Check back because new questions and answers are being added regularly

Question: Can we really expect to understand the Bible alike?

Answer:  The apostle Paul makes several important points about the Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. First, he tells us “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”  The Bible has come down to us through the process of verbal inspiration, where God infallibly communicated His will to mankind through holy men of God as they were “moved” by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). The apostle Paul further explains the process of inspiration in Ephesians 3:3-5, when he states that “by revelation He (God) made known to me the mystery... which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets.”  The mystery (explained in verse 6), was revealed by the Spirit – through the process of inspiration – to the apostles and prophets. That’s how the process of inspiration works!  But notice that Paul adds a parenthetical statement in verses 3 and 4. Speaking of this “mystery,” Paul says, “as I wrote before in few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.”  Paul plainly says when we read what he wrote, we will understand his knowledge in the mystery of Christ. That was the whole purpose for his writing – namely, to give us an understanding of his knowledge. Therefore, from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and from Paul’s statement in Ephesians 3:3-5, we know the following:  (1) All Scripture is inspired by God; (2) God’s revelation was given by the Spirit (or by means of the Holy Spirit) to His holy apostles and prophets; (3) the revelation was written down for us to read, and (4) when we read we will understand revelation as the writer understood it (this same idea is conveyed in 2 Corinthians 1:13).

Second, Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scripture inspired of God is, “profitable” (or useful) “for doctrine” (for teaching God’s will), “for reproof” (for reprimanding and reproving error in our lives and in the lives of others), “for correction” (for convincing, correcting and changing those in error to God’s standard of right), “for instruction in righteousness” (for guiding and giving instruction in righteous living). How could the Scriptures be profitable or useful for any of these things if it could not be understood? Finally, Paul says inspired Scripture is given so that “the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  Again, how could the Scriptures make a man complete, and thoroughly or completely equip him “for every good work,” if its message is so obscure that it cannot be properly understood? Jesus simply put it this way, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). While it is clear that the “truth” Jesus said His followers would “know” is truth about His deity and Messiahship, the same principle holds true regarding any truth God has revealed. Understanding the will of the Lord, and understanding it alike, is not an option it’s a commandment (Ephesians 5:17; 1 Corinthians 1:10). Furthermore, it’s imperative that we know and understand the word of the Lord, since the word spoken by the Lord will be the basis of our judgment (John. 12:48).

Why, then, do people fail to come to a proper understanding of the Bible, or fail to agree upon Biblical teaching? It can only come down to one of two reasons. One, the revelation from God is vague and ambiguous (unclear), or two, we have failed to properly understand the Scriptures. Since God has not given a vague or ambiguous revelation, the problem clearly lies with our interpretation of that revelation. Simply put, the problem is us – not the Word. Surprisingly, the Bible gives a number of reasons why people do not understand the Scriptures alike, and while some differences arise over a failure to use the New Testament as our guide, or over a failure of how to properly establish Scriptural authority, most differences simply come down to a problem with our attitude toward the truth. A few of the many reasons why people do not understand the Bible alike are:  (1) a lack of proper grounding in Biblical teaching, making them easy prey for false teachers (Ephesians 4:13-15);  (2) a failure to diligently search the Scriptures to see whether what we have been taught is in fact the Word of God (Acts 17:11);  (3) a desire to hear only what we want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4);  (4) a fear of standing for what is right, and/or loving the approval and acceptance of men rather than of God (John 12:42-43). There is one other reason why people do not understand the Bible alike – the addition of denominational creeds and doctrines. Imagine how much religious error would be cleared up if every religious denomination laid aside their creeds, disciplines, manuals, catechisms, etc. and simply used the Word of God.

Question:  If we love the Lord, does it really matter whether we do everything exactly the way the Bible says?

Answer:  For reasons we may never understand, the Lord has frequently imposed very exact methods of carrying out His commandments, such as:  (1) building the ark out of gopher wood as opposed to any other kind, and making certain it was built to the exact dimensions specified (Genesis 6:14-16); (2) following very specific and minute details in building the tabernacle (Exodus 26), and many other similar examples. Who would have dared asked God, “if we really love You, does it matter all that much if we don’t do everything exactly as You say?”

A statement made by Jesus in John 14 should help answer this question once and for all (John 14:15, 23-24). But if this doesn’t convince us, perhaps other passages will. In Luke 6:46 Jesus challenged His followers with the question, “why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?”  How can anyone truly call Jesus “Lord” (the sovereign Lord and Master of his life, and the One who has the right to command), if he refuses to do what Jesus says? Refusing to follow the commandments of the Lord is called “lawlessness” or “iniquity,” and the Scriptures give a number of warnings to those who practice lawlessness (iniquity): (Matthew 7:21-24; Luke 13:24-30; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-3).

