Free Will and Faith under Pressure.

Question #1:

I would like to know more about the writer. Who he is and where he preaches or teaches from. But my search question that led me to this web site was... if heaven was a perfect place with perfect or blameless creatures how or where did original sin come from. You seem to indicate that God allowed or gave them a free will and thus opened Pandora's box because he wanted free moral agents not robots. Someone said, that God did the one thing God could not do. He was all powerful so He limited His power or influence in allowing free moral agency to thus have a freely given love and moral submission vs. coerced conduct. He did this however at the expense of knowing the result would be much rebellion and disobedience by which we suffer...Is God then more concerned about His prompted love and obedience of some at the expense of many who will suffer because of a tendency to fail... Is that being selfish. Why not make us like cows, and we just love God just like cows love grass. Ignorance is bliss or Choice can be catastrophic... any way how or why did God allow sin in Heaven to begin with and then the follow up is.....what has he done to ensure no repeat performance in the new heaven and earth... isn't tendency still there or will freedom be removed..???


Response #1:

First, I am the writer and responsible for all the materials at Ichthys. My CV is posted on-line at the site (see the link: Current CV).

As to your question(s), I would say that you have framed things up more or less correctly in terms of my understanding about what scripture really says about free will, namely, that it is the ability to choose for God, and it is that quality and that quality only which qualifies us as being made "in the image and likeness of God". As to why God did what He did, or what the moral or philosophical ramifications of this regime of creation are, I am certainly willing to share my opinions and feelings, but would like to differentiate at the outset such an exercise from interpreting scripture. The simple fact is that the Bible, correctly interpreted, tells us the answers. How we feel about them and we deal with them is part and parcel of this free will about which we are now speaking. I think it is fair to say that anyone who begins to look into the Bible in a serious way will swiftly be confronted with things they do not like, agree with, or otherwise find difficult to accept – whether it be information that is difficult to believe or standards that are hard to comply with, or representations of the true reality that for whatever reason the individual in question might find offensive. Simply put, the truth tests our willingness to respond to God every day in all sorts of different ways. No one is perfect, but the scriptures are a perfect mirror held up to our inner-selves (James 1:23-25), and truth quickly separates out those who are enthusiastic for it, no matter what the cost, those who are lukewarm to it, and those who are in their heart of hearts genuinely antagonistic towards it.

Whatever else we can say about the Lord, selfishness is not a charge that can be reasonable laid at the feet of Someone who has sacrificed His one and only beloved Son on our behalf. The Father's sacrifice of Jesus, and our Lord's willing offering up of Himself unto suffering and death for all of the sins of the entire world is a breathtaking thing, truly beyond complete comprehension, but hardly selfish. Since He has done the most for us in the biggest thing, providing eternal life at the greatest possible cost to Himself, and in all the little things too, providing for us in this evil, awful world in ways which can barely imagine at present, it would seem that a little gratitude is in order. Indeed, in Paul's upbraiding of the unbelieving world in Romans, the lack of gratitude for a God who is known by all but rejected and dishonored by most is at the heart of his indictment (Rom.1:21 in the context of 1:18-32).

In specific response to your question, yes the original heaven was a place of perfection, and it is indeed the case that the gift of freedom carried with it the possibility and, as it turned out, the eventuality of sin and rebellion. But before we blame God for this, it would be well to consider that this is just the argument made by those who want to blame the potter for the pot. The Potter in this case had every right to make "pots" with free will, and the fact that some use this wonderful gift to reject Him who gave it can hardly be a reasonable "offense" with which to charge Him, the gracious giver, instead of the ungrateful abuser. Is it not inherent in the idea of a true choice for God that some will take it and some will not? Consider then that if there were no such choice, if we were just "cows", then it is not just that there would be no possibility of damnation for those who willingly embrace that choice for themselves, but it would necessarily also have to be the case that there would be no possibility of true fellowship with God on the part of those who choose to avail themselves of God's gracious offer of eternal life in Jesus Christ. In other words, without the damned, one cannot have the saved. If we had the power to wish away condemnation, we would also thereby be wishing away salvation (since there would be nothing to be saved from). Without the choice against, there cannot be the choice for. And without having made this choice, from the heart, we wouldn’t be who we are. We wouldn’t have any idea of how wonderful the Lord is. We wouldn’t be heroes for God or villains opposing Christ. We would just be cows. Our entire internal makeup, the very essence of us which allows us to ask such questions and consider such issues, is so fundamentally dependent upon free will that one could sooner unscramble an egg than postulate “us” without free will (because we would then in no sense be “us”).

It is undoubtedly true that God did not have to initiate creation. But I for one am enthusiastically glad that He did. And while it is certainly regrettable that many are lost, I rejoice in those who are saved, and I take some comfort in the fact that those who are not saved are not because of their own deliberate choice. Scripture certainly indicates that it is not God's first best will for those who are lost to be so (Ezek.18:23; Matt.18:14; Jn.12:47; 1Tim.2:4; 2Tim.2:24-26; 2Pet.3:9), but that they are so in spite of His will through willfully setting their own will in place of His.

I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. If I were not a morally responsible creature, if I did not have free will, I would not be "me" in any meaningful sense, and neither would any other human being be what they are. We are what God made us, and it is a blessing that He made us so. I am certainly not in a position to give dogmatic answers to hypothetical questions on the state of mind of the Trinity at the moment of original creation, but all that I have learned about the Lord from scripture and personal experience leads me to give God the benefit of the doubt on this – and then some.

Finally, our knowledge about eternity is limited. Scripture gives us some information – as much as we need but less than we might like. One thing I think it is fair to say, however, is that eternity is always portrayed as "solid-state", that is, as a truly perfect and "eternal" continuum that will never change. Since judgment will have been passed in all of its phases when the eternal state begins (cf. Rev.20-22), this picture is consistent with a construct of "time" being the place of choice and "eternity" being the place where life-changing choice of the sort we are talking about here will be over and done with. After all, if we could still "fall" in eternity, then there would never be a place where we were ultimately and finally secure – and what sort of an eternal life would that be? This construct also agrees with everything we see about the way this life works; while pagan religions often theorize a cycle of repetition, the world as God has actually constructed it (and certainly as it is described in scripture), present a different picture: life is short, choices are very important, and we always have to live with the consequences of our choices, good, bad, or indifferent.

