Do pets go to heaven?

This is such a great question! All of us who’ve ever owned pets and watched them die have asked this (or have had to respond to a child who has asked this). We humans love our pets (I know I love our Golden Retriever Hannah!). They become so much a part of our lives they’re like people, almost like dear friends and relatives.

While the Bible doesn’t address this question directly, it suggests a few things that may be helpful. For one thing, we can affirm that all God’s original creation was deemed “good” by God (Genesis 1). This would include the animal world, both wild and later domestic animals (Genesis 1:25). As parts of God’s good creation now under the effects of sin and death, animals may well be part of God’s redemption as well. Here’s what I mean: God is in the business of redeeming and restoring all things, of renewing the originally good creation. “See, I am making all things new” God says in Revelation 21:5. We tend to forget that our future as believers holds not only a new heaven, but a new earth as well (Revelation 21:1). Presumably, this new earth will include elements of the old earth, including living creatures, which will live with us in freedom from the taint of sin and death. It will be a redeemed creation. And if in this fallen creation we enjoy closeness with our pets, would it be too much to think that the new creation would provide even better relationships in this area? I’m not saying that God will resurrect the dead bodies of our pets and reunite them with their souls (the way God will with human beings in the general resurrection when Christ comes again); but I do think a case can be made for an appropriate closeness between humans and animals in the new creation to come. I think this is the Apostle Paul’s main point in Romans 8:19-21, which states: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

This begs the bigger question: will Hannah's breath smell better in heaven?

Given that God made all of the human body and soul, what is the nature of our soul’s state between death and the future resurrection of our (heavenly) body and final judgment? Also, what happens to our body until the return of Christ?

Another great question! It’s not unlike the one above, but this time it refers to humans, not their pets. As we’ve been learning in 1Corinthians, true biblical spirituality has a material aspect: God made not only the human soul, but also the human body. Both are originally good and both are redeemed in Christ’s resurrection. Unlike the Greek-thinkers of Corinth, who believed only in the immortality of the soul (and upon death its release from the prison house of the body), Jewish and Christian believers hope in the resurrection: a redemption of both body and soul on the day of final judgment.

There are at least two Christian views I’m aware of about what happens to the human soul upon physical death. The first is “soul sleep”, the idea that the soul sleeps in some unconscious state until Christ’s return and then, on Judgment Day, it is awakened and restored to its (now resurrected) body. The other view, and the one I tend to agree with more, is that of the (believing) soul’s departure to be with Christ in some conscious state and place until the soul is restored to its resurrection body as above. This seems more congruent with several Scripture passages: 1) the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” The thief’s body was dead and buried, but his soul (that essential aspect of his personality) went to join Jesus in a state called “Paradise.” 2) Paul’s hopeful words in Romans 8:38-39, where Paul is convinced that even death cannot separate the believer from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Their bodies were buried, Paul infers, but their souls were consciously enjoying the love of the Lord. 3) Paul’s autobiographical words in Philippians 1:21-23 where he writes “For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain…I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” Paul knows that death will be the end of his life in this mortal body; but he also knows that death will allow his soul to be “with Christ”, conscious of his love and presence in what theologians call “the intermediate state.” This is not the new heaven and new earth to come, for that will be inhabited by redeemed humans who have their souls living in new resurrection bodies. Rather, it is a temporary state where the soul resides in Christ’s presence, conscious of his peace and nearness.

Do you ever question the afterlife as a Christian?

Never. Sorry.

Just kidding! Gosh, who among us has never had doubts about our faith?! Questions and doubts are part of the spiritual life and being honest about them and pursuing answers in Christian community yields important spiritual growth. Your question, however, has a visceral edge to it: it’s the question that can disturb us deeply on our deathbeds when we’d most like to be confident of the afterlife. It’s then, faced with ultimate reality (or utter extinction) that our faith in Christ’s resurrection must stand the test. As I’ve mentioned in our classes, if we wait to train our faith till then, it may be too late for our comfort, existentially speaking. We won’t have the confidence and reassurance we seek. Much better to begin now! To steep ourselves in the biblical narrative of Christ’s victory over death, to meditate on our glorious future, to think on passages like Luke 23:43, Romans 8:31-39, Philippians 2:21-23, 1Corinthians 15:51-57, and Revelation 21:1-6.