Question:  Isn't it true that the God of the New Testament is full of grace and mercy and that strict obedience isn't all that important today?

Answer:  The character of the God revealed the New Testament is no different from the character of the God revealed in the Old. While the God of the New Testament is “longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9), so is the God of the Old Testament (1 Peter 3:18-20). And while the God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath (Numbers 16:46), so is the God of the New Testament (Ephesians 5:3-6; Colossians 3:5-6). In essence, there is no difference between God as He is revealed in the Old Testament and God as He is revealed in the New. Since Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and since the divine attributes and character of God is revealed in Christ (John 14:8-10), and since “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8); doesn’t it stand to reason that God’s nature and character is unchangeable as well? (See:  James 1:17). Therefore, it would not only be presumptuous to assume God will be more tolerant with our disobedience, it would be downright foolish.

Question:  Doesn’t the Bible teach that we don’t need to be all that concerned about ‘commandments’ and ‘law’ because we are no longer under law but under grace (Romans 6:14), and we now have freedom in Christ (Galatians 5:1)?

Answer:  The Bible does not teach that we don’t need to be concerned about the commandments of the Lord, or about keeping the law of the Lord. In fact, it teaches just the opposite (Matthew 7:21; 1 Peter 4:11). Paul’s statement in Romans 6:14 is not saying we have no laws with which to be guided, but rather that we are not justified under a system of law-keeping, but rather justified by grace. When we have obeyed all that the Lord commands us, we cannot claim justification on the basis of our law-keeping. We simply did what we were commanded (Luke 17:7-10).

This same principle of being justified by grace through faith is taught elsewhere (Ephesians 2:8-9). The apostle Paul gives Abraham as an example of one who was justified by faith (Romans 4:1-4). However, being justified by God’s grace through faith doesn’t mean obedience to God’s commandments are not essential – Abraham is a good example of how faith was validated (shown to be authentic) by obedience (Hebrews 11:8-19; James 2:21-24). While we are “not under law (i.e., not justified under a system of law-keeping), but under grace” (Romans 6:14), the very next verse ask, “shall we sin (i.e., shall we disobey or disregard God’s commandments) because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly Not!” (v. 15). In fact, Paul goes on to state that we ultimately have only two choices when it comes to how we treat God’s commandments, either “of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness” (v. 16). As for the liberty we have in Christ (Galatians 5:1), our liberty simply does not give us license to sin (Galatians 5:13).

Question:  Where does the Bible teach about commands, examples and necessary inferences? Isn’t that just legalism?

Answer:  The Lord clearly gives commands for His people to follow and obey. From the Garden of Eden to the present, the Lord has provided very specific commands for His people, and warned that failure to keep those commands exactly as He stated would result in serious consequences.

The Scriptures also provide us with examples of how New Testament Christians worked and worshipped. These examples likewise give us with guidelines to follow in carrying out the Lord’s will. For instance, we have an example of the disciples meeting on “the first day of the week to break bread,” or observe the Lord Supper (Acts 20:7). Since we have no other example in the New Testament of the church meeting on another day to break bread, we can safely conclude that this is the only approved example of when the Lord’s Supper is to be observed. According to Acts 20:7, we know they assembled on that day for that purpose. But we have no example of them meeting on any other day. Some may ask, “Does it really matter what day we observe the Lord’s Supper, as long as we observe it?”  In other words, is it material or relevant that we meet on the first day of the week (Sunday), and only on that day, to observe the Lord’s Supper? Apparently yes, especially since the apostle Paul, who was in a hurry to get back to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), arrived in Troas on a Monday and stayed there seven days until he could meet with the disciples to break bread on the first day of the week. If it were immaterial or irrelevant as to what day the Lord’s Supper could be observed, why didn’t Paul simply say he was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem before Pentecost, and ask for the disciples to assemble together Monday or Tuesday to observe the Lord’s Supper? Why wait a whole week? The answer is clearly that the first day of the week was the only time disciples in the first century met to observe the Lord’s Supper, and we know that from this example. We also have other examples that provide guidelines of how gospel preachers were supported financially (2 Corinthians 11:8; Phil 4:15-18), and how New Testament Christians responded to the needs of other Christians (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:16-24; Acts 11:27-30). These examples are just as much binding as the example of when the disciples met to break bread.

