Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions and Takes Your Call

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

Did Naaman have leprosy or tzara‘ath (2 Kings 5)? Should a retired Christian who tithed on the gross of his paycheck all his life still tithe off of his social security check? What are the characteristics of our final sanctification when we are physically resurrected? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There are many mysteries; there are many difficulties in the study of the Word. Let us therefore major on the majors and make the main thing the main thing.

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Jesus is building His church; He is building up His body; He is not discouraged; He is not downcast. Lets join together in faith with Him.

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY! 

This week get your copy of David Kyle Foster’s Love Hunger Book and 2 Hour CD Interview with Dr. Brown for only $25, Postage Paid!
Order Online!

Other Resources:

The Missing Elements of Today’s Gospel

Dr. Brown Tackles Some Doctrinal Controversies and Answers Your Questions

Dr. Brown Interviews Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus; and How What We Believe Affects How We Live

47 Comments
  1. On today’s show “Minister Warner” said. “I have never heard President Obama come out and say that he is a Christian.”

    I assume “Minister Warner” has a computer. It took me one minute to find this quote from Obama.

    “I am a Christian,” Obama told the New York Times in March 2008. “What that means for me is that I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins, and … [that through] his grace and his mercy and his power… I can achieve everlasting life.”

    Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/ElectionCenter/Articles/Obama-A-Rare-Breed-of-Christian-Convert.aspx?p=1#95XdWjgFHfybQQdb.99

    Why are Christians like “Minister Warner” so cavalier about bearing false witness against our brothers in Christ? And why doesn’t Dr. Brown correct them?

  2. Should the Church Teach Tithing? Earl Russel Kelly. Read it. You will never tithe again.

  3. gregAllen:”Why are Christians like “Minister Warner” so cavalier about bearing false witness against our brothers in Christ? And why doesn’t Dr. Brown correct them?”

    Because he acts one way and says another. Remember waht Messiah said of those inside the family:

    Matt18:17 ” if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector.”

    THats some serious “judgement”. Sorry that you put so much faith in those that act one way and say another.

  4. The Jerusalem Bible…keep it or return it?

    Id like to hear your thoughts too, Gregallen. Im actually most interested in what youd say. Dr Brown as well.

  5. Brian,

    I can think of many reasons to tithe. What happens to the money that I’ve given in good faith is another matter. Hopefully everyone investigates where their money goes and what for. I believe, as the Bible says, “the workman is worthy of his hire.” If I’m not directly spreading the Gospel and someone else is I have no problem supporting them financially. And if others are providing for the poor and destitute I have no problem supporting them either.

    Maybe it’s a cop-out to find reasons not to tithe. I’m sure the majority of Christian organizations use the money effectively and for what I’ve given it for. We should all invest wisely but sometimes you just can’t foresee what may transpire.

    That said, I don’t think the Bible says it’s mandatory but there was always mention of the
    poor, the widow, the homeless and fatherless in the Bible from beginning to end and the Lord says we’re to help them so that’s good enough for me.

    The perversion of it is in thinking that you’ll get back anything in this life as some prosperity preachers say. To me that’s not Biblical. The rewards to the righteous come in the future Kingdom.

    Just my thoughts.

  6. Dr. Brown,

    >> I don’t mind you posting your disagreements here virtually every day, but please be accurate. Listen again to my response to the caller.

    I did listen to the caller and. I replayed it before I wrote the post because I know that you often dodge a fair criticism by claiming I was really listening.

    And I just listened to it again. You didn’t correct him. I’m being accurate.

    I as I re-listened, you also quoted Obama as saying “God bless Planned Parenthood.”

    I fact checked you on that.

    All Obama did was end a speech with “God Bless you. God Bless America” as he does at the end of many his speeches. He says the same thing at the State of the Union.

    While, I suppose, you aren’t technically lying about Obama, you certainly left a false impression.

    PS: I appreciate that you “don’t mind” me disagreeing with you! But, I don’t just disagree with you!

    But, when I agree with you, it almost never sparks a discussion here so it leaves a false impression of how much you and I disagree. It’s less than you might assume.

