Answer:
There are literally hundreds of promises in the Bible. How can we know which promises apply to us, which promises we can claim? To frame this question another way, how can one tell the difference between general promises and specific promises? A general promise is one that is given by the Holy Spirit to every believer in every age. When the author penned the promise, he set no limitations on time period or recipient.

An example of a general promise is 1 John 1:9, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This promise is based on the forgiving nature of God and is available to all believers everywhere. Another example of a general promise is Philippians 4:7, And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. This promise is made to all believers who, refusing to worry, bring their requests to God (v. 8). Other examples of general promises include Psalm 1:3; 27:10; 31:24; John 4:13-14 (note the word whoever); and Revelation 3:20.

A specific promise is one that is made to specific individuals on specific occasions. The context of the promise will usually make clear who the recipient is. For example, the promise of 1 Kings 9:5 is very specific: I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever. The preceding and following verses make it clear that the Lord is speaking only to King Solomon.

Luke 2:35 contains another specific promise: And a sword will pierce your own soul too. This prophecy/promise was directed to Mary and was fulfilled in her lifetime. While a specific promise is not made to all believers generally, the Holy Spirit can still use a specific promise to guide or encourage any of His children. For example, the promise of Isaiah 54:10 was written with Israel in mind, but the Holy Spirit has used these words to comfort many Christians today: my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed.

As he was led to take the gospel to the Gentiles, the apostle Paul claimed the promise of Isaiah: I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth (Acts 13:47). Isaiahs promise was originally meant for the Messiah, but in it Paul found guidance from the Lord for his own life. When claiming a promise from Scripture, we should keep the following principles in mind:

1) Promises are often conditional. Look for the word if in the context.
2) God gives us promises to help us better submit to His will and trust Him. A promise does not make God bend to our will.
3) Do not assume to know precisely when, where, or how the promise will be fulfilled in your life.

Recommended Resource:
God’s Promises for You: Scripture Selections from Max Lucado

Answer:
Simply put, Postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, Postmodernisms viewpoint is exemplified in the statement that may be true for you, but not for me. While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of taste and opinion with truth.

The term Postmodernism literally means after Modernism and is used to philosophically describe the current era which came after the age of Modernism. Postmodernism is a reaction (or perhaps more appropriately, a disillusioned response) to Modernisms failed promise of using human reason alone to better mankind and make the world a better place. Because one of Modernisms beliefs was that absolutes did indeed exist, Postmodernism seeks to correct things by first eliminating absolute truth and making everything (including the empirical sciences and religion) relative to an individuals beliefs and desires.

The dangers of Postmodernism can be viewed as a downward spiral that begin with the rejection of absolute truth, which then leads to a loss of distinctions in matters of religion and faith, and finally culminates in a philosophy of religious pluralism that says no faith or religion is objectively true and therefore no one can claim his or her religion is true and another is false.

Dangers of Postmodernism – #1 Relative Truth

Postmodernisms stance of relative truth is the outworking of many generations of philosophical thought. From Augustine to the Reformation, the intellectual aspects of Western civilization and the concept of truth were dominated by theologians. But, beginning with the Renaissance periods of the 14th 17th centuries, thinkers began to elevate humankind to the center of reality. If one were to look at human periods of history like a family tree, the Renaissance would be Modernisms grandmother and the Enlightenment would be its mother. Renee Descartes I think, therefore I am personified the beginning of this era. God was not the center of truth any longer man now was.

The Enlightenment was in a way the complete imposition of the scientific model of rationality upon all aspects of truth and claimed that only scientific data could be objectively understood, defined, and defended. Truth as it pertained to religion was left out and discarded. The philosopher who straddled this epochs and Modernisms contribution to relative truth was the Prussian Immanuel Kant and his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which appeared in 1781. Among other things, Kant argued that true knowledge about God was impossible so he created a divide of knowledge between facts and faith. According to Kant, Facts have nothing to do with religion. The end result was that spiritual matters were assigned to be matters of the heart and just opinion, and only the empirical sciences were allowed to speak of truth. And while Modernism believed in absolutes at least in the area of science, Gods special revelation (the Bible) was evicted from the realm of truth and certainty.