The Bible also teaches by the use of necessary inferences, or necessary conclusions. By this we mean something that is necessarily implied by a clear understanding of the Scriptures, or drawing only one reasonable conclusion from the teaching of a particular passage of Scripture. There are several examples of necessary inferences or necessary conclusions. For example, Paul says, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34). The law (taken here to mean the Old Testament Law) did not specifically commands women to be submissive, but did teach this principle in the form of a necessary conclusion based on Genesis 3:16 where God told Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  From that statement of fact, Paul drew a necessary conclusion that the law “says” women are to be “submissive.”  In answering questions on divorce (Matthew 19:4-6), Jesus came to a necessary conclusion from a statement of God found in Genesis 2:24. Since a man and woman are joined in marriage so that “the two shall become one flesh,” Jesus drew a conclusion that, “what God has joined together, let not man separate.”  When Jesus was challenged by the Sadducees regarding the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-32), He drew a necessary conclusion from God’s statement to Moses in Exodus 3:6, 15. Since God said “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” meaning He is presently the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus concluded, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” – meaning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still “living” in heaven. On Pentecost, Peter drew a necessary conclusion regarding David’s comments in Psalm 16:8-11, concluding that David could not have been speaking of himself because he “is both dead and buried, and His tomb is with us to this day.”  The inference was clear. David had to be speaking prophetically of “the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” (Acts 2:25-31). There are a number of things we learn from necessary conclusions, such as:  (1) Jesus rose on the first day of the week after being in the tomb 3 days (Luke 24:1, 13, 21, 46). (2) Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is water baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:47-48; Ephesians 4:4). (3) The bread used in the Lord’s Supper is “unleavened bread” – since it was the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” (Matthew 26:17). (4) Preaching “Jesus” includes preaching baptism (Acts 8:35-36; 18:5-8).

Question:  How can you judge me? Didn’t Jesus say "judge not that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1)?

Answer:  The context of Matthew chapter 7 explains the type of judgment Jesus was condemning here. In verses 3 through 5, Jesus presents the picture of harsh, unmerciful, hypocritical judgment. It’s the picture of anyone who unmercifully sets a standard of righteousness for others that they are not willing to follow themselves – or anyone who makes a major issue out of a minor fault in the life of another, while being blinded to the major fault in their own life. Not only that, Jesus condemned anyone who is so bold as to piously offer to help remove the “speck” out of their brother’s eye, while quite content to ignore the “plank” in their own eye. Jesus simply calls this kind of person a “hypocrite.”[1]  Those who set strict standards for others to live by, then proceed to unmercifully judge their brother based on that standard, will be judged in the same manner themselves – with a harsh, unmerciful kind of judgment (Matthew 7:2). To this person, Jesus said they need to first remove the plank from their own eye – that is, take care of the sins in their own life first, – and then, they will be able to see clearly to remove the speck from their brother’s eye (Matthew 7:5). Being piously hypocritical in passing judgment on the minor sins of others while being blinded to the major faults in our own life is the kind of judgment Jesus condemned here.

However, there are times where Christians are not only commanded to judge, but times where we are to also exercise discernment (a form of judgment). In the next verse (Matthew 7:6), Jesus mentions a type of judgment (discernment) that always needs to be exercised. We are commanded, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”  The only way we can keep this commandment is to exercise judgment (discernment) in determining what kind of people are best representative of “dogs” and “swine,” and not “give that which is holy” to them, nor cast our “pearls” before them. We are further told (vs. 15-20) to exercise another kind of judgment by identifying “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”  There are many such examples of the need to exercise discernment. But there are also times when we must judge the sins of others. In 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle Paul was dealing with the sin of a particular man within the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:1). Paul said he had already judged this matter, and was commanding the members of the church at Corinth to do the same thing (vs. 3-7). Then he added a warning for Christians to not fellowship believers who lived immoral lifestyles (vs. 9-11), and closed his remarks by saying that while God judges those who are “without” the body, we are to judge those who are “within” (v. 12). It is imperative for Christians to judge those whose lifestyles are not in keeping with the Word of God or the character of Jesus Christ. There are other passages that speak of our judging (John 7:24; 1 Corinthians 6:2-6; 1 Corinthians 11:13).

Question:  Doesn’t Romans 14 teach that we're all entitled to our own opinions?

