This page contains edited versions of users' comments and questions sent to me via the "send comments" forum. You could use the links below to just skip to the areas in which you are interested. Feel free to send your own feedback - negative or positive.
You're overlooking the overwhelming testimony of scripture that teaches positive thinking and confession, and just explaining away each one.
top of page send feedback home
Whenever you get a chance, read Romans 4. Paul had just finished teaching salvation by grace in chapter 3, now he is giving scriptural proof based on the old testament example of Abraham. Was salvation for the circumcised (Jews) or the uncircumcised (Gentiles)? Paul's answer was based on the fact that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised, therefore salvation is not restricted to the Jews.
My point is this. Doctrine is not just based on the TEACHINGS of scripture, but also on the PRACTICE of scripture. How are the teachings evident in the lives and practices of the people in the Bible, especially those who knew the teachings. The practices of godly men and women in the Bible give us insight on how they interpreted the teachings. This is oftentimes a big clue to finding out the CORRECT interpretation of bible teachings. Even Jesus based his interpretation of the Sabbath law on the fact that David ate of the shewbread, which was not permitted, yet was guiltless in the matter (Mark 2:25-28).
If you say the Bible teaches positive confession, I dare you to name ONE person in the Bible who practiced positive confession. Give me one instance where a Bible character practiced positive confession as it is practiced today. And if you can't think of any, shouldn't that make you question your interpretation of those teachings? If Jesus didn't do it, if Paul didn't do it and if Peter didn't do it; why should we?
RE: POSITIVE THINKING
If there is nothing wrong with negative thinking, why are negative people always depressed and why do so many bad things happen to them?
top of page send feedback home
First of all, it is very questionable that bad things ONLY happen to negative people. Bad things happen to every one – in spite of their mental attitude. Now I stated in my article that the bible does have a lot to say about the mind and the tongue. One person (sorry I can’t remember who) said that optimists and pessimists are both right, but optimists are happier. Optimists – positive people as opposed to positive confessionists – are happier regardless of their circumstances. Negative people often do not accomplish much because they keep telling themselves they can never amount to anything, and as a result, THEY NEVER TRY. It’s not the confession that’s their downfall, it’s the lack of effort.
It is one thing to say that your mental state affects your state of happiness and your outlook on life. That’s all in order. But to say that your mental state can ALTER your circumstances – that’s heresy. That’s false doctrine. It’s actually cultic in origin. Dan McConnell, in his book A Different Gospel, traces positive mental attitude back to New Thought Metaphysics and Christian Science. Now it is clothed in Christian terminology hidden behind out-of-context biblical proof texts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, modern Christianity is a mixture of the Bible and New Age philosophies. A little leaven leavens the lump.
RE: POSITIVE THINKING
All the disciples had the confession of Christ.
top of page send feedback home
Clearly that is not the same thing as positive confession. None of the disciples confessed healing, wealth, BMWs, etc. I know some people who confess "I am the righteousness of God". Yes you are the righteousness of God, but the Bible never tells us to confess that. It tells us to confess our sin and our sinfulness. What did Paul confess? "Oh wretched man that I am". Anyway, the confession of Christ is not the same thing as positive confession. The bible teaches one of them and not the other.
The Bible teaches that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). The Greek word here is rhema which refers to the revealed word rather than the written word (logos). Thus faith can come from a direct revelation from God.
top of page send feedback home
The belief that rhema refers to the spoken word while logos refers to the written word is totally false. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the rhema. But verse 14 makes it clear that the word in question is the gospel message spoken by the preacher, not that which is revealed directly from God. In Hebrews 4:12, the logos word is said to be alive and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword. Also in Luke 7:7, the centurion just wanted Jesus to speak the logos. Thus this dichotomy between logos and rhema is unwarranted. They are used interchangeably in scripture.
How do I know whether a preacher is truly anointed or whether he is just a great orator or crowd control manipulator?
top of page send feedback home
I don't believe that we have to be concerned whether or not a preacher is anointed, just whether he is preaching sound or false doctrine, and that the preaching is edifying to you. Nowhere in the bible are we ever commanded to be anointed, so that is God's concern not ours. In Philippians 1:15-18, there were some people preaching Christ out of envy and strife. Paul's response was, "That doesn't bother me as long as they're preaching Christ".
Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, do you think God would let his Holy Spirit dwell in a sick body?
top of page send feedback home
It is amazing how many people quote this scripture apparently without ever having read it. 1 Cor. 6:19 rightly tells us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, but the verse before that states that fornication is the only sin that we can commit against our bodies, not sneezing or coughing. We only violate the Holy Spirit's temple by committing fornication, not by being sick. How do people overlook verse 18, I will never know. There is no way this scripture can be used to support the idea that we fail to glorify God when we are sick.
Would God let his Holy Spirit dwell in a sick body? First of all, God does not own the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit IS God. God the Son had no problem dwelling with sinful humans, why would God the Spirit have a problem living in sick humans? Doesn't the bible say something about a heavenly treasure in earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7)? In fact that verse tells us that this is how God gets glory - by the fact that He is able to do great things despite our frailty. Did you think the way to glorify God was by saying "I give you the glory"? Secondly, if you believe that the Holy Spirit won't live in a sick body, then you must logically conclude that we are in danger of losing our salvation when we get sick. There is no way to escape that absurd conclusion if you hold to this ridiculous belief.