From Modernism came Postmodernism and, whereas Kant marked the philosophical transition from the Enlightenment to Modernism, Frederick Nietzsche may symbolize the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. As the patron saint of postmodernist philosophy, Nietzsche held to perspectivism, which says that all knowledge (including science) is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many other philosophers have built upon Nietzsches work (e.g. Foucault, Rorty, and Lyotard) and have shared his rejection of God and religion in general. They also rejected any hint of absolute truth, or as Lyotard put it, a rejection of a metanarrative (a truth that transcends all peoples and cultures).

This philosophical march through history against objective truth has resulted in Postmodernism having a complete aversion to any claim to absolutes, with such a mindset naturally painting a huge bulls-eye on something that declares to be inerrant truth, such as the Bible.

Dangers of Postmodernism – #2 Loss of Discernment

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas said, It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions. What Aquinas meant is that truth is dependent upon the ability to discern the capability to distinguish this from that in the realm of knowledge. However, if objective and absolute truth does not exist, then everything becomes a matter of personal interpretation. To the postmodern individual, the author of a book does not possess the correct interpretation of their work; it is the reader who actually determines what the book really means a process called deconstruction. And given that there are multiple readers (vs. one author), there are naturally multiple interpretations, with the end result being no universally valid interpretation.

Such a chaotic situation makes it impossible to make meaningful or lasting distinctions between interpretations because there is no standard or benchmark that can be used. This especially applies to matters of faith and religion because the philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modernism had already deposed religion to the compartment of opinion. Such being the case, it naturally follows that attempting to make proper and meaningful distinctions in the area of religion (ones that dare suggest that one belief is right and another invalid) carries no more weight than one person arguing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. In such situations, it becomes impossible to objectively adjudicate between competing truth claims.

Dangers of Postmodernism – #3 Pluralism

If absolute truth does not exist, and if there is no way to make meaningful, right/wrong distinctions between different faiths and religions, then the natural conclusion is that all beliefs must be given equal weight and considered valid. The proper term for this practical outworking in Postmodernism is philosophical pluralism. With pluralism, no religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true and the other competing faiths false, or even relatively inferior. For those who espouse a philosophical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. D. A. Carson underscores conservative evangelicals concerns about what they see as the dangerous element of pluralism when he says, In my most somber moods I sometimes wonder if the ugly face of what I refer to as philosophical pluralism is the most dangerous threat to the gospel since the rise of the Gnostic heresy in the second century.

These progressive dangers of Postmodernism relative truth, a loss of discernment, and philosophical pluralism represent real and imposing threats to Christianity because they collectively relegate Gods Word to something that has no real authority over mankind and no ability to show itself as true in a world of competing religious voices. What is Christianitys response to these challenges?

Response to the Dangers of Postmodernism

It should first be stated that Christianity claims to be absolutely true, claims that meaningful distinctions in matters of right/wrong (as well as spiritual truth and falsehood) exist, and claims to be correct in its claims about God with any contrary claims from competing religions being incorrect. Such a stance provokes cries of arrogance and intolerance from Postmodernism. However, truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations and philosophies of Postmodernism quickly crumble and reveal Christianitys claims to be both plausible and compelling.

First, Christianity claims that absolute truth exists. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He was sent and born to do one thing: to testify to the truth (John 18:37). Postmodernism says that no truth should be affirmed, yet its position is one that is self-defeating it affirms at least one absolute truth: that no truth should be affirmed. This means that Postmodernism does believe in absolute truth, and such a fact is exemplified by its philosophers who write books stating things they expect their readers to embrace and believe as truth. Putting it simply, one professor has said, When someone says there is no such thing as truth, they are asking you not to believe them. So dont.

Second, Christianity claims that meaningful distinctions exist between the Christian faith and all other beliefs. However, it should be understood that those claiming that meaningful distinctions do not exist between religions are actually making a distinction. They are attempting to showcase a difference in what they believe to be true and the Christians truth claims. Postmodernist authors expect their readers to come to the right conclusions about what they have written and will correct those who interpret their work differently than they have intended. Again, their position and philosophy proves itself to be self-defeating because they eagerly make distinctions between what they believe to be correct and what they see as being false.

