Questions and Answers from Pastor John - Free pentecostal literature, baptism of the holy Ghost (with the evidence of speaking in other tongues), the new birth experience, ....

"Questions and Answers - Page 10 "
Today's Date is:

February 10, 2006

Pastor John:

Last night I read the following verse from Hebrews 2:9;

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

What a verse! It was God's grace that Jesus should die for us. Wow. Am I correct in believing that it was God's plan that Jesus was to die before he became a man? Also, that God was willing to abort the plan if Jesus decided not to go thru with it ? Jesus understood that if he didn't die a man's death, that no man would be saved in the end. So it was God's will that Jesus die for us, but he left the decision to do so to Jesus. For some reason, I always thought that it was Jesus' original idea to die for men and not God's. But the verse "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.." would suggest that it was God's idea in the first place.

While on earth, Jesus did the will of his father. So it must have been God's will that Jesus die for us. Please let me know if I'm thinking correctly about this.

Bob

Hi Bob.

You are thinking exactly right. The only reason the Son of God came to this earth was to do the Father's will. If it had been the will of the Father for him to come and kill us all, he would have done that, and would have rejoiced at another opportunity to please his Father again. The love Jesus had for us was the Father's love. The plan of salvation was God's before the foundation of the world.

Pastor John

February 8, 2006

I just started reading the internet article "The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible." I really appreciate the article, it is written very intelligently and with such clarity that anyone can understand (this is the way that Jesus taught). Could you please provide me with a little information on Mr. Clark and the organization with which he is associated?

Thanks

Dwight Dunaway

Hi Dwight:

Pastor John here. By the grace of God, I am not associated with any Christian organization.

We are a group of servants of Jesus who are working to make the truth known to God's children. They are divided and scattered within the many sects of Christianity, and God is calling them to come out of that religion so that He can make us one. We have meetings in my home to worship God and edify one another, and you are welcome to attend to or to receive CDs of one of our meetings if you would like to receive them.

Thanks for writing. Please keep in touch, and God bless.

John Clark, Sr.

February 5, 2005

Hello Pastor John,

Today I was reading in Matthew chapter 4 were Jesus started to preach, and in verse 23, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease among the people.” John, my question is, did the Jews have synagogues in every city?

I would guess they had somewhere to meet everywhere they lived as a group, whether or not it was a building officially designated as a "synagogue".

And if so were they supposed to have one in every city?

I don't think it was a matter of "supposed to", and there was certainly nothing wrong with it. They probably needed to have a place to gather just so they could survive in the hostile environment they usually live in.

I know by the law that the Levites were given 48 cities to live in, and did they have synagogues there?

They probably had somewhere to meet, even if they did not call it at that time a synagogue.

I know that God's people could bring their tithes and offerings there, in the 48 Levitical cities; did they also worship there?

If they obeyed the law, they did not offer sacrifices there. But they could always pray, sing, and read the Scriptures.

In the past few weeks I have had a lot of opportunities with a lot of people to tell on Jesus and what he has done in my life. It feels so good to confess Christ and talk about the one you love with people that don’t know him, but it really amazes me how little people read their Bibles and just repeat what some one has told them that is true about God.

I had one person say, “Before receiving the holy Ghost, you've got to get saved first and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior”, so I asked him, "What about baptism? Don’t you have to get baptized first?" I could not even get him to confess that a person needs to be baptized, much less which baptism is needed. I treated him with love, confessed the truth, and asked him to read his Bible and show me where what he said was in the Bible. He has yet to show me. : )

I wish more people would read their Bible. It is hard to reason with someone who has not even opened the book. I thank God for the desire to read the Bible and be taught the truth by my pastor through the Spirit.

Thanks, John.

Stuart

Hi Stuart:

My father always said he would much rather discuss the Scriptures with someone who knew them well than with ignorant people. You are learning why that is true.

Take care, and God bless you and Anna until we see you again.

Pastor John

February 5, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

We were reading the first few chapters of John this morning.

One question I have for you is regarding the conversation between Jesus and Mary in Chapter 2:3-4. During the marriage that was taking place Mary said, "They have no wine." Jesus replied, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." In verse 11 it says, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory."

Was Mary expecting Jesus to provide wine for them? How could she have known he could when this was the first of his miracles? Or perhaps the sentence in verse 11 refers to the beginning of miracles in Cana, not overall. Had he done others before those in Cana? Or perhaps Mary was close to Jesus in a way that she knew he could do them.

Also, Amy and Brian and I were looking for verses in the Bible that mention a distinction between Jesus and God. Primarily, I was looking for those in Psalms in which David is speaking, but then Jesus begins to talk refering to himself as "I", refering to God as "you" or "he", and talking of the creation that Jesus himself made. I vaguely remember during an OT Bible study that you pointed out some Scriptures like that. Do any verses in Psalms come to mind right off the top of your head? In the mean time I'll keep searching.

Thanks!

Sarah

Hi Sarah:

You have done well to remember that I mentioned the book of Psalms as a good place to see the difference between the Father and the Son. Find the papers for the "Christ in Psalms" OT class and you will have a bunch of the Scriptures that you are looking for (Class #2083). If you can't find those papers, I will send them to you, and to anyone else who wants them.

Here is my translation of those verses from John that you asked about: "And when the wine had given out, Jesus’ mother told him, "They have no wine." But Jesus said to her, "Mother, what is that to us? My hour has not yet come." (There are good reasons to translate the word, "woman" as "mother" in this instance. I won't go into all that now.)

It seems as if Mary did think Jesus cold do something about the problem of a lack of wine at the wedding. Other than that, however, there is not much we can say for certain. I wish that I could help more with that, but insufficient information is given to us.

Pastor John

January 31, 2006

Pastor John,

My dad and I were reading in John today and we wanted to ask you a question. Could you please explain John 8:48 "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?"

In that verse, those elders of Israel were suggesting that (1) Jesus was an illegitimte child, that Mary committed fornication with a Samaritan and Joseph married her to cover it up, or (2) Mary and/or Joseph were not really Jews but were Samaritans, or (3) Jesus was so kind to the hated Samaritans that he really preferred them and belonged with them rather than with Jews. The Samaritans were hated "half-breeds", who honored part of God's work in the past through Abraham and his descendants but rejected the other, especially David's doctrine of Jerusalem being the one place to worship, and certain elements of Moses' Law.

Also, my dad and I watched on TV the other day as Oral Roberts celebrated his 88th birthday. The best parts of the show included a video from the 50's when Oral Roberts prayed for the sick to be healed! I really enjoyed watching that for the 1st time. The other part that I really enjoyed was when Oral Roberts described when he had a massive heart attack while he was in his 70's. He was admitted into the hospital and had a tube down his throat and could not speak. He said he could whisper and speak in tongues. After he spoke in tongues, he asked God for the interpretation and the answer was something to the effect that "you shall not die, but live until you finish your work."

I also thought about your testimony about your credentials. The numerous things God taught you after going to Oral Roberts University, especially facing that professor (I can't remember his name).

Rebekah Embry

Hi Rebekah:

I am glad you had the opportunity to see Oral Roberts' old tent meetings. He is an especially anointed man of God and proved that beyond any shadow of doubt to both my generation (early on) and the one before mine. I wish that your generation had someone like that to look to. The closest person that I know of to that anointing is Benny Hinn, but even he comes short of the anointing for healing that Oral Roberts had. Brother Hinn is doing good for a lot of people, though, and I hope God continues to bless him for the sweet, humble spirit he has.

As far as facing my professor, you could be referring to my Greek professor at ORU or the Dean of the Graduate School of Theology, Dr. James Buskirk. I spoke with both of them about the truth, especially Dr. Buskirk, but they were not given the grace to hear it, as has been given to you and me. I thank God for that. He has been so merciful to us. I hope that my life demonstrates sufficient gratitude.

Thanks for writing.

Pastor John

January 29, 2006

Hi Pastor John,

Yeah, about the “creature who envied God's glory and who lied ” being in the garden, that’s a question I’ve often wondered about. It certainly suggests it wasn’t exactly perfect. I’ve often wondered about that. Wow, my mind is boggling at that! Hmmm, now that’s a bit unsettling! SO it wasn’t perfect. But I thought everything was perfect??? But if everything was perfect, then they wouldn’t have sinned in the first place. (that’s another thought I’ve had as well).

You are entering into maze of human philosophy, which cannot answer any questions for us about God. Philosophy ruins faith (Col. 2:8), and leaves us feeling empty and confused. Revelation gives light and life.

So what sort of a place was the garden in Eden then? It wasn’t perfect then, but it was surely better then what we see now. – The result of the sins was a curse upon the ground and separation from God etc.

Why would you say that was it not perfect? The serpent being there did not mean that the garden was imperfect. And if Adam had been faithful to God, nothing would have changed. You're not suggesting that a perfect life is one without choice, are you?

I agree with what you say about God’s ways being past finding out, but would it be okay if I wonder some more about these things?

Sure.

So now I am wondering about the two trees in the garden. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Why did God make these trees?

They were pretty?

If they were not supposed to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then why did God make the tree in the first place?

He made all things for His own pleasure (Rev. 4:11). And He had every right to tell man that he could not enjoy one of His billions of fruit and nut trees.

It’s interesting to note that God told man not to eat from that tree, but then he said nothing about the Tree of Life. So maybe they were supposed to eat from that tree. We are supposed to eat from it as it says in Revelation.

Amen! Now if they had eaten of that tree instead, wouldn't that have made for a different, and better, story!

But then why would God make the other tree? Maybe God was going to have them eat from it later. Maybe God did want us to have knowledge after all. It just doesn’t make any sense for God to make the tree and then not have them eat it.

Sorry, I can't go with you down that road. God can create anything he wants for any reason He wants. There was time in my life when I thought God did not create turnip greens for people to eat (man, were they nasty tasting!), but I got over that. I enjoy them now. But I still feel that way about beets.

Now can I be a bit daring?

I have been waiting for you to do that! Please do!

I’ve had another thought just before I went to sleep last night. I started to think about how God is in control of all things. SO maybe God caused it to happen this way??? That really struck me hard when I thought that, and I basically ignored it! BUT then it’s true that God is in control of everything – he knew what was going to happen and as that verse says in Isaiah 47? He creates evil. SO was he the architect of the fall? I’m not very comfortable with that.

Jenny

I have never known what to say about that issue, Jenny. That question gets into the hidden wisdom of God, and no man is sufficient for such things. It is best for us just to stay simple and read that biblical story as it is written, be thankful for it, and trust God to have revealed to us all that we can handle.

You might want to read Paul's response to such inquiries on the predestination/free-will issue in Romans 9:9-24.

Thank you so much for writing me, Jenny. It is good for you to ponder over these things! But only for a time. As you move on in your OT studies, you will see that God has revealed much that we can understand, and we should do everything in our power to do that.

Pastor John

January 29, 2006

Pastor John

Reading this suggestion to Jenny, "You might want to read Paul's response to such inquiries on the predestination/free-will issue in Romans 9:9-24.", reminded me of an experience some months ago now.

For reasons I have forgotten I was [too] focused on philosophical thinking. In particular, this part of this passage in Rom 9,

"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

I have to admit that at times I would get to thinking the question about finding fault was quite reasonable and fair and that I also that the answer in v20 was a bit of a cop-out. That day months ago I was very much thinking along those lines as I was sweeping the floors in a mushroom shed at the end of a day.

The Lord must have decided to put an end to it because in the Spirit I had a very definite question posed to me. It was, "If I told you that it did not matter what you did from now on, and you would be lost what would you do?"

Now that is a philosophical question but it is also frighteningly real, cutting edge stuff. The question came with the following feeling, that I retained the knowledge of God etc that I had. It wasn't a being turned over to sin type of situation. It was just that God said "you're out, no matter what!"

I floundered thinking "what would you do?" Would I be a sinner, taking what so-called pleasure there is in that life and in the end justify God's decision further, or would I hope there was a way yet to find mercy and live as righteously as I could in the hope of escape? Then, I thought, doing the latter that would just be self-righteousness which God hates. It was hopeless. There was no way out.

After enough of that, a second question followed. I can't remember it exactly but the sense of it was, "If I give you the chance to be saved what will you do?"

My answer was, "Everything I could."

Since then I haven't thought much about why God did some things the way He did. He has given us this opportunity to be saved, He made a way in Jesus. That is the reality. Our opinion about anything is nothing unless it comes from God.

Regarding the trees in the garden what I see is that the tree of life was there! and available to eat. What a good God to do that! His love for man was there from the very beginning. When we analyse we can miss the love of God. The tree of life was given and as for the other tree the warning was given. Seems reasonable to me.

We can simply eat from the tree of life and live, or sit under it and ask lots of questions about the rest of the garden and miss out in the end.

Speaking of gardens... beets!!! I think you refer to what we call "beetroot" which is much loved in Australia. A couple of weeks ago we made hamburgers here and as is common for us we put beetroot on them along with lettuce, tomato, bacon and cheese. Poor Leah! She did try it but did not like it. Oh well! We Aussies will just have to keep the best things for ourselves.:)

Damien

Oh, Damien!

I had forgotten about that hamburger we bought in Australia with a slice of beet on it. It was delicious! I apologize for slandering the beetroot. But it may have been a good hamburger because I could not taste the beet because of all that other stuff on the hamburger.

My father used to ask the same question of us that you say the Lord asked you. If you knew you would be saved, no matter what, or be lost no matter what, how would you live? It is an interesting question to consider.

Pastor John

January 29, 2006

John,

Reading Jenny’s thoughts and questions about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, gave me some thoughts. These trees seem to be analogies for the paths we can take in our search for God. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge is like looking between the cracks, or asking philosophical questions, like trying to figure out the mind of God – it doesn’t give us life, but rather can take us farther from God. And maybe that’s why God told us not to eat of it. There is so much fruit to eat on the Tree of Life. We know we are eating of that tree when the fruit sustains the feelings of the love and mercy of God, no philosophy – that is life! God wants us to eat of that Tree. Eating of it will bring us closer to God.

Mark

January 29, 2006

Pastor John:

Where do christians get the silly notion that the meeting between Satan and God, in the book of Job, took place in heaven? Simple study of the scriptures will show that God always comes down to earth to "meet", since earth is the center point of God's working, not heaven.

Gino D

Hi Gino.

If the Lord has revealed to you that this Scripture refers to an earthly meeting instead of a heavenly one, please give us your testimony about it.

My father actually taught that the gathering of "the sons of God" in the first chapter of Job was an earthly meeting, and he was a very wise man in Christ. I have never seen how that opinion can be conclusively contradicted. On the other hand, neither can I see how anyone can conclusively contradict the contrary opinion, that a heavenly meeting was being referred to in Job 1.

You say that God "meets" only on earth, and that fact proves that the idea that it was a heavenly meeting is "silly". But there are meetings of heavenly creatures recorded in the Bible, such as those incredible meetings described in Revelation and the few places in the OT (e. g. 1Kgs. 22:19-22). Now, of course, if "sons of God" always refers only to human beings, you would have a stronger basis for your opinion. But in Job 38:7, we are told that the "sons of God" were singing together when God laid the foundation of the earth!

The ancient philosopher Socrates warned his listeners that to speak conclusively on matters of opinion is unwise. So, if you have heard form God on the matter, go ahead and speak conclusively. Otherwise, I would back away from characterizing as "silly" an opinion that differs from yours.

You servant in Christ,

Pastor John

"Now there was a time when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them" (Job 1:6). "how art thou fallen from heaven' O Lucifer son of the morning" (Isa.14:12). "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Lk.10:18). Do you think that the Lord God has ever summoned him back to meet with him? Or do you think God came down? "and the Lord came down to see the city and the tower..."(Gen.11:5). "and the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai" (Ex.19:20). "and the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him" (Num.11:25). "and the Lord came down in a pillar cloud...and called Aaron and Miriam" (Num.12:5). "and cain went out from the presence of the Lord" (Gen.4:16) "but Jonah rose up to flee unto tarshish from the presence of the Lord" (Jon.1:3). "so Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord and smote Job" (Job2:7). "and Balaam said unto Balak, stand by the burnt offering and I will go: peradventure the Lord will come to meet me...And God met Balaam and he said unto him..." (Num.23:3). And one more time as Jesus said "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". And that event took place long before the meeting in Job. That is what the Holy Ghost revealed to me. So my brothers did Satan "go up" to heaven to meet God or did God "come down" to meet with Satan, who had been "going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it"? Your friend, Gino

Hi Gino:

There were meetings in heaven in which Satan and/or evil spirits were in God's presence throughout the Old Testament. An example from 1Kings 22 has already been mentioned.

Satan was not cast out of the kingdom of God until after Jesus paid the price for our redemption and ascended to the Father (John 12: 31; Rev. 12:1-9). Jesus' vision of Satan being "cast out of heaven as lightning" does not necessarily mean that it had already happened. I will quote your letter to Jenny:

"We must understand that God is a prophet. And he often speaks in the "prophetic perfect tense". The scriptures say "He declares the end from the beginning" and "He calleth those things which be not as though they were". We must have that same mind when we study the scriptures, or else we will be very confused, because the bible is written in that way."

So, there was no need for God to summon Satan back up to heaven in order for Satan to speak with Him. He could have been wandering the earth and had access to God before Jesus shut the door permanently. Satan had seen God's face for the last time. Because of Jesus, he had already been damned and cast out. The many accounts of God's coming to meet with humans at times does not require that all meetings with Him have been on earth. Paul, you will remember, was caught up to the third heaven to meet with God. And even in the OT, Isaiah saw the Lord on a throne, "high and lifted up". I wrote before, and I am providing this information only as a brotherly caution to you, to show you that the place of the meeting of God and Satan in Job 1 is not a matter that can be declared settled doctrine and should not, therefore, be debated as if it were. Nor is there sufficient justification for condemning as "silly" the idea that the meeting took place in heaven.

Pastor John

January 27, 2006

Bro Clark

I am a member of the UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH in Cheyenne, Wyoming. God has put it upon my heart to study the subject of FASTING. If you would, would you mind sending me some info on how the UPC looks at fasting. I would greatly appreciate all you could help me with on the subject.

Thank you

Your sister in Christ

Vinnie Dowell

Dear Sister Vinnie:

Thank you for writing. It is an honor to hear from God's people anytime.

Now to answer your question. Just as Jesus had invisible food to eat (Jn. 4:31-34), so his manner of fasting was invisible to the flesh. The only kind of fasting that God recognizes or blesses is described in detail in Isaiah 58. Every other kind of fasting is vain, regardless of whose fast it is.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to write again.

Your servant in Christ,

Pastor John

January 26, 2006

Pastor John,

Haskell and I were doing some more reading in Acts, and we had a few questions.

1 ~ "Easter" is mentioned in Acts 12:4. Is this a christian influence on the translation or did the Jews use this word for the Passover then?

That is one of the most blatant examples of Christian corruption of the Scriptures to promote their religion. The Greek word there is the word for Passover. Christianity's "holy day" of Easter did not even exist when the book of Acts was written. You are a sharp reader to catch that!

2 ~ When did synagogues come about in Jewish religion? We noticed that Paul and Barnabas were going to synagogues to teach the Jews.

After the Jews were scattered by God throughout the world, as Moses warned them He would do if they failed to obey His Law, they began to gather together to read the Scriptures and pray. Guess what these gathering places were called in Greek? Give up? Okay. They were called, literally, "gathering place". Not a very splashy title for a building, but that is actually what the word "synagogue" means. It is not a Hebrew word either, as one might expect, but a Greek word found in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament).

Synagogues were the Jews' version of Christian churches now.

3 ~ The person named John, whose surname is Mark, is he the author of the gospel of Mark, or do we know? We noticed that Paul didn't want him going with them to visit the cities where they had already preached, and this was a big deal between Paul and Barnabas.

The young man John Mark is, according to ancient Christian tradition, the author of the Gospel of Mark. The tradition further states that Mark wrote his gospel based upon what Peter told him. That tradition may or may not be true. No one really knows. Christians, historically, are notorious for inventing facts to fill voids in knowledge.

Thanks for your time. This has really been interesting reading.

Cris

You are welcome. Keep it up!

Pastor John

January 23, 2006

John,

We were reading in John, Chapter 3 tonight, and noticed something in verse 17. It says that Jesus didn’t come into the “world” to condemn it, but that the “world” might be saved. I thought that Jesus came only to the lost sheep of Israel. Was the original Greek word for what was translated “world” mistranslated?

Mark

Hi Mark:

The Greek word there is the ordinary one for "world", so that is a correct translation. Still, that verse does, as you point out, seem to contradict Scriptures such as those found throughout John 17, one example being where Jesus prayed, "I pray for them; I do not pray for the world. . . ."

The answer to your question, though, is this: While it is true that Jesus was sent by God to minister only to the lost sheep of Israel, that does not mean that he was sent to save only the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus confused some of his opponents once with these words (Jn. 10:15-16), "Just as the Father knows me, I also know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; those I must also bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one Shepherd."

Jesus' beloved "other sheep" are us, the Gentiles who believe, and the "fold" to which he referred was Israel. His purpose is to gather all who believe into one fold, which is as Paul said, "neither Jew nor Gentiles". The new fold is called a number of things, "the body of Christ", "the household of faith", the "ekklesia", etc. And that is the fold into which the Spirit of God baptizes those who believe.

Pastor John

January 16, 2006

Pastor John,

Tracey and I were reading in the fourth chapter of John one morning this week when I noticed something that I want to ask you about. In verse 12 the Samaritan woman asked Jesus “Art thou greater than our father Jacob” and in verse 20 she said “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain.”

Why would a Samaritan woman who made a plain distinction between being a Samaritan and being a Jew consider Jacob to be her father? And I assume in verse 20 when she said “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain” she was speaking of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so why would she also consider Abraham and Isaac to be her father? I was just curious. Thanks.

Keith

Hi Keith:

The Samaritan woman was, in the eyes of many Jews, a despised "half-breed", so to speak. Samaritans were taught to look to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their spiritual forefathers (2Kgs. 17:24-34), but to reject as fraudulent much of the law of Moses and all of King David's revelation concerning Jerusalem being the place God had chosen for worship. This was the religion invented by King Jeroboam for his northern kingdom of Israel after the ten tribes in northern Canaan became a separate nation from Judah in the south.

Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

January 16, 2006

Pastor John,

I had gotten the impression somehow that the Samaritans were descended (somehow) from Abraham. Is that not so?

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

They were probably a mixed breed, so to speak, of Jews and non-Jews. 2Kings 17 explains how the foreigners came to be in that territory and the Jews were taken away.

Pastor John

January 15, 2006

Pastor John

We were listening to the Cd "a stranger to ourselves", and on it you said Mary and his brothers came to get Jesus when he was preaching, because they (his mother and brothers) thought he was beside himself.

Now the other day we were reading in the Gospels and came across that verse but it said his friends thought he was beside himself (Mk. 3:21), and when we later came to the verse about Mary and his brothers coming (Mk. 3:31-35), it did not say anything about Jesus being beside himself.

Now Leah and I were thinking that his friends went to tell his mother that they thought he was beside himself, so they came to see what was going on.

Would you be able to shed a bit more light on this for us please.

Thank you

Steven & Leah

Hi there!

Actually, neither the Greek word for "friend" or "family" is in that verse from Mark 3:21. Instead, what is there in the original Greek is an odd phrase that denotes "others who are intimately connected with someone, e.g., "family, relatives" (BDAG, p. 756). So, according to the experts in the matter, the translation in Mark 3:21, "friends", is incorrect.

From this, then, we can see, later in that chapter (3:31-35), that when Mary and Jesus' siblings came to see him, it probably was part of a broad family effort to get Jesus some professional counseling before he went off the deep end. Understanding that may be the reason Jesus ignored his mother's request to come out to see her and his other relatives.

Pastor John

January 14, 2006

Pastor John,

Jesus was a Jew and was required to do everything the Jews did such as being circumcised in the flesh, keeping the feast days, holy days and being water baptised. Did he ever make animal sacrifices?

Bro Randell

Hi Randell:

While on earth, Jesus himself would not have been allowed to make animal sacrifices, being from the tribe of Judah instead of from the priestly tribe of Levi. But he certainly would have brought animals for the priests to offer in sacrifice for him. Jesus did not begin to function as our priest until after he ascended into heaven and was consecrated in the days before Pentecost morning in Acts 2.

Pastor John

January 13, 2006

John:

Which tribe in Israel was Paul from?

Hi:

Paul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (Phip. 3:5). But he got over it when he realized that "in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile".

jdc

January 13, 2006

Hi John,

The Pizarro’s, Sue and I were reading in Matthew tonight. While reading, all I could think about was your e-mail about your praying God would raise up prophets, teachers, and apostles for his children. Seeing how the Sadducees and Pharisees could not recognize who Jesus was. How they sought to kill him, Peter, Stephen, Paul, and so on. These things hit my heart, to stay lowly and pray to have a pure heart!!!!!

In our reading, it said he who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

I thank God that Jesus touched my heart so I could receive your teaching, that he took that wrong spirit from my heart so I could receive things of God from you. I pray my heart is prepared to be able to receive whoever God sends.

Question: In Matthew 13:52, Jesus said, "Every scribe who is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, who brings forth out his treasures things new and old." Is this someone like you who is our pastor teaching us new and old things of God?

Jimmy

Hi Jimmy:

It is like a teacher who teaches you the right ways of God from both the Old and New Testament.

It is good to meet together to read the Bible and consider the things of God. You folks keep it up!

jdc

January 12, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

Aunt Natalie and I were reading tonight in Acts and it was very enjoyable. I have a couple questions for you.

In chapter 6 verse 1, what does it mean by "their widows were neglected in the daily ministration?" In verse 2 it mentions serving tables. I'm assuming the serving tables and ministration is something to do with supporting the widows financially? It seems that this is a small conflict which leads to an even more significant part of the story, so I'd like to know.

Yes, the "ministration" means the caring for those poor widows by providing their life-sustaining needs, such as food, clothes, and housing.

Also, is the conjunction "and" sometimes read in the King James not so much as to distinguish different things in a series but to mean "this and also this"....like in chapter 4:6 we were discussing whether those that were with Annas, the high priest, namely John, were Annas's kindred also. It mentions that with Annas were "Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, AND as many as were of the kindred of the high priest." Does this last "AND" mean that those men mentioned were with Annas or with him and related to him? There are four Johns in the book of Acts, so we were trying to distinguish and find ways to remember them all.

There is no way to tell, definitively, whether that particular "and" refers to an entirely new set of men (the whole set includes those mentioned in verse 5) or if it continues the list of relatives to the high priest. We know that Annas and Caiphas were kin (father-in-law and son-in-law), and so John and Alexander may also have been. If they were, then I would say that the "and" in verse 6, the one you asked about, means "and others in this list of relatives to the high priest".

These men in verse 6 did not want anyone to know of the miracle healing through the lame man in the previous chapter and wished that Peter and John discontinued preaching and healing among the people, "But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name," Acts 4:17. What was it that these men feared? Was it that they might lose their assemblies to Peter and John?

They were envious of the attention and respect that God's apostles were receiving from the ordinary people. It was the same reason they connived to have Jesus executed.

I love that Jesus is given several names by Peter: Acts 3:14 "the Holy One" and "the Just".

In the Bible, Jesus has more names than anyone. The greater the personality, the more the names.

Do we know the author of Acts?

It was Luke. Compare the intro to Luke and the Intro to Acts.

Well, I really do long to be in at least one translation class before the entire New Testament is translated. Maybe we can do some Sunday after the meeting. I'm coming down with Amy and Brian.

Thanks!

Sarah

Realistically, we will be working on the NT translation for years to come. So, you have some time. But try not to let it all slip by. It will be good have you there at some point. It isn't something everyone enjoys doing, and that is fine. I do not want to leave the impression with anyone that if someone misses those sessions, then he has failed somehow to do his part in the Lord. That is NOT the case whatsoever. Working on the NT translation is not for everybody to do. In fact, if everybody tried to help, we could not even get it done.

But if you do come, you should be warned. If someone comes with an ego problem (not at all to say you do) or is self-willed (not at all to say you are), he usually gets his feelings hurt pretty quickly, or becomes irritated. The translation sessions are wonderful and happy times, but they can become pretty intense sometimes, and any suggestion stands the chance of being rejected, sometimes unceremoniously, because everyone is concentrating so hard on the matter at hand. You should see how my ideas are talked about sometimes! :( sniff......sniff. Whenever that happens, it makes me want to just go home. But since I AM home when we are translating, I stay happy. :)

I hope you are happy, too, dear Sarah!

Pastor John

January 11, 2006

Good day Pastor John,

I was having a thought on tithe and offering of late, so i decided to tell you, cause I know you will be of good help to me on such issue. If worshipping God now is all about in Spirit and in truth, and warfares are of the spirit, holy communion of unleaven bread, robes for worship, eight-day circumcission, water baptism, anointing oil and the likes are of the flesh, and things of the past, (in fact, irrelevant), why is tithe and offering still relevant? I see no connection of it to worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth.

Just wondering and pondering over it, and I need your help to avoid matching the lines through my thoughts.

Thanks for the help.

Regards,

Frank

Hi Brother Frank!

Good question.

The issue is, was God's commandment for His people to support His servants with their tithes and offerings a moral commandment or a ceremonial one? Moral laws were strengthened, not done away with, by the sacrificial work of Christ. True enough, bringing tithes and offerings deals with natural substance - earthly money and goods, but then, so does "loving your neighbor", when we get practical about it.

The answer to whether or not the commandment for Israelites to bring tithes and offerings to God was a moral or ceremonial law is found in the answer to another question; namely, "If we do not bring God His tithes and offerings, then which commandment have we broken?" And the answer to that is found in Malachi 3:8, where God tells His people that they have robbed Him by failing to bring their tithes and offerings. And we know that stealing is a moral offense. There is nothing ceremonial about God's commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

Brother Frank, if we are to be reasonable, godly people, we would do something like bring tithes and offerings to God even if He had not required us to. Working together like that makes web sites possible so that people in foreign lands, such as yourself, can hear the truth of the gospel and be delivered from Christianity! God's system of tithes and offerings is the most reasonable, practical system for the propagation of the gospel that can be devised. If there was something better, God would already have come up with it.

Pastor John

January 10, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

I have a question. Starting in Act 8:36 when Philip is riding in t he chariot with the eunuch, after hearing Philip preach to him about Jesus, the eunuch saw some water and wanted to be baptized. So, they stopped and Philip took him down to the water and baptized him in it...why is that? T his man is an Ethiopian, so I didn't think that water baptism was required of anyone but the Jews at this time. All the other apostles/disciples were baptizing people with the holy Ghost, but then I noticed that Philip bapti zed the eunuch in water, and I was just wondering why that was. Maybe I'm missing something here and not reading into it properly.

Thanks.

Leah

Hi Leah.

Good questions.

First, the Ethiopian eunuch may have been from the land of Ethiopia , but have you ever wondered why he had to come to Jerusalem to worship God ? The answer is that either he was a Jew who had happened to be born in Et hiopia or he had was a convert to the Jewish religion (not Judiasm as we kn ow it now but religion as the Law of Moses described it). We don't know wh ich of those two things is true, but the difference is insignificant as con cerns your questions. Being a Jew, whether born Jewish or converted, the E thiopian eunuch would have received the necessary circumcision of his Genti le foreskin so that he could travel to Jerusalem three times a year to pres ent himself before the Lord, as the Law of Moses demanded. That explains w hy the Ethiopian eunuch was in Israel when Philip met him, and why Philip b aptized him. John's baptism was required of everyone under the Law of Mose s, that is, of every Jew.

Secondly, Paul's gospel, which excluded all ceremonial forms, inclu ding water baptism, had not yet been revealed to Paul or to anyone else. A nd even if it were to have been already revealed, Philip still was doing th e right thing because he was dealing with a Jew when he ministered to the E thiopian eunuch. Paul's gospel applied only to Gentiles.

Thanks for the questions. I like thinking about them.

Pastor John

January 10, 2006

Wow! That is so neat! Haskell and I were just reading this last n ight and asking the same question!! We wondered if the eunuch was a Jew, t oo! That's so good! I'm glad that Leah asked that question!

Cris

Dear Cris:

Yes! Encouraging little things happen when all of God's people are doing the right thing together--even if at different places on the earth! They are the things that make our time here so much more pleasant. jdc

January 10, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

Rebekah and I just read Chapters 8 & 9 of Acts last night. It was wonderful to receive the question from Leah followed by your answer about the Ethiopian eunuch. Also, I really enjoyed reading the 2nd Corinthians translation (I appreciate the time and effort of everyone that has helped with the translation). I enjoyed the Saturday night gathering, just feeling the fellowship was wonderful.

Junior Embry

Amen, Jr.!

The blessings just keep coming. Let's enjoy this season of joy and peace and be prepared for times to change.

Pastor John

January 10, 2006

Pastor John,

I have been reading little stories with Jacob, and he had a questio n last night about the animals talking. He asked me why the serpent was ta lking to Eve, and if the animals talked to Noah on the Ark. I just wanted to make sure I am telling him the right thing from the beginning. I told h im before the flood, the animals did talk [with people], but now I am not s ure if that was right. Thanks for your time.

Jammie

Hi Jammie and Jacob -- and Paul!

I think the animals did talk to people before the flood, and maybe on the ark, too. But I don't know about that. They may have, but then, Go d may have made them hibernate during that year and ten days. The serpent certainly talked with Eve in the garden, and she did not seemed surprised.

jdc

January 10, 2006

Hey Uncle John,

I read the email that Brittany sent to you about angels, and i was wondering "what is the difference between angels and cherubims?

Abigail

Hello Dear Abigail.

There may be many differences between cherubs and angels of which w e are ignorant. But one notable difference is that angels do NOT have wing s. Cherubs do. Angels look like ordinary humans. Cherubs most certainly do not. The Bible says that we at times meet angels and do not know it (be cause they look like one of us), but if a cherub ever knocked at your door, you would not mistake him for a human. They have wings, two or four faces , living wheels attached to them, and lightning bolts shooting out.

Thanks for the question. And watch out for angels! They are watch ing out for you.

Uncle John

January 6, 2006

Hey John,

I have a question about Paul. At the end of Acts, Paul was at Rome for two years. Does it tell anywhere in the Bible how Paul died?

No. Paul's death is not recorded in the Bible. There are some Christian myths about that, including the myth that Paul was beheaded at Rome and everywhere his head bounced after it fell off, a spring of water burst up. Such tall tales are not convincing.

Also, Sue was thinking Festus took the place of Lysias as the Chief Captain. Is that right?

We have been reading the book of Acts with Jimmy & Sue this week. It has been a good time!

Jimmy P

Hey Jimmy!

Festus took the place of Felix (Acts 24:27). He was a much higher official than a mere captain in the Roman army. Lysias the Captain was apparently summoned by Felix to Paul's trial to give a first-hand account of what had happened in Jerusalem when Paul was being beaten by the mob and then taken in Roman custody. If he came, and there is no reason to think he did not, then Lysias' account at Paul's trial was left out of Acts.

Pastor John

January 5, 2006

Pastor John,

Hey pastor john i was just wondering... I know a little bit about what real angels are, but just so i know exactly what one is (ex. what it was created to do, what it looks like, How God portrays them, how they play a part in the kingdom of heaven as well as in our world, ect.) Do you think you could give me some parts of the Bible where I could read about them? I would do it myself, but i don't know where to begin to look for the info. I'm just trying to decipher what a REAL angel is, since I've realized I may not know the truth because of Christian mythology.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Brittany :)

My dear little sister, Brittany:

It is always good to hear from you, and what a good question! There is no specific section of the Bible devoted to a description of angels. We have to look over the entire book and put the pieces together to have any hope of developing a clear picture of them. Even then, it is sketchy. Here is some biblical information about angels:

Angels are invisible spiritual beings (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7) who can, if God wills it, appear to humans. We know that angels eat because the manna that God gave to Israel to eat in their 40-year wilderness wanderings was actually "angels’ food" (Ps. 78:25). There are so many angels in heaven that they cannot be counted (Heb. 12:22), but this is because God created them, not because they reproduce as humans do, for angels do not marry (Mt. 22:30). The nature of angels differs from that of men (Heb. 2:16), even though they are similar in some ways, such as speaking various languages (1Cor. 13:1).

We have all probably met angels and even spoken with them at times without realizing it (Heb. 13:2). This meeting with angels without realizing it would be impossible if angels had wings. Angels having wings is one of the Christian myths of which you spoke. That is a holdover from ancient Roman mythology, which we know now to be a core element of the religion of Christianity. The angels vary in size just as humans do. I base this on no Scripture but on my own experience of seeing three of them flying overhead in a vision many years ago now. There was one angel somewhat larger than the other two. Beyond that, we can say that the size of angels is roughly the size of humans (Rev. 21:17), which also helps to explain how it is possible for us to meet angels without realizing who they are. On those occasions, we would only think they were other humans like us.

Mankind was originally created "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:7; 2Pet. 2:11), but in the resurrection, we will be their judges (1Cor. 6:3). Even now, among the angels themselves, there are differences. Some angels are mightier than others (e.g. an especially "mighty" angel is mentioned in Rev. 10:1), some have special anointings (Rev. 14:18), and some rank higher than others in God’s kingdom (e.g., "archangels"). But under no circumstances are people to worship angels (Col. 2:18).

Some angels are on earth, by the will of God, as our servants, to watch over us (Ps. 34:7; Mt. 18:10) and to minister to us (Heb. 1:4) in other ways. Angels came and ministered to Jesus after his temptation in the wilderness (Mt. 4:11). Certain angels were commanded from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly life to watch over Jesus, to keep him from injury (Ps. 91:11). Angels were with Jesus when he ascended from earth to his Father (Acts 1), and they will be with him when he returns to earth to gather his saints to be with him (e.g. Mt. 25:31; Mk. 8:38; 2Thess. 1:7). Solomon warned us to be careful what we say because an angel might hear us (Eccl. 5:6), and sometimes God uses angels to punish evildoers (Ps. 35:5, 6).

Angels are not all-powerful and all-knowing. They do not understand the gospel and have a great desire to know what it is like to be "a child of God" (1Pet. 1:12), even though for some unknown reason it makes them very happy to see a sinner repent and become one (Lk. 15:10). In comparison to God, angels are foolish (Job 4:18), and God does not really need or trust them any more than He needs or trusts humans, even His own servants and saints (Job 4:18; 15:15). There is a verse somewhere, I believe, that states that God does not trust angels, but I cannot find it right now. That verse, however, wherever it is, was not written to say something evil about the holy angels. It only points out the surpassing greatness of the Creator.

Some angels followed Satan in his arrogance and self-will (2Pet. 2:4), and they were cast out of heaven with him after Jesus’ ascension and glorification (Rev. 12:7-9). Jesus mentioned them when he spoke of the everlasting fire that was "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:41). Jude mentions them as failing to hold on to their original place in God’s creation (Jude 6). It appears to me that these fallen angels (the devil is NOT a fallen angel, but a fallen cherub - Ezek. 28:14-16) are the evil spirits that are called "demons" in the Bible.

The word "angel" in both the Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament Greek is the word for "messenger". Most of the time, when we read of angels in the Bible, they are carrying a message from God to man or performing a task assigned to them by God. (The most unusual task performed by angels that I can think of in the Bible is mentioned by Jesus in Luke 16, where Lazarus, a poor, righteous beggar, died and was carried into Paradise by angels. I have wondered why God uses angels for that work, but there is no biblical answer.) Anyway, God apparently created angels to bear messages, as Gabriel did when he announced to Mary that she had been chosen to bear God’s Son.

Some angels are called "evil angels", not necessarily because they themselves are evil but because they are sent with evil, or disasters, for mankind. Jesus will send "his angels" to cause division between the wise and the foolish among the saints near the end of time (Mt. 13:41). Paul described this coming event as God "sending a strong delusion" on saints who "received not the love of the truth" but "had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2Thess. 2:11-12), thus purging the household of God before Jesus’ second coming. It was God’s angel who slaughtered nearly 200,000 Assyrians in one night because of their king’s arrogant boast against God (Isa. 37:36).

By the way, the only two names of angels given in the Bible are Gabriel and Michael. Christian tradition offers us another angel’s name, and I cannot recall it right now, but it is not important because it is just another example of Christian mythology.

Well! That turned into more of an answer than I had planned to give, but I am glad you asked. I enjoyed thinking on those things again. Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

January 4, 2006

Pastor John,

We were at Sonny and Doris's house last night, and we were discussing the scene in Acts 10 where the Lord gave Peter the vision of the sheet coming down with the four-footed beast, and that raised a question for me. When God tells Peter in verse 13-15: "And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common."

Is it correct for me to think that God is talking about the Gentiles because he was about to send Peter to Cornelius house?

Yes. Exactly.

I was thinking that God was talking about Him cleansing the Gentiles, which the Jews called dogs (unclean animals), and that was why He gave Peter the vision. It seems like he wouldn't have been able to take in what the Lord would do at Cornelius house unless the Spirit had prepared him for it.

That is true, Isn't it a precious, wonderful thing to be able to read the Bible and really understand what is going on in God's heart? How blessed does that make you? And thankful for the grace of God?

Hey, that is kinda like this past weekend, if Jesus hadn't of prepared us for Sunday on Saturday night, then we wouldn't have been able to understand and get the gold out of Sunday!!! That is my train of thought right now, but wanted to get your insight.

That is true. (More grace from God.)

Also when it says that Cornelius was a Centurion, is he some kind of government official?

Cornelius was a military officer. Centurions were a crucial element in a Roman legion. Centurions were chosen to that post specifially because of their level-headedness and even tempers. Roman armies were often stationed in foreign lands where hostilities against Rome were high and and situations could get out of hand, with riots etc., at the slightest provocation. Centurions had to be no-nonsense kind of men, unmarried (for much of Rome's history), and completely in charge of himself and his company of 80 or so men.

Thanks for your answers. Tony and I have started reading in Peter this week. I love that book!!!! We are very excited about reading it. It has so much knowledge & Truth in it!!! We didn't want to stop reading last night, but we had to get some sleep! Ha! That is all for now! I like thinking on these things. Makes you healthy. Well talk to you later! Margo

It brings me joy to see God's children "searching the scriptures" together and sincerely looking for the perfect way of Jesus as they spend time in this dying world. The other evening, I walked into Brother Bob Payne's house, and he was reading in the Gospel of Matthew with his family and a few others. Without that kind of commitment to godliness, a family is missing some elements of family life that are fundamental to happiness. Keep it up and be encouraged. The benefits of humbling ourselves to God often manifest themselves in small ways that go unnoticed until we look back and see what God has done.

Pastor John

December 31, 2005

Pastor John

Leah and I were reading in Matthew and we were wondering...why does Jesus heal people then send them away and tell them to say nothing, and some he heals and tells them to tell everybody? Could you help us in understanding this?

Another thing we were reading about the parables of the kingdom of heaven and were wondering if they were all the same in meaning and if they are what are they trying to get across.

thanks

Steven

Dear Steven,

First of all, let me say that I am very pleased to hear that you and Leah are reading the Bible together. That is one of the foundations to a happy and secure marriage.

There were times, Steven, when so many people followed Jesus that it hampered his ability to move about and accomplish the work that the Father had sent him to do on earth. I would imagine on those occasions when he felt that the multitudes would be a hindrance to his work, he would command the healed person to say nothing and to go home quietly, while on other occasions, perhaps when the Father directed him to heal many people as a sign to Israel, he would have told healed people to spread the news. That is how I have always understood those passages to which you refer.

As for the parables, there may be some minor differences in their meaning, but fundamentally, the point of all the parables is this: "He who endures unto the end , the same shall be saved." If you will notice the next time you read some parables, that crucial lesson is at least of part of Jesus' point every time he speaks a parable.

Take care, and keep searching out the truth with your wife. It is your responsibility to guide the house along life's road.

Pastor John

December 26, 2005

John:

RE: John 12:42
In our times, who would be the spiritual equivalent to the Pharisees and the chief rulers?

Dear WS:

In the verse from John 12, the chief rulers were men of high rank among God's Old Testament people who knew the truth but were too concerned that the religious zealots of their times, the Pharisees, would cause them problems if they confessed the truth they knew. Those who are spiritually in the same place as the chief rulers now are ministers of great esteem among believers today who know more truth than they will confess before their congregations lest those who are zealous for the dead religion of Christianity cause them to lose popularity and money.