Answer:  Romans chapter 14 deals will disagreements over matters of opinions – areas where the Lord has not legislated, but left the matter for us to exercise our own judgment. This passage is not dealing with disagreements over interpretation of Scripture, or over other matters where God has legislated. Disagreements in those areas need to be settled in keeping with God’s Word. And those who refuse to follow the commandments of the Lord clearly have no fellowship with those who do keep God’s Word. However, in matters of personal opinion (where God has not legislated), especially when a “weak brother” is involved, we are to receive him, and we are not to despise him or judge him (Romans 14:1-4). In these matters, everyone needs to “be fully convinced in his own mind” (v. 5). If someone is convinced it’s wrong for them to engage in a particular practice (even though it may be in an area where God has not legislated one way or the other), it is wrong!  On the other hand, if someone is just as convinced it’s permissible for them to engage in a practice (in an area where God has not legislated one way or the other), then it’s okay. The overriding principles in these matters are to make certain we do nothing to cause our weak brother to stumble, and that we “pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”

Paul adds one final thought in Romans 14 that is essential in avoiding offending the conscience of another. He says, “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves” (Romans 14:22). The word “faith” in this verse stands for “confidence that a things is right and wholesome.”  If we have confidence that a particular practice is acceptable to God, and yet we know others may disagree (especially the weak brother), then we are to keep the matter between ourselves and the Lord. We have no right whatsoever to openly push our opinions on others, or to make a public display of our convictions regarding a controversial matter, especially if we know there are those weak in the faith who may be further weakened by knowledge of our opinions. We need to keep the matter to ourselves. But Paul adds this as well, “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith:  for whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). Once again, Paul is using the word “faith” to describe confidence that a thing is right. If we are not “fully convinced in our own mind” (Romans 14:5) that we have every right to engage in a particular practice, then we cannot do it. To violate our conscience in this way is to sin, for “whatever is not from faith (confidence that a thing is right) is sin.”

Question:  If you believe you must have authority for everything you do, where is your authority for church buildings, lights, song books, a baptistery, etc.?

Answer:  Every commandment of the Lord can be viewed from two aspects – from its specific aspect, and from its generic aspect. By this we mean that every commandment specifies certain things, and may also permit certain latitudes within the scope of that commandment. Here are some examples. (1) In the command to sing and make melody in our hearts (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), the apostle Paul was very specific about the kind of music authorized. He specified vocal music as opposed to instrumental. He also specified the kind of vocal music we are to sing, namely “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.”  No other type or kind of vocal music would be acceptable.

But within that specific command, the Lord permits certain latitudes within the scope of that command. He allows us to sing parts (soprano, alto, tenor and bass). He allows us to sing with the aid of a songbook, or with the aid of a song leader, or with the aid of a pitch pipe. We could just as easily sing one part (soprano) in unison, sing without the use of a songbook, without the aid of a song leader, and without the aid of a pitch pipe. God didn’t specify how we were to carry out the command to sing, but left the matter for us to decide. Furthermore, the use of a songbook, song leader, or pitch pipe are aids and not additions to God’s command because they do not change or alter the command to sing and make melody in our heart to the Lord. However, we would be changing and altering the command to sing if we sang along with an instrument of music. We would also be changing the command to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, if we sang some popular secular song in our worship to God. (2) This same principle holds true regarding the authority for a church building, or a baptistery.

In the case of the church building, not only are we are commanded to assemble (Hebrews 10:25), we also have a number of examples where members of the New Testament church assembled to worship. Furthermore, we know we are to assemble on the first day of the week for the purpose of breaking bread (observing the Lord’s Supper - Acts 20:7) and to lay by in store (contribute of our means - 1 Corinthians 16:2). The place where we choose to assemble is purely a matter of liberty, meaning God has left that matter for us to decide. We can assemble in the open, or we can assemble in a building. If we choose to assemble in a building, that building can be rented, owned or borrowed. None of these things change or alter the command to assemble in any way. However, if we chose to assemble on the seventh day of the week to break bread, or took up a collection on some day other than the first day, we would be changing or altering the respective commands governing those activities.

In the case of a baptistery, we are simply commanded to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16). We can baptize someone in a natural or artificial body of water. It can be in the ocean, in a stream, a lake, a pool, a spa, a baptistery, or any other body of water that is sufficiently deep enough to “bury” (immerse) someone in baptism (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). A baptistery does not change or alter the command to baptize, and is therefore permitted within the scope of the command to baptize. A baptistery does not change or alter the command to baptize. However, if we substituted another form of baptism, such as sprinkling or pouring, we would have changed or altered the command to baptize (immerse).

Song books, song leaders, pitch pipes, church buildings and baptisteries all fall within the realm of generic authority – meaning areas where God has permitted us certain latitudes within the scope of a specific command. They are intended to aid or assist us in carrying out that command. If they changed or altered the command in any way, they would no longer be considered aids, but would be additions, and would therefore be unlawful.

.