Finally, Christianity claims to be universally true in what it says regarding mans lostness before God, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of fallen mankind, and the separation between God and anyone who chooses not to accept what God says about sin and the need for repentance. When Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill, he said, Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). Pauls declaration was not a this is true for me, but may not be true for you statement, but rather an exclusive and universal command (i.e. a metanarrative) from God to everyone. Any postmodernist who says this is false is committing an error against his own pluralistic philosophy that says no faith or religion is incorrect because, once again, he violates his own mandate of saying every religion is equally true.

In the same way that it is not arrogant for a math teacher to insist that 2+2=4 or for a locksmith to insist that only one key will fit a locked door, it is not arrogant for the Christian to stand against Postmodernist thinking and insist that Christianity is true and anything opposed to it is false. Absolute truth does exist, consequences do exist for being wrong, and while pluralism may be desirable in matters of food preferences, it is not so in matters of truth. The Christian is to present Gods truth in love and simply ask any postmodernist who is angered by the exclusive claims of Christianity, So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Galatians 4:16).

Recommended Resource:
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland/a>. ]]> http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/06/gotquestions-org-question-of-the-week-8-12555/feed 1 http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/05/gotquestions-org-question-of-the-week-7-12359?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gotquestions-org-question-of-the-week-7 http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/05/gotquestions-org-question-of-the-week-7-12359#comments Fri, 28 May 2010 23:13:00 +0000 GotQuestions.org http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/05/gotquestions-org-question-of-the-week-7-12359 Question: “What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?”

Answer:
The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word Trinity is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune Godthree coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word Trinity does exist in Scripture. The following is what Gods Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun Elohim is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for us is used. The word Elohim and the pronoun us are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for God, Elohim, definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, LORD is distinguished from Lord (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the LORD (Numbers 27:18) and from God (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinitythe Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17, 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in Gods Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is Godbut there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? (Romans 11:33-34).

Recommended Resource:
Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions by Millard Erickson/a> and The Forgotten Trinity by James White.

Answer:
Theres no doubt that persecution is a stark reality of living the Christian life. The apostle Paul warned us that everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). Jesus told us to expect persecution from the world because if they persecuted Him, they will persecute His followers also. Jesus has made it very clear to us that those of the world will hate us because they hate Him. If Christians were like the worldvain, earthly, sensual, given to pleasure, wealth, ambition, the world would not oppose us. But Christians do not belong to the world which is why they hate and persecute us (John 15:18-19). Christians are, or should be, influenced by different principles from those of the world. We are motivated by the love of God and holiness, while the world is driven by the love of sin. It is our very separation from the world that arouses the world’s animosity toward us. The world would prefer that we were like them; since we are not, they hate us (1 Peter 4:3-4).

As faithful Christians, we must learn to recognize the value of persecution and even to rejoice in it, not in an ostentatious way, but quietly and humbly because persecution has great spiritual value. First, persecution allows us to share in a unique fellowship with our Lord. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul outlined a number of things he surrendered for the cause of Christ. Such losses, however, he viewed as rubbish (Philippians 3:8), or dung (KJV), that he might share in the fellowship of Christs sufferings (Philippians 3:10). The noble apostle even counted his chains as a grace (favor) which God had bestowed upon him (Philippians 1:7).

Secondly, in all truth, persecution is good for us. James argues that trials test our faith, work or develop (endurance) in our lives, and help develop maturity (James 1:2-4). For as steel is tempered in the flames of the forge, trials and persecution serve to hone down those rough edges that tarnish our character. Yielding graciously to persecution allows one to demonstrate that he is of a superior quality than his adversaries. Its easy to be hateful, but an ugly disposition throws a light upon our human weakness. It is much more Christ-like to remain calm and to respond in kindness in the face of evil opposition. Without question this is a tremendous challenge, but we have the power of the Holy Spirit within us and the wonderful example of the Lord to encourage us. Peter says of Jesus: When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to Him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23).