We hear a lot about Jesus in church and Sunday School. Why are people not told what they have to do to become a Christian?

With this question you may be putting your finger on a blind spot in our Presbyterian tradition! In our Reformed heritage we’ve tended to stress God’s election of sinners to salvation (in other words, emphasizing that it is primarily God’s choosing us in Christ, rather than us choosing him, that saves). Unlike members of other traditions (for example, the Baptists), who place emphasis on human choice and response, our tradition has tended to diminish human contributions to the process, while stressing God’s gracious initiative. We DO believe that humans need to make a conscious choice in asking Jesus to forgive their sins and be their Lord and Savior; however, we believe that it is God’s Spirit, working in the human heart, that makes this possible. I think we probably need to do more “altar calls” than we’re accustomed to, provided we still emphasize God’s saving grace, a la Ephesians 2:8-9.

In the Lord’s Prayer some churches and translations have “debts”, and others “trespasses” instead of “sins”. This is confusing! What is the original?

This is always awkward for me when I visit my parents’ Methodist church. They say the Lord’s Prayer with “trespasses” and I, as a Presbyterian, say “debts.” I like “debts” better because it rolls off the tongue more easily! Let me prove it: compare “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” with “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” That’s a mouthful, isn’t it?! The original word in Matthew’s version of the prayer (Matthew 6:12) is opheilemata, which is a Greek rendition of an Aramaic (and earlier, Hebrew) word hob, which literally meant “debt” as in financial indebtedness. This carried over into the idea of sin, as a debt we owed to God in order to restore righteousness. Luke’s version of the prayer (Luke 11:4 NRSV) uses the simple word “sins” (hamartiai) in combination with “indebted”: “And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.” I’ll bet this is “all Greek” to you!

This is a thoughtful question. It gets at a powerful human emotion that can often be very destructive. However, there are occasions when anger is very appropriate, hence the term “righteous anger.” Let’s begin with a reflection: I’ve heard that anger is a sign that someone or something has not squared with our expectations or perceived sense of right and wrong. For example, we expect to be treated a certain way or for someone to follow rules of respect, fairness, or standards of thoughtfulness and civility toward us, and when these expectations are not met, we feel angry. Anger, therefore, is a gauge of some injustice we perceive, often against ourselves. To not be angry would be a sign of disinterest, apathy, or disengagement. It would mean we do not care. The problem, of course, lies in why we’re angry: is it because of an inflated sense of ourselves and our rights? Is it an impatience that things are not going the way we want or feel we deserve? Too often this is the case; our anger is rooted in a sinful self-absorption or our grandiose view of “the way things should be” (according to us). In contrast, to be angry because of clear injustice or oppression against victims who are powerless, or to feel anger because God’s character has been slandered or his will disregarded, that’s a different story.

Let’s explore anger in the Bible. Using the NIV Nave’s Topical Bible (Zondervan, 1992), which I strongly recommend, I looked up anger and learned that in its overwhelming number of uses it refers to the negative human emotion, that which is sinful and destructive: “be not quick to anger, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9). Or recall the hard words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment” (Matthew 5:22). Or the teaching of James, the brother of Jesus: “Let every one be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (James 1:19-20). In the Apostle Paul’s vice lists, anger is often mentioned as something to be put off or put away. For example: “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice” (Ephesians 4:31; see also Galatians 5:20). Clearly, these are all examples of inappropriate, what we might term “unrighteous”, anger.

There are, however, exceptions where anger is justified, almost always because the person who is angry identifies with God’s righteousness or justice which has been disregarded. Think of Jesus cleansing the temple because it is being used for materialistic profit and not as a place of prayer and worship (Mark 11:15-17) or Jesus’ anger at the hardness of heart among religious hypocrites (Mark 3:5), or Jesus’ anger at those who would hurt or abuse little children (Matthew 18:6). God’s wrath against sin and injustice is always righteous (Romans 1:18). God is perfect in holiness; God cannot abide sin and evil and God’s wrath in response to these is a sign of God’s justice and righteousness.