RE: HEALING IN THE ATONEMENT
Jesus died to deliver us from the curse of sin. Sin is the ultimate cause of sickness. Therefore Jesus died for our healing.
top of page send feedback home
I totally agree that sin is the ultimate cause of sickness. I also agree that Jesus died to deliver us from the curse of sin. Our conclusion is a little different though. The person who made this comment believes that we have been delivered from ALL aspects of sin here and now. I believe that we only received part of the deliverance. The bible teaches that the Holy Spirit in us is a down payment of our redemption (Eph. 1:14). This necessarily implies that we have not as yet received the full benefit of our redemption. There is still more to come. We have been forgiven of our sins, cleansed of our unrighteousness. That much we have definitely received when we came to Christ. However our physical bodies are still under the curse of sin. 1 Cor. 15:42,43 tell us that our bodies were sown in corruption and dishonor, but only at the resurrection (future event) will they be raised up incorruptible. This means that our bodies have not yet been redeemed. This aspect of our redemption is still future (Romans 8:23; 1 John 3:2; Philippians 3:21). Right now our bodies are still subject to sickness, weakness and eventually death.
It all depends on what you choose to call sickness. I know someone who claims that ever since she got saved, she has never been sick. It just so happens that every single tooth in her mouth is fake. She conveniently doesn't see tooth decay as a sickness. Our bodies get old, they wrinkle, they become more prone to injury, we get bald, our metabolism goes down, even our immunity system weakens. These are all the results of living in a corruptible body. Perfect health is something we can only achieve when we get to heaven.
I find it hard to believe that the saints have reached the status of perfection. I wonder how the saints in the early church guided themselves without scriptures.
top of page send feedback home
That's why there are pastors, teachers and evangelists. For
the perfecting of the saints. In the early church, they didn't have the NT as
you mentioned, but the bible makes it so clear that they continued in the
apostles' doctrine or teachings. They certainly did NOT "guide themselves
without scriptures" as you stated. They were guided doctrinally by what the
apostles taught them. Over and over Paul urged the believers to continue in what
they were taught. The NT is based on that apostolic doctrine.
The primary purpose of an apostle was to formulate the faith or the Christian
doctrine. For this reason, apostles had to have been personally commissioned by
Christ. If your apostles today are formulating new doctrines, then I'm sorry to
inform you that those guys are false apostles. The faith has been once and for
all delivered to the saints. And if your modern apostles are only planting
churches, then why call them apostles? Just call them evangelists. Is it the
status they want?
You have a really bitter spirit. I am a Pentecostal and I have never heard anyone squeal like a pig. You are brandishing the entire movement because of a minority group.
top of page send feedback home
You have obviously not read Matthew 23. The things Jesus said there make my comments seem like complements. I know my heart, and I know that what I've written was out of compassion and desire to see reform in the Pentecostal church. It was not out of bitterness. A friend's rebuke is better than an enemy's complement.
You are also obviously not familiar with the Brownsville revival or the Toronto Vineyard revival. People there have squealed like pigs. That and many other funny noises and manifestations - all done in the name of the Lord. Maybe those are the minority. But the problem is that there are so many Pentecostal and charismatic leaders who used to make the pilgrimage there just to bring some of that "anointing" back to their local churches. I am not making this up. The minority actually do it, but a much larger percentage covet and crave for a similar "revival" in their own churches.
Finally you are not familiar with all the positive emails I get from Pentecostals, including a couple from Pentecostal pastors, encouraging me to continue speaking the truth without fear or intimidation.
Why are you discouraging people from attending church?
top of page send feedback home
People need to develop the ability to read and understand, so they would not jump to incorrect conclusions. At no point did I discourage anyone from attending church. I made it abundantly clear that believers should attach themselves to a local church and find a pastor they could submit to and learn from. What I am discouraging is church leaders from having so many unnecessary services that don't accomplish anything of worth. Instead they should focus on the true mission of the local church, which is to equip the saints so they can do the work of the ministry. Most of our services are celebratory in nature, and do very little to help believers to perform real ministry to their families, coworkers, fellow students, etc.
RE: LOCAL CHURCH
The early church met daily (Acts 2:46). What is wrong with having midweek and Sunday evening services?
top of page send feedback home
There is nothing wrong with Sunday evening services, per se. I never said it was wrong. I just think it is an incredibly stupid idea. There are much better things that believers can do with a Sunday evening. But it's certainly not wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, the early church is NOT the example God would have us follow regarding church meetings. The early church was reluctant to fully obey the great commission. Jesus told them to go into 1) Jerusalem, 2) Judea, 3) Samaria, and 4) the utmost parts of the world (the gentiles). See Acts 1:8. But up to Acts 7, they never left Jerusalem. They had already settled into a nice comfort zone (see Acts 6). I don't think they had any intention of spreading the gospel to those unclean gentiles. So what did God do? He raised up Saul of Tarsus to persecute the church. The very first verse of Acts 8 shows the disciples being scattered into Judea and Samaria. Then when God was satisfied, he grabbed hold of Saul, saved him and sent him to the gentiles. God had to force them to get in line with his will. What made you think the early church was God's ideal pattern? In 1 Corinthians 16:1, the implication is that the "later church" met once a week. That every day church thing was only temporary. That was NEVER God's plan for the church.