Third, persecution enables us to value the support of true friends. Conflict sometimes brings faithful children of God together in an encouraging and supportive way they might not have known otherwise. Hardship can stimulate the Lords people toward a greater resolve to love and comfort one another and lift one another to the throne of grace in prayer. Theres nothing like an unpleasant incident to help the more mature rise toward a greater level of brotherly love.

So, when we think about it seriously, we can move ourselves forward, even in the face of antagonism, whether from the world or within the church, and press on. We can thank God for His grace and for His patience with us. We can express gratitude for those whom we love in the Lord and who stand with us in times of distress. And we can pray for those who would accuse, misuse, or abuse us (2 Corinthians 11:24; Romans 10:1).

Recommended Resource:
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs by John Foxe

Writers and religious skeptics have always come up with alternative narratives about Jesus’ life and ministry. But author Dan Brown brought it to center stage in a spectacular way, with his blockbuster 2003 fiction, The Da Vinci Code, followed by the movie and all its sequels and franchises.

Brown provoked speculation in both secular and theological circles—all the way to the Vatican:

Did Leonardo Da Vinci write an encrypted code on his famous Vitruvian Man? Was Mary Magdalene married to Jesus? Is there really a Holy Grail?

Seven years later, even Christian magazines are still asking questions like, “Why weren’t there women in Da Vinci’s Last Supper painting?” (Light & Life Magazine, March, April 2010, pp. 10-11).

I’d like some answers from you, Mr. Da Vinci…may I call you Leo?

How is it that you lived from 1452 to 1519—over 14 centuries after Jesus—yet you have all the secrets of his ministry that not even his contemporaries revealed, or the prophets were inspired by God to write?

Surely, a Renaissance man like yourself, jack of many trades, was able to construct a Time Machine. Is that how you went back and did the portrait of Jesus at the Last Supper, and hid at least one woman in the background, as some say?

What about those who claim you purposefully left women out of the picture?

Grid reproduction of Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"

Let’s spend some time on this unfounded “women missing from The Last Supper” claim. Before we ask why Da Vinci left them out of his painting, we could ask why they were left out of the Last Supper accounts, when we see women mentioned in many other New Testament scriptures.

All four disciples who wrote the gospels found it important enough to mention that women were the first to see Jesus’ empty tomb (Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:9-10; Luke 24:8-11; John 20:10-18). John speaks of the Samaritan woman at the well to whom Jesus offers “living water” (John 4:7-42), and the woman whom Jesus saved from punishment for adultery (John 8:3-11).

Matthew 14:21 specifically mentions women as being present, yet outside of the 5,000-man count at the five loaves and fish miracle. Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, are mentioned in Luke 10:38-41 and John 11:1-40.

Throughout the book of Acts and his later writings, the apostle Paul mentions by name many women who participated in spreading the gospel. In 2 Timothy 1:5, he gives credit to Timothy’s mother and grandmother for how they raised the young disciple.

So why, then, would women be left out of the Last Supper accounts? And why would Da Vinci leave them out of his painting?

Simple answers to these questions:
A Boston Museum of Science website devoted to Da Vinci’s works quotes the artist:
The most praiseworthy form of painting is the one that most resembles what it imitates.

I doubt Da Vinci, having said this, would have put brush to canvas for The Last Supper without first reading the Biblical accounts of its occurrence. Therefore, he imitated what he saw in scripture.

He didn’t read anything between the lines like people love to do with the Bible today in order to discredit the Book itself and its sources. He didn’t add women for one simple reason…they weren’t there.

And, I’m sure Da Vinci would say Jesus wasn’t married either.

But the most important answer comes from a Christian’s own faith: What’s in the Bible was divinely inspired by God through the hands of man, and God knew what books would be canonized.

The New Testament’s writers had a hunch their stories would seem unbelievable and questionable. That’s why Luke 1:1-2 states:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been  fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.

And 2 Peter 1:16 says:
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Why should Christians stick with what the Bible says?

As Christians, we must learn to trust the Lord with all our heart rather than leaning on our own human understanding (Proverbs 3:5). Our faith grows through hearing and reading the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

In other words, the greatest faith in knowing that Jesus was who He said He was, and that things went down exactly as they appear in the Bible, comes from believing the book itself…not through the speculations of man.

The people who write these modern-day things can’t prove what they’re saying; neither have they yet proven the Bible is false.