I hope you find this of some help. There is quite a lot on the site relating to this issue. On the image and likeness of God in man as it relates to free will, see "The Image and Likeness of God" in Basics 3A; on the issue of original sin, see "The Sin Nature" (esp. pt. #4) in Basics 3B.

In Him who freely gave His life for us that we might choose to live forever with Him, our dear Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #2:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I have written you a few times now, and am always happy to read your response. I am a frequent "flyer" to your site and find it and you to be such a blessing in my life.

I am writing you today with a heavy heart.....and need some encouragement, and of course, a place to go to in Scripture for solace. I recently experienced an ectopic pregnancy. My question is this...did I lose a child? It may seem a silly question, especially from a woman, but it was obviously very early in the pregnancy, and from seeing the sonogram, nothing close to resembling a child was there. I was saved "in the nick of time"....of course, I take that as our Lord's purpose for my life here has not yet been met. I keep going back the Scripture where the Lord says "I knit you in your mother's womb". I do have a beautiful daughter who was the result of a perfectly normal pregnancy and delivery. This ectopic pregnancy happened after a tubal ligation, and came long after I thought I was done in the baby making business.

Is there something I can take from this experience that would bring glory to our Lord? Was this just a medical issue I had to live through? It wasn't particularly physically painful. I'm a little sore and stiff, but not the worst pain in the world. I know and believe that He has a plan and purpose for everything. I just can't seem to make sense of this. And, I know that that is okay too. Not all things are for me to know. I mostly want to know your thoughts on the beginning of life.....should I be grieving the loss of a child....or no? Do you have a particular passage of Scripture that might be of some encouragement to me now? I will eagerly await to hear from you.

May our Lord continue to use you as instrument - In our Lord and Savior, and the One who knows all reasons for all things.

Response #2:

While it is always a pleasure to hear from you, you certainly have my commiserations in this difficult time. First off I would like to say that I draw much encouragement from your e-mail – not just because of your words of appreciation and support (which are in turn very much appreciated), but even more because of your mature response to this heartache and your clear witness of strong Christian faith. I have seen so many people in my life "tripped up" by far lesser challenges when there is the great temptation to shout “Why me God?!”, so that it is a great pleasure to see someone who really does love and believe in Jesus to such a degree and from such a pure heart that even a shock like this cannot shake, cannot shatter faith, but is instead an opportunity to demonstrate the power and the value of faith. Believe me, if your solidity of faith in the Lord comes through to me through an e-mail, it cannot help but to be coming through to all who are close to you. Anyone can be a fair-weather witness for Jesus Christ. But in my observation and experience, the true sincerity of one's witness is tested and demonstrated in adversity. Therefore while I grieve with you in your loss and pain, I rejoice for you (and, hopefully, with you) in the triumph of your faith. Everything you say in this e-mail – trusting God even when the purpose and the point of the trouble are not at all clear – demonstrates that you have truly come to put Him first in your life, in the fundamental construct of your thinking, in everything you think and say and do. The number of Christians today who have achieved this level of spiritual growth – through diligent Bible study and determined application of the truth they have believed to their daily lives – are few and far between. So in spite of the heartache, I want to encourage you that you could not be handling this better, and that you are a witness and an encouragement to all of us who understand that the Lord is our life.

As to the specifics of the questions you ask about, I would say that you are so right to look to scripture, and that you are so right to trust God even in the absence of clear information about your particular situation. When Abraham was taking Isaac up to Mt. Moriah to present him as a burnt offering and sacrifice, he had no idea why this was happening, and, to the contrary, every bit of human logic – even scriptural common sense – pointed to this being a horribly unfair thing that he should refuse, absent, that is, a faith in God that was so deep and so enduring that even something so painful and seemingly wrong could not faze his trust in the One who made him and saved him. You put it very well when you say we may not know why and that is "O.K."; faith that doesn't need an explanation from God is the strongest, most mature type of faith, and it is just that type of faith that honors our Master the most.

I will say a few things more. I am no M.D., but it is my understanding that ectopic pregnancies can be dangerous, and the fact that God has delivered you in good health is a blessing. What I can say about the whole issue of when life begins is that for me the issue is made very clear in scripture: life begins at birth when God places a human spirit inside the newly born.

At that time we had those who fathered our flesh to discipline us, and we respected them. Shall we not all the more submit ourselves to the Father of our spirits and live?
Hebrews 12:9

As this and many other passages make clear, only the physical body is passed down by the parents; the spiritual part of man comes directly from God, and without the giving of the human spirit, there can be no life (cf. the case of children who are "still-born"). For a much more detailed discussion of this issue, please see the following link: "The Dichotomy of Man" in Basics part 3A: Anthropology.

It is true that we are wonderfully "knit together" and that God is the Architect and Superintendent of the physical side of the process as well as the spiritual one, but many Christians and Christian groups are dangerously mistaken in their assessment of the spiritual side of the equation: there can be no life without an act of God. I know that this leaves many "what ifs", but I am content and always counsel others to be content as well in the knowledge that our God is grace and mercy personified, and that all whom He means to see the light of day do so, and all whom He means to save without the necessity of a decision for Jesus are so saved (whether their lives last ten seconds or ten years). When we remember that He loved us so much that He sacrificed His own Son like a burnt offering on that same Mt. Moriah, the hill of Calvary, and that unlike Isaac there was no deliverance for Him who was forsaken on our behalf and judged for all our sins, we know for certain that we have every grounds for confidence in these cases and no grounds for ultimate regret. Whatever we have lost in the case of the very young, as children, or newborns, or even before that as in your case, we can have complete confidence that the personal grief we may feel now will, on that day of days when we stand before Him who gave Himself over to death for us, be transformed into unimaginable joy and eternal life.