I insist that Sunday evenings are the ideal time for families to have their own devotions. In the end that will accomplish much more than a Sunday evening church service. The church services should be designed to equip parents to study the bible personally and as a family, to equip workers to be witnesses in the workplace, etc. That does not happen in most church services. I know someone will say, "Well why don't families have their devotion on Saturday?" The fact is that a family is also supposed to have recreational time together. That is not unspiritual. When there are too many church services, there is that imbalance in people's lives. Why are so many Christians getting divorced? Why are so many pastors' kids turning away from God?
RE: LOCAL CHURCH
One of the biggest problems the church faces today is getting our children to serve God. What kind of example are parents setting for their children if they only attend church once a week?
top of page send feedback home
I share your concern for the next generation of Christians. But as usual I'm appealing to scripture to find answers, not man's understanding. The bible clearly teaches that if we raise children in the way they should go, they would not depart from it (Prov 22:6). The bible places the onus squarely on the parents to raise godly children. Where did we get the idea that the key to raising godly children is by attending church 3 times a week? The real key is by having a church like environment in the home. Children are not moved by the fact that daddy attends church whenever the doors are open. In fact, kids today are more turned off by that, because more often than not it means that daddy is too spiritual to have any time for them. Kids are more moved when daddy loves mummy with the love of God, when mummy teaches them the bible, when daddy prays with them. I said it before and I'll say it again, too many people use church services as a substitute for true devotion while true ministry goes unfulfilled.
RE: LOCAL CHURCH
You should read the old testament. David said I was glad when they said to me let us go up to the house of the Lord. God's house meant everything to his people.
top of page send feedback home
One of the fundamental differences between old testament Judaism and new testament Christianity concerns the central place of worship. In the OT, it was God's house or temple. Yes it did mean everything to his people THEN. But Jesus said the time is coming and is even now, when the true worshipers will worship in spirit and in truth. The Jews needed a central place of worship, while the gentiles did not know what they were worshiping. Christ did away with the need for a central place of worship. Instead WE are God's house, not some building down the street. His people are his temple. Whenever two friends pray with each other over the phone, when students study the bible at lunch time in their schools, when families have devotion together, when parents pray with their children, and when a large group of believers meet for a big celebration; that's all church. Whenever we are gathered in his name, that is church.
Christianity is more what happens outside of the building we call church, than what happens inside it. We see this demonstrated in Acts 4:31. When the disciples got filled with the Spirit, they did not roll on the floor and have carpet time. Neither did they just soak it all in. They went out. The real purpose of their gathering was not to just have a good time together, but to receive "equipping" for real ministry. Most of our modern church services are just what we call celebrations. There is no equipping of the saints taking place (Ephesians 4:12). Instead of just hearing the pastor preach three times a week, people need to learn to study the bible for themselves so they can teach their children at home. They need to be taught how to study God's word. Does that happen in most churches? No because modern church services are not designed for that. This is why I say many church services are a useless waste of time. They don't accomplish what the church is really supposed to be doing.
RE: LOCAL CHURCH
Why are you dissing the church? Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Nothing you say can ever cause the church to fail.
top of page send feedback home
Well this comment shows how illiterate some people really are. Clearly that scripture is referring to the universal church and not the local church, hence is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
[This was an actual comment I got by the way. The reader then proceeded to rebuke me for calling God's word irrelevant.]
You are trying so hard to avoid calling masturbation what it is – gratifying the flesh.
top of page send feedback home
People seem to think that gratifying the flesh means to do something which feels good physically. If such is the case, then eating ice cream and cake would be gratifying the flesh. Gratifying the flesh means fulfilling the sinful desires of our unregenerate nature (flesh). The flesh and the body are not exactly the same thing, although there is a relation. The works of the flesh include the sexual sins as well as other things like envy and heresies, which do not necessarily feel good. If you think masturbation is gratifying the flesh, then you have to prove (not assert) that masturbation is a sin or a work of the flesh. You, unfortunately, do not have the bible to back you up.
Sexual desires are not works of the flesh unless they lead to fornication and adultery. Sexual desires are physical mechanisms that God placed within the human body to encourage procreation. Adam and Eve had sexual desires before the Fall. When a man does not ejaculate for 3 days or so, erotic thoughts begin to flood his mind. That’s a physiological fact about men. That’s his body’s way of trying to get his sperm out. As soon as he ejaculates, those desires just plummet. That’s a natural functioning of the male anatomy, not a work of the flesh. The flesh wants him to go and have sex with someone who is not his wife. Masturbating is not fulfilling the lust of the flesh. But ironically masturbating can actually help him deal with those erotic thoughts.
RE: MASTURBATION
There are many things the Bible does not say, but that does not make them right.
top of page send feedback home
I never said that masturbation was right. I said the bible does not call it a sin. What’s interesting though is that people like myself would be called liberals because I’m not afraid to interpret the bible in a non-traditional manner. A liberal is really someone who disregards the bible in favor of other authorities. A liberal would say something like, “The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, but those scriptures are outdated.” That’s what a liberal would say. Therefore I am not a liberal. But then you have these hyper-conservatives who make doctrine on what the bible does not teach. One disregards what the bible clearly teaches, the other bases his beliefs on what the bible does not teach. Which is worse, you tell me. If the bible does not call it a sin, on what basis are you calling it wrong?
