weekly contribution (1 Cor 16:1)

These are the only things even remotely close to a ‘sacrament’ (although that still isn’t a Biblical term) ever seen in the New Testament church. Marriage wouldn’t be on that list because marriage is not required of every christian.

This does not mean marriage isn’t instituted by God.  It is – as early as Adam and Eve (Gen 2:24). God has never laid down specific rules for the marriage ceremony.  He has left those details up to individual cultures. God’s concern has always been about how we act within the sacred bonds of matrimony (Col 3:18-19).  He leaves the ‘wedding feast’ to our discretion.

Is salvation by faith alone, or faith plus works, or just works?

Sincerely,
Faithfully Worked Up

Dear Faithfully Worked Up,

The Scriptures clearly say we are saved by faith (Heb 10:39), but they also clearly say that we are saved by hope (Rom 8:24), endurance (Matt 24:13), calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21), confessing Christ (Rom 10:9), the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-2), and baptism (1 Pet 3:21)… just to name a few.  All of these conditions are requirements of salvation.  We cannot cherry-pick what conditions we like or do not like.

Jas 2:14-21 explicitly states the importance of working for Christ.  The work James is talking about isn’t about earning salvation – but about loyal service to Christ.  God expects us to bear fruit for Him (Jhn 15:8), work to grow (1 Pet 2:2), and keep His commandments (Jhn 15:14).  Like a transmission and an engine in a car – faith and works function together and need each other.

The word ‘Easter’ is not in the Bible, so why do so many churches celebrate it?  Is it okay to celebrate Christmas and Easter as Christ’s birth and resurrection?

Sincerely,
Easter Egg Hunter

Dear Easter Egg Hunter,

Christmas, Easter, St. Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, Lent, and Good Friday are all examples of religious holidays that are not mentioned in the Bible.  So where do they come from?  The following history of Easter comes directly from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, an accepted and respected source of religious history:

“The English word comes from the ‘Eastre’ or ‘Estera’, a Teutonic goddess to whom sacrifice was offered in April, so the name was transferred to the paschal feast.  The word does not properly occur in Scripture, although the Annotated Version has it in Acts 12:4 where it stands for Passover, as it is rightly rendered in Revised Version.  There is no trace of Easter celebration in the New Testament, though some would see an intimation of it in 1 Cor 5:7.” (ISBE)

Easter’s roots are not Biblical – but pagan.  It’s very name is a reflection of that fact.  There is nothing wrong with celebrating Easter as a holiday, but it is important that we not confuse a secular holiday with a Biblical commandment.  Paul warned that we can’t place importance upon any day beyond what Christ has already commanded His church (Col 2:16-17).  Unfortunately, society has emphasized non-Biblical days such as Christmas, Easter, Lent, etc. as being of great value and importance.  Easter Sunday and Christmas mass are traditionally the most significant events of the year to much of the Judeo-Christian world.  That ought not to be.  Christ commands that we remember His death and resurrection every Sunday (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 11:26).  That is where Christ placed His emphasis.  We should do the same.