God most certainly has a plan and a purpose for you and your life, and I rejoice that you are actively seeking His will and guidance for this in a day and in an age when so many are defining that plan and purpose in terms of what they want instead of what God wants. That is why faith in the crucible having the quality of gold refined in the fire of testing such as yours is of so much greater value, both in terms of personal reward and in terms of witness for the Lord – precisely because faith and faithfulness in the midst of sorrow and heartache demonstrates choosing for God in what He has willed, even when we don't understand it at all and even when it hurts us terribly, rather than choosing what we want and calling it Christian service.

Whatever the specifics of what the Lord has for you in a broad scope, one of the things I believe that He certainly has for you in terms of plan and purpose is the demonstration to the world, to men and angels both, that your faith in Him transcends what the eye can see, in the hope of resurrection, reward, and eternal life, in love for Jesus Christ with a joy that surmounts all tears, springing up to His glory forevermore. Does the Lord have plans for you? Indeed He does, and it seems to me that in this witness of yours you are carrying out your duty most admirably.

"For I know the plans I have for you", declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future".
Jeremiah 29:11 NIV

Thank you for faithful witness and the encouragement it brings to me and to us all.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I was just sure I had read on the website about the spirit entering the body at birth. I am going to go back and re-read the Dichotomy of Man. I think that will be most comforting to me now.

Thank you also for your kind words. I take it as a heavy responsibility that I, a mere human, His creation, have the ability to make God sad. I try very hard not to do that, and know in my heart He doesn't want me to be sad. He loves me far more than I can imagine, and far more than in this form I can love Him so I know that my happiness is His. I still can make no sense of this situation, and have accepted that I can't see the big picture, but I know it's doing something for somebody or it wouldn't have happened. Yes, ectopic pregnancies can, and are very dangerous. I had emergency surgery on Friday afternoon, and after they got in there, they discovered my tube had ruptured. It was messy. I can report though, that other than the stiffness, I'm not much worse for the wear. I, of course, thank our Father for that. I'm glad I have more time to spend with my daughter and husband. Although, like you, I'm very ready and excited about meeting the Lord, He has to decide when that will be.

My faith is of great value to me. It is my most prized possession. I do love the Lord. And I try each day to communicate that to Him. I worry that He doesn't hear thank you enough. I try to say it at least once a day. I've found myself almost mentally curled up in His lap these past few days, just resting. I'm sure from all I've read that you can relate to that.....sometimes, when I pray, I'm sure if I reached out a hand, I could touch Him. He's that real....always has been, always will be. I owe that to Momma and Daddy. I was raised in church, and like the prodigal son, no matter how far I strayed, I always came back. I've been "home" for quite awhile now. I'm very content here. I'm sure you understand.

I also wanted to take a moment to relate a quick story to you. When I was just a few days pregnant (I didn't know it yet), at Easter, I was at Mother and Daddy's and I found a book called "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23" by Phillip Keller. I began reading it and was surprised to learn how similar we are to sheep. Mr. Keller was a shepherd for a time and observed sheep first hand. His thoughts on this Psalm and his telling of shepherding were very comforting to me. It made the Psalm come to life in a new way. I'm also happy to report that Mr. Keller seems to be a genuine Christian. He has known great loss and still puts our Lord first. If you haven't read this, I highly recommend it. Anyways, I'm convinced that the Lord put it in my hands. I've had it during this whole time and it, along with my Bible and prayer have brought me great comfort.

Thank you for your kind words, for all of your hard work and wisdom.

In our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who makes us all kindred spirits.

Response #3:

Thanks so much for your thoughtful and encouraging e-mail. We have a lot in common in a lot of different ways. It is so nice to know that there are genuine and true kindred spirits out there soldiering on for Jesus Christ in spite of trials and tribulations – "these are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight" (Ps.16:3). Your approach and your application are models of faith and faithfulness. Someday, with your permission, I would like to post all of this to the site.

In the meantime, continue to stay close to the Lord, and know that your doing so helps me and others do so as well.

In Him who is our life and our all, our dear Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #4:

Dear Dr. Luginbill:

What constitutes marriage, biblically speaking?

When I was younger, I had what I thought was an immoral relationship with a young man I was dating. We repented of our sexual involvement with each other after about a year and decided to wait until we were married. We eventually broke up and I married another man some years later.

Recently, I ran across a website which, beginning with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:16, asserts that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married to each other in God's eyes. If this is true, Jesus' teaching about divorce (putting away) affects many people who don't even realize they have been "married" before.

If that is the case, I certainly understand. I am very frightened that I am in adultery right now. I have read some (all) of the other emails about divorce/remarriage posted on your site. I know that there is not any scripture that tells persons to divorce from second marriages, but it seems to me that if you are committing adultery, God would want you to stop.

Perhaps it is too late for me. Even as I write that, I sink into hopelessness. Who am I kidding here? I knew what I was doing was wrong, and I did it anyway. I have owned a Bible and possessed the ability to read it for many years, I just continued sinning carelessly, selfishly, and
rarely even gave God a thought. If the gate is narrow, if God only saved eight when he destroyed the world the first time (in the flood), the odds are heavily against someone like me being saved.

I have read and studied so much about this one flesh thing that I don't know where the opinions of others, my own feelings and the truth begin and/or end. Please help me if you can.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Response #4:

I want to commend you for your obviously genuine desire to pursue a sanctified life for Jesus Christ. It is not easy to ask questions like this, but the fact that you are asking is a very clear indication of both the sincerity of your heart and your honest desire to do what God would have you to do – this is sound, biblical approach (Is.66:2; cf. Ps.51:17; 2Cor.7:8-12), and you are to be
commended for it.

I did get a chance to look at the website linked in your e-mail. Although I did not spend a copious amount of time there, I did spend long enough. The first thing I would point out about this site is that the individual (and it seems to be an individual) does not reveal anything at all about himself (and I guarantee you it is a "he"). Even were I to be in total agreement with the content of such a "blind" site, I would never recommend it or join fellowship with it: if one is going to pronounce on the Word of God, one should stand up and admit who they are, where they are coming from, what their associations are, and what qualifications they have as a basis for the authority they are claiming. In other words, I would rank the authority of this site as "zero".