    For example, on today’s show, I appreciated the tone of your advise to the parent of the gay son.. Many Christian families disagree on this issue and we need to love each other to honor Jesus’ call for unity.

    IF I was advising the son, I would advise him to _not_ share a bedroom with his partner when he is at his folks place. It doesn’t seem respectful of the dad’s belief on homosexuality. And don’t make the dad ask — pro-actively offer to stay in different bedrooms.

  7. Magnus,

    >> gregAllen:”Why are Christians like “Minister Warner” so cavalier about bearing false witness against our brothers in Christ? And why doesn’t Dr. Brown correct them?”

    >> Because he acts one way and says another. Remember waht Messiah said of those inside the family:

    I couldn’t follow your post.

    Are you saying Dr. Brown “acts one way and says another” or President Obama?

  8. PS:

    Except on a point-or-two, Dr. Brown seems consistent between what he says and does.

    That’s better than most! Who among is perfectly consistent between our words and deeds?

  9. Brian,

    I’ve heard people claim different things about how much tithing was actually practiced by the Jews.

    I remember one sermon where the pastor said that tithing was just the beginning — when you add in all the other offerings, as well, Jews were giving much more than 10%.

    But, I also remember reading an article saying, like the Jubilee, tithing was never really implemented.

    (I haven’t looked into it myself.)

    Why would someone NOT tithe if they wanted to?

    I suspect tithing survived from the OT into the church is that 10% is such an appropriate number. It’s high enough to be a non-trivial sacrifice but low enough that it is manageable for most people with a liveable income.

  10. Sheila,

    >>Maybe it’s a cop-out to find reasons not to tithe. I’m sure the majority of Christian organizations use the money effectively and for what I’ve given it for.

    I’ve heard more than one pastor say that your full tithe should go to the church. Donations to other Cristian organizations should be a “love offering” separate from your tithe.

    What do you think?

    Based on my understanding of the original purpose of the tithe, I think those pastors have a point.

  11. Dr. Brown,

    Thanks!

    I know this is hard for people to accept here but I really am an Evangelical Christian even though I differ with you guys on “the culture wars.”

    But, since we spend so much time arguing the “culture wars” it highlights our differences rather than our commonalities.

    Well, I gotta log off for today.

    (I’ve been doing a lot of computer work and can keep my browser open but now I need to interact with the real world.)

    I hope everybody has a great Sunday.

  12. Dr. Brown,

    Just finished reading your latest book. You did an excellent job of systematically laying out the arguments in a kind compassionate, logical and Scripturally consistent manner. I thought it was a better read than your first book on the topic. I think this book in conjunction with Frank Turek’s book make for a powerful combination.

  13. Hi Greg,

    I guess in the strict definition of the word, 10% as a tithe is not required by the Bible but I, personally, believe it’s a good base line, of course, though, there may be many people who cannot give even 10% but there’s no reason to feel ashamed if you’re not financially able to contribute that much. We’re no longer supporting priests and a temple system of worship but we are supporting spiritual leaders who devote themselves to the modern day flock of congregants.

    I’ve never heard anyone say the entire amount should go to the church though. It’s entirely up to the person doing the giving where they choose to allocate their money. If they’re blessed by the church, they should give according as they’re able. It’s between them and the leading of the Holy Spirit within them. Nowadays, because the churches are mostly sedentary we have to consider the upkeep on the building, meaning electric bills, water, gas, etc. just as you do an individual home. That the pastor draws a salary is necessary because it’s his life’s work to minister to a large number of people through various avenues such as counseling, weddings, funerals, preparing sermons and the like. It’s a great responsibility and a full time job to pastor a average size church and I’m certain the larger majority take it very seriously. I feel confident that most pastors in America aren’t financially stressed out but I don’t begrudge them that because, as I said, it’s their life’s work. They’ve studied hard and, no doubt, work hard to minister to us in those spiritual things and we should support them in those material things.

    There are many ways that the church, as an entity separate from the pastor, uses the money collected by the congregation. There’s outreach, advertising costs, supporting missionaries, traveling expenses and other essential necessities. All these are legitimate expenses and come from those funds collected which are above and beyond the pastor’s salary.