If God condescends to show us truth, the least we should do is admit that we see it. God help us overcome the flesh to the extent that we not only confess the truth, and not only live the truth, but enjoy doing both -- regardless of the consequences.

Pastor John

December 17, 2005

Pastor John,

Cris and I were wondering if a sheep will always eventually receive the Holy Ghost, or is it possible to be a sheep and pass through life never receiving it.

thanks,

Haskell

Hi:

There can be no definitive answer, of course, because there is no way to confirm or deny what does not happen! So, anything one would say to that must be merely a matter of opinion.

Pastor John

December 17, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

In the “All things” CD you emphasise that if you are a child of God there is no ‘intrusion’ in our lives – no thing that God did not design/ordain for us. Is that only after one is born again? I kind of think I was in a bit of a “no man’s land” when I was in Xty because I really think that I was fair dinkum about God all along. So there are some things that I wonder about and wonder whether God ordained for those things to happen. But if not I wonder who was the craftsmen of those awful things. In fact in the 12 years I was a Xian, I was serious about God; before, during and after. SO could allowing me to go into Xty part of the “all things” deal? I know I really was serious about God then.

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

Yes, that was part of God's plan for you. If you love God and are among "the called according to His purpose", everything in your past was "working together" with something else in your life for your eventual blessing and salvation.

Pastor John

PS By the way, what do you good folk "down under" mean when you refer to a "dinkum"?

Pastor John,

From the dictionary - dinkum > adjective Austral./NZ. informally, "genuine".
PHRASES ---- "fair dinkum" used to emphasize that, or query whether, something is genuine or true.

ORIGIN: of unknown origin.

Steven

Dear Steven:

That's fair dinkum good. Thank you.

jdc

PS Excuse my Australian

December 15, 2005

Dear John,

I was reading over Luke Ch.4 again today but dropped back to the last part of chapter 3. Beginning with verse 23, Jesus being the son of Joseph, etc. all the way back to Adam being the son of God, Nathan is mentioned as the son of David. However, in Matt. 1:6 Solomon is mentioned as being begat by David of her that had been the wife of Urias.

Are both versions lineages? Do we know anything more about Nathan? He seems to be mentioned only once in 2 Samuel 5:14. Just wondering about the significance of his name in Luke, if any. Also, what is the significance of the italics in Matt.1:6?

Thanks.

Bro Jim K

Hi Brother Jim!

There is nothing significant about the italics in Matthew 1:6 in the KJV. What italics means in such a translation is that those precise words are not found in the original Greek text but that the translators felt that they belonged. I agree, in this case.

The difference in the lineages found in Luke and in Matthew, beginning at the famed Solomon/Nathan divide has been debated and discussed for centuries, as you might imagine. I keep my eyes open for any real explanation of it, and about twenty years ago or more I read one theory that was plausible, but in the main, I think Paul's exhortation to Timothy to stay away from genealogies is best (1Tim. 1:4), at least until a clear answer is found for this confusing case.

jdc

December 15, 2005

Hi,

Do you think God has a role with royalty in this day and age? That sort of thing seems quite irrelevent to me. I think they are obsolete. Royals just seem to do not much really. They go to "gala events" and cut ribbons occasionally, and I suppose they keep some old ladies happy with the excitement of an occasional visit to one's country and a card when your 100, but its not like they make decisions in the western world at all. In fact I think it creates an unnecessary sort of elitism. That was all my question was, does God have a role. Is that day of "kings" gone now.

Thanks, JH, for sending me your question.

The day of kings will never go away. If for no other reason, the day of kings has not permanently gone because the Bible tells us that there are kings coming who will rule the world with the Beast, who will also be a very great and powerful king. And after the Beast is destroyed, Jesus will always be our king. So, . . . well, come to think of it, the day of "kings" (plural) may indeed pass away, but the day of our "King" will not!

At this time in history, kings are temporarily out of style in our culture. And in other cultures, they may be called by different names, but they are here nonetheless. Saddam Hussein was certainly a king, for example, with life-and-death power over his subjects in Iraq. The king and queen of England are mere ornaments, pathetic toys of the public whim, and those "royals" are often mocked by this proud generation, but they should rather be pitied. They are "royal" only because a sufficient number of the citizens of Great Britain have a sentimental attachment to the past, and for that reason they support the royals financially. I suspect they are ridiculed by some in England because of sheer envy of their status and riches, and of course because "the royals" are no longer to be feared, having been stripped long ago of the power to rule.

None of that matters to the saints, however. Whatever the world wants to do with its royals, and whether it chooses to mock or to bow to them is of no concern to anyone who knows Jesus, the eternal King of kings and the Lord of lords, prince of angels, and Son of the living God. It is easy to bow down to him. We will never stop doing that.

Thanks again for your question.

Pastor John

December 14, 2005

Hi, Pastor John,

I recently re-read an old e-mail you wrote to another college student about interracial marriage. I read through it, and what you say makes sense. I'm curious, though, on how anyone really knows whom they're supposed to marry. I've been interested in that for the longest time now, and I realize that there is no couple around me I feel I can look to for example. Even the seemingly successful couples I can think of have some kind of "defect" (e.g., the kids are in trouble a lot, or the wife has undue control over her husband). When I say successful, I mean those who have been married the longest and would seem happy, including a fourth cousin (or something like that) in her sixties who has been married to her white husband for quite some time, I believe.

I understand why Paul would say that it is best not to marry - it seems to me, taking into account "the nature of the flesh", that marriage is "more trouble than it's worth". But how can this be! I've always understood marriage to be the most sacred of human relationships. Isn't it normal to want to grow up and be happily married? When I consider my own personality, it seems that I'm not cut out to ever be in any such relationship - but then I can't fathom life without ever being married, like it will inevitably come naturally upon me someday... given my personality. (This is reminding me of the conversation the prince has with Leonardo da Vinci at the lake in Ever After!

I believe that God has someone out there for every person who is meant to be married... but then I'm thinking, "How does a person know if they're meant to be married? And if God has someone out there for every person meant to be, how is it then that we still choose and may pick unwisely?" Some couples seem just meant to be, like when they woman, for example, says she knew from the moment they met that he was the one. On top of this, I wonder if those feelings are often deceiving, or just coincidence.

Anyway, I think my question is on marriage itself, as a whole, and not so much on me. Whatever the situation, I know God is meaning for me to be "trained", and to learn something from it. ...Hopefully this e-mail doesn't come across strangely; I have a tendency toward openness that seems out of place sometimes.

love,

Hi BJ:

My father, who was born in 1901, told me when I was a young man in the 1970's that young people of his generation, and before them, often could tell who they were to marry when they first met, but that a generation such as mine, a very immoral one, could not do that. When young people commit fornication, it warps their spirit and their perceptive abilities. I have talked about all this to some young people in years past, and a few just shook their heads as if to suggest that they could know who God intended to be your mate when you first meet him or her is a fantasy from some romance novel. But it is not.

Sister Dell Lancaster, an old saint in the Lord who was born in the late 1800's and is now gone to be with Jesus, told me years ago that when she was a young girl, she saw a young man's handwriting and knew that whoever he was, he was the man whom she would marry. When she saw the handwriting, she had not even met him yet. They soon met, married, and had four children.

There are many blessings available from God for any generation that has respect for His commandments, whether or not that generation is taught proper Biblical doctrine. God blesses the respect that anyone shows His Son; that is how much He loves Jesus. That is also the reason that this country, and Western Culture in general, has made such incredible medical, technological, and philosophic advances over the centuries. It has not been that whites are intrinsically better than blacks or reds; rather, it is that Western countries are historically the countries where the name of Jesus has been proclaimed and honored, and in response, God has poured out blessings that are staggering to consider, even if the gospel has been abused and misused for some men's personal gain at times.

What I am telling you is that you should just make up your mind to go with God and trust Him to let you know who you are to marry and when. You may not do as Sister Dell did and know from a mere signature whom you will marry (that kind of thing certainly did not happen to everyone), but if you live the way God commands us to live, you will be kept from making big mistakes. And in a pampered, self-indulgent, and immoral generation such as this one, a young person who does not make big mistakes has been very, very blessed by God.

Keep yourself pure, and God will keep you safe.

Pastor John

Heya,

For someone "just now catching up" on his email, your reply was quite speedy enough. Thanks.

I feel relief from reading this email, and actually in just mentioning the questions to you. God has been relieving me of many questions lately, actually, by showing me what kind of person I am. For instance, I really like people - so I've been interested in things like anthropology and language, though not politics (ugh) or really medicine. Maybe that's why I've been so curiously thinking about love and marriage so much for the past couple years. Anyway, you are definitely right: It is much easier to trust your feelings when you're confident that you have no ulterior intentions! God can fix whatever mistakes you may make in that case.

December 14, 2005

Hi John,

This past Sunday, my family, the Durhams and the Meeks got together and read I Cor. 13, your recently translated version. It took about two hours to read that one chapter because of the great discussion and thoughts from everyone about love -- what it is and what it is not.

I have a question about verse 5. “Love is not irritable, nor does it keep account of wrong.” We know that God is love and that the things described in this chapter reflect who God is. I was wondering about the part of the above verse that says, “love does not keep account of wrongs”.

Does this mean holding grudges or storing wrongs to be used later to get back at someone? That would be the obvious meaning.

The King James version translates it differently.

Thanks for all the effort that you and others put into these translations. My family and I have enjoyed reading them together.

Tom

Hi Tom,

My translation of 1Corinthians 13:5 is pretty close to what the KJV has, but the verb there implies more than the generic idea of "thinking". The KJV says, "thinketh no evil", but the meaning is more precise than that. It is a "reckoning to" or "holding accountable for". The love of God does not hold things against people because God is for people, not against them. God never uses people's past errors to put them down and lift Himself up. He gives people a chance. He is ready to forgive. He overlooks wrongs in hope of sharing peace. That is the holy attitude that Paul is trying to describe in Chapter 13.

I am glad that you are enjoying the translation. Feel free to send me any other questions or comments that may come up as you continue to read it.

Pastor John

December 13, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

Doris and Lou and I had a conversation and we need some help. The only thing we think we are sure about is that we are sheep when we receive the holy Ghost. What is a person called from the time their name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life until they are born again? When is a person a lost sheep? And is a sheep ever a goat?

Thank you,

Bro Randell

Hi Randell:

A sheep is a sheep, no matter whether they have been born again or not. Jesus said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold" (Jn. 10). Those other sheep were not born again.

Children of God are lost sheep whenever they are not in the fold, whether they have never been in the fold or have wandered away. And a sheep is never a goat, but if a sheep acts like a goat, he will receive a goat's reward.

Not a baaaaad question.

Pastor John

December 13, 2005

Hi pastor John,

I have a question on Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the mist of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." What does this verse mean? How is a serpent wise? I have been thinking about this verse since you sent out the TFE on the serpent that John David shot and how it reacted to being shot, just striking violently into the air. But how could a serpent be wise?

On the way to work today I was praying and thinking about this verse, and I had some thoughts on the serpent, how that they have devices to trap their prey and sneak around unnoticed sometimes by their prey, and before they know it they are bitten and caught by the serpent. Does it mean that we are aware of the serpent's devices and know what he uses to trap his prey, and are wise in knowing how he works so that we can stay out of his traps? And by being harmless as doves, we do not use the serpent’s devices to get what we want?

Thanks.

Stuart

Hi Stuart.

I just heard your testimony from this past Saturday night's meeting in Louisville, and it was out of this world. (Of course, every testimony that is worth anything is from out of this world.) Thank you for that. It really blessed me and made me want to draw closer still to God. So far, I have also heard some of the singing and Sister Ruth's testimony, which also was out of this world. I expect that the rest of the meeting was also out of this world, and that is why I want to finish hearing it!

Now, as for your question: The craftiness of a serpent is principally found in its ability to get where it is going without being noticed. This refers to Satan's ability to do his damage without being noticed. Slander is his chief method of obtaining influence among the saints. It works almost all the time. The harmlessness of a dove refers to its nature, which is not to attack anyone for any reason. It represents true faith, which reacts with kindness when it is done wrong. It prays for those who abuse it, and returns a favor for an evil deed done to it because it always trusts in God to determine what will happen next.

Take care. Again, I am thankful to God for giving you that testimony, and I thank you for passing it on to the rest of us.

Pastor John

December 12, 2005

John,

Is it okay to pray to be made good soil, or are we just what we are no matter what we pray?

Thanks,

Dear JB:

Go ahead and pray to be made good soil, but remember that in order to make some soils good, farmers sometimes have to use a lot of manure.

jdc

December 6, 2005

Pastor John:

I have a question regarding the TFE 12-04, called "Pressure". I understand what is being said, but is there a right and wrong way of saying or doing things "for the Lord"? Can't you also kill someone (spiritually) with words or actions, doing what you think is the will of God?

Phil N.

Hi Phil:

Yes, but that is a topic for separate TFE. I didn't want to add that information to this one. In this TFE, I wanted to stick to the one point I was making. To discuss such people as suicide bombers, for example, who think they are doing God a service by killing others was too much of another issue to get into.

Pastor John

December 6, 2005

Dear sir:

Please take a minute to explain what appears to be a real contradiction.

In your opening statement explaining your web site, you refer to yourselves as "Non-Christian followers of Christ". How can this be?

Thank you.

Bob Dinges

Hi Bob:

Thanks for writing.

By the phrase, "non-Christian", we do not neccessarily mean that we are "anti-Christians". We mean only that we do not subscribe to the religion of Christianity any more than we do the religion of Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam. We can recognize and acknowledge what good elements there may be in any of those religious systems, but the way of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is in none of them. We could as well call ourselves "non-Hindu servants of Jesus" or "non-Muslim servants of Jesus" , but then, that would only be expected. God's children desperately need to know that the religion of Christianity, while sometimes offering good words about one of the Christian Jesuses, despises the real Jesus, and that the real Jesus despises the religion of Christianity. That is why Jesus is calling his people to "Come out of her!" I hope you have heard that call.

You can find more inforrmation about this "non-Christian" issue at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/why.htm

If you still have any questions after reading this very short article on "Why I Am Not A Christian", please feel free to contact me again.

Pastor John

December 3, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I have been thinking a lot about the net mail you passed on recently from “Tim”. He wrote about preaching to people and how God hates it when we preach at people and it is the wrong time and how that is slapping Him in the face when we do that (and I suppose he also hates when we don’t do it in love). I must have deleted that one already, but I wish I didn’t. I really loved that e-mail. Not sure why, but I think it really meant something to me. I guess it is important to only preach when the spirit tells us to or something. When we go doing things off our own bat and when it is the wrong time it can do more harm than good maybe. Anyway, I really liked it.

Do you think that is right? (my interpretation I mean) I am kind of getting the idea that everything we do is supposed to be by the holy spirit. (i.e. when I get it!)

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

You have it exactly right. Without being led by the Spirit of God, it is sin to so much as tell someone that Jesus is Lord. Nothing but the will of God is righteousness, and if God wants us quiet, then it is sin to speak -- no matter what we say. Only Goid's will is right! If God's will is that we die, it is sin to remain alive. Everything that is done solely in the will of man or in the will of the flesh, apart from the approval of God, is sin. Everything.

Pastor John

December 2, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

Do you know much about numerology? I want to know what u think of it. I can describe it if u like.

My landlady, who lives up in the house (I've got the studio down the back) does it. She has quite fame around here for her accuracy and talent. People sometimes come by to have it done, so you see, I am faced with it quite a lot. - I spend a bit of time up in the house.

As much as I don't like it, I am forced to admit its accuracy. I would have to deny that her interpretations of people could be anyone, as people would often say. Eg she was able to describe features of my brother which are unique to him and actually, to no-one else that I know.

I don't know how to perceive this rightly and I'd like to know your thoughts on it. Is it witchcraft?

I don't think she would think that! She doesn't have a broomstick and she doesn't do anything by the soltices or mid summers eve!!! I cook in her kitchen and there are no cauldrens!!! Actually there is lots of frogs in the pond! Hmmm.... But she doesn't even believe the devil exists, but this doesn't mean the devil isn't using her. And what does a witch look like anyway???

Also, she doesn't do anything futuristic. This is all she does. She doesn't do anything else.

I have let her "do my numbers". Could that bring about a curse? I know people at church would say I would need to be prayed over and have the curse removed. I've never wondered about that. Do I need that now?!

Hi JH:

She won't curse you, and she can't, but God might curse you if you keep playing around with demonic spirits. The fact that this woman gets some things right is only more of a reason to avoid her sorcery. There is no need for you to "feel forced to admit her accuracy"; such things are both real and really evil whether you admit it or not. Your landlady apparently has become familiar with an evil spirit that reveals some things to her. She sounds like the little slave girl in Acts who brought her masters much gain by accurately predicting the future. When Paul cast that demon out of her, she was rendered useless to her master, and Paul ended up in jail. Happy, but in jail.

Whether or not your landlady thinks that what she does is witchcraft is not relevant. Only what God thinks counts. Neither is it relevant as to whether or not witches, wizards, sorcerers, necromancers, and the like, are beautiful and talented. God demanded their executions in the OT, without consideration of their physical and mental properties, and they will be damned in the final judgment, lovely and talented or not.

This numerology thing is not of God. Jesus did not die for that. Stay away from it unless you have a death wish.

Pastor John

PS You don't need anyone to "do your numbers", JH; you already know what they are. They are "ONE body, ONE Spirit, ONE hope, ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God." Keep it simple and stay safe.

Okay, thanks. I thought as much. To be honest I dunno why I asked! I guess I had wondered if it was just nothing, or if there was something in it i.e. demonic spirits. My assumption was that it was demonic. I will stay away from it and really i will be glad to, and I dunno why I stayed around with it before anyway.

Since I see her do it a lot, I wonder what i should say if she asks why i avoid it. She does it quite a lot really and my avoidance would be noticed eventually. Should I warn her against it? Or leave her to it? I would do that (warn her) out of compassion, because I would hate to think of the judgement this will bring for her. Whether or not she would listen is another thing.

Dear JH:

Whether she would listen to you or not is not a consideration. The only thing that matters is what Jesus wants you to do. And for that, of course, you will have to hear from him.

Pastor John

Hi,

Well yes, I should do what I hear God tell me to do as we discussed in the other emails! Right now I hear nothing, so I will say nothing.

I like that you point out that her response would not be of matter, rather whether God tells me to say something or not. I see that what accompanies this is that obedience is obedience when it is prompt and exact, so if God did tell me to say something to her (which as far as I know, he has not) her response does not enter into the equation, I should say what he tells me to say.

A while ago I had prepared some numbers I wanted her to interpret for me as I had wanted to test her, but I will just leave it all alone and throw it away. I don't want anything to do with it. I was a fool to pay any attention to it to begin with and I regret being such a fool now. If I were honest, I would say I knew where it came from to begin with (really). It's funny how sometimes you get lead yourself off on all manner of tangents and carry on with nonsense. I need help to orient myself each day to the right direction.

Take care,

Jenny

November 29, 2005

Pastor John,

Lee Ann asked a good question this morning, one that I wasn’t sure I could answer. Before the Law, could men be forgiven? I didn’t think that they were held accountable, or judged, even though sin was in the world, but then when they died, where did they go?

Mark

Hi Mark:

You are right; that is a good question. Peter calls those people who lived and died in Noah's time, which was the time before the Law of Moses was given, "the spirits in prison" (1Pet. 3:19-20). They were the people to whom Jesus preached after he died on the cross and descended into the "heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40). Jesus was working even after he died! He stayed busy those three days.

The people who lived under the Law, Jesus said, would be judged by Moses. Those people had a written standard by which they could be justly condemned or exonerated. But those who lived before the Law of God was given had no such standard by which they could be judged, and it seems as if they were put in a special places in Hades until the Savior came to them and preached.

Now, Mark, Abraham was in that class of people, and yet we see him in Paradise in Jesus' parable of the rich man and the beggar. So, we must consider that fact when forming an opinion about this issue. The "spirits in prison" obviously were not necessarily in a "no man's land" if Abraham, the friend of God, was in the Paradise side of Hades.

Finally, Paul said that when Jesus ascended into heaven, he "led captivity captive" (Eph. 4). This means at least that Jesus transferred the Paradise portion of Hades out of the heart of the earth to heaven when he ascended, so that now when saints die, they are "with the Lord" who, we know, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father. This means that nothing is left in Hades in the heart of the earth except the torment portion of it.

That is all the information I can come up with right now, and I think that gives you a pretty decent summary of all that the Bible has to say on the matter.

Pastor John

November 28, 2005

John:

Concerning your 11-22 TFE on "His Sanctified Ones", in the last paragraph .... didn’t God sanctify nations for His purposes at times - such as what God did for Babylon, or for the Assyrians (in sanctifying Babylon to destroy Judah, and Assyria to destroy Israel)? I was wondering if God perhaps DID sanctify the Medes in a sense, to destroy that nation that destroyed HIS nation and was lifted up with pride to drink out of the holy vessels, etc. (Babylon). The Medes and their king did do some kind things to Israel along the way (story of Esther) - so I was wondering if it might be possible that God did for them what He did for Nebuchadnezzar and for the king of Assyria when they repented and actually did sanctify them for His purposes.

Gary

Gary:

From the basic Hebrew-English dictionary (BDB Gesenius), we learn that the root meaning of the Hebrew word from which "sanctify" originates is "separateness", or "withdrawal". As a noun, its fundamental sense is "apartness, sacredness, holiness", and as a verb its sense is "to be set apart" or "consecrated". I looked for any reference to God sanctifying anything or anyone outside of His people and covenant, and even then found none, but when I decided to look for every use of the Hebrew word that is translated "sanctify" or "make holy", I was able to find several places where that word was used in reference to the heathen nations, mostly in Jeremiah's prophecies.