RE: MASTURBATION
God has given us a conscience to know what is right and wrong. When people masturbate, it’s not condemnation they feel, it is their conscience telling them it is wrong.
top of page send feedback home
Contrary to popular opinion, our conscience is not an infallible source of doctrine. In fact your conscience is anything but infallible. Read Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8. People have weak consciences and strong consciences, depending on the level of knowledge they have. Some people feel convicted if they eat meat, others don’t. Is eating meat a sin because some people feel conviction? No, it is a sin for them. Conscience does not tell you what is right and wrong ABSOLUTELY, but what is right and wrong FOR YOU. If all you know about masturbation is that people say it’s wrong, and you’ve never studied the scriptures for yourself, is it any wonder you feel conviction. Get knowledge. But according to Rom 14, if your conscience convicts you when you masturbate, then FOR YOU it becomes sin.
RE: MASTURBATION
Masturbation is the same thing as burning with passion, which Paul spoke against in 1 Cor. 7:9.
top of page send feedback home
Paul did teach that it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Is this what masturbation is? Clearly what Paul talked about in 1 Cor. 7 is something which exists in the context of a courting relationship. Paul's advice to such couples was to get married. If you were to be consistent with Paul, do you teach teenaged boys that if they can't help masturbating they should get married? No you don't. Instead you tell them to stop thinking "lustful thoughts". This tells me that even you know that masturbating is not the same thing as the burning with passion Paul spoke of. Paul's solution to passion was not restraint, but marriage.
Passion is simply the burning desire couples have to make love to each other. This passion may lead to masturbation. For example, if a couple engages in a heavy make out session, but don't have sex, the guy may be so turned on that he would masturbate when he gets home. But would it be any less passion if he did not masturbate? But masturbation does not have to be fueled by such passion. There is the normal male sex drive, which operates even outside of any romantic relationship. Sexual desire may be stirred up by couples getting too close, or it may churn up all on it's own. Masturbation may or may not be in the context of passion. It is the burning passion couples need to beware of.
What's interesting though, is that Paul never even called burning with passion a sin. Fornication is a sin, and he suggests that couples should get married to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2). Burning with passion is only a danger zone in that it may lead to fornication (unless they got married), but Paul did not condemn it as sin. Paul never said that those who can't control their passions should repent and crucify the flesh. He said they should marry. In fact Paul strongly implies that the ability to be free of any sexual passion is a gift that not every one has.
RE: MASTURBATION
Masturbation reveals a lack of self control, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23).
top of page send feedback home
Would you also say that sex in marriage reveals a lack of self control? In 1 Cor. 7:5, Paul intimates that Satan may tempt even married people for their "lack of self control", thus they should have regular sex with each other. Paul is saying that married people should have sex as a solution to their lack of self control. But if self control is a fruit of the Spirit, why is it OK for married people to lack self control, but not singles? Why didn't Paul condemn the lack of self control as a work of the flesh and tell them to crucify it? Is this the same Paul who said "make no provision for the flesh"?
Adultery and fornication are works of the flesh regardless of one's marital status. Both married and single people are capable of adultery and fornication. But Paul recognized that sexual appetites need to be fulfilled (1 Cor. 7:5). Therefore, self control cannot mean a total denial of sexual appetites, otherwise we have an inconsistency. If you believe that the need to masturbate reveals a lack of self control, then you must logically conclude that the need for marital sex also reveals a lack of self control. The bible never says that when you get married, you no longer need the fruit of self control. So it's the definition of self control that now becomes important.
The KJV's translation of self control is temperance. To be tempered means to be moderate, not extreme or excessive. Temperance or self control is best understood as not being controlled by our passions, desires and appetites; not a total denial of them. We need self control to MANAGE our passions. Paul presents marital sex as a tool to help married people manage their lack of self control. In other words, God does not expect us to have self control in a vacuum. He gives us "gifts" to help us achieve self control. I maintain that masturbation is actually an effective way for singles, especially teenagers, to control their sexual passions. If masturbation were a sin, then Paul missed a really good opportunity to say so in 1 Cor. 7.
RE: MASTURBATION
If masturbation is a legitimate means of fulfilling your God-given sexual desires while not married, then why not allow unmarried men and women to fulfill these desires by having sex?
top of page send feedback home
The difference between masturbation and fornication is simple. The bible expressly forbids one of them, and is remarkably silent on the other. Personally I find it hard to be loud in areas where the bible is silent.