Our human anger normally reveals that we sense some injustice, unkindness, or inequity has been done to us. Typically, our anger is a gauge that indicates something’s not right. This may or may not be the case. Our perceptions may be spot on; but they can also be mistaken, inflated, or exaggerated. The problem lies with the calibration of our gauge: too often it’s too sensitive and oriented primarily to ourselves and our expectations and not toward God and others. Discernment is necessary: what is it exactly that has made us angry? Where or how or why do we feel provoked? What standard has been broken? Sometimes our anger is justified; sometimes it is not. The other thing we must do is beware where our anger leads us: to feel angry is one thing; to act out in ways that are harmful or destructive is another! It’s a sensitive discussion, to be sure.

What is your interpretation of the word “forbearance” as used in the Bible?

I suspect you’re not alone in wondering whether we comfortable Christians in the west might be too comfortable in not being persecuted for our faith. We hear of the faith-based suffering of our courageous brothers and sisters in the Muslim world or China or southern Sudan and we experience feelings of awe, inspiration, and—if we’re honest—anxiety: could we suffer that way? Should we?

Granted, we live in a culture that still has vestiges of a Christian memory along with large measures of religious freedom. We can practice our faith openly and without fear of persecution. But your question still haunts us, doesn’t it? Are we too complacent? Are we too tepid and comfortable in our Christianity? If we were more sold out to Jesus, more surrendered to his Spirit, would we not experience greater resistance from our culture (let alone from the prince of this world and the powers and principalities)? I suspect the reasons for our comfortable Christianity lie in a blend of context (our relatively tolerant culture) and commitment (our attempts to live most of our Christian lives “under the radar”). Tough question—I suspect that this could be a matter for personal prayer and continued reflection.

I hear a lot of pain in your question and I’m aware that divorce is one of life’s significant tragedies. Many people walk through life with the wounds of divorce, struggling to find healing. Not knowing all the details of your experience, I would guess that healing would come as a combination of a number of things. Certainly, forgiveness of your former spouse would be at the top of the list. Without forgiveness, it’s almost impossible to move on. You feel hurt, possibly betrayed, certainly abandoned. You mourn the loss of a companion, the investment of time and emotion, the history of good memories. I encourage you to find ways to forgive your spouse, forgive yourself, and hand over to God all of these feelings.

I suspect another important thing to do is invest in meaningful relationships and activities. If all you’ve got is the void created by the divorce, it’s pretty hard to build a life around it. Fill your emptiness with new friends and service opportunities. Discover your gifts for ministry and find joy in using them to bless others. Take up a sport or a hobby and make new friends in the process. If these endeavors fail to bring you the satisfaction you’re seeking, do not be ashamed to seek professional counseling, spiritual direction, or the aid of a recovery group.

How do I know that I have the Holy Spirit and that he does indeed dwell in me?

The assurance of one’s indwelling by the Holy Spirit involves both an objective and a subjective dimension. Objectively, we are informed by Scripture that when we confess our faith in Christ, claiming “Jesus is Lord”, it is by the Holy Spirit who indwells us (see 1Corinthians 12:3). The Bible also clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is “in” believers (see John 14:15-17 and 1Corinthians 6:19). So, although faith involves an inescapable subjective dimension, objectively, we must agree with Scripture about its teaching regarding the Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of the believer. Now, subjectively, there are indeed times when we may feel the Spirit’s indwelling presence and activity. These may be special times of joy, worship, thanksgiving, and praise—occasions when the Holy Spirit moves us to extol God in Christ. Additionally, we may experience special insight or gifting for ministry appropriate to a certain circumstance. These are rich gifts of the Spirit which leave a strong impression on us! However, in the absence of such experiences and subjective feelings, we nevertheless base our conviction on the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence on the firm foundation of Scripture.

What does the term ‘inerrancy of Scripture’ mean? How is Scripture viewed among different Christian theological camps (e.g. fundamentalist, liberal, etc)?

The phrase “inerrancy of Scripture” made its way into popular American Christian consciousness in the late 1970s with the “battle for the Bible” named after a book by Harold Lindsell. Lindsell was writing in the context of what he felt was the diminishing authority of the Bible in seminaries and evangelical churches. In particular, he took issue with some neo-orthodox views of Scripture linked to the famous Swiss theologian Karl Barth.

“Inerrancy”, as applied to the Bible, is the idea that the Bible is without error and indeed cannot err. Some very strict views of inerrancy would extend this concept to scientific and historic details. Other more moderate views of inerrancy are often tempered with the statement that the Bible is without error “in all that it affirms”--about God, humankind, salvation, and the righteous life.