In Jeremiah 22, God is warning His own people that He will punish them for their unfaithfulness to Him by sending a foreign power to overthrow the nation. He said (Jer 22:7) that he would "prepare destroyers against you". That word, "prepare", is the from the Hebrew word for "sanctify" and that Hebrew word is almost always translated as "sanctify" or something equivalent to that, probably 99% of the time in fact. On other occasions, speaking of war decreed by God against Babylon, we find the same thing (Jer. 51:27, 28); to wit, God was "preparing" the enemies of Babylon to come against it. (Now, this is real "holy war", when the Creator anoints nations to attack another nation.) Finally, in Jeremiah 12:3, the persecuted prophet pleads with God to "prepare" certain people among the Jews for slaughter! How would it feel to be chosen and anointed by God for death! The prophets Joel (3:9) and Micah (3:5) also uses the word for "sanctify" in the sense of "preparing" nations for war. In Joel's case, it is in reference to preparing wicked nations for the final apocalyptic battle of Harmageddon that is mentioned in Revelation. Zephaniah 1:7 is a very interesting usage of this word. There, Zephaniah is speaking of Harmageddon, too, and the prophet says that God has "bid" his guests to the sacrifice (cp. Ezek. 39:17-22; Rev. 19:17-18). So, Zephaniah uses the word for "to sanctify" to mean "invite"!

So, yes, that word can be used in reference to God's work among the ungodly, but never is it used in a good sense when speaking of them. On the other hand, what a blessed and desirable thing it is to be "sanctified" by God because he loves you and has chosen you to salvation!

jdc

Hey,

Thanks for the research. So are you saying that when Babylon was chosen by God to destroy Judah (because Nebudchadnezzar was humbled), or when Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah and was later used by God to destroy Israel, that was an anointing, but not for good? Or was that not an anointing at all?

Gary

Hi Gary:

Oh yes, that was an anointing. That anointing certainly did not turn out to be good for God's people because they suffered God's wrath. And God also later punished Assyria, and later Babylon, for being so brutal against His people. So, being anointed did not mean that they were exempt from wrath for doing what they were sent to do.

The Scriptures I discussed last time had to do specifically with the word for "sanctify", not anointing. I know those two things are related, but they are not the same. That God would "sanctify" the heathen is much less expected than that He would anoint them for a particular task.

Pastor John

Ah yes - that is good. There IS a difference between sanctification and anointing... and that is where I was getting confused. What I was thinking was that both of these nations were "anointed"... not sanctified.

Thanks.

Gary

November 24, 2005

Hello Pastor John,

I just have to ask you about the unforgivable sin. In some e-mails to me you have exhorted me to not worry about that as I have not come to know Jesus well enough to commit it. Well you know, I wasn't worried about it really, - I think I had just asked about it for interest sake! But guess what? Now I have become worried about it!!! Madness! It's funny how the mind works.

So, anyway, there was an event in my past. I was in a REEEALLY bad way in every way possible at the time. I was in great distress about some things that were happening at the time and I didn't have the maturity to handle the situation. Everything came on top of me and I was swamped by life. I know at the time though, that I said some bad things against God - very bad, and bad things against a lot of people. I said these things to unbelievers. I hate what I said, and that just would not be said by me now. I don't even know why I said it. (Well I wonder if there was not some demonic intervention there). Anyway, I had worried at the time that I may have comitted the "unforgivable sin". I wish I could turn back time and undo everything. I often think now that that event was a very significant event in my life. It did a lot of harm, especially to me. Yet, maybe it is bigger in my mind than it really is.

So, anyway, is it possible that I have committed the unforgivable sin? I know you say I have not known Jesus well enough to have done so (have I not known him at all these 12 years in Xty?). I want to be useful. I want to be in a good place with God.

Anyway, what do you have to say? Do you hear God saying anything in particular? Take care and thanks so much for all your help.

Dear JH:

Paul himself said some pretty bad things about Jesus before he met the Lord on the road to Damascus. He told Timothy that before he (Paul) came to Christ, he was "a blasphemer" (1Tim. 1:13), so we know that the kind of blasphemy that one commits before coming to the Lord is forgivable because Paul "obtained mercy", and he obtained mercy "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." Remember, Jesus said that men could be forgiven for speaking blasphemous things about him and his Father. Paul found out that was true. If, however, Paul had said the same evil things about Jesus and the Spirit after he had come to know him and after he had been anointed with God's power and wisdom, Paul might have received a different response from God when he tried to repent. In that case, it would have been willful sin on his part rather than sin through ignorance of the truth of Christ.

No, you have not known the real Jesus at all during your 12 years in Xty. How could you, if it is the Spirit that will "guide you into all truth"? You have done as we all do before we find the truth, and as Paul described in Acts 17, you have "felt your away" after God as if in thick darkness, being drawn along by your feelings of hurt and need and by God's feelings of love, not by any real knowledge of God. Typical Christian belief in Jesus is on the same level as believing your history books in school. There is no personal experience expected or required. This is where we all begin, but it is not saving faith. It is faith in the things we are told by others.

So, again, my friend, you have not committed the unpardonable sin. Only people who have received the holy Ghost baptism and "have been enlightened" and "have tasted of the powers of the world to come" have the power to do that (Heb. 6). You can still repent and trust God to forgive you.

Pastor John

Hi,

O okay. Thanks so much. That is encouraging. That makes me happy and relieved.

Anyway, you say I didn't know Christ in all those 12 years! I believe you, and in a way I think that is great because when I do come to know him, truthfully, then I think it will we be wonderful, because, to be frank, those 12 years weren't exactly the best. The thought of knowing him truthfully brings excited and hopeful anticipation. But, I just find it hard to realise that I didn't know him at all in those 12 years! That just really gets me! In a way that's a relief, but I'm a bit stunned. On the surface, I thought I did already know him, but I guess I knew I didn't deep down. I can think of many times, where I called out to God, saying "I don't really know you, help me" - especially closer to the time when I came across your web site. And why would I have kept searching otherwise (as I had)?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I can see that I didn't know him.

I like your reference to what Paul says in Acts 17. Yes, I see it and can identify with it. I have a vision (not from God - it's just imagery in my head) of the same thing, and mine is of me trying to climb a cliff face, where I just had to grasp each new bit of rock, bit by bit up the cliff face.

I know I have come to the truth now. I know it! Praise God, for his wonderful mercy. And praise God and thank you for speaking the truth.

Take care, and thanks very much for your help in the matter. Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. Or do you [in America] say "happy thanksgiving"??

PS One more thing about the unforgivable sin... well, I just think I did know better [than to say those things about God that I once said]. Although I may not have known God, I still think I thought I knew better. I recall knowing I shouldn't have been saying those things, but I still did it. I don't know why I did, but I just did.

Anyway, I dunno. It seems, it was a blatant sin, by virtue of that fact that thought I knew better. What do ya think?

Dear JH:

I think that everybody on earth knows better than to sin, but we don't have the strength to resist it. Paul said that "when we were without strength, Christ died" for us. Look at Paul's description of his life without the Spirit in Romans 7. Pretty sad, wanting to do right and continually failing. Reading chapter 8, a description of Paul's life after he received the holy Ghost, after reading the hopeless "doom and gloom" of chapter 7 is so refreshing!

Pastor John

November 21, 2005

Hey John,

I have a question about "they will speak with new tongues", in Mark 16:17. Is Jesus speaking of spiritual gifts or praying in tongues once a person is born again? Also, you and brother Earl have preached before that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. Paul states this in 1Cor.14:22 in the context of spiritual gifts. Are tongues a sign for unbelievers no matter how they are used? I hope I have made myself clear. Thanks.

Jim K

Hey Jim:

Yes, tongues are for a sign for unbelievers no matter how they are used.

I know that in 1Corinthians 14, in the KJV, the word "gifts" is mentioned several times, but in verse 22, Paul is referring only to the prophecy of Isaiah 28, which does not speak of the "gift of diverse tongues" but simply of the sign of the new covenant, the Spirit's testimony. The "other tongues and stammering lips" of Isaiah 28 is what Paul states is "a sign to unbelievers". All believers are given that sign for the sake of others.

As far as Mark 16 goes, that reference is to "new tongues", which could refer to languages that are new to us personally or that are new to earth (that is, "tongues of angels"), so it would encompass both the gift of speaking in diverse languages as part of ministering to others and praising God or praying in a language unknown to us and edifying only ourselves.

jdc

November 21, 2005

Wow, Pastor John.

Is it a bad habit, per se, to use the expression "God forbid" in normal conversation? I have a habit of using it sometimes, in a rather sarcastic way ("cuz God forbid she actually hold the door for someone"). I don't make a habit of lightly saying, for example, "Oh, my God!" though I might say "dear God" if something is shocking or frightening. So...?

Hi BJ:

Oh, I suppose saying that is OK. But I know why you would question it. It isn't the kind of phrase that I use because it just doesn't feel perfect; at the same time, it is not the kind of thing that I would condemn someone else for doing. As always, it is a matter of the heart, and many a good person says "God forbid" with no intent of evil at all. I may even do it on rare occasions myself if I really feel strongly about something. Did you know that in the OT, in Isaiah, God condemned over-religious people in Israel for making some one out to be a transgressor "for a word"!! I don't want to do that to anyone.

Pastor John

October 26, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

This is just the topic I have started working on the other night. It's my nature to be thorough, so I looked up all the verses on "salvation" and "saved". (not finished - big job). I've searched most of them and there is a few which just seem so conclusive:

Hebrews 9 v 28; "so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him".

1 Peter 1 v 5; "... who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time".

Revelation 12 v 10; "Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: 'Now have come salvation and the power of our God...'".

But what about where it says in some places that "and it is through grace that you have been saved"? And, Acts 2 v 47 " ...added daily those who were being saved". Are these examples of false interpretors - seeing what they want to see, or is there another explanation?

"Salvation" in the Scriptures can refer to several different things. It can refer to being healed, either naturally or spiritually. It can refer to being rescued from natural or spiritual harm or danger. It can refer to being kept safe (at the present time) from natural or spiritual trouble or danger. And it also refers to, as it does about 70% of the time in the NT after the day of Pentecost, the future glorification of faithful saints with Christ. Sometimes, even according to BDAG (the standard Greek-English Dictionary), it can also refer to a combination of those meanings at once.

The verb "saved" in Ephesians 2:8 can rightly be translated, as your version of the Bible does it ("it is through grace that you have been saved") or as the King James Version does: "by grace you are saved". The verb here is in the "present perfect" tense, which suggests an event completed in the past that has resulted in an on-going, present condition. Many times, according to my Greek grammar, the emphasis of the present perfect tense is on the present condition rather than the past event.

The best example of this construction is the familiar biblical phrase, "It is written", which could just as easily be translated "it has been written." This is the present perfect tense, signifiying that it was written in the past, and it still is written just as it was then.

So, the word "saved" in Ephesians 2:8 can be used as "rescued from sin" (and you are still being rescued), but it clearly means, in the context of this part of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, more than simply that. Paul's point in this section of Scripture is to remind the Gentile believers in Ephesus that the ceremonies of Moses' Law played no part in their being cleansed from sin. Paul was reminding these Gentile converts that it was by the grace of God alone (and their response to it) that they became children of God by Jesus Christ. Paul was emphasizing their present means of being saved rather than their past experience of God's grace because his goal was to persuade them to continue in the grace of God (alone) rather than to add ceremonies of the Law to it, and not merely to boast of having been touched by God's grace in the past.

In my opinion, to translate Ephesians 2:8 as "you have been saved" is the result of being influenced by the pesent day "get saved" mainia that has swept Christians off their spiritual feet, a phenomenon that began in the early twentieth century and then mushroomed into an overwhelming windstorm, against which hardly any of God's children have been able to stand.

As to your second Scripture reference, "those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47), this refers to those who have responded in faith to the grace of God and are in the salvation process. Approximately 25-30% of the time after the New Covenant began in Acts 2, "saved" or one of its forms is used in this present sense (e. g. 1Cor. 1:18), with the meaning being "preserved", or "kept from committing sin".

And I will add this note. It is extremely rare for "saved" to be used in a purely past tense, as Christians almost always use it now (as in the Christian cliche', "I got saved.") At the moment, I can think of only one case of that kind of usage of "saved" (Tit. 3:5).

I don't recall a single instance in the New Testament of the word "saved" being used to mean "born again".

I've only just begun checking it all out so any input would be appreciated.

Oh, also, many of the verses in the OT speak of salvation as something that they had gotten, but clearly they didn't. How do I explain that (to myself)? Zecheriah said "Now my eyes have seen your salvation" when he visited Jesus as a new born baby -although the saving work had not been done yet. So, obviously people in the OT spoke of 'salvation' as a 'concept', a work of God they were looking forward to and which they would share in if they were faithful to the end? - Some of David's last words were: 2 Samuel 23 v 5; "Is not my house right with God...Will He not bring to fruition my salvation?" It seems this is our position also? I found most of the OT verses weren't direct about their stance before God though; 1 Chronicles 16 v 23 "... proclaim His salvation day after day". What way would you explain it?

Jesus is our salvation. When that old prophet saw the child Jesus, he was seeing God's salvation for His people. God's salvation came to the Jews because they were the offspring of Abraham, thus fulfilling the promise made to the fathers. But simply having Jesus walk around among the Jews didn't mean that all the Jews were saved. Most of them did not receive their salvation. Their salvation was nailed to a cross because most of them rejected him.

Remember also that when Jesus came to the publican Zachaeus' house, he said, "This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." Many Christians quote that Scripture to show that Zachaeus "got saved that day". But Jesus is only giving the reason why he came to a publican's house; to wit, that Zachaeus was a descendant of Abraham. When Jesus departed from Zachaeus' house, the salvation of Israel departed from that house.

To be in Jesus' personal presence is salvation for us, and that is why we look for him to come. We desire to see the salvation of the Lord.

But if one is speaking of God rescuing him from an enemy (as in Exodus 14:13) or healing him of some disease or delivering him from some trouble or danger, he could rightly speak of being saved from his enemies, or being saved from a disease, or being saved from trouble, and this is how we often find "salvation" used in the Old Testament and in the Gospels (which events were in OT time). Especially do we find this usage of "saved" in the Psalms of David.

How about folk's in the NT: 1 Peter 1 v 9; "for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls". And Jude 3; "about the salvation we share".

Good grief! "You are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls" is a bizarre translation, one of those that could only be made by a Christian who is a victim of "getting saved". Peter intended no such thing by what he wrote. He is talking about our hope for the future return of Jesus to save us, not to the believer's present spiritual condition. What translation are you using?

"The salvation we share" in Jude 3 refers to the day-by-day experience of being kept from sinning by God's power within us (see 1Pet. 1:3-5). Without being kept from committing sin by the power of God (as referred to in 1Cor. 1:18), there is no sharing of salvation. Those who are sinning are not being saved; they are being lost.

These are just examples of verses I have been wondering about. Has anyone done a comprehensive work on all the verses about salvation?

Jenny

Have you heard the series on "What Must I Do To Be Saved?" It covers just about all the bases on this issue.

Pastor John

October 26, 2005

Hi John,

I was reading I Peter 3 today and had a question about verse 20. The last part of that verse says, “…wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water.”

It seems that it should say that eight souls were saved from water since water is what the ark saved them from. By saying “by water” instead of "from water", verse 21 could be misinterpreted to mean that water baptism is the “like figure” referred to in that verse. Or, "by water we are saved now." I always thought that the “like figure” referred to was the ark which represented the holy Ghost. I know that we are saved now by the “washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost”.

What is the correct meaning of this verse?

The thing that destroyed the world also saved Noah from the world. It was water that parted the righteous from the unrighteous. Afterwards, God set a rainbow in the sky as a sign of His promise that He would never again destroy the world with a flood. The next time He destroys the earth, it will be with fire. At that time, one will be able to say that by fire we will be saved (from having to deal with wickedness any more). Fire will part the righteous from the wicked, just as water did in Noah's day. In the Flood, the wicked were doomed to be in the water that destroyed the earth, and in the Day of God's wrath, the wicked will be damned to suffer the vengeance of the fire that will destroy the earth. Paul told the Corinthians (end of chapter 11) to walk uprightly or they might be condemned along with the world; that is, to share in the world's same destruction by fire.

We pray for the fire of God's judgment to come because we have confidence that he will save us by using it to destroy all that is evil and polluted. So, Tom, the water of the flood is a "figure" of the "fire" or wrath of God's Spirit that will destroy this world. The water was God's means of judgment upon sinners then; the power of the holy Ghost will be God's means of judgment the next time it comes.

One more thought about verse 20. It says that, “God waited (to destroy the earth)…while the ark was preparing”. Wow, God waited patiently for Noah to build (prepare) the ark that would save him from God’s wrath. God could have spoken an ark into existence and spared Noah and his family a lot of work. I have to assume that the work and effort Noah put into building the ark was for his good, not God’s. Is it not the same for us today? The work and effort we put into doing what pleases Him builds our spiritual bank account that will help save us from God’s wrath in the end. I am thankful that God still waits while we are given the opportunity to prepare.

Tom

Amen, Tom! Excellent point. God could do it all instantly, but He gives us time to share in His glory. May we have the grace and wisdom to take advantage of that!

jdc

October 21, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

If God knows every thing that is going to happen, then how can someone change God’s mind when God is always right?

Joel

Hi Joel:

Good question! I have thought about this often, especially when I read such stories as Moses begging God not to destroy Israel after God told Moses that He was going to do that. I have thought, "Did God really change His mind, or was He just testing Moses?" I don't know that anyone can say absolutely one way or the other which is the right answer, but I think that this is probably the best answer for that question: God wants to show us the way to live so that we can be happy. In order for us to be happy, we have to be willing to change, and so, God "changes His mind" sometimes in the Bible, or lets us think so, so that we can have His wonderful example of humility as an example for us.

There is another truth that is associated with this question, too. Do you remember the story of Balaam in Numbers 22-24? God told Balaam what to do to be safe and happy, but Balaam wanted to do something else instead. So, God told Balaam to go ahead and do things his own way. This is not a case of God changing His mind. He always knew what was right for Balaam to do. But God did not force Balaam to do what was right. He doesn't force anyone to do what is right. And if people keep on asking for their own wrong ways, God will give in and say, "OK. Go ahead and do it your way." But those people always end up being sorry they didn't do what God said, as Balaam ended up sorry that he did not do what God had first told him.

This is why we want always to do what God says the first time instead of resisting His will until He turns us over to another way. We want to be safe and happy.

Thank you for the question. I hope my answers have helped clear things up for you.

Pastor John

October 19, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

Thank you for giving light on the subject of salvation. Some believe, as I once did, in "eternal security" just by professing that they believe in Christ. They quote John 3:15-16 and John 10:28-29. Please provide an explanation on why these two verses cannot possibly mean that one is saved before Jesus comes back to grant us salvation.

John 10:28-29 tells us that no one is able to sneak past God and take us out of His mighty hand. But it does not say that we cannot jump out of His hand or that He will never cast out stubborn and rebellious children. Paul certainly feared that he might be a "castaway" if he did not live up to his own preaching (1Cor. 9:27 KJV).

So many, I hear, are contending they are saved by grace yet continue to lead sinful lives. Thank you both for teaching me to see that salvation is only for those who not only say they believe in Jesus but are also willing to continue in His word. I have thought of summing up my thoughts on the matter by just saying to my Christian friends these words: "But what did Jesus say?"

Your thoughts on the matter will be appreciated.

Your non-Christian sister in Christ,

Sharon Hughes

Dear Sharon:

Every person who is being saved by faith in the grace of God is being taught by the Spirit to live a godly and sober life right now (Tuit. 2:11-12). No one living in sin is being saved. They are being lost.

Pastor John

October 19, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

Reading Sharon's question and your response concerning the issue of salvation reminded me of one of the things my wife's pastor said the last time he visited. He said that the Judgment Day to the saints is a day of reward and not a day to determine if they will be saved or not because to him, they are already saved. Is there any element of truth in what he has said?

Bro. J.O.E.

JOE:

The saints who are judged to be worthy of salvation will certainly be given rewards that differ according to each one's ability and efforts. But if your wife's pastor is suggesting that all of God's children (the ones who have truly been born again) will be saved regardless of their deeds in this life, he is teaching a false doctrine that is typical of certain segments of the Christian community.

I have written many articles that cover this issue and will not repeat their content here. However, to respond to your question, yes, there is an element of truth in what he is saying, but it can be misleading if the one who teaches that doctrine fails to also point out the fact that the difference of rewards applies only to those saints who are counted worthy of being in the first resurrection, not to the saints who are rejected by Jesus when he appears to catch his people up to him. Those children of God will be disinherited and "given their portion with the hypocrites and sinners" after the second resurrection--the resurrection of the damned.

Pastor John

October 17, 2005

Pastor John,

I have a question on the word "savior". I've heard it used - for example, in works using older forms of English - a bit more generally than in its meaning, "Jesus Christ". I don't think I'd go throwing around the word "savior" in reference to people, but are people altogether wrong when they use it as a non-religious word? Are they ever right using it as a non-religious word? You know how people might say, "Oh, he was a guitar god, the savior of rock 'n' roll" and things like that.

Thanks again,

Hi BJ:

Well, whoever is the savior of hard rock music deserves to be flogged to death. But aside from that . . .

The word "savior" is a common word, and it can rightly be applied to anyone who saves or rescues anything from a demise of any sort. It basically means a rescuer. All saviors who come from this planet are saviors only in a narrow sense. One can save another man from drowning; a fireman can save a child from dying in a burning building; an accountant can save a company from bankruptcy; a baseball player can make a game-saving catch, etc.

Only Jesus can save in a way that applies to everyone everywhere. Only he has the stature and might to be able to save every living person from eternal death. That is the reason -- and it is a a good one -- for capitalizing the word "Savior" when applying that word to him.

Take care,

Pastor John

September 30, 2005

Dear Brother Clark:

In your article "Marriage & Divorce Study Guide" you state:

THE MARRIAGE OF A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST WITH THE EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES, TO A PERSON WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST, IS A SIN!.

I'm curious as to which Scripture upon which you base this premise. Would you be so kind as to provide me a Scripture for this statement?

Blessings,
Melody

Dear Melody:

Paul said that the baptism of the holy Ghost was the new birth (1Cor. 12:3). There is no question about that. Then, all I am saying is that it is sin for a person who is born again to marry someone who is not born again.

Pastor John

and later . . .

Hi Melody.

A reader from Q&A sent in this comment about your question, so I thought I would pass it along to you. Are there any other questions about this in your mind?

Pastor John

From Mark H.:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing…” (2 Cor. 6:14, 17). Marriage is a yoke, so I would think that this scripture could very well apply to a person who has been baptized by Jesus with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. The Lord said it (not to touch the unclean thing). Therefore, yoking yourself to an unbeliever would be disobeying the Lord, and thus a sin. Pretty simple, really, Melody.