RE: MASTURBATION
I can't imagine that God is glorified when we fantasize about sexual thoughts. Masturbation should be done without the fantasy. Colossians 3:2 warns us to set our minds on things above not on things of the earth.
top of page send feedback home
This is a very fair comment. But doctrine is not based on what we can or cannot imagine. Did Jesus masturbate? Did Paul masturbate? I don't know. The bible didn't say. I'm not even sure if Jesus ever brushed his teeth. But we can't formulate beliefs on what we imagine to be the case, especially when the bible is silent on an issue. Whenever you get some time, read 1 Corinthians 8. I imagine that before this scripture was written, people would have just assumed that eating food offered to idols was a sin. I mean how could it not be a sin? It was offered to idols for crying out loud. Idols! In fact in Acts 15:29, there was a decree from the apostles that gentiles should abstain from food offered to idols. So there you have it. Preachers were telling you not to do it, and everyone just imagined that it was a sin. Yet when you read 1 Cor. 8, Paul's take on the issue was a 180 degree revolution. He told them that an idol was nothing, and eventually it was a conscience issue. It was not black and white, it was grey. My point is that we should not presume to know what God knows. What we imagine to be true may be wrong.
Colossians 3:2 could be made to say anything we feel like, if we ignore the context. If you say that sexual fantasy is "of this earth" as opposed to something that is "above", then why not say the same thing about marital sex and marriage as a whole? Jesus made it crystal clear that marriage is ONLY for this earth and has NO eternal value (Matthew 22:30; also 1 Corinthians 7:29). Marriage is a perfect candidate for something that is "not above" but rather "of this earth". But the context of Colossians 2 and 3 clears all of this up. At the end of chapter 2, Paul is chastising the Colossians for adhering to man made (earthly) rules for achieving righteousness after they had already come to Christ.
Col 2:20 - if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations...
So when Col 3:2 tells us to set our minds on things above and not things on the earth, it means that we do not achieve righteous living by following man made rules but rather by living in the resurrected life that Christ gave us. That's what it means. It draws a contrast between the resurrection life (true spirituality) and religious life (man made spirituality). This scripture does not say what you want it to say.
RE: MASTURBATION
If you do not believe that sexual fantasy is wrong, do you also believe that pornography is not wrong?
top of page send feedback home
Good question. I do believe pornography is wrong for the following reasons. 1) It entails the enjoyment of other people’s sins of fornication. 2) It promotes the treatment of women which is less than respectful. 3) Pornography is a perversion of normal sexual desires. It does not create those desires, but rather feeds off them and perverts them. Pornography is much more than a mere expression of normal sexual desire.
RE: MASTURBATION
Masturbation is wrong because when a man does it, it deprives his wife of that pleasure which should have been for her (1 Corinthians 7:5).
top of page send feedback home
1 Corinthians 7:5 rightly states that husbands are not to defraud their wives, and vice versa. But I think that this is an argument borne out of desperation, because only a small percentage of marriages actually report such a problem. In the vast majority of marriages, it is the wife who is usually less sexual and often not in the mood, and as a result the husband finds himself with little other choice. Think about it. Doesn’t the fact that a married man has to masturbate tell us something about that marriage situation? How many wives actually complain that they want to have sex, but because their husband has already masturbated, their need goes unmet? How many wives really have that problem? Come on! The majority problem in marriages today is that the husband wants sex, but the wife is not in the mood. If however, there really is a marriage on this planet where the wife is deprived because her husband jumped the gun, then in such a case masturbation becomes wrong, not a sin, but wrong. I just don’t understand why a husband whose wife is so erotic would actually need to masturbate. That would be every man’s dream.
RE: MASTURBATION
The story of Onan teaches us that it is wrong for a man to “spill his seed”.
top of page send feedback home
Although the word onanism has become synonymous with masturbation, I omitted any discussion on Onan from my article on masturbation for the following reason: I didn’t see how any serious student of scripture would conclude that God killed Onan because he masturbated (Genesis 38:8-10). First of all, Onan did not masturbate. He was commanded to have sexual relations with his brother’s widow to raise an heir for his (deceased) brother. Because the heir would not be his, but his brother’s, he withdrew and ejaculated on the floor. Onan actually had sex with the woman. At what point did he masturbate? Onan was more guilty of contraception than masturbation, but God judged him for disobedience.
And what is this nonsense about spilling your seed being wrong? Talk about missing the point of the scripture. God killed Onan for disobedience, not because he spilled his seed. If spilling your seed is wrong, then using a condom is wrong because the seed ends up in the bin. Wet dreams would also have to be wrong. In fact, regular sex would have to be wrong too, because at best one sperm out of millions actually find its target – the rest eventually die just as if they were spilled. What people don’t get is that sperm is meant to come out. If a man does not masturbate, it will come out during a wet dream. But it will come out.
The fact that people have to resort to this extra-biblical line of argumentation just proves my point. The bible does not teach that masturbation is a sin.
Consider Leviticus 15:16,18
16 If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall … be unclean until evening.
18 Also when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall … be unclean until evening.
Verse 16 speaks of an emission of semen other than during sex, e.g. masturbation and wet dreams. Why do I say that? Because verse 18 specifies when the emission is during sex. But according to OT standards, an emission of semen was considered unclean whether or not it occurred during sex. The rest of the chapter goes on to discuss how a woman was unclean because of her “customary impurity” (her periods). My point is this. Why do you single out the “spilling of seed” during masturbation and call it wrong? Why not also call the emission of semen during legitimate male-female sex wrong? Why not call a woman spilling her blood a sin? They are all equally unclean by OT standards. The bible places them all on the same moral plateau.