My understanding of this term is that it comes relatively late in Church history. It really gains traction in the 20th century. As such, it is a somewhat reactionary idea, developed as a polemic against what was perceived as the threat of modernism and comparative religious studies. Note the way the term is expressed defensively: it tells us what Scripture cannot do (i.e. it cannot err). Historically, the Church has affirmed not inerrancy, but the authority and inspiration of Scripture. I tend to like these terms better, for they tell us positively and confidently what the Church has believed about the Bible since the beginning. Scripture is a trustworthy document, God’s Word through human words, a durable, thoughtful, cohesive, coherent story which integrates reliable descriptions of our relationship with a loving, saving God viewed most fully and clearly in Jesus Christ.

If we may generalize: from the right side of the theological spectrum, fundamentalist Christians would insist that the Bible is inerrant and might unconsciously approach it in the way many Muslims approach the Koran: believing that the text is fully divine and that human authors were quite passive in its writing. On the opposite side of the spectrum (again, if we must generalize), liberal Christians would tend to view the Bible as inspirational religious reading which reflects a mostly human composition. The issue for Christian views of the Bible is the nature and authorship of Scripture: how much is divine and how much is human? As Presbyterians, our Reformed heritage has preferred to speak of the Bible’s authority (basing this on the example of Jesus and the early church, in particular) and its inspiration (affirming with the Apostle Paul that it is “God-breathed” -- 2Timothy 3:16).

This debate wasn’t familiar to me until I googled it myself! I learned that positions for and against King Solomon as an historical figure are largely based on presuppositions about the nature of Scripture (i.e. is it primarily legend or factual chronology, when it comes to the stories of David and Solomon?). Added to this is the complexity of archaeology: the sites where Solomon had his palace and temple were situated in areas of Jerusalem that cannot be excavated (due to the sensitive nature of the Temple Mount and private property in the City of David). Suffice it to say, this is a complicated debate with many layers. I googled “historicity King Solomon” and went from there. Give it a try and good luck!

What is the primary focus of Jesus Christ in the Mormon Church? They use the name Jesus Christ very prominently in their title and talk. Is Jesus just a prophet like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith? Are Mormons “Christians” by our definition?

I read of a church having a very difficult time in deciding whether to allow a former convicted child molester to become a member of their church. What is FPC’s position on this? I think we would allow membership to this sinner, as to all sinners, but we might restrict that person’s area of leadership and influence (no ministry to children or young people and perhaps no officer position in the church).

If Satan isn’t omniscient and can’t read our minds, how does he know how to tempt us and discourage us? How extensive are his powers regarding temptation?

I have the gift of discernment. I know I am supposed to be accepting of all people, yet, certain discretions don’t allow me to. How can I learn who to accept and to accept more people into my life?

Your question gets at one of the core issues in the collision between Christianity and contemporary secular culture. Our secular culture often emphasizes the supposed virtues of tolerance and acceptance (e.g. we are never to condemn, let alone criticize, other viewpoints, lifestyle choices, or behaviors. We must embrace and celebrate them). As Christians, however, we are not called to “tolerance” or even “acceptance.” We are called to love! And love does not involve jettisoning our discernment. In fact, the Bible instructs us to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves when evaluating the behaviors around us (Matthew 10:16). True, Jesus told us not to judge (meaning condemn people harshly, Matthew 7:1-5); however, in his very next words, Jesus also told us not to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs (meaning not to share God’s truth with those who will spurn it out of hand, Matthew 7:6). Discernment of people’s behavior is wise and right, according to our Lord—provided we do so in a spirit of love and concern (not condemnation or self-righteousness). Recall, too, Paul’s instruction in 1Corinthians 5:9-13—he urges his readers to especially evaluate behavior within the church, even going so far as to have them shun those so-called Christians who live in ways contrary to the gospel. Thoughtful discernment of people’s behavior, yes. Self-righteous condemnation of others, no! This is the way of wise Christian discernment, it seems to me.

Help me understand Matthew 11:11-12. I don’t understand these verses at all.