Let me start with the first basic proposition. Marriage is marriage. I am well aware that there are a variety of different interpretations out there in the ether, some even from a scholarly perspective. But in my view, based upon the original languages of both Testaments, what I know of the cultural parameters of the ancient civilizations involved, and, most important, what I understand from the pertinent scriptures, marriage is marriage. That is to say, we all know who is married and who is not, for marriage is legally defined institution (and for good societal reasons, regardless of faith). The same was true in the ancient world. For example, when Jesus talks with the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn.4:4-26), He says at one point, "Go call your husband", and when she responds "I have no husband", Jesus tells her "You are right when you say you have no husband". Immediately after this our Lord says "You have had five husbands and the man you now have is not your husband". The implications for your question are profound. This woman, in Jesus' words, had been married, five times in fact, but now was not ("You have no husband"). And although she was living with a man, he was not her husband. This can only mean that she had not married this man in a legal marriage ceremony, and in Jesus' eyes, that meant she was not married to him at all. Moreover, although scripture does not say so, the odds of the previous five husbands all being dead are extremely remote. The only way one can honestly interpret these verses is that for our Lord (and thus for us), marriage means marriage (i.e., a binding, legal ceremony as defined by the state and culture of the time, just as it always has been). Further, assuming any one of the previous five were alive, after divorce, the marriage is over. Finally, living together with someone, or having sexual relations with someone, is not a marriage.

This means, of course, that those who take the horrendous and anti-biblical position that worries you are dead wrong in every way. Indeed, if it were any other way, what should we think? If someone comes to Christ from a very secular life-style that involved sexual relations with multiple partners over time, then, according to this absurd theory, they would be married to them all. And it is certain that those multiple partners had sexual relations with other people too, so we are also married to all the people they have ever had sexual relations with or are legally married to now with the result that we are all in one big group marriage. If we are not careful, everyone will end up being married to everyone else. And to take this absurdity to its final absurd outcome, if we are married forever to the people we have had sexual relations with, then what is the problem? If we are married to them, then why can't we go on having sexual relations with them and be justified in God's eyes, no matter what the legal reality may be? After all, we are "married to them". So it doesn't matter that we are legally married to someone else at the same time. As long as we are married in this other sense, we can have sexual relations with impunity. For the ultimate logic of this position that removes the legal aspect of marriage from marriage is that we would be allowed to have sexual relations with anyone we have ever had sexual relations with in addition to whomever we are currently legally married to. Because even if we are not married to them legally before we have sexual relations, we are in this view after we have had sexual relations. Although, in my view, the Bible discourages polygamy (and certainly it commands us to conform to the laws of the state in which we live which, in our case, do outlaw multiple legally contracted marriages), it does not outlaw it (even in the New Testament: cf. 1Tim.3:2; 3:12), so not even this complication can be adduced as a measure of control to the problem outlined above. So if we do accept the absurd hypothesis that "sexual relations = marriage", we could just relax and accept the fact that we are married to multiple people and can have sexual relations with them without sin whenever we want, and if we get interested in someone else, there is no problem, because after we have had sexual relations we will be married to them too.

I certainly do not wish to give anyone the impression that sexual sin (or any sin, for that matter), is of small consequence. Jesus’ words about being "one flesh" are designed to show the importance and the sanctity of marriage in God's eyes. The idea that a man could willy-nilly divorce his wife for any cause and move onto the next woman leaving the first one in the lurch (and in the patriarchal society of Jesus' day this would be very much the case for the woman), was and is an abomination. Jesus' purpose in this statement is clearly to support the institution of marriage and to show His listeners what the proper attitude of heart ought to be: "love and care for you wife, husband (and vice versa), and do not take this commitment sanctified by God since the creation of mankind lightly, for God does not". The purpose of this statement is most definitely not to level unresolvable guilt upon all but the most chaste of human beings.

The conscience is a very important human asset, empowered at the fall as a necessary compass without which we would have no hope of recognizing our shortcomings in God's eyes and so becoming motivated to return to Him on His terms. Feelings of guilt, therefore, are beneficial when properly interpreted, motivating the unbeliever to seek Christ, and the believer to seek forgiveness through confession and repentance after lapsing into sin. But guilt can be a monster when it is allowed to burst beyond the proper bounds that the truth of scripture set for it. We are all sinners (1Kg.8:46; Job 15:14; Ps.143:2; Rm.3:23; 5:12; 1Jn.1:8-10). But Jesus died for all our sins on the cross. He was "made sin for us" (2Cor.5:21; cf. Rom.4:25; 1Pet.2:24) so that we could be cleansed of all our sins and be righteous in God's eyes, not by our own works, but by God considering us righteous on the basis of what Christ did for us. And how do we get this forgiveness, this righteousness not properly our own? Through faith (Rom.3:22-24; 8:1).

At some point, we have to accept in faith the fact that God has forgiven us. We all sin, therefore we all need to admit it to ourselves and confess it to God from a contrite heart (1Jn.1:5-10). When we do repent and confess, we need to understand that God has accepted us back into fellowship, not because we are special, not because He is impressed with our emotional reaction, and certainly not because of any penance we have done (God forbid!), but because the Father places the highest value upon the work done by His Son on the cross (see the link: "John's primer on sin"). Jesus' blood spilt for us is the basis for our initial redemption and all our subsequent cleansings (cf. Jn.13:1-10).

Sin is no small matter, it is true, and God does indeed discipline us for all our transgressions, and, reasonably, more so for worse, more willful, and more chronic infractions, but He does so as a loving Father training up His children (Heb.12:7-13), not to crush us and destroy us, but to teach us and to help us. If we sin, when we sin, we are going to regret it – if not from conscience, then certainly from punishment. But as soon as we turn and confess, we enter back into our Father's good graces, back into fellowship with the Lord who bought us, who loved us so much He went through a life of suffering of which can not now know even the thousandth part. And all the discipline we endure for our sinning is turned to the good. His anger does not last forever, and in the morning there are songs of joy (Ps.30:5).