You say that drinking alcohol is not a sin, but I know many cases where alcohol has ruined lives and marriages and families.
top of page send feedback home
I never said that drinking alcohol is not a sin. I said that social drinking may be a sin, depending on the circumstances. And I said that being drunk is a sin. In other words, I stated that drinking alcohol is not necessarily a sin, but could be. It’s grey area, just like eating meat (Romans 14:21). What destroys families and lives is not alcohol (C2H5OH). It is people who abuse it. Food has also destroyed lives of those who abused it. Why not make eating food a sin? Cars have killed many people, why not make driving a car a sin? Anything that is abused can destroy you. The problem is not with the thing being abused, it is the abuse of the thing. The problem is irresponsible people who cannot handle freedom.
RE: ALCOHOL
I was always convicted by scriptures like “Wine is a mocker”.
top of page send feedback home
Good for you. Romans 14 teaches that if eating meat violates your conscience, then FOR YOU, eating meat becomes sin. Also if someone else’s eating meat causes you to stumble, the FOR THEM, eating meat becomes sin. Drinking wine is in the same category as eating meat (See Rom 14:21). So if you are convicted by drinking wine, then don’t.
But don’t make doctrine for the rest of us. Don’t go beyond what the bible teaches. Proverbs 20:1 states that “wine is a mocker”, but what does that mean? “Strong drink is a brawler”. Does it brawl? Then it goes on to say, “Whoever is led astray [or controlled] by it is not wise”. Once again, this is talking about the controlling influence of being DRUNK with wine. It does not really condemn alcohol in moderation. God does not want us to be drunk with wine because it lowers our resistance against the desires of the flesh. In contrast, He wants us to be filled with the Spirit.
RE: ALCOHOL
You need to study the original Hebrew words used for wine. Jesus turned water into tiryosh, which is Hebrew for grape juice - definitely non-alcoholic.
top of page send feedback home
There are two main Hebrew words which are translated “wine” in the Old Testament: yayin (fermented wine) and tiyrosh (grape juice). It is clear from the usage that yayin is alcoholic while tiyrosh is non-alcoholic. That much is true. But the New Testament was originally written in (Koine) Greek not Hebrew. Any Hebrew version of the NT would be a translation. You say that Jesus turned water into tiyrosh and not yayin. How do you know that?
The Greek word used in John 2:3,8,9 which narrates the water-into-wine miracle is oinos. This is the same word used in Eph. 5:18, “Do not be drunk with oinos”. How could anyone conclude from a word study that Jesus turned water into non-alcoholic wine (grape juice)? When the NT wishes to speak of grape juice (or non alcoholic wine), it uses the term gennema, which means fruit of the vine. This is the word used in Matt. 26:29 referring to the wine drunk at the Lord’s supper. Jesus turned water into oinos not gennema.
There are many pastors today who say that Paul allowed for divorce and remarriage in other cases other than marital infidelity (1 Cor 7). So for every one who says that Paul did not allow remarriage, there are a dozen others who say that he did.
top of page send feedback home
Because the majority of people believe something does not make them right. It is superficial to base an argument on HOW MANY people hold to your viewpoint. It is more useful to know WHY they hold to your viewpoint. Most pastors today adopt a liberal view of divorce and remarriage because they are catering to the many divorced and remarried people in their congregations. There, I said it. They are compromising the word of God because of the fear of man. Here is a quiz for you. Why was God angry with King Saul?
RE: DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
I know many divorced and remarried people who are committed Christians and anointed men and women of God.
top of page send feedback home
So do I. Bless God. God continued to bless David after he committed adultery. Jesus was called the son of David, and will sit on David’s throne. But God NEVER considered Bathsheba to be David’s wife (see for example Matthew 1:6). His adultery was still wrong. Similarly there is no reason why God can’t bless or work through divorced and remarried people, even if their remarriage is sinful. We have this heavenly treasure in EARTHEN vessels (2 Cor 4:7). Sin and weakness are no reasons why God can’t work through us. We all have sin and weakness. That actually proves that the power is from God and not us. So because someone exhibits the power of God in their life, that doesn’t mean their life is necessarily above reproach. And it certainly does not mean that remarriage after an “illegitimate” divorce is OK.
RE: DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
The Bible does not allow for remarriage at all. Divorce only applied to the betrothal or engagement period, never to the actual marriage.
top of page send feedback home
If this viewpoint is correct, then Jesus only permitted an engaged couple to break up if fornication took place. Engaged couples could not break up for any other reason? This makes no sense. This position is stricter than the word of God, and it is incorrect.
In Matthew 19, the Jews trying to test Jesus, asked him a question that had divided the Jewish community of the day. That question was whether a man could divorce his WIFE for any reason, or only for adultery. That was the question Jesus answered. There is every indication that he was speaking of marriage and not betrothal.
Someone may argue that fornication is a sin committed by unmarried people while adultery is a sin committed by married people. So when Jesus said that you cannot divorce except for fornication, he could not have been referring to married people, but engaged people, otherwise he would have said adultery and not fornication. But look at Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. They both say that if a man divorces his wife except for fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. But wait a minute. If this is referring to engaged (but not married) people, then how could he cause her to commit adultery? Do you see why this view is not correct? It contradicts itself.