Mark H.

September 29, 2005

Pastor John,

Since God can do anything that He pleases, when he created the world and He saw people sinning, why didn't He make them do right?

Jeremiah

Hi Jeremiah:

God wants people to do what is right because they want to do right, not because He makes them do right. That is what your parents and Jesus want for you, too., They want you to grow up to be a good person because you want to do what is good, not because anybody forces you to do good.

Jeremiah, it made God sad when the man and woman He created were tricked by the serpent into doing something bad. That meant that they and all their children would have to die. But God still loved them and sent His Son to make a way for us, even though we still have to die, to still live forever in a happy place with Him. I am glad that you have been called by God to be one of the people who are thankful for what Jesus did for you.

Pastor John

September 29, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I have been reading in 1Corinthians and making notes along the way. I have a question concerning Chpt 7 verse 14. Paul is speaking of people in the congregation being married, unmarried, widowed and in verse 14, he is speaking to couples married; one being a believer, the other an unbeliever. When Paul says:

[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

What does he mean in verse 14? How do they sanctify each other and how do their children become holy? Also, I really have enjoyed reading Paul, and I love they way he distinguishes himself and what the Lord says. "I think I have the Spirit on this". 8-)

Thanks!

Amy P.

Dear Amy,

Verse 14 applies only to those unbelieving husbands and wives who truly are "pleased to dwell with" the believing spouse. If an unbelieving spouse truly is pleased to dwell with the believing spouse, he or she will eventually surrender to Jesus and be sanctified by the holy Ghost. You can read about this matter in detail in the gospel tract, "Marriage and Divorce" at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/tracts/marriage.htm, or in my booklet by the same title at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/books/marriage.htm.

Pastor John

Thanks for answering my question. And, I will check out the links. So, that would mean that when the unbeliever surrenders to Jesus, the parents now are joined together in righteousness, and where their children were unclean before because of the division, they can be shaped to be holy because they have two righteous parents teaching them the way of the Lord. Is that what Paul is saying, kinda sorta?

Amy P.

yes.
jdc

September 28, 2005

Pastor John,

In that verse 1Cor. 7:14, is "is sanctified" present tense or future tense?

Maleah

present, but with a future meaning.

jdc

Pastor John,

It sounds complicated...how did you figure it out?

It isn't complicated at all. It is what I call "holy Ghost common sense". We know that there is no way to be sanctified but by Jesus, and we know that if the unbelieving spouse repents, it will be because he has been "pleased to dwell with" his or her spouse. For Paul to say that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse is the same kind of thing as Paul saying that you are saved by faith. He is not so much saying that it has already happened as he is saying how it will happen if it happens at all.

I think it makes sense that the only way for an unbeliever married to a believer to become sanctified is to become a believer....but that verse doesn't make it sound like that. I'll read your tract to see if there is another place in the bible that clears it up.

Thanks,

Maleah

Part of the problem with the Law was that it could not cover every detail of life. That is the problem with the Bible, too. If Paul had done nothing but write the entire time that he lived on the earth, he could not have written enough words to cover all the questions that people can come up with. There is not a Scripture for every question that people have. The Bible points us to the Answer himself, and then turns us loose.

Pastor John

September 28, 2005

Hey again,

I have another question concerning chapter 12 verse 30. Paul is speaking of spiritual gifts. In Verse 30, Paul is asking questions, one of them is "Do all speak in tongues?" Is Paul referring to the gift of diverse tongues here? I can see how this can be confusing.

It appears to be the case, especially in the context in which we find it. Paul is discussing functions within the body of Christ. Yes, it can be confusing. Only God can help us understand it rightly.

Also, I noticed that Paul listed in 12:28 how God has set each one in the congregation. It looks like God has an order to how everyone is set in the body. When I read this before, I was thinking that he was just giving examples, but it looks as if he is giving the order. Am I seeing that correctly?

Yes, I think so, too. Apostles are clearly at the top of the list as far as authority among the saints goes.

Then, one more thing I have noticed in reading 1Corinthians, especially in this chapter. I love how Paul is settling the issue of envy or strife within the body. He continually says, that there is this gift and that gift, and there are differences of administrations and operations but it is the same God that is working in all. Repeating, it is the same Spirit, the self-same Spirit, for "the body is one and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ." I love that. We all in the body have a "function", but even though there are different functions, we are one body, having all the same goal. I have heard it said from time to time how some feel as if they are not a big part of the body, but it touched me to read how God thinks of the members which are not so "big". He said:

18] But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
22] Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23] And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24] For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: 25] That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26] And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.

That is very touching. God is pleased with our function, whether great or small, because He put us where He wants us to be. We just have to make sure we are functioning! Sometimes we have to go to the "great physician", but that's okay. It just keeps the blood flowing. 8-)

Thanks!

Amy P.

September 28, 2005

Dear Mr. Clark,

I have read your website denouncing Biblical truths and your testimony separating yourself from the “Body of Christ” (the Church). As a believing Christian, I would like to ask you some questions and discuss some Scripture with you, if I may. After all you have made your personal beliefs public by putting them on the Internet. So I assume you are ready to defend your opinions as Biblical, right?

Friend, I would have to be unemployed to have the time to answer all your questions at length, but I will do the best I can in a short space.

First of all, I have never "separated myself from the body of Christ." It would be sinful to even to want to do that. Besides, that is something only God could do. I desire to be with my brothers and sisters everywhere. That is the will of God also. And that is why He is calling His people out of Christianity, the root of all divisions among God's people.

I am ready to defend the faith, but opinions are not worth defending. Plato once said something like, "It is foolish to speak definitely on matters of opinion. So, let's leave opinions out of our correspondence altogether. I don't care for my own opinion, much less anyone else's.

To start, I would like to say that there are those who claim to be Christian, but teach another Gospel other than that taught by Jesus Christ, our blessed God and Saviour (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1), and his chosen apostles/disciples.

I would say that ALL who claim to be Christians "teach another gospel other than that taught by Jesus Christ, our blessed God and Saviour (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1), and his chosen apostles/disciples."

In my opinion, the Gospel is the entire New Testament. This means not only the moral values we are to have with other human beings, but also what is taught about the nature of God. We are to believe everything written in the NT in order to be called Christian (Christian = Saint, Believer).

Oh well, OK. I will agree with your opinion, but only because the Bible says as much in certain verses. :)

In your testimony you state that it was not the will of Christ that Christianity was to exist at all.

Well, that is close to what I said. Xty is not the religion Christ died to create with his blood. But it WAS God's will that Xty came to exist, as a curse upon His people who had forsaken the right way. Kind of the way that Babylonian captivity was a curse to His OT disobedient saints.

You state that it certainly was not Christ’s intention that anyone be called Christian.

Not quite. He just didn't come up with that name for his people; unbelieving men did.

How can you make such statements? What Scripture do you base your opinion on, or is it just your opinion? You do believe what is written at 2 Timothy 3:16-17, don’t you? You are Sola Scriptura, aren’t you?

My goodness, no! Are you?

Act 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. (NET Bible)

We know that the term “Christian” is derived from the name “Christ”. Jesus Christ is the author of our religion and we belong to Him. Scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ was “God come in the flesh” (John 1:1, John 1:14, Philippians 2:5-7) and, therefore, the inspired author of the Word of God in written form. Of course, we have to look at the cultural context to see that the Jews wanted to distinguish those followers of Christ who did not embrace Judaism in any form whatsoever, such as circumcision.

Did God intend that the name “Christian” to have any meaning and significance? I believe that He did. The following Scripture certainly proves it.

1Pe 4:16 But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name. (NET Bible)

All this is thoroughly explained on my web site. The following articles should answer all your questions:

http://www.isaiah58.com/APOSTATEFATHERS.HTM
(The Apostate Fathers of Christianity - book on line)

These will also help:

http://www.isaiah58.com/clark/clark01_08_98.html
(What is a Non-Christian?)

http://www.isaiah58.com/testimonies/john.htm
(Why I am Not a Christian - by John Clark Sr.)

http://www.isaiah58.com/clark/clark08_28_99.html
(Martin Luther, the Midwife - for protestants thinking Christianity is only Catholicism)

Certainly, there is no Scripture prohibiting you from glorifying God in any other name, as long as it has His approval, such as in the name of Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus. We can glorify God in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.. Notice the Trinity here?

No, I missed it.

(notice "in the NAME of", not in the names of), can’t we? We do that when we are baptized according to the explicit command of Christ at Matthew 28:19, don’t we?

Your argument sort of resembles, in some respects, that of the different oneness groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also reject the teaching of the Trinity and the nature of God as taught in Scripture.

There seems to be something right to be found in every Christian cult. I bet there is something right even in yours, such as was in your comment above about the content of "the gospel".

Certainly you are right that the term “Trinity” is not taught in the Bible. But can you find the term “Bible” in the Bible?

Sure. The word ??????? (Bible, or "book") is used throughout the NT. There is no word for "trinity" in the NT because the apostles knew nothing of that doctrine, and neither did the men whom Christians call "the early Church Fathers" (see my on-line book, "The Apostate fathers".)

In your opinion does that mean that the Bible does not exist? Do you call the Bible by any other name?

Now, Donald, you are just being silly now.

May I ask you the following questions? What denomination(s) have you experienced?

None, since I got right with God.

Were all the congregations of the early Christian Church in total agreement on doctrine?

On the matters of most significance, yes, in the beginning. For instance, when a person is born again. They all understood that a person is born again when he receives the holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of the Spirit confessing Christ, speaking in tongues; that is, until the spirit of antichrist arose (the spirit of Xty) and began to inspire men to teach otherwise. (see 1Jn. 4:1-2).

Do the Epistles of Paul reveal total agreement in the early Christian Churches?

Paul never saw a Christian church.

We both know that Christ is the ultimate truth (John 14:6) and that any religion or Church must be 100% based on that fact, which does not change and will never change.

Church religion is the very thing that denies that fact, in its doctrines and worthless ceremonies.

I look forward to hearing from you and learning more about you and why you believe as you do.

In Christ,

Donald Clark

Thanks Donald, for the letter. Please try to understand if I do not have the time to continue with lengthy correspondence in the future. But all of your questions can be answered on my web site. www.PastorJohnsHouse.com

Best wishes for the future.

Pastor John

September 25, 2005

Pastor John,

At the next meeting just after Katrina hit, you mentioned that if we could find a brother down there (Gulf Coast), it would be nice to send him help.

Could you please clarify for me our responsibility to help people who are not in the body of Christ. Verse 40 in Matt: 25 ....of the least of these my brethren. Is brethren here the disciples whom Jesus is speaking to or "brothers" in need?

I have not thought about this before as I have always thought it was good to help anyone in need, within reason. I would think it would only be sinful to help people if the spirit was not in it. Come to think of it, I help many people every day who are not in the body of Christ. Thanks.

Bro Jim K

Hi Brother Jim!

Paul told the saints to be careful to do good to every person as they had the opportunity, and especially to do good to those of the household of God. None of us can save the world, but as we in our ordinary lives have the opportunity, we should do good for others. The "brethren" that Jesus spoke of are the children of God. That verse is used often by charity groups around the world as a fund-raising ploy, and I feel sure that some of them are really doing some worthwhile things for hurting people, but "the brethren" mentioned in Matthew 25 are those who are children of God and, so, siblings of Jesus.

Pastor John

August 8, 2005

Pastor John,

This morning Token and I were talking and the subject was brought up of Guardian Angels. I have always heard of these angels in the movies (one angel for every child) and in casual talk but have never really run into evidence of such. Tonight, I happened to be reading the following verse while doing a little study (Matt. 18:10): "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

Does this refer to a guardian angel? Is "their" in this verse referring to the little children or is it referring to the little children in the kingdom?

After reviewing other verses, the only other scripture we could find is as follows (Heb. 1:15): "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"

This makes it sound as though angels are sent to minister to the children of God but makes no reference to a specific angel being assigned to a specific person. Is there a basis for guardian angels? If not, do you know where this stems from?

Thanks,
Jason

Hi Jason:

When Jesus mentioned "these little ones", he was referring to people who are "little ones" in His kingdom. He tells us this in the verses that precede verse ten, especially in verse 6. There, he mentions them as "these little ones who believe in me."

Jesus did say that these little ones have angels that have constant access to the presence of God. So that part we know is true. Whether God calls those angels "guardian angels" is unknown. We know that God sent angels to protect his Son Jesus while he was on the earth. Satan himself recognized this fact, and during his temptation of Jesus, he quoted the Scriptures from Psalms which revealed that truth (Mt. 4:5-6, from Ps. 91:11-12).

The origin of the title "guardian angels" is unknown to me, but considering the biblical evidence, I would not be surprised at all to learn that our heavenly Father created Guardian Angels for His "little ones" who are in Christ.

Pastor John

August 1, 2005

Dear Sir :

My name is Octavio, congratulations for your web page.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) In Hebrews 1: 8, the noun theos in too many Bibles is translated as vocative. Is it the only way?

2) In John 1:1c : "kai theos en ho logos" , can the noun theos be considered as indefinite? For example , can it be translated : "and the Word is a god"?

Best Regards,

Octavio

Octavio,

Thank you for your inquiry. You understand, I am sure, that knowing Greek grammar is irrelvant to being able to have communion with Christ; I usually avoid such issues because discussing matters of Greek and Hebrew can leave the impression with some of God's precious children that they are lacking in wisdom and/or righteousness because they are unfamiliar with those two languages.

However, the issue you bring up is an important one. The issue is, "Is Jesus God?" That question is fully answered in my message entitled "Is Jesus God?", which can be found at this address:
http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/tracts/isjesus.htm

As you your specific questions, the answer to number 1 above is that "vocative" is, at least in my opinion, correct in that case.

And as for number 2, "the word was a God" , or "the word was divine" are both grammatically possible.

Regardless of how these two verses are to be translated, Octavio, the essential thing is that we have the word of God in our hearts and obey it. Don't get caught up in semantics of either Greek or English and then miss the big picture.

Pastor John

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your answer.

I am Spanish speaker. Due to it, my English is not good. Excuse me.

I am agree with you , The knowing of Hebrew and Greek is irrelevant for the salvation. However , I am studying the Church Fathers of the first three centuries , because I think that the Trinity ( Three persons=One Being ) isn't teaching from the primitive church of the first century.

My research is about some texts of the Bible and how Ireneus , Justin Marty , Teophilus of Antioch , Origen and Tertulian , understood this texts.

My understanding is that in Nicea Council (325) something was wrong.

If you have some opinion of this, it will interesting.

Best Regards,

Octavio

Dear Octavio,

You are most certainly right when you say that "something was wrong" at the council of Nicea. The truth is, everything was wrong. It was the blossoming of the religion of Christianity, which God hates. It was part of the marriage of the body of Christ and the world, an example of the "fornication with kings of the earth" prophesied about in John's Revelation. It was an early part of the massive weaving of the web of lies in which God's children are still caught.

Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, you are also correct. The earliest of Christianity's "church fathers" of Christianity knew nothing of it; in fact, they consistently taught contrary to that error whenever they spoke of the relationship of the Father and the Son. Not only does Christianity not represent Christ; it does not represent the teaching its own founders. It is confusion; it is Babylon.

I have authored a study on the earliest Christian Church "fathers" which will help you to find the information for which you are looking. You can find this at:
http://www.isaiah58.com/APOSTATEFATHERS.HTM

Thanks again for writing and please do continue to seek truth - God will reward you for that. If we can be of any further help please let me know. May God bless you and those with you.

Pastor John

July 31, 2005

Pastor John:

In your translation of 1Jn. 2:20, why did you chose to use the word "understand"?

W. S.

Hey Wendell:

It could be either way, "know" or "understand". I think John was talking about those saints understanding everything concerning what he was saying; that is, who the antichrists were and what they were doing. We know that John was not telling these people that they knew everything, unless it was that they knew everything about the situation John was talking about (antichrists going out from the assembly of the faithful where John was).

The verbs "know" and "understand" can be translations of the same Greek word. The context dictates which one we should use. In this case, I chose "understand". I am open for suggestions to the contrary.

Pastor John

July 27, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

Thank you for sharing with us the emails from others who are questioning and looking at things from a different perspective. That has to let Jesus rise up inside and give an answer! He cares about people!! The email from the person you sent who talked about the HG as being the frosting on the cake was sad to read. If I could answer I would say this:

When I read your letter I wanted to put inside of you the wonderful feelings that Jesus gives each day to me through His Baptism. They would be convincing. Then you wouldn't want to believe other men's lies. I wouldn't have the feelings Jesus gives without the inward working of His Spirit that was given to me. They began the day I was baptised with the holy Ghost. That was the day that I was born again. I, who was dead in my sins, became "alive unto God" that day. Jesus said that without that life we would be "dead". He said, "I have come that they may have life and that more abundantly". Without his Baptism, I would be dead spiritually speaking. Furthermore, Paul wrote in Romans 8:11, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you". So if we have not the Spirit of Christ we will not be raised with Christ in the end.

Jesus said that there were people that were dead while they lived. There were people who were not "alive unto God"! We need to receive the Spirit to have life. And we need to believe God to receive that which He gives. Mark 16:17 says these signs shall follow those who believe:... "they shall speak in tongues." Tongues are "a sign to those who do not believe", and that is not frosting on the cake. Jesus said so.

In 1Cor 15, Paul talks about the last enemy which is death. We are raised in glory, raised in incorruption, raised in power, raised in Spirit. That Spirit that He gives raises us from the grave. There it is. That is not "frosting". To be "alive unto God" is only possible through receiving His Spirit. Sadly, those who are modern Pharisees are purporting the lie that we don't need Jesus' Baptism, which only stands to profit from increasing membership roles. It is an offence for many to think that they are in trouble if they don't have the Baptism that Jesus gives. That is man's view of things. Jesus sees it differently: Have my Life, regardless of men! Believe the gospel. It is our only hope.

I love reading the tracts that are available online through the pioneertract.com website. They talk about the Baptism of the holy Ghost and what it means. I love the one called Jezreel. It tells of the promise of the Father, the kingdom of God, the city that is heard but "comes without observation", the testimony of the Lord, the vineyard of God, the river of living water.... That is the Spirit of God that is shed abroad without which we cannot live. I'm glad it is still available! And if we are "counted for the seed" we can receive it!

Adam C

July 25, 2005

Hi John,

I need your help. Someone asked me if John the Baptist had the Holy Ghost as on the day of Penticost. I responded "no" because the Holy Ghost had not been given because Jesus had not been glorified while John was alive. And that the Spirit would come on men prior to the day of Penticost to say or do the will of God, but it would not stay.

The next day she came back and she could understand the spirit temporarily being on Elizabeth in Luke 1:41 and Zacharias in Luke 1:67 with what was said. But in Luke 1:15 it said "he (John) shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb", and she didn't see this being temporary.

The only other scripture that came to mind that John didn't have the Holy Ghost was in Matthew 11 when he was in prison. After hearing about Jesus' works, John sent his disciples to Jesus to see if he was the messiah. I told her it didn't sound to me that John was filled with Holy Ghost while in prison, because John knew who Jesus was when the anointing of the Holy Spirit was on him when he baptized Jesus, but now John wasn't sure who Jesus was.

She was still not totally convinced because it said "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb". I told her I didn't know what else to say and I would ask you for a better explanation.

Help!

Bro Randell

Hi Randell:

First of all, in John 7, we are plainly told that the holy Ghost was not yet given to men because Jesus was not yet glorified. If the holy Ghost was available to people before Jesus suffered and ascended into heaven to offer himself to God, there was no point in him doing it at all. The crucifixion of Christ Jesus, in that case, was an unnecessary event.

Secondly, there are other cases of Old Testament men and prophets of whom it was said that they were filled with the Spirit (Ex. 31:1-3; Dt. 34:9) And there was one prophet who said he was full of the power of God by the Spirit (see Micah 3:8). But their "being filled with" the holy Spirit was not the same thing as the holy Ghost "being given" or the "baptism of the holy Ghost".

The entire point of Jesus' sacrifice was to make the Spirit of God available to men. If your friend is determined to see it otherwise, she will find plenty who will agree with her. In particular, she might be attracted to Mormon teachers, whose doctrine is that righteous men and women from the time of Adam and Eve received the holy Ghost baptism (even with the evidence of speaking in other tongues!), including some of those people whom we call American Indians! How that happened before the holy Ghost was even given is beyond me, but then, there are many things that I do not understand. Maybe you could ask her to help you understand that. If she can, please pass it on to me. I haven't yet found a Mormon teacher who could explain it.

jdc

July 15, 2005

Hello,

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Notice that God tells us we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God. He does not say..ye must be filled with the Holy Ghost to see the kingdom of God.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost is wonderful. It is like having the frosting on the cake. But you DON'T have to be baptized in the Holy Ghost in order to go to heaven. The thief on the cross beside Jesus said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" And Jesus promised him that he would be with him in Paradise that day. The thief was not baptized in the Holy Ghost NOR was he even baptized in water. And we know that God is no respecter of persons. He would not take the unbaptized thief on the cross beside him...to Paradise and send others to hell that had not been.

Hi Everyone:

I would answer this person, but the answers are online in many places. I wonder if anyone on this mailing list would want to give it a try? If so, I will forward it to on, for the web site. Everyone ought to be able to explain to this confused soul the truth about the thief on the cross and his other statements. Anybody want to try to help this unnamed person?

jdc

Dear friend:

I asked the saints who meet at my house if anyone would be interested in answering your email concerning the holy Ghost baptism. Hope you are blesssed by the responses I received for you. Here four answers you received.

Pastor John

#1 - Taylor's response:

Mark 16:15-16 says, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (and, presumably, he who isn't baptized will be damned also because it is impossible to be baptized (in the Spirit) unless one first believes). Then, Paul said in Ephesians 4 that there is only one baptism. So, to which baptism was Jesus and Paul referring? The baptism in water, or in Spirit?

Jesus was preaching the gospel message to his disciples in Mark 16. The kingdom of God ("righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost") was not yet available to the disciples, or to anyone else even while Jesus was still hanging on the cross. Jesus told his disciples in Mark 12 that "thou art not far from the kingdom of God" and the writer of Hebrews said that "a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb. 9:17). When Jesus was speaking these words to the man on the cross, the Old Testament was still in effect (because Jesus, the testator, was still alive). Baptism was not a requirement under the Old Covenant.