David committed adultery with another man's wife, a trusted and trusting subordinate, then had the man murdered to cover up his sin. You know the story. David was severely chastised. As a prophet of God and the man that the Lord has set over His people Israel, one cannot imagine how he could have been more culpable – how could anyone have born a greater measure of responsibility for such crimes and for such sins? But God forgave him (2Sam.12:13b). Considering the 14 years of horrendous trouble David endured as a result, this story is certainly not a recommendation for high-handed and willful sin. But it does illustrate God's forgiveness of those who love Him and repent of their sin (2Sam.12:13a), and it is well to point out that during that time David was still king, still writing Psalms, still enjoying the prosperity God gave him, and even learning and growing from the discipline that continued to come his way.

Guilt can be a very powerful force for good, but also for ill. All cults know this, and there are very few cults or cult leaders who do not have an almost instinctual grasp of the principle that guilt is probably the easiest and quickest way to motivate good people to turn away from common sense and fall in behind the cult. For once you accept whatever the cult says about whatever it is that makes you feel guilty, you hand over the only possible solution, the only hope for redemption to the cult – let's be clear here – not to the Bible or to the One whose Word the Bible is.

I don't know you personally, and the details I have about your situation are necessarily limited, but from what I do know it is quite safe to say that you are married to your husband, and that he is the only one to whom you have ever been married. If you sinned in your past, you are in this respect no different from any other member of the human race, including all of your brother and sister Christians. Sin is not a small issue, and we are indeed called to live holy lives, lives of sanctification wherein sin's hold upon us becomes less and less as we grow up spiritually in Jesus and more and more put His truth to work in our lives. We will never be entirely free of sin – it is always crouching at the door, but we can through the Spirit gain the mastery over it and avoid the terrible consequences of gross and willful disobedience such as befell that great believer David.

My advice to you, clear already I would imagine from the content of this e-mail, is to let the past rest in peace in the past, and to put away the pangs of conscience for things long since turned to dust. We would all like to have been perfect. We all have some skeletons in our closets. We all, from time to time, are tempted by the evil one to look back and attribute present misfortune to sin long passed (even Job did this [wrongly]: Job 13:26). But like any other test of faith, we are called as believers in Jesus Christ to put what we know by faith ahead of everything else, no matter what our eyes tell us, no matter even what our conscience may say, when we know through the eyes of faith that such matters are long “out of date”.

By this we know that we are of the truth, and before Him we persuade our heart, that if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart and knows everything.
1st John 3:19-20

Put your heart in God's hands and move on in faith in Jesus Christ.

In the One who died to redeem us from all our sins, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #5:

Dear Dr. Luginbill:

Thank you for your quick and thorough reply. I want to believe what you have pointed out – that marriage is marriage (and we all know whether or not we are married). I am troubled that (among other things) my physical relationship with my prior boyfriend went on for quite a while. It lasted longer than some celebrity marriages that I read about in tabloid headlines at the grocery store checkout. So, because I was "playing the harlot" I can be forgiven and move on, but the woman who actually marries the guy is "stuck for life"? It seems illogical. And unfair.

So what do you think Paul meant by his "one body/one flesh statement" in 1 Corinthians 6:16?

Still trying to work it all out...

Response #5:

My policy in all things is to put scripture first and leave what I may think far behind in second place. In my experience, even things in scripture which seemed "odd" or "unfair" or even "somehow wrong", but accepted in faith, ultimately all have turned out to make a great deal of sense as more and more of the truth of scripture became clear. For me, Jesus' explanation of the situation is decisive. I don't see how anyone could have been more clear than He on the occasion mentioned, and one certainly couldn't ask for a better authority.

But let's take your argument, namely, that it seems prima facie unfair that someone who has not committed to marriage can so "easily" be free of the situation. In my view, that is only true in the limited legal sense. It occurs to me that your experience is evidence enough that there are consequences for behavior that go far beyond what the world may see. Our heavenly Father knows us far better than we know ourselves, and He is well aware of how best to discipline us to make us understand the gravity and the wrongness of what we have done. Given that you are still burdened by the experience, it does not seem to me that you got off "scot-free" by any means. On the other hand, it is also true that whether or not someone takes the step of making a solemn commitment in actually getting married is an extremely important issue. One of the major societal problems we have is that people nowadays do not seem to be taking their commitments as seriously as they did in the past. Getting married is no small thing in God's eyes, and that is true even if it seems less binding to contemporary society than was true in the past (compare the gravity of taking oaths in the Old Testament and the corresponding advisability of not taking them at all if one is prudent).

Ideally, yes, getting married is getting "stuck for life", and, again, ideally, this will be a blessing for two people who behave honorably, especially for two Christians who do their best to follow the guidance contained in scripture of maintaining love and honor for each other. There are cases where disaster strikes, but in my experience and observation, God also knows how to deliver His children, even out of the lions' den. Marriage is difficult, and sexual promiscuity is against God's law, so we would all do well to be very deliberate about getting married, and prudently abstinent where all other forms of sexual relations are concerned. But we are human, after all, and so we sin, and we make other mistakes too which may not be sinful but can also cause us grief. Praise God that He watches over us for good, delivering us many times from disastrous relationships, and forgiving us for others! He knows how to help us in marriage, and how to discipline and heal us in sin.

As to 1st Corinthians 6:16 and following, the point Paul is making here is that porneia, sexual misconduct of all kinds, is an especially deadly and damaging type of sin. It can be devastating in a variety of ways, and you are certainly neither the first nor the last to experience that. The example of consorting with prostitutes is chosen here by Paul not only because it was a particular problem in Corinth (where religious shrine prostitution was a major industry), but more specifically precisely because it was clearly not marriage. Paul is saying to these offending believers (and to all of us who may be involved in or tempted to any sexual sin) that to do such things is to behave as if one were married when one is not, and that is a violation of the most basic human institution ordained by God, that of marriage. So to the extent that we understand how important marriage is in legal terms, and how important it is to God (hence Jesus' quoting
from Genesis), to that extent we come to understand that it is no small thing to engage in the sexual privilege that belongs only to marriage when we are not married, and to that extent we will be careful to follow Paul's advice and "flee fornication". Again, if this verse were teaching that we became "married" when we did such things, there would no longer be any offense since we would have passed over the threshold of marriage by our acts.