The difference between adultery and fornication is not married vs. unmarried. Fornication is any general illegitimate sexual act. Adultery is a special case of fornication involving married people. Married people could commit fornication and adultery. Single people could commit adultery if they have affairs with married people. And adultery may not necessarily involve fornication (See Matt. 5:28).
Isaac never went looking for a wife. He was busy doing God's work and God brought his wife to him. The servant (never named) is a type of the Holy Spirit. We do God's work, and the Holy Spirit brings our spouse to us.
top of page send feedback home
That interpretation of the bible is completely wrong. The only reason Isaac did not go himself is because his father did not want him to get tempted to remain in the land from which God had called him out. But Abraham sending his servant as his proxy, was essentially the same as Isaac going himself. If you were to apply typology to that scripture, the correct typology is the Holy Spirit preparing the church (Christ's bride) for the Lord. That servant was a literal servant not the Holy Spirit. In fact you would be perfectly in order to use that scripture to teach that we can have our friends introduce us to other single people. But to use that scripture to teach that it's the Holy Spirit's job to bring our spouse to us is totally wrong.
Furthermore, in that story Isaac did not do anything, but what about Rebekah? She most certainly did something. She left her family and homeland just to meet her husband. So one of them had to do something. The idea that we can just sit on our butts and have faith in God is erroneous. Faith by definition is an active word. I was at a single's conference once where the minister, like many people, erroneously believed that it is God's job to choose our spouses. At the end of the service, a lady in her late 30s asked this question to the minister:
What advice do you have for people who are advanced in age and who have not as yet met Mr Right? Women have a biological clock therefore time is critical. There aren't many single Christian men in our churches and jobs. We don't attend nightclubs and bars. Time goes by and we are still single. What are we to do?
All the minister could tell her was "Trust in God. It is a test of your faith". I guess the minister forgot about all those single women who never do get married. In fact, the only advice that could possibly have been less helpful was "Be patient my sister, Sarah had a child when she was 90." Passive faith is not scriptural. You can't just wait and hope and expect God to do for you what you are supposed to do for yourself. My advice would have been to find yourself in places where single Christian men are. Visit other churches. Get your friends to introduce you to new people. Try online dating. Trust God that as you meet new people, he will guide you (just like he guided Abraham's servant as he went) and give you wisdom. Active faith.
The bible says do not kill, and someone who commits suicide is breaking that law without ever repenting of it. Also committing suicide demonstrates that someone is a coward, and Revelation 21:8 tells us all cowards will go to hell. Finally it is a bad testimony for Christianity if a Christian commits suicide.
top of page send feedback home
My article on suicide is based on the premise that sin will not prevent us from entering heaven. See my articles on Can A Believer Lose His Salvation and Walking in the Light for more on this. It is unbelief or a rejection of Christ that prevents someone from entering heaven. Christ already dealt with sin, so apart from the unpardonable sin, there is no sin which cannot be forgiven. Heaven is not based on our ability to not sin or to repent just before we die. Yes we need to accept Christ. Yes we need to confess our sins. But ultimately anyone who goes to heaven goes there because of God's grace, i.e. God lets you off the hook. No one deserves to go there. It is just that God is gracious. On what basis do babies go to heaven (2 Samuel 12:23)?
Now I'm not condoning suicide, and I honestly can't understand why a Christian would do that. But IFFFF the person was genuinely in Christ, then that is basis of his/her judgment before God. That is the basis on which God chooses to let that person in. It has nothing to do with whether they sinned before they died, or died before they sinned.
Yes suicide demonstrates a level of cowardice, but that is not what Rev 21:8 is talking about. The fearful of Rev 21:8 is referring to those who are so afraid of persecution that they choose to walk away from Christ than to die or suffer with God's people. You simply can't appeal to that scripture here. Otherwise you can show that everyone has a certain level of cowardice, therefore everyone is going to hell.
Why didn't you go to work today? Because it was snowing? Because the conditions were dangerous for driving? What, were you AFRAID that you would get into an accident? You coward! You will surely burn in hell for this.
Do you see how silly it is? And finally yes, it is definitely a bad testimony for Christianity. But God does not send people to hell on this basis. Our God's name is not Allah.
Many young people would never come to Christ if Christianity were boring and dull.
top of page send feedback home
So how would they fare if they had to give up their life for the gospel? Do you think there is anything exciting about being stoned to death? Christianity is not about excitement. It is about dying daily and taking up our cross. Just because a ministry draws large crowds does not mean that it is bearing fruit that endures. Just because people jump, dance and run around the church, does not mean that they are worshiping God. We need to stop being so gullible.
I have seen ministers use music to try to excite young people into serving God. I'm afraid that is not the right way to use music. What eventually happens? They get bored and they backslide. Music can be a tool through which you communicate the gospel truths or exercise your spiritual gifts of comfort etc. Music can also be a means of expressing our worship to God. Music cannot create excitement that will lead to any permanent change in people's lives. Only the gospel can change people - it is the power of God unto salvation. The devil does not have a problem with young people dancing and getting excited in church because he knows that sort of excitement cannot keep them. He is afraid, however, of them developing a truly meaningful relationship with God built upon the solid foundation of His everlasting Word.