Here are the verses: Jesus speaks to the crowds and says, “Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”

I’ve been helped by Dr. Dale Bruner in his commentary on these verses. He points out the great self-confidence (but not self-centeredness) of Jesus: he is the one who ushers in the kingdom of heaven to the amazing extent that anyone who believes in him (and therefore is a citizen of the kingdom) is actually greater in stature than John the Baptist, the greatest figure in the old period, prior to Jesus’ coming. Verse 11 is what Bruner calls a “majesty” text. The surprising thing is that it’s followed by what he calls a “modesty” text (v. 12): this triumphant and glorious kingdom of God is nevertheless met with violent resistance on earth. The kingdom reflects the nature of the King: although Jesus is the glorious Son of God and Messiah, he is also the suffering and crucified Servant of God.

a) As a congregation within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), First Presbyterian Church, Boulder is governed by the PC(USA)’s constitution which consists of the Book of Confessions (outlining our beliefs and theology) and the Book of Order (covering our church government, worship, and discipline). Currently, according to our Book of Order, 6-0106b, ordained church officers (deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament) “are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman ([Book of Confessions] W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”

b) As for abortion, as a denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has in the past several decades protested efforts to restrict abortions, and has repeatedly come out in favor of defending a woman’s right to choose when and whether to terminate her pregnancy. Though there are different opinions within the membership of individual congregations (and First Presbyterian Church, Boulder is no exception), the church leadership at First Pres Boulder has weighed in against abortion, most significantly with its position paper “Seeking Perspective on Abortion” (adopted by the FPC session in 1980 and reaffirmed in 1992). The paper is worth reading for its irenic tone and its life-affirming balance of grace and truth. Contact the Spiritual Formation & Discipleship (303.402.6453) office to receive a copy.

Additionally, First Pres leadership has supported ministries like Presbyterians Pro Life as well as “Right to Life” Sunday, which advocate against abortion and seek alternate ways (such as adoption) to preserve the life of the unborn.

c) As for “parachurch activism”, I’m not certain exactly what you mean—whether you are referring to parachurch ministries (i.e. non-denominational Christian organizations which work for one specific aspect of ministry, such as evangelism, hunger, social justice, etc) or secular activism (such as the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice group) which may partner where appropriate with Christians who support the same cause for faith-based reasons. Either way, FPC and the PC(USA) defend the right of individual conscience to guide members on specific activities and ministries which are not regulated by our Constitution.

“I know we’re supposed to forgive—I try to forgive someone, I think I have and she does something terrible again. How do you forgive a repeat offender?

See “God and Forgiveness” in the yellow section below.

In Psalm 74:19 the word “turtledove” puzzles me in this context. In Psalm 74:2 the “rod of thine inheritance” is also puzzling. I don’t understand what “rod” means here.

It’s interesting to me that you have applied the popular term “inclusive” to Jesus Christ. My take on the Jesus we meet in the Bible is that he was both “inclusive” (in that he included everyone potentially in the scope of God’s love and his own sacrificial death) and “intolerant” (in that he refused to wink at sin or tolerate it in any way). It is true: Jesus offers love and new life to all who will follow him in faith. But it is also true that to these disciples Jesus issues his call to follow him on the narrow way, to pick up their crosses and walk his path to a certain death to themselves (sometime literal, always figurative). Let’s be clear: Jesus loves and calls all sinners to relationship with himself. Yet this relationship never leaves us as we are or were; it is a relationship of transformation from sin into holiness, a holiness defined by biblical standards and the example of Christ himself. At FPC all are welcome to join us in our life together. However, to those who pledge themselves to Jesus as his disciples, a life of holiness and surrender to God becomes increasingly important and necessary. This is especially true for those who are called to the ordained offices of the church. These officers pledge to lead their lives as examples to the rest, following the guidance of Scripture and the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Constitution. My understanding of church office is that it is not a right of all members, but, rather, a privilege, a responsibility, and a calling to those so gifted and recognized by the congregation. Please note: though our PC(USA) constitution (and the practices of FPC) prohibit self-avowed, practicing homosexuals from holding church office, this restriction does not apply to people of same-sex attraction who remain celibate.

There is a person in a tribe in the middle of Africa who has never heard about Christ. What will happen to him when he dies?

Explain the difference between our soul and spirit.

Can you help me better understand the Christian perspective concerning the evolutionary theory.

It seems that the character of Satan has been established more by Paradise Lost and Dante’s Inferno than by Scripture. I could only find a handful of references to Satan in the Old Testament....one in Isaiah about the falling star....and that seems to do more with representing the fall of the Babylonian king. Job mentions Satan...are there other references? Why does the character of Satan get more “press”—if you will—in the New Testament? In the 500-600 years between the Old and New Testament, does Satan come up?