Taylor

#2 - Donna's response

Hello "frosting on the cake",

My name is Donna. I read your e-mail about the holy Ghost baptism being just the "frosting on the cake". I would like to tell you part of my testimony about how God brought me out of Christianity, gave me the holy Ghost, and saved me from believing that exact doctrine (that the holy Ghost baptism is just an extra).

I grew up in Christianity. I was a good Christian. I believed everything that was taught. I really wanted to do right. I even went to college and studied Christian education because I wanted to help people in Christianity. I thought I was doing what was pleasing to God.

When I was about 27 years old, I heard some people speaking in tongues, and later asked the choir director what that was. I had never heard such a thing. Her explanation was just as yours, she said, "It is just an extra. You don't have to have it. People just use it at home to pray." Well, in my own carnal mind...I thought, "OK, well, If I don't need it, I don't want it." I thank God for the mercy He has had on me.

God knew I did need it. When He started dealing with me here at home, all by myself, the very first thing He taught me was that EVERY way I thought of him (all my Christian ideas) were filth before him. I gladly gave up my own ideas and surrendered to Jesus. If I had kept believing that doctrine "icing on the cake", I would have gone to church all my life thinking I was doing alright, and I would have died and been lost forever.

There are other places in the Bible where you might want to look. If you keep reading that third chapter in John, you'll see where Jesus tells Nicodemus that to be born again, a person must be born of the "water and the blood". A person must be born physically (through the water in childbirth) and then the second birth is through the blood (of Jesus). He even goes on to tell how you would know when this happens! He said every one that is born of the spirit has a sign....it is the sound. Reading Acts 2 is a good start to read about the disciples receiving the holy Ghost. It came just as Jesus said it would!

I also have a question for you. You said in your e-mail . . .

The baptism of the Holy Ghost is wonderful. It is like having the frosting on the cake. But you DON'T have to be baptized in the Holy Ghost in order to go to heaven.

My question is this: What about ICorinthians 12:13? Paul said we are all baptized by one Spirit into one body. And I definitely want to be in the body of Christ! If I am not in the body, I am none of his.

I just read your letter out loud to my son, and it made me cry when I had to read your comment above. That is the lie that precious children of God are being taught by men. How many untold numbers of God's own children (who have been born again, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues) do not even know that precious moment when they received the holy Ghost is when God washed away their sins.

http://pastorjohnshouse.com/tracts/newbirth.htm

http://pastorjohnshouse.com/tracts/baptism.htm

Listed above are two articles (about the new birth and baptism) on the Pastor John's House website. They are wonderful.

Donna Nelson

#3 - Sandy's response

Dear ?

Hi. My name is Sandy. I understand that you have been to the website "pastorjohnshouse.com" and from reading your email, I'd like to share with you some things that might help you to understand more concerning the New Birth. I know that if you will seek God with a humble heart, he will show you what you need. I have had the holy Ghost for 16 years now. I was a Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopalian before God called me out of Christianity and baptized me with the holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues (the New Birth!) - - just like in Acts 2! If you search the website with a willing heart, there is a wealth of God's knowledge there that can help you - - if you really want to know. God knows the heart and if you are seeking for him, you will find him.

From your email:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Amen!

Notice that God tells us we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God. He does not say..ye must be filled with the Holy Ghost to see the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God IS righteousness, peace and joy IN the holy Ghost (Romans 14:17) so if you do not have the holy Ghost (being born again IS being filled with the holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues), you will not see it. However, one must understand first what is the kingdom of God in order to understand what IS the New Birth. I would refer you to reading about the "New Birth" on our website and ordering the series on the "New Birth" if you really want to know. I recommend the tracts, too. So good!

The baptism of the Holy Ghost is wonderful. It is like having the frosting on the cake.

Amen! It is SO wonderful! Does this statement from you mean that YOU have the holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues? If so, it is more than the frosting - - it is the cake AND the frosting. And in the case of the holy Ghost and the kingdom of God - - you can't have one without the other.

But you DON'T have to be baptized in the Holy Ghost in order to go to heaven.

Whew! I would not want to try getting past Jesus to get into heaven without it. Paul said in Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

The thief on the cross beside Jesus said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" And Jesus promised him that he would be with him in Paradise that day. The thief was not baptized in the Holy Ghost NOR was he even baptized in water. And we know that God is no respecter of persons. He would not take the unbaptized thief on the cross beside him...to Paradise and send others to hell that had not been.

Below are some questions and answers I thought you might like to read from the website re: the thief on the cross (in case you did not see them when you visited the website). I hope they help. So you see, there are others that have been confused concerning the thief on the cross! It is true that the thief did not have the holy Ghost because the holy Ghost was not yet given. Jesus' sacrifice was made to the Father in heaven, not on the cross. Jesus was crucified on the cross, but his sacrifice was made in heaven. And when God accepted His Son as the sacrificial lamb for us, the holy Ghost was sent back down. Praise God! And dear ?, I am living proof, that not only was the holy Ghost received by 120 on the day of Pentecost as in Acts 2, but it is still available today, right now, for anyone who will repent and believe God! Praise God! Yes, the holy Ghost is a gift - - the most important gift - - the gift of eternal life! And without it, no man shall see God.

*****

From the website:

How about the person crucified on the right side of Jesus on the Calvary? Jesus told him, this day you will be with me in paradise. This person has not been baptized, but was not he saved?

That man died, as did Jesus, under the Law before the New Covenant began. The New Birth, the baptism of the holy Ghost, was not yet available to anyone. Yes, I believe that thief was with Jesus in paradise that day, but only as a Jew who lived and died under the Law of Moses, not as a born-again child of God under this dispensation of grace.

The thief on the cross next to Jesus: the Bible does not record him speaking in tongues, and Jesus says that the thief will join Him in paradise. Was the thief converted at that point?

The thief on the cross could not have spoken in tongues, because "the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). The holy ghost was not sent until the day of Pentecost, when Jesus obtained the promise from the father after his glorification.

*****

So keep searching diligently, dear ?, and you will find your answers. God's promises are true. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

The holy Ghost is the most precious gift to us from the Father through His Son. But it was not available to us for the washing away of our sins until Jesus' sacrifice was made in heaven:

*****

Excerpt from the website: "The Sacrifice of Christ" Tract 79 -

Man needed a Witness that Jesus' sacrifice was accepted by the Father because the event took place in heaven, where no man could see. The disciples, obediently waiting in Jerusalem, learned that Jesus had made his sacrifice and that it had been accepted only when the Father sent His Witness of it on Pentecost morning, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4).

May God bless you in your search for the Truth,

Sister Sandy

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Isaiah 28:11

To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. Isaiah 28:12

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

#4 - Token's response

Hello!

My name is Token and I would like to try to answer your question. I have read the other three responses to you and they are so good. They sparked some thoughts and I would like to share them with you.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Notice that God tells us we must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God. He does not say..ye must be filled with the Holy Ghost to see the kingdom of God.

My question to you is: What is being "born again" (if it is not being filled with the holy Ghost)?

By the rest of the chapter we can see that being "born again" is by the spirit.

Let's look at the rest of the chapter. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born by "water" and "spirit" in verse 5. The water is our natural birth (when the "water breaks" a baby is born, see verse 6). What is being born by the "spirit"? This is what you are not understanding: Verse 5 says, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he can not see the kingdom of God." This second birth that Jesus introduces is being born again by the holy Spirit, aka being filled with the holy Ghost. The first time we are born by water makes us a member of this earth, but the new birth by the spirit makes us a member of God's kingdom. There is a sign that accompanies this new birth in the holy Ghost in verse 8, and it is a sound (the sound of speaking in tongues).

When Jesus shed his blood on the Cross and presented himself to the Father as a sacrifice for us, God sent back the holy Ghost to us. The holy Ghost is the New Birth, the new covenant way by which we are born into the kingdom of heaven (Read the Sacrifice of Christ tract online and read Hebrews 9-13 for more about this). Before the Day of Pentecost, the holy Ghost was not available to men. (read Acts 2) Now the holy Ghost is given to us by Jesus' sacrifice, and it very disrespectful to say that it isn't necessary...it is very necessary and it is what Jesus purchased for you by his blood (Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:7; Col 1:20; Heb. 9:12, etc.).

Your logic is not faulty here but you are missing a very important point which should change your conclusions: The thief on the cross died before the day of Pentecost so he could not have received the holy Ghost even if he had known about it and wanted it. (It is here now; Praise God!)

To summarize, please consider these verses:

1. You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

2. The kingdom of God is righteous, peace and joy in the holy Ghost. (Romans 14:17)

3. By one Spirit, we are all baptized into one body. (Cor. 12:13)

4. There is only one baptism. (Eph. 4:5)

5 If any man have not the Spirit of God, he is none of his. (Rom. 8:9)

I am very much looking forward to your reply. Please consider all prayerfully and let us know if you have anymore concerns. Of course the website has much more information and we would be glad to send you a free CD on the New Birth for your study.

Love in Christ,

te.

July 14, 2005

Hey,

I have an OT question for you. I am almost positive I heard you talk about this before, but I still have some questions. In Genesis 6:1-4, the "sons of God" are angels and that is how giants came into existence, right?

Are they talking about angels when the "sons of God" came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan was among them in Job? Could they possibly be talking about godly and ungodly men and not angels in both these instances? Although, the union of godly and the ungodly wouldn't produce giants. Doesn't the Bible state somewhere that angels don't marry (I tried finding this in my concordance, but I couldn't find it)?

Stephanie

Hi Stephanie:

Look up the phrase, "given in marriage" in the gospels for the reference concerning angels not marrying. Angels are neither male nor female.

Yes, the "sons of God " refer to the righteous, and the "sons of men" refer to the wicked.

jdc

July 10, 2005

Pastor John:

I have a question: In Revelation, was there only 1 throne? If so, was it Jesus' or the Father's throne? I thought that there would be 2 thrones.

Hi Mark:

Yes, there is only one throne mentioned, and I would also have expected John to tell us that he saw two thrones in heaven. The one throne that is mentioned is the Father's. I remember that Jesus at one point stated that he was given the right to "sit with his Father on His throne" (Rev. 3:21). I have often wondered about that. Some people, apostolics in particular, would take that statement as proof that Jesus is the Father Himself. But then, even more remarkably, Jesus promises that all those who are faithful to him will be granted "to sit with him on his Father's throne"! Surely such people as apostolics wouldn't teach that such a statement means that WE mortals are also the Father Himself. Obviously then, by the phrase, "sitting on the throne with the Father", Jesus means "reigning with the Father".

That having been said, however, I still would have expected John to see two main thrones in heaven, one for the Father and one for the Son. But then, what do we know?

Pastor John

May 22, 2005

John,

I have a question. Is it true to say that all of our good thoughts are from God? Is it not possible for us to have learned from God such that we can have good thoughts on our own? I would like to think that we are capable of learning to be good and have good thoughts that please our Creator. Just like I would like to think that Benjamin would be able to learn to do good and have good thoughts on his own, not just when I tell him to do good or think good thoughts. I want Ben to learn from the good deeds and thoughts I have, and give to him, so that he can do the same. Of course, without God and His Spirit, any good thoughts or deeds would be in vain.

MEH

Hi Brother Mark:

All our good thoughts are, of course, from God because He is the only one who is good, according to Jesus. But there are various ways that God gives good thoughts to us. Most often, He gives us a sound mind, and we then naturally think good thoughts. God gets the glory for every good thought because He gave us the mind to think them, but that is not what "God speaking to a person" really is. God also can speak to our hearts so suddenly and clearly enough so that we can rightly say that "God spoke to me!" He can speak through nature, and He can speak to us in an audible voice. I have heard that voice, and I know He does that.

So, it is not wrong, in the great scheme of things to say that every good thought is from God, or that God gave you a certain good thought, but as you may recall, I have advised the saints not to get into the habit of saying "God spoke to me!" just because a good thought came into their mind. If you do that, it can leave the wrong impression with people, and in time, I believe that it will damage your testimony.

Pastor John

May 16, 2005

Dear Pastor John

I am from Indonesia. Few days ago I happened to open your web site. Formerly I was a protestant, but now I am used to attending a charismatic worship in my country. Recently, after I read some of your articles and the coressponding verses in the bible, I was very amazed. A lot of my confusion concerning salvation, trinity, new birth have been ansewerd by your article. I am not a preacher or pastor, but I am scientist. Off course I have still many thing to learn from your articles, but I would like to ask view question:

1) What is wrong with charismatic denomination, it seems that this denomination are pursuing baptism of holy ghost and also requires that all church elders should speak in tounges.

There is nothing wrong at all with any Christian denomination, Pentecostal or otherwise, if we leave God out. With God, however, there can be nothing right with them. They are Satan's chief tool in his design to keep God's children divided. Heresies, or "sects", (or to use the Christian term, "denominations") are all of the flesh, not the Spirit, even if some of those heresies do allow God's children a little freedom to rejoice now and then.

God is calling His children to "Come out of her, My people!" I can find no good reason to refuse to obey Him for one second.

2) How about all missionaries who have spent their whole live preaching gospel in China, India, Indonesia, etc. Some of them might have not know about baptism of Holy Ghost, will be they saved or not?

Of which missionaries do you speak? Christian missionaries teaching various Christian doctrines and teaching Christian ceremonies to ignorant people? When has Jesus ever sent any man anywhere to do that? There were zealous men ("without knowledge) who traveled to distant lands in Jesus' time to spread their own versions of God first covenant. Jesus told those religious men that the converts they made did not belong to God, even if they did submit to circumcision according to Moses' Law. Instead, Jesus told them, those converts were only made twice as much the children of the devil as the Jewish missionaries who had traversed land and sea to convert them.

Now, Paul said that if any man does not have the holy Ghost, he does not belong to God, Surya (Romans 8). Does that sound to you as if missionaries without the holy Ghost will be saved without it? We can't make up our own rules, you know.

3) How about the person crucified on the right side of Jesus on the Calvary? Jesus told him, this day you will be with me in paradise. This person has not been baptized, but was not he saved?

I appreaciate very much for your answer in my question,

best regards,

surya

You are welcome. Stay in touch.

Pastor John

April 21, 2005

Pastor John,

I've read this TFE twice here at work this morning. Both times I've had the thought, "This is the Gospel." It reminds me so much of that message you preached last summer on "The Gospel." Is "The Gospel" the love of God, in action? Is it the power of God?

Cris

Hi Cris!

Yes.

Pastor John

April 18, 2005

Dear Pastor John

I am from Indonesia. Few days ago I happened to open your web site. Formerly I was a protestant, but now I am used to attending a charismatic worship in my country. Recently, after I read some of your articles and the coressponding verses in the bible, I was very amazed. A lot of my confusion concerning salvation, trinity, new birth have been answered by your article. I am not a preacher or pastor, but I am scientist. Off course I have still many thing to learn from your articles, but I would like to ask view question:

1) What is wrong with charismatic denomination, it seems that this denomination are pursuing baptism of holly ghost and also requires that all church elders should speak in tounges.

The baptism of the holy Ghost is the new birth. The notion that they are "elders" who recieve it is an abomination. When we receive the Spirit, we are mere babies. That mind set, that the baptism of the holy Ghost is something only for a few believers, or elders in the faith, is inspired by Satan and is the root cause of all the divisions that exists among God's people.

Everyone with the holy Ghost should come out of Christianity and confess their need to learn God's doctrine and God's way of worship and living. "Denomination" is just a fancy word for "division", and Jesus abhors every one of them. He wants to be better than that to us, if we will have it.

Nobody has ever preached the gospel of Christ without the holy Ghost (1Pet. 1:12). All that a person can "preach" without the holy Ghost is one of Christianity's doctrines, and why should anyone be saved from the coming wrath of God for doing that? The fact that many men and women have given their lives to the spreading of Christianity is not something that anyone should be proud of. On the Day of Judgment, I would not want to have to give an account to Jesus for being a missionary who spread a religion he hates, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, or any other of the religions of this world.

3) How about the person crucified on the right side ofJesus on the calvary. Jesus told him, this day you will be with me in paradise. This person has not been baptized, but was not he saved?

Jesus lived and died under the Law. This means that the man who was crucified beside Jesus also lived and died under the Law. During that time, the baptism of the holy Ghost was not yet available because Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father and been glorified (Jn. 7:39).

I appreaciate very much for your answer in my question.

You are welcome.

I am glad you are not a Christian minister. Jesus can speak to your heart more easily since you are not one. It is easier for us to change direction at his command if our livlihood and reputation do not depend on the support of a Christian congregation. Jesus has corrected me and the saints here with me a number of times, and I thank God with all my heart that, to this point at least, we have been given the grace to listen to his voice and to follow him. My earnest prayer is that He will continue to show us that grace.

Pastor John

April 16, 2005

Hi,

Food for thought, indeed, about a person not being converted if he hasn't the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This would explain why so many churches are passionless when it comes to the things of God.

So, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit something a person asks for, or does he just ask Jesus to convert him with the understanding that he'll speak in tongues immediately. I'm presuming that if he doesn't speak in tongues, he didn't really want to be converted. I'm, also, presuming that there won't be any hinderance to being able to speak in tongues if it is a legitimate conversion.

Thanks for your site.

Love in Christ,

D S

Hi Darlene:

I "presume" that you have been hearing from Jesus. :)

As to your question, Jesus said to ask for the Spirit, and He said that if you ask for the Spirit, he would not give you a bad thing. But this asking must be accompanied by works that are fit for repentance, and everyone who truly repents and asks, receives it. This is how we know who has truly repented and who only "looks good". We wait for the Father to give His Spirit to a person because only He knows the heart. "But God, who knows the heart, bore them witness, giving them the holy Ghost even as he did unto us" (Acts 15:8). The Spirit is God's witness that someone has truly repented (1Jn. 5:6).

Feel free to stay in touch, and thank you for your letter.

Pastor John

April 16, 2005

Hello,

I am so very confused with this message concerning christianity. But, I only want to do the will of God.

I know churches are man made and I know I don't have to belong to a church to be a child of God. But we do have to go to church, don't we?

I want to do what's right, that's what I yearn for but the subject of communions really jarred me. Wafers, grape juice, etc., are worthless? Please help me here.

Also, I was baptized by water, you say that is wrong? Right? Did'nt Jesus get baptized in the river? Help me here.

I yearn to learn as long as it puts me right with my Lord and Savior.

Thank you

GCruz

Hello again.

The reason you are struggling is that Jesus is talking to you! You are seeing it - but it is so new that it is frightening. Just pray to stay honest with yourself and to have the courage to believe Jesus. As for "going to church", please read the article below, and you will find answers to many of your questions. Hope to hear from you soon.

Pastor John

Hebrews 10:25

Satan has always had some verses of scriptures that are his "favorites", and he uses them in an attempt to get God's children to disobey the truth. He used some scriptures on Jesus in the wilderness for that purpose. And today, one of Satan's favorite verses is Hebrews 10:25: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

The Spirit is calling on God's children to forsake the man-made assemblies of Christianity -- ALL of them. Because of that, we receive many inquiries about Hebrews 10:25 and the warning "not to forsake the assembling of yourselves". In response to those inquiries, I need only point out that we should consider who is the "yourselves" in that verse. "Yourselves" in Hebrews 10:25 refers to the children of God only; that is, those who have been baptized with the holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. God doesn't have any other children.

The apostles knew that, and the author of Hebrews was not exhorting the saints to "join the church of your choice", for heaven's sake! Christian churches are not of God, and they never have been. In Hebress 10:25, God was exhorting His people to stick together and not to be divided by the religious doctrines of men. In essence, he was commanding the saints to refrain from "joining a church" and to renounce every church that can be joined. He was commanding the saints to have no part with any worldly religious sect, and it is precisely these worldly, man-made religious divisions that developed into the religion called Christianity. That is who we are telling the Spirit baptized children NOT to assemble with the ungodly people who populate Christian churches! Stay out of EVERY Christian church, and you will be in a better position to obey the exhortation found in Hebrews 10:25.

The word of the Lord spoke through me some time back and said, "No church that can be joined is His." Those words will meet you and everyone else who hears them on the day of judgment. The precious brothers and sisters who might be pressuring you to assemble to worship with those who are NOT God's children (i.e., those without the holy Ghost baptism) are carnally minded; they are good Christians, but they are not weise children of God. Without realizing it, they are pressuring you to disobey God. Paul, in 1Corinthians 6:15-20, exhorts us to honor God by NOT assembling in a religious setting with those who are unsanctified. Avoid like the plague any church that is NOT God's; that is, any church that can be joined (which means every Christian church, because all of them can be joined).

As for the part of Hebrews 10:25 that says, "as the manner of some is", the apostle was referring to those who were falling away from the faith in his time (cp. 1 Jn.2:19; 2Tim. 1:15), worshiping with those who had not received the real Spirit of God (1 Jn. 4:1-3). Oh, how wonderful it seems, could we have lived in the days of the apostles, when there were still some gatherings of Spirit-filled children who had not forsaken the assembling of themselves together! "The manner of some" which the apostle saw has now become "the manner of all". God is my witness that it is with deep sorrow that I see this. God's children have altogether forsaken the "assembling of themselves together" about which Hebrews warns us, and are now altogether mingled with unbeleivers who say they believe in Jesus but have no witness from the Spirit at all.

Your minister is deceived and is a deceiver if he is telling those without the baptism of the holy Ghost that they are born again. If you have the Spirit, and if you are obeying it, you know in your heart that I am telling you the truth. Those who follow such men are confused. They are not serving the real Jesus, do not know the real God, and they want God's Spirit-baptized saints to join their church in order to further legitimize their ungodly religion. Do not trust them. The Spirit is the witness because the Spirit is truth (l Jn. 5:6). And we echo the words of Paul who said, "without the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his".

The new birth. The new birth. The new birth. That is the key. Focus on it. Find out when a person is really born again. Understand that if a person has not received the Spirit that speaks in "stammering lips and other tongues" when it comes in, that person has not received the Spirit of God at all. The confession of that truth will make you freer from the errors of the foolish than any other obedience that you can render to God right now.

The best service you render right now to those who are blind is to have no fellowship with their error. I hope you have the strength to do that. Many have seen this truth and have not had the strength to do that. Only God can judge them. I am just thrilled that He has given the saints here strength to stay away from Christianity and be happy about it, even though it frightens Christians and they ususally love us less for it. They misunderstand us; we are FOTR them, not against them,. This is their way out, not a way into bondage again. But they do not need to be lectured to or quarreled with; they only need examples, because they need light.