    Bottom line is, if you’re blessed by the ministering of your pastor you should give what you’ve decided on without wavering. If you’re lead to give to other charities you should do it without begrudging anything. God knows the heart of each of us. And He knows our financial situation. The 10% is doable for most of us, I would think. I don’t believe it’s mandatory nor that it all needs to go to the church we attend.

    Beyond that though, the Bible gives the most pertinent verse here:

    2 Corinthians 9:7

    Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

    🙂

  14. Sheila,

    Thanks for the thoughtful response on tithing.

    I think the pastor’s argument was based in the fact that the whole tithe went to the temple — not to other Jews, even if they were doing spiritual things. (like the prophets or judges, for example)

    I haven’t really studied it but I think they are correct on that point.

  15. S. Johnson,

    So, what’s the verdict? Can you be gay and Christian?

    In church tomorrow, I’m going to read the bible, confess our sins, accept forgiveness from God, worship Jesus in song, donate money, listen to a sermon, pray to God and profess the Nicene Creed along with some fine gay people who have been following their understanding of the bible for decades.

    But if Dr. Brown says they are not Christian, I guess they are all doomed to hell.

  16. I downloaded the episode and combed through it; but I did not find any place where Michael Brown answered the question about Naaman–whether it was tzara’ath or leprosy.

  17. DB,

    Why is that important to you?

    I barely remember that story but I did a quick search and the OT word seems to be tzaraath. (צָּרַעַת)

    I do know the NT word for Naaman’s condition – “lepra”

    This word often causes confusion because, despite the very similar word in English, the NT word is not speaking of a specific medical condition but more generally about skin conditions that make one ceremonial unclean.

    (I don’t have my Greek dictionary in front of me, so I’m going from memory.)

    Is that your confusion?

    What is the core of your question?

    I think the most common understanding of Jesus’ recounting of the story of Naaman is that there is an unpredictable quality to God’s blessing.

    The Nazarenes were sure they deserved it but God can have other ideas, especially if one rejects the prophets.

  18. I got curious and a search.

    Here is the wikipedia article on Tzaraath:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath

    Apparently, “Tzaraath” is an even broader term than the Greek “lepra” because Tzaraath can include things like walls.

    “Lepra” is just for skin.

    Neither word are synonymous with the English word “leprosy” which refers to a specific bacterial infection.

  19. Greg,

    “In church tomorrow, I’m going to read the Bible, confess our sins, accept forgiveness from God”

    What is at issue is what constitues the sin that must be confessed. That is the point of confusion. I suggest you actually read Dr. Brown’s book and see if the behaviors which you defend are really defensible.

    And as for the fact that many gay people will join you tomorrow, consider what Jesus said, Matthew 7:22-24 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? ’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from ME, you who practice lawlessness. ’ “

  20. Dr. Brown,

    I have a Question regarding Haggai 2, addressed in ANSWERING JEWISH OBJECTIONS TO JESUS, VOL. 3 P 145. John MacArthur applies the whole passage to a Millennial temple as the wealth of the nations was never brought to the second Temple. While you nicely addressed the fact that only Jesus would fulfill the prophecy in the second temple, you did not really address MacArthur’s problem with the non-fulfillment of the rest of the prophecy. Any thoughts?

  21. Greg,

    I just want to make it clear, that I am glad your church is a place where gay people are welcome! All churches should do the same! After all they also let me in every week! And with good sound Biblical teaching (as in no spin, no Scripture twisting to make it say what you want to hear), and the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit, they may come to their own conclusions, without any finger wagging or meanness, but in a place of fellowship. It is the same way which truth about my own behavior falls upon me. And In such times (frequently) I find comfort in verses like Joel 2:12, Psalm 51:10, and 1 John 1:9.

  22. The idea of tithing in the church is a practice, NOT based on N.T. doctrine, but from the traditions of men. The Early Church DID NOT practice tithing, because they understood and followed the grace of giving. In point of fact, this “law” was not instituted until some 500 years later.