I hope this is helpful to you in trying to work through this difficult time. One of the problems with sexual involvement – one that younger people in particular do not understand until it is too late – is that one really can't expect to have a sexual relationship without also having an emotional one, and that the emotional after-effects, residue, and "bonding" that takes place in illicit affairs is always going to be an experience for the worse. The best we can do after the fact as Christians is to put ourselves into the hands of our loving Savior and merciful Father and trust for the healing that God can bring.

Yours in our Lord.

Bob L.

Question #6:

Dear Dr. Luginbill:

But is Jesus in His teaching on divorce differentiating between marrying and becoming one flesh? He does say "Whosoever puts away his woman/wife and *marries* another...". He acknowledges that another *marriage* has taken place, but that marriage still does not make the sexual involvement legitimate. He calls it adultery. (Or perhaps I am just interpreting it that way. He does not actually say, "Whosoever puts away his woman/wife and *marries* another and then lies with her...) Perhaps it is the action of marrying.

So the question, I guess, really is this: When does God join a man and woman? What does leave (as in *leaves* his father and mother) mean? It occurs to me even as I write this that I am looking for a guarantee that God did not yoke me together with my prior boyfriend. I guess no one, other than the Lord Himself, can give me that assurance. If I pray earnestly enough perhaps He will answer me in a way that I can have confidence that I am not deceiving myself with my thoughts and conclusions. I am so new at this that I don't know how to discern God's answers to prayers.

Somewhere on your website you made the point that you dislike the kind of game some people play in trying to argue and find legal points to prove a position. I don't wish to do that. I want to know where I stand in terms of my marriage. What you have kindly written makes sense, and I hope it is right.

So, if I may ask yet another question on a related note: What is your translation of Leviticus 21:7 and 14 (verses regulating marriages of Levites). Does it refer to prostitutes (as in paid prostitutes?) or women who have committed fornication?

Thank you again for your time and thoughtful answers. I pray that the Lord will continue to bless your life and work.

Response #6:

Thank you so much for your prayers and encouraging words.

People who divorce without any justification and then remarry put themselves in a very awkward situation. From your e-mails, you make it clear that you have read my responses about this problem, so I will just say here what is pertinent to your question, namely, a marriage is a marriage, and a divorce is a divorce. A bad marriage has it consequences, and an unjustified divorce has its consequences. Regardless of how much I love the Lord, if I marry someone who is not a Christian in full knowledge of that fact, I am doing something against God's will, but I have still committed myself to God and man as married to that person. Scripture is clear on this point that one is not given the "green light" to divorce for that reason after the fact (for it is not even advisable to do so if the marriage is otherwise sound even for those who are saved while married to an unbeliever: 1Cor.7:12-14). And regardless of how much I love the Lord, if I divorce someone without any scriptural justification, especially when this puts them in a difficult situation, then marry someone else, it is the same as committing adultery against them. But that does not mean that in order to fix the situation I should now divorce spouse #2, or that I can withhold what is due (1Cor.7:3-5). What it means is that I have put myself in an awful situation by my own doing, and that the new marriage I am in is still a marriage, even though I didn't have the right to divorce in my prior marriage.

In all such matters, we need to understand two things above all: 1) God is holy, and He demands our respect and obedience, and will not allow our transgressions to go unpunished; 2) God is merciful, and He understands that we are but flesh and is ever ready to forgive our transgressions based upon the saving work of our Lord Jesus. As with many things in scripture, both of these principles are 100% true even though they may seem to contradict each other in the world's logic. Further, if we overemphasize either mercy or justice or forget either principle we do so to our grave spiritual peril. If we focus unduly on God's mercy and forgiveness to the exclusion of His holiness and intolerance of sin, we will find ourselves emboldened to do things that will result in terrible consequences, both divine and temporal. On the other hand, if we focus unduly on God's demand for holiness to the exclusion of His mercy, we will torture ourselves to the point where our faith can endure it no longer, and may well fall away to get out from under the emotional pressure. One thing I know about our God and I will shout it from the rooftops: He does forgive our sins, and He does provide a way out of the most impossible and intolerable messes, messes we have cooked up for ourselves through our own folly, sin, and disobedience. If we really do return to Him with all of our heart and make Him and His Son our Lord Jesus the focus of our lives, then He always will and always does show us mercy and forgiveness, bring healing and repair, making the end better than the beginning, often just when we fear that we have come to the end through our own mis-steps.

Leviticus does enjoin members of the Jewish priesthood from marrying any woman who is not a virgin (cf. Lev.21:14). By implication, this means that other men (i.e., 99% of the Jewish male population) were not enjoined from marrying widows, or divorced women, or women who had otherwise previously had sexual relations. The heart of the person is what really counts, their love for the Lord (or lack of it).

In the line of our Lord Jesus Christ, we find Ruth, a gentile who was widowed then remarried, Bathsheba, a woman who had committed adultery then was widowed then married her co-adulterer, Tamar, a woman who had tricked her father-in-law into sleeping with her by pretending to be a prostitute (albeit with righteous justification), and Rahab, a prostitute by trade who later turned to the Lord and married an Israelite. In my view it is far from being an accident that these things happened or that they are so purposefully recorded in scripture – and right at the beginning of the first gospel (Matt.1:4-6). We do not find here any condoning of sin of any kind, but what we do find is a very pointed object lesson in that sexual impurity from a variety of causes did not stop God from using the women so named from having prominent places in the line of His Son, the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. Love for the Lord is more important than any past mistake or past circumstance (1Pet.4:8), for He has already died for them all.

Rest assured that I do not consider your e-mails an exercise in legalistic wrangling, but instead I see them as what they are: an earnest attempt to know the truth of God's Word and be at peace in your relationship with Him.

In Him who has left us His peace, a peace that passes all understanding, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

For more: E-mails at Ichthys

Angelic Issues II.

Question #1:

Hello Brother Bob,

Are angels somehow empowered or reinforced by the prayers of God's people, perhaps to focus on a specific situation? I vaguely remember some passage dealing with this.

God’s Love to You.