Scriptures quoted in italics within this commentary are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Answer:
There have been numerous claimed discoveries of Noah’s Ark in recent years. The discoveries have been in various locations, ranging from Mount Ararat in Turkey, to a mountain range in Iran, to an entirely different location on Mount Ararat (with a visitors’ center).

It is not the purpose of this article to evaluate whether or not the Noah’s Ark discovery claims are legitimate. Rather, the question at hand is: If Noah’s Ark was discovered, would that be significant? Would the discovery of Noah’s Ark cause people to turn to God in faith?

The discovery of a boat-like structure in the mountains of the Middle East, carbon dated to approximately the time of the biblical account of Noah’s Ark (2500 B.C), with evidence of animal life once having been aboard would surely be a tremendous discovery.

For those who believe in God and trust in the Bible as His inspired Word, it would be powerful confirmation that the Bible is true and that early human history occurred precisely as the Bible describes it.

A verified discovery of Noah’s Ark would likely cause many seekers and open-minded skeptics to at least re-evaluate their beliefs. For the close-minded critic and hardened atheist, however, the discovery of Noah’s Ark would not make one bit of a difference.

Romans 1:19-20 declares, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (ESV).

If a person is rejecting the clear evidence of God in the universe, no biblically-related discovery would change his/her mind. Similarly, in Luke 16:31, Jesus declared, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” No discovery, no argument, and no miracle will change the mind of a person who has been blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4) and is, with a hard heart and closed mind, rejecting the light of the Gospel.

Conversely, would it matter if Noah’s Ark is never discovered? No, it would not matter because the Christian faith is not built on every biblical account being explicitly/conclusively proven. The Christian faith is built on faith. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). With that in mind, though, there are two primary explanations for why Noah’s Ark might never be discovered. First, the wood of the Ark would have been very valuable post-Flood. Noah and his family would have needed wood to build their homes.

It is possible that Noah and his family, or their descendants, deconstructed the Ark and used its wood for other purposes. Second, even if Noah and his family left the Ark intact, approximately 4500 years have passed (if the biblical account is interpreted strictly literally). A wooden structure exposed to harsh elements for 4500 years would, for the most part, decompose/decay into virtual nothingness.

While the discovery of Noah’s Ark would be a tremendous and powerful archaeological find, it will never be something Christians should place their faith in.

The discovery of Noah’s Ark, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Garden of Eden, or any other biblical artifact will not prove the Christian faith and will not change the mind of anyone whom God is not drawing (John 6:44). “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

Recommended Resource:
Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions by Elmer Towns.

In the documentary, the British physicist will give his views on intelligent life in other planets.

Reports say he believes they exist, but warns against making contact with them, according to BBC News.

Space alien. Credit: martin_m2/sxc.hu

Hawking notes that aliens might simply raid the Earth for its resources, then move on.

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet,” Hawking tells BBC News.

Hawkings, in the BBC interview said, “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

The program envisages numerous alien species including two-legged herbivores and yellow, lizard-like predators, but Hawking conceded that most life elsewhere in the universe is likely to consist of simple microbes.

Professor Brian Cox, a physicist from the University of Manchester, said in a recently released BBC series Wonders of the Solar System, that organisms could be present under the ice sheet that envelops Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons.

Professor Cox added, “Closer to home, the evidence that life could exist on Mars is growing.  We will only know for sure when the next generation of spacecraft, fine-tuned to search for life, are launched to the moons of Jupiter and the arid plains of Mars in the coming decades,” he told the BBC.

Some Christians agree with part of Hawking’s statement–that visitors from another world could be dangerous–but they do not agree with Hawking about what the creatures actually are.

In response to Erich Von Daniken’s bestseller, Chariots of the Gods, Dr. Clifford Wilson, researched UFOs and the Bible and penned his own bestseller and rebuttal, Crash Go the Chariots.

In the end, Wilson allows for the possibility of some malevolent beings of supernatural origin, but he does not believe they are intelligent life forms from other planets. In fact, Wilson, after his research, concluded he did not believe that life exists on other planets.