The real question is, do you love Jesus enough to "assemble yourselves" ONLY with those who are walking in the Spirit and truth? That is the only group of people God has ever commanded His children to assemble with - and that is the assembly we will never forsake. But it is becoming clearer to us that such assemblies are EXTREMELY rare, and in most cities, perhaps yours, such groups do not even exist any more. If you are desperate for such fellowship, contact us, and we will do whgatever we can to fered you and keep you encouraged in the Lord. God is looking for the righteous few who love His truth more than the praise of men, and so are we.

April 16, 2005

Pastor John:

I have a question.

Cursing grates on my ears, you know? I sometimes call it "auditory molestation" when someone curses in conversation and you're pretty much bound to hear it, for the way it comes across like a cacophonous crash in the middle of a musical piece. It can make me feel guilty, too, just for hearing it. (Though, I think you've told someone before that it is not sin to merely hear these things.)

There are some people I speak to on a regular basis who "curse" in normal conversation. I have mentioned to these people before that I don't like their language, but now it doesn't do much. What is the way to feel about this without causing myself undue worry, and without shrugging off something that's not good?

Dear JB:

While we are here in this life, we are constantly in a life-and-death struggle against the spirits of this age. Some people realize it, and others do not. Those who realize it have the opportunity to meet the challenge to their souls and to seek help from Jesus, our "very present help in times of trouble"; those who do not realize it have already lost the battle. Those dirty spirits are cruel and care for nothing but to do their own pleasure and will; you will have to learn to be as tough in your love for godliness.

When I was in my mid-twenties, I worked construction for a while. The men there had the foulest mouths that you could imagine, and because I was serving God, their constant "auditory molestation" of my ears began to disturb me. One day after work, I went home especially irritated and heavy. I prayed and then sat down to read the Bible, starting in the book of Psalms. What a difference between those words and the words I had been forced to hear all day!

But God gives us more than just good words; He gives us direction! I was reading in Psalms 71 when I came to this part: "My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day . . . I will go in the strength of the Lord God. I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only. O God, thou hast taught me from my youth, and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works."

I knew now what I must do to have peace: I knew now that I was in a battle and that I must win it. I must, as Paul said, "overcome evil with good." Otherwise, I was going to be miserable and frustrated constantly. So, I went to work the next day on the attack, singing praises to God. Not loud, but relaxed and sincere, unashamed if anyone heard me. I sang about Jesus all day long, and I went on the offensive with my words, speaking of the goodness of God before those fellow workers of mine had a chance to overwhelm me with verbal filth. Not encroaching into their "space" and preaching at them, but expressing, when I had the chance, my thanksgiving to God for the day, my life, His goodness, and whatever else came to mind. I wasn't trying to make them miserable, but if the result of mentioning the name of Jesus was that they became miserable, I felt no remorse. That was their problem. That was an indication of my complete victory! I never suffered through another day on that job feeling helpless and overwhelmed by wickedness.

We cannot overcome this world and the spirits in it by being secret disciples. If we would be victors, then we must fight the battle and confess him before people and not be afraid or ashamed. God is patient and perfectly understanding of our various difficult plights on earth. He is not a hard taskmaster. But at some point along the way, He will require everyone of us to be a light and to be no longer content to sit unhappily in the darkness. To become actively engaged in the battle is the only way to live and be happy in Jesus.

What I am suggesting to you is to be aggressive with goodness. You can drive those unclean spirits away from you with a righteous attitude and the beauty of holiness. If because of your love for Jesus, others feel insulted and become angry with you, then congratulations! You are winning the battle when it is they who feel those things instead of you. If they begin to hate you because of goodness on your part, you have won; your heart can be at rest and their heart can at last feel the misery that is already in it. Lot's "righteous soul was vexed every day" by the perverted lusts of the inhabitants of Sodom; but he could have avoided that depth of vexation if he had never chosen to live there in the first place. We may not be able to completely avoid the filthiness of this world while we are in it, especially in our present base culture where even young mothers speak vilely, in godless tones, to their own little children in public. But sometimes, God puts us in vexing situations from which we can escape if we will just take up the sword of the Spirit and go to war, if we will just do something that shows love for Him and contempt for wickedness.

Pastor John

April 1, 2005

I was reading some of your information and you stated something about a meeting the Church of God had in 1972 I would like to have some info on that and were I can find it also I was with the Church of God years ago and I do not know what you are talking about. thank you

Pastor Ricky Cook

is there any of the Churches that belive like you in SC if so where are they thanks again.

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The specific Church of God meeting to which I referred is that of August 19, 1972, held during the 54th General Assembly of the Church of God held in Dallas, Texas in 1972. The record of the call of God for His holy-Ghost filled people to come out is in the COG Minutes of that convention published in 1973. In the COG minutes, you can find the event recorded on page 48. I can mail you a copy of that page if you would like to read it for yourself.

The kingdom of God does not lend itself to the organizational structures invented by religious men, principally because it cannot be contained within any framework that man can devise. Jesus described this new covenant in spirit and truth as "new wine" which, when expanding as new wine does, will swell and burst any old, dried wines skins into which men may try to keep it. So, as to your inquiry concerning churches that believe as I do, I am certain that none of them do. "Church" is not what I care for; Christ is. I would, if I could, steer you away from looking for churches, as Christians are always pressuring God's people to do. Rather, I plead with you to "look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith", and to ask him whether or not he has actually taught me what it is that I am teaching.

Please feel free to contact me further if you have any more questions or comments.

Pastor John Clark

April 1, 2005

John,

Is the spirit of man and the soul of man the same thing?

Sarah H.

Hi Sarah:

It is impossible to make a decisive separation between the two, based upon how those two words are used at times in the Bible; however, at other times, in many Scriptures, "soul" and "spirit" are obviously used to refer to different things. So, there is clearly some kind of difference between them.

In Genesis, we read that when God breathed His Spirit into the lifeless clay that He had shaped into a human form, Adam "became a living soul". Based on that description of the first human being and on other verses, it appears that the spirit is life, and a body with life in it is a soul, an individual being. Many years ago, in a personal study on this subject, I did find that "soul" was quite often associated with the mind, a person's mental awareness and ability to reason.

I will mention one more interesting point. We know that when the spirit leaves a body, that is, when a person dies, the soul is gone. The Bible if full of such references. But a problem arises if we then ask, "When the spirit leaves a body, where does the soul go?" I could pursue that issue into the depths of philosophical speculation, but what would be the point? Leave that sort of intellectual wrangling to people who do not have the truth of Christ to entertain and to comfort their hearts and minds.

We cannot and should not make a doctrine out of the differences/similarities of the soul and spirit. We can only recognize what is written in the Bible about them and leave it there. If you do your own study, you will find that the relationship between the spirit and soul as I have described it to you will hold up fairly well throughout the Bible, but I would be the first to admit that their connection remains in large measure a mystery.

jdc

March 29, 2005

Pastor John

Just wondering if the 'spirit of God' in Genisis chapter 1 verse 2 is the same thing as the holy spirit?

Yes, Steven. There is but one holy Spirit, though it has been called by many names. For more info, you may want to read my father's gospel tract, "The Spirit of Christ".

and also in luke 1-15, it says "for he shall be great in the sight of the lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink;and he shall be filled with the holy ghost, even from his mothers womb"

My question concerning that verse is, are they talking about John the baptist? my understanding was he was O/T and the Holy ghost was not given out till the N/T day of pentecost.

Could you please clarify.

thanks

Steven

Good question, Steven. God's OT servants were moved by the Spirit, overcome by the Spirit, "filled" with the Spirit, and otherwise empowered and used by the Spirit. Still, they did not have the Spirit living within them; they were not "baptized" with the Spirit into the family of God, as those who believe in Jesus are now, in this New Covenant.

That the holy Ghost was not yet given until the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 is made clear by many Scriptures. To name just a few: John 7:37-39, 14:17; Acts 1:1-5.

Pastor John

March 26, 2005

Hi John,

Jackie’s question ("Did Jesus speak in tongues?") relates to what I was reading today that really blessed me. I was reading the article on Gary’s website called, “Did Jesus Receive the Baptism of holy Ghost?” (Question of the Week #99)

In that message you make reference about Jesus speaking in tongues but that is not what stood out to me the most. What I liked being reminded of is that Jesus, the Son of God entered into the body that God had prepared for him on that day when the Spirit descended on him at the River of Jordan. I love how you stated it, “It was at that time that the Son of God emptied himself of his glory and entered into the world.”

I thought about how the Lord also prepared our bodies, created for the purpose of receiving His precious Spirit, sharing in that same glory of His Son. Oh Lord, may we walk worthy of our holy calling!

Tom

Thanks, Tom.

For those who would like to look at the article you refer to, it is a good, short message from several years back, dealing with the subject of Jesus receiving the baptism of the holy Ghost.

jdc

March 26, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

I have a quick question about Christianity. I know that people now say its a religion, but in the bible was it just a relationship with Jesus, and people changed it around?

Thanks!

Love,

Ginger

Hi Ginger:

The word "Christianity" is not in the Bible. That is because the religion of Christianity is not found in the Bible. "Christianity" is a word that was invented much later than the days of the apostles as a name for the religion that developed when backslidden believers united with the Roman Empire in an effort to escape persecution, take over the world, and force their godless opinions on others. They incorporated into their worship and faith many of the gods and ceremonies of ancient Greek and Roman cults, renaming them so that it wouldn't be quite so obvious. The only association between Jesus and the religion of Christianity is what Christians claim exists. Jesus despises that religion, and has despised it since it began.

Pastor John

March 25, 2005

Hi John,

I read something written by a preacher a while ago and he said that Jesus spoke in tongues. Do you think he did?

Thanks!

Jackie

Jackie:

Yes, I think he probably did, but nothing is ever said about it specifically.

jdc

March 15, 2005

Pastor John:

Sounds like you have had a very busy week.

Well, what a weekend we had! It was absolutely wonderful; I am so thankful that I was able to be part of it. I had the most precious feelings of thankfulness. I felt, (like I am sure others did also) that it was especially for me. God always knows what we need when we need it.

I feel as if I've been doing okay in the Lord, but I don't think I've grown enough in the past two years since receiving the HG. I have been asking God a lot lately, what he would have me do, like what else can I do besides living my life they way I do now. Do you have any ideas for me?

None that I can think of. Just be careful not to think of yourself or of the life you are living as being a small thing. Peter said that a woman who lives a godly life is, in God's sight, a very valuable person (1Pet. 3:1-4). Day-to-day life can become tedious at times and can seem not to matter a lot to anyone, but remember, God does not think the way people on earth think. A woman who can face the ordinary issues of daily earthly life with joy and faith are among the most valuable people God has anywhere.

The other day I had a question, kind of a personal question, and I was thinking of asking you about it; then I thought I'd ask a sister in the Lord if she knew the answer. Well, before I could ask anyone, God said to me, "Why don't you ask me?" I haven't gotten the answer as yet, but I know where my answer will come from now. I do hear from God occasionally, but I want to feel closer to him, like a real Father. Do you think I'm being unreasonable or that if I keep asking, he knows my heart and I get what I want?

That is very reasonable. And Jesus encouraged us to keep asking the Father for what we want until He answered (Lk. 18:1-7).

One more thing, I was listening to a CD where sister Amy was saying how it is important that we know "all things". What does that mean "all things"? Was she referring to your book or to something else I'm missing? This is probably a silly question, 'cause how can we know all things, only God knows that.

For people to use the phrase "all things" in their testimonies without explaining what they mean can easily be misunderstood. Over the years, I have repeatedly tried to persuade the people in our meetings to avoid saying "all things" as part of their testimony when they are referring to the message contained in my book "All Things". It can be very misleading. But bad habits are hard to break. I hope that when they read this email, the people who do that will see an example of what I have been trying to tell them and learn from it.

Thanks for taking the time to read my email, I know I'm not very good at writing so I hope this all makes sense.

Take care. Hope you all have another wonderful weekend.

Sister Margaret

March 15, 2005

Hiya:

Thanks for sending that response to Token's three questions! Some thoughts concerning parent-child relationships, as well as the way girls are, have been in my head lately, and the e-mail essentially "finished the thought" since I'd only been wondering.

So, about women (young and older) having a manipulative nature: This is something that was meant by God for good and is just often used for bad? I hadn't thought of that at all, just wondered why it seemed to me lately that females were innately "catty" in comparison to males!

Anyway, thanks again.

Ciao!

Brittanie

Hi Brittanie,

Good to hear from you again!

I can only speak of the general rule, so don't hold me to every situation in which a man and woman have conflict. Because man in his fallen state is so corrupt, God gave women the ability to maneuver around them. This is possible for women to do because men, as a rule, have little or no control over their own lust. Women manipulate them, then, by using/not using their bodies. From everything I have seen, this is the norm in the world. Most of the time, this manipulation is very subtle, but that is when it is most effective. I doubt that one in a thousand women know they are doing it, and I doubt that one in ten thousand men know it is being done.

If a husband and wife walk in the Spirit together, there is no need for her to subtly work her will or to manipulate her husband, for there is no fear of her husband and there is faith in God. But outside of Christ (as a rule), it is a constant, often undeclared, warfare for supremacy in the home. Even in homes in which everyone seems to get along just fine.

Also, you may notice (as a rule) as you go along through life that if the man is not the head of the house, then the children are. The head is very seldom the woman if there are kids in the family.

This is what I have noticed. I am sure that it can be called into question, and contrary examples can be given. But I think that my observations will hold up, if generalizations are allowed.

Pastor John

March 11, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I was reading in Proverbs one day and I came across this verse in chapter 13. Could you help me understand it?

Proverbs 13:16 - "Every prudent man deals with knowledge, but a fool lays open his folly." Thanks. See you later.

Margo

Hi Margo:

That's an easy one. Solomon is warning his son not to become a loud-mouthed "know-it-all" because if he does, he is going to make himself look like an idiot to people with good sense. A prudent man is a wise man, and a wise man doesn't talk unless he knows what he is talking about. A fool expresses himself concerning things about which he is ignorant, and in so doing, he lays his folly (his foolishness) out in the open for everyone to see.

Pastor John

March 11, 2005

Hey,

I was reading the bible and I have 3 questions.

My first question from Galatians 3:17: What is the four hundred and thirty years a reference to? (I remember that it was 430 years that the Israelites stayed in Egypt but how does that fit in?)

It doesn't fit in. But then, what it seems to be saying doesn't fit in, either; to wit, that the Law of Moses was given 430 years after Abraham. Only if Abraham died the day that the Israelites entered Egypt would that number work. And while the length of Abraham's life (175 years) makes the giving of the Law closer to his death than most would at first think, is still would be more than 430 years. So, the short answer is that I don't know what time period Paul is talking about here when he refers to 430 years.

By the way, Paul does that again to us in the book of Acts (13:20) when he tells some people that God gave Israel judges for the space of about 450 years. I have never been able to figure that one out, either.

I would be glad to hear from anyone who can shed some light on either of these two numbers that Paul gives us, either the 430 years of Galatians or the 450 years of Acts.

My second question from Colossians 3:19: Why does Paul say for husbands not to be "bitter" against their wives? Is the Greek word really "bitter"? What does that mean?

It is an exhortation to husbands to understand and to be patient with the manipulative nature that God has given to women for their good. If they didn't have it, men are so corrupt and self-willed that they would abused their wives far more than they do now. It is wonderful when a husband and wife walk together in the Spirit. In that case, there is no constant contest of wills being played out in the home. No subtle scheming on the part of the wife, and no anger and frustration on the part of the husband.

Also I remember that you preached on this verse from Colossians 3:20 about fathers provoking their children and making them discouraged, but I couldn't remember it well enough (only remembered the feelings of it) to tell Jason what you said...can you refresh my memory?

What exactly is "provoking"?

Thanks, te.

Children's can be provoked in a number of ways. Sometimes, it is doing what some would call "pulling rank" and being overbearing and unreasonable. It could be to abuse your position as "head of the house" by giving unnecessary and burdensome orders. It could be to falsely accuse or wrongly punish a child. It could be to ridicule a child for the precious feelings that he has, or to cruelly berate a child in public and humiliate him.

My children, from a very early age, seemed to have a sense of justice that picked up on almost anything that was not right, even if they couldn't put their finger on it or put it into words. When parents do wrong, it confuses children because they naturally look to their parents for guidance. I remember how relieved and happy it made my small children feel whenever I went to them to tell them that I had made a mistake and that I was sorry. It seemed to release something that was burdening them, even if, as I said, they could not verbalize or comprehend it.

Children are tender hearted until grown-ups hurt them so often that they become hard. When we adults do wrong and refuse to admit it, we make life hard for the children around us, and that can provoke them to anger. That is why it is important for us to teach our children by example how to live, and how to admit error when we make it, and to be courageous as well to point out things in this world that are evil. Children need to know that the nasty advertising that they see on billboards as the family rides down the road are put up there by wicked people, that the TV commercials that unexpectedly dump filthy language into their innocent ears and nakedness into their little eyes are made by evil people who love money more than anything else, and that the immodestly dressed people we all are forced to see walking down the street or in the shopping malls are not doing what is good, and that God will certainly punish them for it.

When children feel no hope that wrongs will ever be righted, they can become discouraged, just as Paul says in that verse. This is why the news of Jesus returning to earth to reign for a thousand years and making all things right means so much to little children's hearts. It is a great tragedy that so many little children know nothing about it. Abuse of children can come in many forms, and failure to give them hope through Jesus is among the most damaging.

The only sure way to avoid provoking our children in any way is to walk in the Spirit with our heavenly Father. He is the perfect Father and has never provoked or discouraged any of His children by making a mistake, either in judgment or in deed.

Pastor John

March 3, 2005

Pastor John:

I just read two emails on wisdom. I understand that there are different kinds of wisdom, i.e., the good kind and the devilish kind - I don't know if that's relevant to my question. So, if a person is asking God for wisdom the way God says to, is that person really asking God for the ability and willingness to learn?

Beth Ann

Hi Beth Ann:

Thank you for your query, and I hope you are doing well.

Just as there are, in general, two kinds of wisdom, good and evil, so within each of those two kinds of wisdom, there are more specific kinds. (If I had more of them, I could tell you more specifically what they are!) But there is obviously the wisdom you mentioned, the willingness to listen and learn which is essential for any growth in spirit at all, and there is another good kind of wisdom, which is the wisdom to know how to deal with specific types of problems and /or people.

So, to answer your question, what kind of wisdom you are asking God for can only be determined by what you have in your own mind when you ask. What are you after? I encourage everyone, no matter what they have on their minds when they seek God, to always include a prayer for a heart that is truly willing to receive whatever answer to their prayer that He may give. There are countless stories of people who have asked God for direction and then rejected His answer when it came. Jesus said that everyone who seeks will find, but he did not say that everyone would like what they found. One of the truly heart-breaking Biblical cases of this can be found in Jeremiah 40:1 through 43:7. Because of these men's refusal to believe the answer God sent to them, the suffering servant Jeremiah is forced to leave his beloved home in the Promised Land and disappears into history.

Wicked wisdom can also be broken down into further categories: worldly wisdom, demonic wisdom, etc. But we want to be somewhat ignorant of all that. We hardly ever know, Brittanie, what we are really asking God for when we ask Him for anything. That is what Paul was suggesting when he wrote, "We do not know what to pray for as we should" (Rom. 8:26). And that is the wonderful blessing of having the holy Ghost in us to pray for us and through us, for "the Spirit helps our infirmities . . . and it makes intercession for us according to the will of God" (Rom. 8:26a-27). Thank God for that help!

Pastor John

March 3, 2005

Hiya, Pastor John,

I notice that in TFE 20-25 "Discerning Spirits", at no point do you say these spirits are "in" the people around us, though sometimes I've had cause to believe that they are. I've read a tract by your father on that, and have felt it, how we tend to be influenced by the attitudes of our company whether or not any of us realize what is happening. Do you mean to say in this TFE that sometimes these spirits really are just 'blowing around", the way people walk around and conduct their business during the day? Just curious.

Beth Ann

Hi Beth Ann

In reality, it is a mixed bag. There are spirits just "floating around", looking for a home, if you will, and there are people around us who are influenced by those ungodly spirits, and then, as you say, there are people who have gone so far as to be possessed by those wicked spirits.

So, yes, you are right to see the difference between what I was saying in the TFE for 2-25 and what else there is to know about it. Thanks for asking.

Pastor John

February 25, 2005

Morning!

I had a question for you. If a person chooses not to marry or if that is God's will for them, how does that classify them in the Kingdom of God? I have wondered if they would be the same as a Eunuch in the Kingdom of God. Is that correct spiritually speaking? I found this Scripture:

Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

What does that mean? Thanks.

Amy

Dear Amy:

If one chooses to remain unmarried for the sake of Christ and the saints, then, yes, that is what makes one a "eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake". Not many are able to do that, but those who do will receive a place in the eternal kingdom of God that is "better than of sons and of daughters" (Isa. 56:4-5).

Pastor John

February 25, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I've been thinking a lot about that answer you gave to somebody a few months ago . . . that you'll be ready to die for Jesus when you can live for him in front of other people.

These past few months I've really been trying to be a good worker by leaving tracts around and thoughts for the evening at school. And I feel like I'm a good example at school in how I act and my attitude. But, this feeling of fear rises up in me sometimes when a classmate that I know sees tracts fall out of my binder or something...and it only happens with certain people...probably the ones I care about the most. I've been praying and working to not be afraid, and I don't feel as afraid as I used to. I can sit and read a tract in class but I feel like I'm on the edge of my seat. It's hard to explain. I know that it's just that I'm afraid of being singled out and the very few people I know at the school not like me anymore. I feel pathetic even saying that but how do I get past it? Just keep praying and working? Or just get past my fear and hand them a tract?

Also, I read "The Sin of Silence" tract, and that was very good and encouraging. I've heard people say that there is a right time to tell someone the truth or your testimony, and sometimes the moment just doesn't pop up. Is that true? Is there a right time or is anytime the right time?

What you are feeling is normal, but it is still the flesh, questioning the wisdom of your inward desire to do the will of God. The flesh worries about the results of doing good (that is, the reaction of people to our doing good), and that worry will paralyze you spiritually if you let it be your master. The results of our doing good are actually none of our business. Our business is just to love God and do good.