Response #1:

I think that the passage you may have in mind is Daniel 10:12-14. In that passage, Daniel has been praying for the relief of Jerusalem and the angel who comes to communicate with him in response says that Daniel's prayers were heard "since the first day", but that he was hindered from coming until "Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me". This passage shows that there is much that goes on in the angelic realm (especially in the area of conflict between the forces of God and the forces of Satan) of which we human beings are unaware and uninformed. The power of prayer is the power of God, and it is safe to say that when we pray we are asking God to exert His power in our behalf. He may choose to do this through angelic agency. If so, we are likely going to be unaware of His use of this method of angelic intervention (if He so chooses to use that method) until we are face to face with Him on that great day. Clearly, direct visual and verbal contact with angels is extremely unusual (and I would argue most likely non-existent at the present time in keeping with the overall plan of God to give the place of honor to the Word of God during Church age). The Bible shows us that we are being deliberately kept in the dark about the vast bulk of human-angelic interaction and the conflict swirling around heads but invisible to our eyes (i.e., we know that it is going on but we don't know the details and can't perceive the activities). Therefore, my policy has always been "not to go beyond what is written", so I will leave it at this except to say that, as you probably already know, there is much related information (if not specifically directed to your question) in the following studies: Bible Basics 2A: Angelology; and “The Satanic Rebellion Series”.

In our Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Dear sir:

I would first like to thank you for your excellent web site. A tremendous amount of work went into both the translation, and then writing of the bible studies, and I am grateful. At a recent bible study we were studying Job, and the issue of angels came up. I have read your bible study on this topic with great enthusiasm (the idea of two creations is of particular interest to me...your translation seems to make it seem impossible to have happened any other way...I have yet to confront my pastors with this thought...wish me luck!), but my original question remains: what is the scriptural basis for believing that the "elect" angels are confirmed in their holiness, and can no longer fall into sin. We knew this was our church's doctrine, but not sure where the basis came from.

Thanking you in advance,

Response #2:

Thank you for your e-mail and especially for your words of appreciation and support. As to your question, in general terms much of what we know about angels from scripture comes from a combination of theological induction and deduction based upon what the Bible does say (and, to a certain degree, what it does not say).

That is to say, scripture as you know very well is not constructed like a text-book, and in the case of angels, the doctrines that pertain to them have to be developed (i.e., there is no “book of angels” that teaches principles about them directly). In my studies, I try to provide both the pertinent passages and the reasoning behind the points I teach. Where angelology is concerned, that often means observing how angels are described in scripture and drawing a set of conclusions that are then tested against other scriptures which deal with them. But as I say, angelology is a particularly delicate topic because while it is very important, it is has also been an area of much morbid speculation and clearly false teaching over the centuries. I assume from your e-mail that you are referring to the Bible Basics part 2A study, "Angelology". If so, I would recommend to you the Satanic Rebellion series (in five parts). For what we know about elect angels is in many respects deduced from what we know about fallen angels (whose leader and whose agenda is the subject of the aforementioned series).

It is an interesting question as to whether angels could indeed still have a change of heart. In my studies I teach that the creation of Adam and Eve was God's "last olive branch" to the fallen, because Adam and Eve were created to be among other things the basis for the replacement of Satan and his followers (who had arrogantly assumed they were irreplaceable). We know of course how the devil reacted, and despite the unquestionable nature of the defeat that is looming for Satan and his minions they are prophesied in scripture to hold fast to their course of violent and vigorous opposition – this despite the fact that as more or less "timeless" creatures of far fewer limitations than we have they "know" far better than we ever shall this side of heaven the power and the glory and the infinity of God.

As I have had occasion to say many times in the studies referenced above, it is not the case that God would or could fail to be merciful in regard to any fallen angel who repented (or could or would fail to act in complete justice and righteousness in the case of any elect angel who threw in his lot with the devil). Rather it is the case that everything scripture says about the angels – and it says quite a bit even if it is not couched in terms direct teaching – comports with the proposition that I teach (and apparently your church does as well) that angels are not changeable in their allegiance. I explain this by their non-material nature – they are not subject to the same pressures as we are and as creatures who are not subject to death or pain or poverty or any material need, coupled with the fact that their knowledge of God, who and what He is, is nigh-on as complete as a creature could ever have, make it reasonable to assume that once they were confronted by the choice of opposing God or following Him that this choice would be so completely and fully “informed” that there would be no further occasion to change. No "new information" or "life-changing" experience would possibly fall to their lot in the same way that these are such frequent occurrences in our case, for we are subject to the vagaries of life and as a class of creature live this life in great ignorance of the true realities out of our ken in heaven above. In any case, whether or not one accepts this rationale, this thesis that all angels are “solidly confirmed” now in their choice certainly does agree with the way that angels behave throughout the scriptures. From Genesis to Revelation there is never a hint of a fallen angel or an elect angel ever changing their allegiance, so that in practical terms they are confirmed, even if in theory they might still change.

I hope that this short answer is of some help. As I say, you can find these same arguments advanced in a good deal more detail in the at the links above.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #3:

What is your take on Matthew 18:10? Your comments would be most greatly appreciated.

Response #3:

This passage is the one that is generally adduced to suggest that we all have guardian angels. I think it is clear from this passage and many others that our God superintends every aspect of our lives, and that He often uses angels to accomplish some of the things that He does for us. He certainly doesn't need to do it this way, but it's part of the overall plan of God to make use of creature free will (after all, He uses us too and He certainly doesn't need us). I guess the one other thing I would point out is that "angels" here is a plural, showing that there is plenty of elect angelic "help" to go around (i.e., no need to theorize a single, dedicated "guardian"). For more on angels in general please see Basics 2A: Angelology.

In the One who is in us and in whom we abide, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #4:

If demons or angels cannot die, what happened to the legion of spirits after they went into the pigs that went into the lake and drowned?

Response #4:

Yes it is true. Angels of all types are incapable of death – at least until the time of the second death when all fallen angels will find themselves in the lake of fire along with all unbelievers. When a demon "host" dies, be it an animal or a human being, the demon (fallen angel) is merely without an animate abode. Demons have apparently craved material bodies from the beginning of the devil's revolt against God. To find out more about this subject, please see the following link: Satan's revolutionary platform (in Part 1 of Satan's Rebellion). Here is what I say about the passage you ask about in that context:

4. The Legion of Demons and the Swine: In Mark chapter 5, when
Jesus cast the demon legion from a single man, these fallen
spirits "begged" Him to "send us among the pigs; allow us to go into
them" (v.12). There is very little to explain their motivation
for this request until we accept that these satanic angels, being deprived
of their human home, were desperate to regain some
material adobe, be it ever so mean.