    I find it quite ironic that we who live under the New Covenant have turned back to the Law, by setting aside the grace of G-d, when it comes to money. I’ve heard so many reasons to justify this doctrine, but the end result is the same, there is no textual support written in Scripture to validate teaching this to the Church. If we are going to teach tithing in the Church, then why not add Sabbath keeping and the prohibition of eating unclean foods? My dear friend, a founding pastor of Times Square Church, was honest enough to say, “One cannot support teaching tithing from the New Testament. Pastors encourage (or require) their congregations to tithe as a means of steady support to the Church.”

    The question remains, does the N.T. give clear direction to the Church on how to give? The answer is, yes. Hence, every time the authors had the opportunity to tell the Church to tithe, they did not. They maintained the fundamental concept that we live under a New Covenant that functions under grace; therefore, each man is instructed to give has he purposes in his own heart. The Apostles understood this, the Church Fathers understood this too, but we have digressed back under the Law – and with no textual support to valid it – just testimonies and O.T. passages.

  23. Hi Dr. Brown,

    I hope you can help with a very familiar Hebrew noun. Please explain why in all the translations of the English Bibles, Judges 13, verse 22 is rendered this way:

    “And Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, because we have seen God!’”

    Yet in the Hebrew Tanach, the verse is rendered “for we have seen a divine being.” Meaning they have seen a lesser elohim than God. My Tanach is a 1999 JPS edition.

    Which is correct and how do we know? Is there anyway we could know for sure which translation is correct, maybe from the sentence structure or verbs or such?

    I don’t see any precedent for people being afraid for their lives after seeing an angel. Abraham wasn’t afraid, Lot wasn’t afraid, neither was Jacob, or Joshua.

    Thanks!

  24. Shelia,

    I know that you addressed this to Dr. Brown, but maybe I could be of assistance as well.

    The Hebrew word as rendered in vs.13 does say elohim, and not divine being, as the JPS so rendered. However, based upon the context of the passage it is apparent that the JPS translators felt that best described the meaning. The JPS translation is not word- for- word as we read it, but nonetheless, it accurately conveys the spirit of the writer. The Stone edition of the Tanach translates it,

    “We shall surely die, for we have seen a Godly angel!”

    The previous verses in that chapter note that this angel of the Lord appeared as a man in their prior encounters, so this divine being came in the form of a man, though still possessing attributes of G-d. After Jacob wrestled with a man/divine being all night, he gave a testimony that he had seen G-d face to face and his life was preserved. In the same vein, Manoah recognized that he was in the presence of G-d as represented through this divine messenger of the Lord. Whether it was a Christophany or not, that is left to one’s interpretation.

  25. S. Johnson,

    >> I suggest you actually read Dr. Brown’s book and see if the behaviors which you defend are really defensible.

    I didn’t “actually” read Dr. Brown’s book! I read his book! I also read many of his footnotes an even went to the effort of finding some of his key sources and reading those as well.

    And here is the deal — Dr. Brown does, indeed, find misbehavior by homosexuals.

    This is not the behavior I am defending.

    I could easily assemble a much thicker book of misbehavior by heterosexuals.

    Does this mean you defend _everything_ heterosexuals do?

    OF COURSE NOT!

    I am defending monogamous marriage. I am defending equality before the law.

    I am also defending _YOUR_ right to not be gay and to believe it is wrong.

  26. S. Johnson

    >>I just want to make it clear, that I am glad your church is a place where gay people are welcome! All churches should do the same! After all they also let me in every week!

    That is a very nice thing for you to say. Thank you.

    >>And with good sound Biblical teaching (as in no spin, no Scripture twisting to make it say what you want to hear),

    And that’s the trick, isn’t it?

    I know that people here doubt this but I find that liberal Christians are much more honest about looking at what the bible really says.

    If the bible says there is a “dome” above us, holding back he water. A liberal is more likely to say, “Yes the bible says there is a dome above us holding back the water.”

    A conservative, however, is more likely to say, “If you carefully study the Hebrew, that _really_ means…”

    But that isn’t even the hardest part!

    The hardest part is to then apply the bible to a modern society without any personal/societal bias coming in!