I attend a church where only men are deacons, but women are allowed to teach in Sunday School. Are we being hypocritical when we break with Paul in allowing women to teach, while following Paul in only allowing men to be deacons?
top of page send feedback home
There are quite a few issues surrounding this whole topic. One is the definition of elders and deacons. I know churches today define these terms differently, but in the Bible and elder was someone with a pastoral ministry, while a deacon was one with a physical ministry or “helps” (Rom 12). A deacon was also an office in the church (Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3).
Another issue is how scriptures apply to us today. Every scripture was written to a specific audience within a local, cultural and historical context. The question is HOW to apply those scriptures across cultural and historical boundaries. The following are my interpretation of the pertinent scriptures.
I don’t believe that Paul forbade women to teach small classes or to speak in church. There are scriptures like 1 Cor 11:5 which allow women to prophesy. However you choose to interpret prophesy – whether or not it is for the church today – the fact is that in Paul’s day women prophesied in church. But then you get to 1 Cor 14:34, where in the context of spiritual gifts, Paul urges women to keep silent. So how do you reconcile that? Some believe that chapter 14 prohibits women from prophesying in a large service (with men) while chapter 11 allows women to prophesy in a small service (with women and children). If that is the case, then Paul did not prohibit women from speaking, in an absolute sense.
Also I do not believe that Paul prohibited women from being deacons – at least not based on 1 Tim 3:12. The expression “husband of one wife” simply meant that the person in question should not be promiscuous or polygamous. These were huge issues among the Greeks. If you were to take that expression more literally than that, then you would have to conclude that single men could not be elders or deacons. But Paul was an apostle, yet single. In fact, Timothy most likely was single since there is not one reference to his wife or family in Paul’s two epistles to him. Paul referred to deacons in the masculine primarily because deacons were for the most part men. Whether Paul was just sticking to the cultural status quo or setting the tone for all ages, he did not say. I think verse 13 sums up the intent of Paul, when he states that the person should be in good standing in the community. In 1 Tim 2, Paul did refer to Adam and Eve, which suggests that there may be something inherently wrong with women being in authority over men. But deacons don’t have any real authority over anyone. Elders may have a lot more authority that goes with their office. So I don’t believe that Paul necessarily prohibited women from being deacons.
There may have even been a reference to a deaconess in Romans 16:1. Phoebe was called a servant (same Greek word as deacon) because she “helped” many. That’s what a deacon does. Did she hold the office of a deacon or simply performed the functions of one? It does not say, except that Paul was commending her to the Romans, and she was called a servant/deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. I hope this helps you to answer your own questions.
You wrote that we could use Christmas to share the gospel with people. But how can something that is clearly unscriptural be used to promote the gospel.
top of page send feedback home
I am not disputing that many elements of Christmas is of pagan origin. However the word pagan evokes certain emotions which may not at all be warranted. Pagan means of non-Christian origin. It does not necessarily mean demonic or sinful. Most national anthems may be pagan in the sense that they are not about Christ. Now to say that Christmas is of pagan origin is one thing. To say that it is unscriptural is something else entirely. The fact that it is of pagan origin does not make it unscriptural. What did I just say? What blaspheme! I should be stoned.
Read 1 Corinthians 8. It talks about Christians eating food offered to idols. Paul says that an idol is nothing (vs 4), and that we are neither better nor worse if we eat food offered to idols (vs 8). He later discouraged the practice not because eating food offered to idols is inherently wrong, but rather because weaker brothers (who have less knowledge) may become offended.
My point is this. If eating food offered to idols (which is worse than pagan) is not inherently wrong, then how could celebrating a pagan festival be inherently wrong?
What a mixed bag of scripture plus your own personal opinions!
top of page send feedback home
Everyone has personal opinions. Every bible scholar and teacher who ever lived had personal opinions, biases, and prejudices. NO ONE is 100% objective. The real question is not whether I have personal opinions and whether those opinions are reflected in my writings. Of course I do and of course they are. The real question is whether my opinions are consistent with the scriptures. Most people's opinions are based on their tradition, denominational background, cultural conditioning, etc. But it is possible for traditions of men to nullify the word of God (Matt. 15:1-6).
At least I am trying to base my beliefs on the principle of sola scriptura. In fact, I have changed a few of my beliefs over the years based on what I think to be more correct interpretations of scripture. Remember scripture can be twisted (2 Pet. 3:16), so not every interpretation is correct. I once believed in the faith healing practiced in charismatic circles, now I don't. I once was a strong Armenian, now I'm a moderate Calvinist. At least I'm continually challenging myself and my own opinions. Some people don't even have the guts to challenge traditions, much less denominational beliefs. I find that to be so sickening and repulsive, really I do - that a person would place traditional beliefs on a higher plateau than scripture, and that a person would be so enslaved by what other people tell them truth is. What are the bases of your opinions?
There are so many negative comments that people leave, I just with to add a positive one by saying how blessed I've been to read your site. Keep on updating it as the Spirit would lead you.
top of page send feedback home
Thank you for the encouragement, I greatly appreciate it. Actually most of the feedback I get from readers are positive ones just like this. But most of the comments I chose to place on this page are the negative ones, because they allow me to elaborate a little more on the given issue. So don't think for one minute it's only negative feedback I get. Far from it.