The point is further elucidated by Ken Ham who looks to the Bible to explain his viewpoint. In a recent Blog posting, Ham says:

“From an evolutionary perspective, it would make sense to suggest [that intelligent alien life exists]. People who believe this possibility contend that, if life evolved on earth by natural processes, intelligent life must exist somewhere else in the far reaches of space, given the size of the universe and the millions of possible planets…but I believe a Christian worldview, built on the Bible, rejects such a possibility,” he said.

Ham says he  rejects the possibility of rational alien life because, according to the Bible, the Fall of Man and subsequent sin affected all of creation and the only solution to mankind’s sin problem was Jesus Christ.

“Jesus didn’t become a ‘God-Klingon,’ a ‘God-Vulcan,’ or a ‘God-Cardassian’—He became the God-man. It wouldn’t make sense theologically for there to be other intelligent, physical beings who suffer because of Adam’s sin but cannot be saved,” he said.

“Now, regarding animal life and plants, we cannot be so dogmatic because the Bible does not state whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. Based on the passages about the heavens and earth, however, I strongly suspect that life does not exist elsewhere.”

Answer:
The existence of so many religions and the claim that all religions lead to God without question confuses many who are earnestly seeking the truth about God, with the end result sometimes being that some despair of ever reaching the absolute truth on the subject. Or they end up embracing the universalist claim that all religions lead to God. Of course, skeptics also point to the existence of so many religions as proof that either you cannot know God or that God simply does not exist.

Romans 1:19-21 contains the biblical explanation for why there are so many religions. The truth of God is seen and known by every human being because God has made it so. Instead of accepting the truth about God and submitting to it, most human beings reject it and seek their own way to understand God. But this leads not to enlightenment regarding God, but to futility of thinking. Here is where we find the basis of the many religions.

Many people do not want to believe in a God who demands righteousness and morality, so they invent a God who makes no such requirements. Many people do not want to believe in a God who declares it impossible for people to earn their own way to heaven. So they invent a God who accepts people into heaven if they have completed certain steps, followed certain rules, and/or obeyed certain laws, at least to the best of their ability. Many people do not want a relationship with a God who is sovereign and omnipotent. So they imagine God as being more of a mystical force than a personal and sovereign ruler.

The existence of so many religions is not an argument against God’s existence or an argument that truth about God is not clear. Rather, the existence of so many religions is demonstration of humanity’s rejection of the one true God. Mankind has replaced Him with gods that are more to their liking. This is a dangerous enterprise. The desire to recreate God in our own image comes from the sin nature within usa nature that will eventually reap destruction (Galatians 6:7-8).

Do all religions lead to God? Actually they do. All but one leads to His judgment. Only one — Christianity–leads to His forgiveness and eternal life. No matter what religion one embraces, everyone will meet God after death (Hebrews 9:27). All religions lead to God, but only one religion will result in God’s acceptance, because only through His salvation through faith in Jesus Christ can anyone approach Him with confidence. The decision to embrace the truth about God is important for a simple reason: eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong. This is why right thinking about God is so critical.

Recommended Resource:
Jesus Among Other gods by Ravi Zacharias

Male-femal symbols

The American College of Pediatricians has launched a new web site appealing to educators across the United States.

They are asking schools, school officials and parents not to encourage sexual experimentation among students who feel they may be homosexual or gender-confused.

The Web site, “Facts About Youth” also carries information for the students themselves.

The ACP has also sent a letter and fact sheet to more than 14,000 school superintendents.

This group of health professionals presents the theory that children and adolescents are often confused at first, but if given the chance, they grow out of it and into natural affections for the opposite sex.

Little boys and girls may switch to playing with dolls of the opposite gender. That behavior, says ACP, is usually discouraged but may actually be healthy. Most children also don’t often like the opposite sex until they are pre-adolescent.

The pediatricians say these feelings should not be a green light to encourage alternative sexual orientations or experimentation.

Some points The American College of Pediatricians brings up:
-Schools should refrain from adopting policies encouraging non-heterosexual attractions.
-Schools should not be quick to establish and accept various sexual labels.
-It should never be offered as proven fact that a homosexual or trans-gender orientation is non-changeable.