    I’ve never known any Christian or church who could do it.

  27. S. Johnson,

    >>And as for the fact that many gay people will join you tomorrow, consider what Jesus said, Matthew 7:22-24 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? ’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from ME, you who practice lawlessness. ’ “

    You are clearly pointing this verse at the wrong people!

    Jesus is saying that its the mainstream, active believers who are going to get the big surprise.

    If any verse could be pointed at Pentecostals and Evangelicals, it’s this one.

    Not at the “sinners” who Jesus loved so much.

  28. Thanks for that, Brian.

    I see, then, that there are no capital letters in Hebrew, so we don’t know when to insert “Elohim” as in God, or elohim, as in divine being so that it does seem quite arbitrary and biased as to what definition one chooses. I certainly see a divine being who is interchangeable with YHWH in the incident with Manoah as well as others. When one inserts “elohim” in those instances it is rendered that a lesser god is then equal to YHWH which almost seems blasphemous to me.

    Thanks for your answer and I’ll proceed knowing that “divine being” is perfectly legitimate even while the context doesn’t allow for it in my mind.

  29. Dr. Brown,

    With all due respect, I am not sure the answer associated with Herod’s temple will do. The tone in Haggai, is that ALL THE NATIONS would be shaken and “they will come with the wealth of ALL NATIONS”. Is there some evidence to suggest that all the nations were both shaken so as to give their wealth to Herod’s project? If Herod obtained special materials from other nations, is there any reason to believe these were donated after being shaken rather than being purchased?

  30. Greg-

    “You are clearly pointing this verse at the wrong people!
    Jesus is saying that its the mainstream, active believers who are going to get the big surprise.”

    Clearly? Really? If the verse in question clearly pointed to a specific group in error, the error would be easily seen. Rather the verse seems to point to those who believe they are following Jesus, but are in reality following something quite different and calling it Christianity. How do you know your perspective is the correct one? As physicist Richard Feynman once said in a very different context, first you must make sure you don’t fool yourself, for you are the easiest one to fool. We all need to look at our lives and measure them against Scripture.

  31. Brian,

    Well, maybe not arbitrary but biased, I think. Is there another way of saying, “divine being” in Hebrew or would it always be rendered, “elohim”?

    Thanks.

  32. Greg,

    >>And here is the deal — Dr. Brown does, indeed, find misbehavior by homosexuals.This is not the behavior I am defending.I could easily assemble a much thicker book of misbehavior by heterosexuals. Does this mean you defend _everything_ heterosexuals do?

    Seems you are confusing core behaviors that are part of the definition of a given group and peripheral behaviors that do not define them. While some heterosexuals engage in adultery, adultery does not define heterosexuality. It is not a core behavior of the heterosexual. On the other hand same sex acts do define the other group. It is not peripheral behaviors that is the issue but core behaviors. Dr. Brown addresses whether the core behaviors can be defended from a Biblical standpoint.

  33. Greg-

    Just curious as to whether you believe the Bible is inerrant in the autographs (original writings).

  34. Shelia,

    I appreciate your thoughts on this. The Hebrew word “Elohim” is used with various meanings in the Hebrew Scriptures. When it is preceded by the definite article, and/or is spoken in the singular, it is clearly identifying the one true G-d.

    “To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself is God; there is none other besides Him” (Deut 4:35).

    “For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other'” (Isa 45:18).

    Elohim is used over 2,000 times in the Tanakh, and can also refer to rulers, judges and princes, to include heathen gods and angels as well. It is a plural word, and you can see one of many examples of its usage below, noting that the word rendered “judges” is the Hebrew word Elohim.

    “Then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever” (Ex 21:6).

    The usage of the word outside of its direct address to the G-d of Israel comes in reference to G-d like authority, power, and characteristics of justice and sovereignty. I was being generous with the JPS rendition, of its use of “divine being,” as there are different words to use to say that particular phrase, thus it was definitely left to their interpretative meaning. However, I do understand their reasoning in that they did understand the passage to be referring to a divine being as opposed to G-d Himself.