I resonate with your perceptions about Satan’s character being more established by Milton than by Scripture—I’m an old English major from the University of California, Berkeley and, believe it or not, my senior thesis was on Milton’s Paradise Lost!

As with many other key biblical ideas (including the Holy Spirit, God’s Triune nature, and life after death) the notion of Satan is developed over time during the period of history covered in the Bible. For this reason, we need to read Scripture diachronically (across time) in order to understand the development of important themes and doctrines. Additionally, we need to be aware that other terms besides “Satan” are used to describe that personal evil which aligns itself against God and God’s people (terms such as devil, demon, Beelzebub, Prince of this world, etc). A full study of personal evil must encompass all of these terms. However, for brevity’s sake, let’s just look at “Satan.” In Hebrew “Satan” simply means “adversary” or “accuser.” Depending on the context, it may or may not refer to the devil. Its earlier use in the Hebrew Bible has to do more with a generic “accuser” who opposes someone (often in a court setting). However, its later use, particularly in Job 1, Zechariah 3, and 1Chronicles 21:1, clearly refers to a supernatural evil being. This personification of “Satan” continues during the Intertestamental period of roughly 400 years. Works like the Dead Sea Scrolls, various apocalypses, and the Pseudepigrapha depict Satan clearly as an evil supernatural being seeking to destroy God’s work and God’s people. The New Testament develops this view of Satan even further by equating him with the devil (Matthew 4:1-11). I suspect that Satan “gets more press” in the New Testament because it describes the person and work of Jesus Christ who appeared “to destroy the works of the devil” (1John 3:8).

I don’t see any examples of infant baptism in Scripture. Believe, repent, confess and be baptized are terms applicable to more mature ages. Also, Jesus was baptized by immersion; how did we get sprinkling?

While it is true that the majority of references to baptism in the New Testament have to do with believers, there are several important instances where baptism included children. For example, we read that Cornelius and “his whole household” (which presumably included children) were saved and baptized (Acts 10:44-48; 11:14). Similarly, the Philippian jailer believed in the Lord Jesus and he and “his whole household” (which surely included children) were saved and baptized (see Acts 16:31, 33). We must recall that in one key passage, Colossians 2:11-12, baptism is likened to the Jewish rite of circumcision, which was (and still is) practiced on infant males. Today, the baptism of children of at least one believing parent illustrates the gracious acceptance of the undeserving by a loving God. The baptism of believing adults, on the other hand, indicates the newness of life available to those who exercise faith in Christ.

As for the mode or amount of water used in baptism, this is mostly a matter of practicality. My understanding is that many of the churches which had their origin in colder climates began using less water out of concern for the health of the baptized (presumably they felt that to immerse infants not only was dangerous to begin with, but also might compromise their health by giving them a chill). Whatever the case, God’s grace is the point, not the amount of water!

“Carefully.” Seriously, you’re asking a big and important question which historically has fallen under the attempts to reconcile divine sovereignty (God’s supreme rule over all things) and human responsibility (our challenge to exercise free will responsibly). Scripture clearly teaches both, with an emphasis on God’s sovereignty first and foremost. Divine sovereignty—that is God’s mighty and majestic rule over all things that occur—nevertheless leaves room for human responsibility. These two are not mutually exclusive. Scripture depicts God knowing in advance what people will do (and yet incorporating their free actions into his eternal purposes). A clear example of this is Acts 2:22-23 in which Peter proclaims to the Jews gathered before him at Pentecost: “You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth…this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.”

We see here divine sovereignty (God’s “definite plan and foreknowledge” of Jesus’ betrayal and crucifixion) mysteriously working amidst human responsibility (“you crucified and killed”). Though human beings are free to choose, God sovereignly uses their choices as part of his eternal plan. Another example would be Judas: Judas freely chooses to betray Jesus; yet Jesus mentions that his choice fulfills ancient biblical prophecy (Matthew 26:24, 54). These twin realities—divine sovereignty and human responsibility—present us with a mystery, one we might call an “antinomy”—two truths which appear contradictory, yet must be held together in tension.