The organization refers to evidence from The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) that homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality are not necessarily fixed, life-long conditions.

NARTH’s evidence has long been refuted by organizations supporting gay rights, but claims to date there is no scientific proof of a gay gene.

NARTH advises that Gender Identity Disorder (GID, transexualism) is a correctable mental disorder, but that these feelings are encouraged today instead of applying recommended treatment to correct the disposition.

The Facts for Youth website also offers information from the Centers for Disease Control about the overwhelming dangers of homosexual or bisexual activity to the health of young people.

ACP’s position runs contrary to today’s political correctness:
What the American College of Pediatricians is saying could be declared “hate speech” according to current trends in tolerance and diversity:

-In April of each year since 1996, a “Day of Silence” takes place in public schools. This day was created by GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) in conjunction with other gay rights groups to end what they consider to be the constant bullying and taunting of gay children and teens across the country.

On the Day of Silence, all students are to remain silent about the issue of homosexuality or gender confusion for an entire day. Liberty Counsel and other law firms are informing parents that it is not illegal to keep children out of school that day, as a form of protected religious free speech.

-Cities in Florida, Texas and other states have recently adopted or are considering ordinances to allow persons of various sexual orientations to use the other sex’s bathrooms in public places.

-Congress is once again set to vote on ENDA, The Employment Non-Discrimination Act,  (S. 1584/H.R. 3017 ). ENDA has circulated for years without garnering enough votes to pass. It is a measure guaranteeing, among other new rules, that schools and businesses must allow cross-dressers, transsexuals, and other gender-confused persons to appear as they wish on a daily basis without being reprimanded.

President Obama’s recent appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is Chai Feldblum, one of the main authors of ENDA. Critics of ENDA fear the sexual orientation language is so broad that it could include fetishes such as bestiality.

What does the Bible say?
Bible critics state that if we obey the Old Testament’s laws about homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13), we would still be stoning gays and lesbians to death. But in the New Testament, Jesus died once for all to cover our sins (Ephesians 1:7 for example).
And although same-sex behavior is still considered a sin (Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-11), Bible believers are in no way instructed to hate or harm the person(s) involved.

On the contrary, we are to lovingly attempt instruction and restoration of people involved in all sin. The problem is—behaviors of a sexual nature outside marriage between a man and a woman are no longer considered sin by secular society.

Answer:
Many people say that the first thing they want to do when they arrive in heaven is see all their friends and loved ones who have passed on before them. In eternity, there will be plenty of time to see, know, and spend time with our friends and family members. However, that will not be our primary focus in heaven. We will be far more occupied with worshiping God and enjoying the wonders of heaven. Our reunions with loved ones are more likely to be filled with recounting the grace and glory of God in our lives, His wondrous love, and His mighty works. We will rejoice all the more because we can praise and worship the Lord in the company of other believers, especially those we loved on earth.

What does the Bible say about whether we will be able to recognize people in the afterlife? King Saul recognized Samuel when the witch of Endor summoned Samuel from the realm of the dead (1 Samuel 28:8-17). When Davids infant son died, David declared, I will go to him, but he will not return to me (2 Samuel 12:23). David assumed that he would be able to recognize his son in heaven, despite the fact that he died as a baby. In Luke 16:19-31, Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man were all recognizable after death. At the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah were recognizable (Matthew 17:3-4). In these examples, the Bible does seem to indicate that we will be recognizable after death.

The Bible declares that when we arrive in heaven, we will be like him Jesus; for we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2). Just as our earthly bodies were of the first man Adam, so will our resurrection bodies be just like Christs (1 Corinthians 15:47). And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality (1 Corinthians 15:49, 53). Many people recognized Jesus after His resurrection (John 20:16, 20; 21:12; 1 Corinthians 15:4-7). If Jesus was recognizable in His glorified body, we also will be recognizable in our glorified bodies. Being able to see our loved ones is a glorious aspect of heaven, but heaven is far more about God, and far less about us. What a pleasure it will be to be reunited with our loved ones and worship God with them for all eternity.

Recommended Resource:
The Wonder of Heaven: A Biblical Tour of Our Eternal Home by Ron Rhodes

Originally published here: GotQuestions.org