    Shalom

  35. I’ve been leaving question marks out of my sentences lately! 🙂 I’ll try and do better proofreading in the future. Kind of throws off the rhythm when you’re left rereading something.

  36. S. Johnson,

    >> Just curious as to whether you believe the Bible is inerrant in the autographs (original writings).

    It depends what you mean by that. Do you mean that all numbers add up? Did Jesus feed 5,000 or 4,000? for example.

    Do you mean that the science of the bible is corect by modern standards? (That rabbits have cuds, for example? Or that a dome is holding back water above us? Or that light existed on earth before the sun?

    Well, then, no.

    Or do you mean “inerrant” in that the intended message of the bible is true?

    Well, then, yes.

  37. S. Johnson

    >>Seems you are confusing core behaviors that are part of the definition of a given group and peripheral behaviors that do not define them.

    And that is the sign of a bigot.

    Bigots define groups they hate by the worst examples they can find.

    But they dismiss misbehavior in their own group as “peripheral.”

  38. S. Johnson,

    >>Clearly? Really? If the verse in question clearly pointed to a specific group in error, the error would be easily seen.

    Yes. Clearly.

    That verse is clearly questions the salvation of the religious mainstream, not “sinners.”

    Sinners know they are sinners. It’s the “religious right” who are cocksure they are going to heaven. And Jesus says they might be in for a surprise!

  39. Hi Shelia,

    I will be happy to move to the thread you referenced for further dialogue.

    Shalom

  40. Greg,

    So let me see if I have this straight. If a behavior is taken as that which defines who you are (by your own definition), and yet the Biblical evidence stands against said behavior, then the person who holds to the MOST REASONABLE Biblical reading is a Bigot. Is that your stance?

  41. Greg,

    You wrote:
    “>> Just curious as to whether you believe the Bible is inerrant in the autographs (original writings).

    It depends what you mean by that. Do you mean that all numbers add up? Did Jesus feed 5,000 or 4,000? for example.

    Do you mean that the science of the bible is corect by modern standards? (That rabbits have cuds, for example? Or that a dome is holding back water above us? Or that light existed on earth before the sun?

    Well, then, no.”

    But you also wrote on a recent thread:
    “I am convinced that I am actually a stricter literalist than you guys are.

    I don’t need a whole long web site full of convoluted arguments an tortured math.

    I simply accept what the bible says — all the animals were on the ark. Rabbits have cuds. There is a vault above us that holds the water back. The stars are hung from it.

    I feel no need to reconcile this with science.”

    You also wrote:
    “I don’t always believe the bible literally.

    But I accept the bible literally. I do this in faith.

    So, I accept that the bible says all the animals of the world fit in the ark. I have no idea how this could possibly be true — in any literal definition of truth. But, I accept it, in faith.”

    And you wrote:
    “No, I just accept what the bible says — literally. In faith.

    Ironically, many conservative Christians don’t!”

    I literally think you do not know what “literally” means…or you change the meaning to suit your purposes. How can you say “no” to believing that “rabbits have cuds” when a few days ago you said that you did believe it? How can one “accept it literally” but not “believe it literally”? What is your definition of the words “accept” and “believe.”

    And for the record: Messiah fed both 4000 and 5000 people. The supposed discrepancy that you cite is very uninformed.

    Mark 8
    19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
    20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
    21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

    So I have to ask you Greg, “How is it that you do not understand?” How do you not understand that the technical names for stages of growth in the womb are still speaking of an unborn human? How is it that you do not understand that “accepting” the Bible literally but not “believing” it literally is the same as not believing it at all? What you are doing is having faith that the Bible is not true. That is not real faith. It is not accepting what the Bible says in faith. It is accepting and believing what modern culture says is true and right. It is worship of a false god…and using tricky semantics to cover it up.

    You have faith alright…just like James said:

    James 2
    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    You believe that the Bible says that homosex is wrong and that murder is wrong, but you support such things as righteous in your daily life. You believe that the Bible says what it says, but you are not committed to do what it says. And you pat yourself on the back for being so full of faith and for being a literalist. At least the demons have sense enough to tremble. It is time to wake up Greg.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*