How do you draw the line between praying for God to provide highly specific life results versus asking for more general prayer requests? As we mature in our faith, does our trust in "God's Plan" cause us to change the tone/nature of our requests of Him?

How does our Christian belief of eternal life after death contrast with that of Old Testament Jews? Exactly what did Old Testament Jews believe happened to them at death?

Can you recommend a good study Bible? There are so many available, it is hard to know what to look for.

In your class on the Letter to the Hebrews you addressed a number of times the importance of worshipping together in church as a body of believers. Could you go over that again? I am wondering about how to respond to a person who says "I'll be worshipping God while in the mountains today"?

Could you explain “Dispensationalism”?

What exactly is “Calvinism”?

Calvinism is another name for the Reformed theology that traces its roots back to John Calvin (1509-1604), the great reformer of Geneva, Switzerland. Calvin was more thorough than Martin Luther in his reformation of Catholic theology and practice. Luther tended to reform with the slogan “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” As a result, Luther’s reformation left many things closer to the Catholic position—including his church structure and some of his views of the sacraments. Calvin, by contrast, felt that “If it ain’t in the Bible, we ain’t doin’ it.” He sought, therefore, to reform by Scripture as much of Church doctrine and practice as possible. “Sola Scriptura” (“Only Scripture”) was the principle which guided his reform. Calvin influenced many people during his time—people from the Low Countries, like the Netherlands, as well as Scotsmen, like John Knox (who founded Presbyterianism).

Calvinism is known for an emphasis on the sovereign majesty of God, who is so high, holy, and righteous that a relationship with him for sinful human beings is impossible apart from his gracious initiative. Later “Calvinists”, seeking to pick up where Calvin left off in his reform, developed the famous “Five Points of Calvinism” at the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619). These Five Points have come to be known by the acronym “TULIP”: Total Depravity (every aspect of our human personality has been tainted by the fall from grace and we cannot rely on ourselves for salvation); Unconditional election (God, from all eternity, chooses people for a relationship with him not based on their later behavior or worthiness); Limited atonement (Christ’s atoning death saves only those whom God has chosen for relationship); Irresistible grace (even people’s choice of God is due to grace, not their careful, conscious choosing); and Perseverance of the saints (believers chosen by God for relationship will persevere in that relationship and will not fall away from grace).

What’s going on in Matthew 15:21-28? Every time I read this, it sounds so harsh, almost loathing, and out of character for the loving Jesus.

Isn’t it troubling when the biblical Jesus behaves in ways we think he shouldn’t?! Passages like this one, or other ones like his woes to the Pharisees (Matthew 23), or the cleansing of the temple and cursing of the fig tree (Matthew 21:12//Mark 11:12-21) shock us and throw into question our preconceived understandings of what we think Jesus should be like. Too often, I’m afraid, we expect Jesus to behave like a polite, mild-mannered gentleman…but that’s another issue…and I’m starting to preach!

In this hard-to-understand passage, Jesus apparently shows some reluctance in answering the Gentile woman’s request for him to deliver her daughter from a demon. His initial reticence seems to be motivated by his sense of calling: he believes he is sent to minister, at least at first, to the house of Israel and not beyond it to the Gentiles. His vivid response, “It is not fair to take the children’s food [that is the spiritual blessings he’s come to share with the Jews] and throw it to the dogs [that is the Gentiles]” is hard to comprehend, particularly this seemingly harsh reference to “dogs.” However, as commentaries note, Jesus uses the softened term for dogs, which can be translated “lapdogs” or “puppies.” (These are not the common street dogs which scavenge among the refuse in the gutter.) Dale Bruner, in his excellent commentary on this passage, notes that Jesus, in his humanity, is wrestling with the scope of his mission: clearly, he is meant to preach the gospel to the Jews first; but now the Gentiles too?! Through the Canaanite woman’s faith, Jesus sees that his healing power is meant to be shared with all people who will trust him, not just the Jews. Should we have difficulty recognizing that Jesus needed to learn new aspects of his calling during his earthly ministry, we need only recall Hebrews 5:8, which states that Jesus learned obedience through that which he suffered. This passage is an important turning point in the gospel, which we must remember ends with the famous Great Commission, in which Jesus calls his followers to “make disciples of all nations.”

Please explain the Unitarian Church as compared to the Presbyterian Church.

In a hymn recently, there was a reference to an “Ebenezer.” What is this?