You, along with everybody else, want to get to the place where you don't even think about it. That is where you are going to find peace. It is a place where you just live your own happy life every day, just being yourself in Jesus, and just doing as you feel to do in every situation, without fear of the results. That is the only way to live a happy life.

As for the right time to do something, no one can tell you that. There is some truth to everything you have been told about that; both views have merit. But one way to get to the place where you will know when it is the right time to do something is to seek God for what I just described: freedom from worry about the results of doing good in God's sight. Without worrying about the results, you will be able to keep your mind on your communion with Jesus, and you can then discern more perfectly what is right and wrong.

My advice? Find out what you, in your heart, really want to do and how you really want to live, and then just do it, "with malice toward none, with charity toward all", doing what is right "as God gives us to see the right." Day by day, quietly go about your own life, sowing seed for a good resurrection by your attitude, your testimony, and your world-conquering faith in Jesus.

I don't want to leave this school with any regrets and without anybody that wants the truth. I just really want to get past myself to do the will of God. Haskell and Billy Highfill's testimonies a week ago really were encouraging.

Thanks for your help! Hope you're enjoying the day.

Love,

Jamie

I hope you will enjoy yours, too. Just don't allow worry about what people will say about it if you do get in your way!

jdc

Thanks Pastor John!

Your answer to my eamil about "fear" was really good, and was also what I've been thinking about. Sometimes I have to sit down and write an e-mail to let myself know what I'm feeling. And the prayer meeting Weds. really helped. I kind of was getting the answer that you gave me in your e-mail...just keep "marching on to Zion" and everything will work out. :o) God has been working something else out that's good for me, and I'll tell you about it when it all comes together. It has to do with the question I've been asking God for the last couple of years, "Why am I not like I was when I was younger...as happy and just carefree?" and "Why don't I wake up in the middle of the night with amazing thoughts about Jesus like I used to?" Just questions like that...things I want back. I think He's slowly working something out for me and it's feeling good. :o) But anyway, off to do some of my simple little jobs.

Love you!

Jamie

Dear Jamie:

It is difficult to live in this world and yet maintain the child-like exuberance for life that we once had. The world has a way of working against it because it hates innocence and godly joy. But Jesus can make us children again, and yet with the knowledge that adult life gives us. "The cares of this life", including school work, can rob us of so much joy in the Lord and would crowd out everything happy and true about God if we give in to it. We just have to learn to balance this life with the one we are really living. When we make that adjustment, amazing thoughts about Jesus will be there, and better than ever, wiser and freer than before. So, just keep pursuing the goal. Nobody ever got there by giving up, and no adult has ever continued to love God without becoming a child again.

I love you, too!

Pastor John

February 19, 2005

Hey Pastor John!

I have a question. I've been reading in Matthew, and as I was going through chapter 13 where Jesus tells several parables and the disciples ask him why he speaks in parables to the people, etc. I understood the gist of most of the parables, because you've taught us about them, except the one in verse 33 that reads:

"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

That was all...I expected it to keep going. I read it over several times, and I don't understand it. Do you know what it means? Thanks!

Love you,

Ashley

Dear Ashley:

It simply means that the holy Ghost will take over the life of the person who yields to it and will keep that person happy and free as long as that person remains yielded. The Spirit of God does not decrease in power or joy over time; on the contrary, as the years pass, it increases in power and joy and love and wisdom. Isaiah told us, "Of the INCREASE of his government there shall be no end. The holy Ghost in us is like leaven; it is continually increasing inside of him who has it until he is completely re-made, the same way that leaven slowly changes unleavened bread into something else. If you see a person who is not as excited about Jesus and is not as happy and free in Jesus today as he once was, it is not the Spirit's fault. Rather, that person is not as happy because he has become hardened by some kind of sin, and the leaven that is in him can't expand in his hard heart to increase its joy and peace and love and power and faith.

Incidentally, it is important to note that if we push certain of Jesus' parables, we can make too much out of them. Let me give you an example, taken from that same chapter 13 in Matthew, verse 44. In that parable, the kingdom of God is compared with a treasure hidden in a field that a man has found (not the owner of the field). Then the man hides the treasure in a new place, goes home and sells all that he has, and then goes to the owner of the property and purchases the field from him without telling the man that his field contains a very precious treasure. Now isn't that a little bit dishonest? Yes, it is a little deceptive, but the point of the parable was simply that the kingdom of God is worth given our all for it. So you see, if we push the parable beyond the simple point that Jesus was trying to make, we become "over wise" and "religious over much", and we will suffer for it.

With the parables, as with life itself, keep it simple.

Pastor John

February 18, 2005

Hi, Pastor John,

Thanks for your reply to my questions!

In my English classes last year and this year, the Bible and Christianity have made up a good deal of the subjects of our reading assignments. Not only these, but the general ideas of God that make up people's "philosophies" throughout literature have been the main focus. I figure that Christian heritage is a big deal because it is a gigantic part of Western culture, and has been for 2,000 years, you know?

We recently read parts of "Paradise Lost" by John Milton and "Inferno" by Dante. Wow. I personally got annoyed with much of the reading, as did at least one of my friends who thought the stuff was more "bunk" than most of our other readings. *haha* Have you ever read either of these works, Pastor John? I ask because the things in them raised questions in me as I read, and it would help to know what you know about them if I end up asking you things.

The poems are both largely about hell, or at least these men's interpretations of it. (That is probably the biggest part that upset me and one of my friends, because the authors seemed to really lessen what we had read in the Bible about the place.) I could readily discern that several things in the writings were wrong, but for many others I wondered what if to the point of aggitation. Actually, when we discussed the books in class it was like people were not asking about "God, character in this story" so much as they had questions about the real God. It was almost strange that they were asking the teacher the questions they were, and it was hard for anyone, including myself, to say anything without whipping out some bit of religious beliefs. Basically, it was extremely hard - if not impossible - to read the stories as we would any other story.

Anyway, if you have read them I was wondering if you could give me a general feedback for my general inquiry!

Stephanie

Stephanie

As part of my research on my future book, "The Iron Kingdom" (the formation of Xty), I have read and studied the Inferno in some detail. It is actually part of a trilogy by Dante. In the part called "The Inferno" is found the most insulting thing to Jesus that has ever been written by a Christian poet. The devil is at the heart of hell, the lowest level, and of course the worst punishment for the greatest of all crimes is there. In the devil's mouth are three men, one of course being Judas the betrayer. The other two? The assassins of Julius Caesar! They are being punished with a greater punishment than even Caiaphas, whom Dante and his guide Virgil passed earlier on another level. In other words, the crime of killing the tyrant Caesar (the ancient shadow of a mafia boss) is held to be a worse sin than Caiaphas' sin of killing the Prince of life.

Did you know that Dante even said that Jesus was actually "Jove" (Rome's highest god). I can't remember if that was in The Inferno or not, but it is in one of those three poems.

It has been many years since I read Paradise Lost, but I will no doubt be reading it again as part of my research, now that I will be reading it with my eyes open to what Xty really is.

By the way, the devil has never been to hell, will never go to hell, and has no power to either send anyone to, or hold anyone in hell. Jesus (Rev. 1) said "I hold the keys of death and of hell." Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire in the end (at the end of Rev. 19) and will bypass hell altogether.

I would say more than that Xty is a "gigantic part of Western civilization". I would say that Xty IS Western Civilization, or at least used to be. One famous historian of the early 20th century made this famous statement: "The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith." This is true. What Jesus showed me is that Xty is the Roman Empire in drag. (He is dressed up as a woman, the Bride of Christ, but he is an imposter.) Hence, the crime of Brutus and Cassius are worse in the eyes of true Christians than the sin of Caiaphas. Why, they did not want there to be an Emperor and an Empire! How could they?

Have you read The Aeneid yet? That is the epic from which Dante got some of his silly ideas about hell. But then, being a true Christian, he was also a true Roman; therefore, he would have revered the poet Virgil as his spiritual Master, and in fact that is exactly what he called Virgil through the Inferno and his other poems as well.

If you will trust Jesus, he will help you deal with the class discussions that you will be in. Let me know if I can help.

Pastor John

February 18, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I am so glad that you take the time and teach us the things of God.

I am definitely somebody that needs to constantly learn new things about holiness.

I have been thinking about God's two prophets that are going to come in the end days (Rev. 11), and I remember you saying that they are Moses and Elijah. Will people know who they are? Do you think they will look like normal humans? I know it may be silly questions, but I am wanting to know more about the bible and Jesus. Are they still here on earth, or do you think they are in heaven with Jesus?

Well, I better go for now! Have a good day!

Margo

Hi Margo.

As far as constantly learning new things about holiness, that will last only up to a point. What you will find is that we constantly learn old things about holiness if we stay close to Jesus.

Concerning the "two witnesses", I believe that they are Moses and Elijah. They are the only two OT personalities who witnessed Christ in a "glorified", when they were with Jesus the day he was temporarily "transfigured" into a brilliant whiteness. Some people think that one of the witnesses is Enoch and not Moses because Moses has already died once, but that just doesn't feel right to me. We know that the devil wanted Moses' body and that the archangel Michael contended with him over it (Jude 9). So, apparently, Moses was revived so that he was still alive in earth (and finally in Canaan's land!) when Jesus was here. Also, according to Revelation 11, the plagues with which these two men will plague this wicked world are among those that Moses and Elijah brought upon the earth when they were here the first time.

Whoever they prove to be I don't know if the world will recognize them, though I doubt it. The world has never recognized much that God ever did. How will they be dressed? That is unknown, but they will certainly look like humans because they ARE humans. God is telling no one where they are now, but I suspect that they are still here on the earth. Being in heaven with natural bodies as they still have would be very difficult. They were here on earth when Jesus was, and they spoke with him about the suffering and death he would face in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

February 18, 2005

On the TFE's on "slander", I have some questions. One, your requirements for slander were for inside the ekklesia, no? What I mean is, the definition I've known for slander - someone speaks false bad things about someone else - still applies in general, does it not?

It is impossible for anyone outside the family of God to commit the high crime that is called "slander" in the Bible. Sinners may commit an act that resembles it, but they are only amateurs when it comes to wielding Satan's greatest weapon. There are some sins so great that it takes power with God to commit them. As I have said before, not many of God's children have ever even qualified to be a Judas. They have never been that close to their Lord, knowing even his secret places of prayer, nor have they been anointed with such power as Judas possessed.

The world has its definition of slander, and it is good that the world condemns that act. But what we want to understand and avoid is the kind of slander that has the potential of ruining the fellowship of the saints in light.

Also, you said there are three groups of people that belong to Jesus, and that one of them was still young in Him and can make decisions to be wise or foolish. I'm not sure so please tell me, but I understood that to possibly mean that once you're wise or foolish you are just like that and will not really change. Please correct me one way or the other!

Bethany

Hi Bethany:

There may be some foolish things about a "wise virgin" and some wise things about a "foolish virgin", so it is impossible for us to judge anyone quickly. We know that there can and should come a time in a believer's life when he is "established in the Lord". Such is a "wise virgin"; his spirit has been fiercely tried, and his course to eternal life is set. Even if he stumbles, he will repent and get up.

We also know that there can come a time when a child of God becomes "reprobate", to use Paul's word. These are "twice-dead, plucked up by the roots", to use Jude's phrase, and John added that some in God's kingdom could go astray to such an extent that prayer for them is worthless. "There is", he said, "a sin unto death. I do not say that you should pray for [that person]." This is one who has firmly become a "foolish virgin". God is patient beyond any man's ability to comprehend; still, there can come a time when He says "no more", and in that case a person's fate is sealed. Before that time comes, there will be a thousand opportunities for that person to repent and be made pure in God's sight.

Do not fear becoming a "foolish virgin"; be excited about becoming a wise one. That is what God wants for you, and if you want it, too, you will obtain to it.

Pastor John

February 17, 2005

Pastor John,

Last night condemnation was talked about some. I do not fully understand what condemnation is. Could you explain it to me? I looked it up in the dictionary and then read scriptures about it, but I still don't understand. At the the end of one scripture in James, it states "lest ye fall into condemnation." How do you fall into condemnation?

Julie

Julie:

Condemnation is the existence in the heart of guilt and shame for an ungodly deed or desire. It is one of God's ways of letting us humans know when we are not in the way to eternal life. It is not imaginary guilt, as some people suffer with because of oppressive evil spirits; it is not the condemnation that doctrines and standards of over-religious men regularly heap on innocent, searching souls. It is not cruel or unjust, ever. It is the love of God in action for a person who has erred.

One "falls into condemnation" after he has stubbornly refused to hear the voice of God (our "conscience") warning him that he wandered off the right road and is now headed in the wrong direction. Whenever God tells us to move away from the edge of the cliff, and we refuse to hear Him, we always fall. And even though Jesus has an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, it is wiser and less painful just to back away from the edge.

Get a copy of the CD of our reading of Romans 12-16 in Louisville from this past Saturday night. It may help clear things up concerning the conscience.

jdc

February 16, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

My roommate and I were discussion interracial marriages a few weeks ago and the theme continues popping up around me. What does the Bible say about it? Is it a bad thing? The population is becoming increasingly abundant with interracial families, and it is apparent here at college.

Thanks,

Tina W.

Hello Tina:

Paul told the saints in Corinth that it was best not to marry at all. Nevertheless, it was no sin to marry if a believing couple really wanted to do so. To those believers who decided to marry, Paul gave his blessing, but then he warned them that they would experience "trouble in the flesh". Now, consider that Paul's admonition was applied to marriage under the very best of circumstances; that is, in the case wherein two children of God marry who are, together, walking uprightly before the Lord. So, even in a best-case scenario, in which a couple are "equally yoked", there will be "trouble in the flesh". This is due to the inherent differences between the male and female segments of our species. Some conflicts are unavoidable.

Now, every difference in a marriage that is added to the male/female difference makes for more "troubles in the flesh". For example, if one spouse in a marriage grew up "dirt poor" while the other grew up in a very wealthy home, they will have troubles in the flesh that a couple who have similar economic backgrounds will not have to deal with. The same can be said for significant age differences, or differences in educational levels, or differences in political or social interests, and so forth. The "troubles" will be there. They can be handled well or poorly, but they will be there, and they will not go away on their own. The "troubles" in every marriage can only be magnified when a couple adds to the male/female difference the difference of race. Especially is this true in our culture concerning black/white couples, where conflict between blacks and whites is historic, and where the world-views of the two cultures often differ greatly.

This point made, it cannot be stated categorically that marriage between a black and a white is sin. However, it can be stated categorically that in our time and place, it is not wise. The differences are too great. When we marry, we never simply marry an individual; we marry who that individual is and what made him what he is, his history, his culture, his relatives, his god, his view of the world, etc. (That is why God has always absolutely forbidden His people to marry anyone who did not belong to Him.) So, it may be that somewhere there is an inter-racial couple that is happy and dedicated to Christ Jesus. It certainly is possible, if the will of God be so, and I would have no problem with that.

Over the years, I have been approached by a number of young couples (and some not so young) to let me know that they were considering marriage. When asked my opinion of their plans, I have had the same answer to almost all of them, namely, "If you can stand each other, it's fine with me." That is how I feel. If two people can stand each other, what is it to me if they want to be married, no matter who they are? Having said that, I hasten to add that I personally have never seen a black/white inter-racial couple brought together by a mutual love of God's righteousness. I am not saying that such a marriage does not exist or cannot exist; they very well may be out there. I am only saying that I have never seen one. On the contrary, my observation has been that the principal quality that brings together young blacks and whites in our time is simply what the Bible calls "the lust of the flesh."

In my studies on the subject, I have read that Alexander the Great attempted to unite his empire through many means, one of which was commanding his soldiers to marry women from conquered nations. In one such ceremony, he himself married the daughter of the defeated Persian king, while ten thousand of his soldiers wedded other Persian women. His efforts affected the history of the world, of course, but the marriages were by and large massive failures, if what I have read be true. Where cultural, historical, and social differences exists, great and many are the "troubles in the flesh" that a couple must endure and overcome to have a successful marriage.

Just a few minutes ago on the radio, I heard a Christian teacher say, correctly I think, that because of human nature, peace in the home is not the natural order for a marriage on this earth. This is true. God's grace must abound in us in order for us to have a happy home, and where more natural differences exist, more grace is required, more understanding, more dedication to God's righteousness, and more patience and faith.

The prophet Daniel foretold of this social development in our time. He saw in a vision that as this age drew to a close, "they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave to one another, even as iron is not mixed with clay" (Daniel 2:43). I am convinced that the principal reason for the present day explosion of inter-racial fornication (only occasionally is there actual marriage) is an explosion of unrestrained lust, not an explosion of sophistication or wisdom, as this arrogant generation would like to think. And the unions that are made under that unclean spirit will not endure, just as Daniel predicted.

Of course, there are racial groups other than blacks and whites, but in our culture, those two are the most prominent, and in my judgment the black/white combination here in America makes for the greatest number of "troubles" that a couple must overcome, whether that couple is married or not. The differences between whites and Asians seems not so great, and strangely, the difference between blacks and Asians does not seem so great either. But the black/white divide in this culture is very great, and I would strongly advise any young person not to pursue that kind of marriage, not so much on Biblical grounds as on the grounds of common sense.

I know that you are seeing at college a lot of inter-racial dating. This is because inter-racial anything is promoted to the hilt in this culture. The government has outlawed many of the racial divides that once existed in this society, and businesses and schools at every level, as well as the entire entertainment industry, promote the intermingling of races as a natural and desirable thing, and they all sternly impose that mind set at every turn. If they promoted godliness with the same fervor as they do inter-racial fornication and marriage, there might be some hope in it, but God is, in the main, completely left out of the equation. A day of reckoning is coming.

My opinion of this present drive in our culture for inter-racial everything is the same as always; to wit, "If you can stand each other, it's ok with me." However, what Daniel reveals to us, even if our own observations do not, is that in the long run, they won't be able to stand each other.

Please feel free to send follow-up questions if you have them, and keep up the good work in college.

Pastor John

February 14, 2005

Pastor John:

Sometimes, I have a problem preparing for prayer meetings when I know that we will have visitors! I feel anxious, though I know I shouldn't be. I just want so much for them to see the truth and be happy the way God has made us happy! What's the best thing and the worst thing I can do when we have visitors?

Your fellow worker,

Hi G:

The best thing for you to do is not to think about it.

The worst thing you can do is to worry about what is the worst thing to do. Keep your mind on Jesus. He will keep you in perfect peace if you do.

After some failures on my part, Jesus taught me many years ago not to concentrate on visitors when they come to the meetings but to concentrate on the fellowship that I have with the saints already there. In other words, my answer was just to be who he has made me and to act normal. We aren't in the theatre; it isn't a performance. We arn't there to impress but to edify. Getting my mind off Jesus and worrying about the reaction of visitors to the power and truth of God was evidence of pride in me, and ignorance. Thinking like that, I was acting as if I could save them if I just pleased them with my teaching and behavior. It quenched the spirit in me and left me feeling empty and ashamed.

Some of the scriptures Jesus used to show me the right way to think are found in 1John 2:12-14. Here, John says he is writing to those people because they already know the truth , not to impress or to inform them of anything. He is simply celebrating with them what they all already knew. He knew what he was saying was from God, and he was blessed by writing his letter. They knew what he was saying was from God, and they were blessed by reading it. That is fellowship! Seeing John doing that, I started doing the same thing when visitors came. I started preaching as usual to the saints who already knew the truth instead of trying to convince the visitors of it, and the meetings went very much better for everyone. By this, Jesus taught me that if visitors are not made jealous by the sweet fellowship of the saints in light, they don't really want the way of God.

Just be yourself. Jesus has done a good job re-creating you.

jdc

February 14, 2005

Dear John,

With all due respect. . . I am slightly perplexed. Why in the world have you written an essay such as this (Thought for the Evening, 2-12, "Two Mothers") to our ekklesia? Certainly, it's valuable information and sound teaching, but consider your audience: Why would ANYONE in your congregation need to be reminded/cautioned about which mother they've chosen?

The answer is obviously NOT Hagar (The Flesh, or XTY, or ISLAM or anything else). I would assume that we all love what God has done for us. Is anyone straying from the fold?

Brother Brad

Hi Brad:

Please do not be offended by anything I write. Just take what you can use and leave the rest for someone else. Actually, a major part of my job in Jesus' kingdom is to remind you and everyone else (and even myself many times) of what we all already know. I do it all the time, if you think about it, just as any faithful servant of Jesus would do (see 2Pet. 1:12-13 and Phip. 3:1). Believe me, all of the souls that I care for in Christ need me to do that, and constantly. Jesus requires it of every one of his pastors and teachers for the children of God.

If you will think about it, the Bible was written for those who believe, and it makes some pretty tough statements, both to and about believers. We shouldn't ever be surprised or insulted by that. We are, after all, just dust of the earth given breath by God; we have no wisdom or strength of our own, and we can use every reminder we are given of the subtle dangers that abound in this sinful world. As Paul's parable points out, Abraham has two kinds of sons, one a fool and the other a wise man. God, too, has two kinds of sons. Remember Paul's warning: "Let him who thinks he is standing take heed lest he fall" and "Be not high-minded, but fear, for if God spared not the natural brancehes [the Jews], take heed lest he also spare not you."

Thanks for the comment, though, and please feel free to continue to question anything I do, whenever I do it. I will try to give you an straightforward answer.

Pastor John

February 14, 2005

Hiya,

There are a lot of Catholic people around where I live. Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, and there were people walking around at school and on TV with crosses drawn in ash on their foreheads. I'd read in a newspaper article last year that these ashes are received on the forehead and in the palms. This is the first time I've ever seen the ashes in person, and I didn't look at these people's palms - but is this exactly what Revelation 20:4 means by the people who "had received his (the beast's) mark upon their foreheads, or in their hand"? That seemed the obvious connection when I read that newspaper article.

Beth Ann

Hi Beth Ann:

You are right about there being an obvious connection, but that is all. The ashes on a person's forehead and palms indicate that the person has been deceived and is in a condition to be further deceived by the Beast, but it is not actually the "mark of the Beast" itself.

Pastor John

<<< Previous Page iiiiiii Next Page >>>iiiiiiiiiiii

Return to Main Page