So I would say that while scripture does not address the issue directly, it is clear from the nature and behavior of angelic creatures as they are described elsewhere in scripture that this "legion" of demons had to start the process of possession all over again. They were fortunate not to have been ejected from the area (cf. Mk.5:10), and what would have been far worse for them, very fortunate not to have been cast into the Abyss, something they feared even more than losing their fleshly toehold in this region (cf. Lk.8:31). Countless demons are now incarcerated there for one offense or another (many because of their involvement in the Genesis 6 violation of divine commands; see the link: Satan's antediluvian attack on the purity of the human line: the Nephilim). But this legion of demons did find themselves "disembodied" as a result of the death of the swine, something that they did not want and something with which their master the devil would surely not be pleased.

For more information on this subject in general see the following:

Bible Basics part 2A: Angelology: the biblical study of angels.

Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #5:

Rob thank you very much for being ever available. Like I said before I really believe you have an anointing in matters of the Bible. Why don’t you start a church, with trained pastors and your teachings can be used together with the Bible? I hope I’m not out of line. It is only that my heart bleeds when I see so many cases of ‘the blind leading the blind.’ What good are your online teachings if at the end of the day we go and fellowship in churches where most of the pastors will be clearly struggling to interpret the scripture? Secular education is also important especially when it come to the exegesis of the scriptures. Your articles could do a lot of people a lot of good but because they are online only those who can go online can benefit.

Also, I have a specific question. There is this book ‘Delivered from the Powers of Darkness’ by one Emmanuel Amos Eni. I have never seen the original book but just some photocopies. They are myths about the book, people who were threatened after buying it and all sorts of mind boggling tales. The brother claims to have been made an agent of the devil (along with all sorts of outlandish claims that vex my spirit). His getting saved was also dramatic; he alleges to have met Jesus Christ. I will paste after this a page from his book. Something is not right. People here believe him and obviously are frightened. Are there any scriptures in support of these cultic experiences? I don't recall in scripture where it even remotely insinuate such deep intimate relationships between mortal humans and spiritual demons such as he reports.>

Quotes From ‘Delivered From the Powers of Darkness’

There was this pastor - Pastor I.K. (name withheld). He was pastoring a church in Ebute Metta.

He became my target and his offences were:
1. He disturbs our peace by carrying out early morning call i.e. preaching in the early hours.
2. He goes about with his megaphones and stations at No. 2 bus-stop along Akintola road, Ebute Metta. There, he would preach. Would not stop at that bus but would keep binding demons etc.
3. In his church he would preach, exposing the works of darkness after which he started bindinng demons.
4. He prayed a lot.
5. He was always singing and praising God.

I sent my messengers to him but they could not kill him so I decided to carry out the mission myself. On the said day, I saw him walking along the new G.R.A. A thing worth mentioning here about this pastor is - anytime we went for him, we would see pillars of cloud by his right hand and left, walking along with him, so these hindered us. But this particular day I saw nothing so I was doubly sure my mission would be very successful.

I commanded rain to fall to enable me strike him with thunder. The rain started and the thundering began. The whole trees in the area started loosing their branches, but this Pastor was singing joyfully. I still remember the chorus - IN JESUS NAME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW. As he continued with this chorus the rains stopped, the thundering seized and there appeared immediately two angels, one on each side, with flaming swords. Their eyes and their swords were like flames of fire. Then a strong wind carried me away and I found myself in another town. In fact I was baffled, but because we were so hardened, what I said was - This man has escaped again! The pastor did not know the spiritual war that was fought on his behalf...

So you see, the child of God is WELL SECURED. When the Bible says "...and NOTHING shall by ANY MEANS hurt you" it means what it says.

The second testimony is about a Christian who board the same taxi with me. He was very zealous and started distributing gospel tracts inside the taxi. So I became disturbed and knocked him with the ring on my finger - that was to kill him. This boy shouted "THE BLOOD OF JESUS" and immediately lightening and fire and an Angel appeared. A strong wind again removed me with great force out of the taxi and into the thick jungle. Had it not been that I was a man backed by evil powers I could have gotten lost in this jungle. The Christian did not know the war that went on his behalf, all he knew including the other passengers, was that I had disappeared from the taxi.

The name of Jesus or the Blood of Jesus in the mouth of the believer sends out fire etc. the Scripture says "THE NAME OF THE LORD IS A STRONG TOWER, the righteous runneth into it and is SAFE" (Prov. 18,10)

Hope to hear from you -- as usual may God bless you.

Response #5:

Thanks as always for your kind words. Please believe me when I say that there is no point in getting excited about me personally. I am certainly no Paul, but he and I at least share the characteristic that "his letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing" (2Cor.10:10). Anything good in these studies has been directed by the Spirit, and only through a willing spirit and through the power of the Spirit can the good in them be accessed. These materials are on-line only because that is the only way I can make them available without charging people money for them - something I am determined not to do for a variety of reasons. And besides, I'm not sure that if they were in a bookstore that people would necessarily buy them anyway (or that if they did that they would actually read them). They are dense, opaque even, and difficult to read and digest. Believe me when I say that I understand your enthusiasm for the truth. When the Lord kindled the same in me many years ago, I thought it would just be a matter of presenting the opportunity for detailed biblical studies to various and sundry persons and that they would be mad for it. In fact, very very few people I have met in my life have any interest whatsoever in really learning the truth of the Bible, even though that is the only way to truly draw nearer to God and serve Jesus in the way He really wants. And many if not most of those who have expressed some interest have never been as passionate about it as I would have liked. In the U.S., we have many "mega-churches" that draw thousands upon thousands every week. But as far as I can tell, people come for the spectacle, for the music, for the entertainment, for the ancillary services, and not really because they think they are going to get deeper into the Bible. I have perfect confidence in God that He can lead whomever He wants to this ministry. Most people in the west (and many elsewhere) have access to the internet or can get it if they really need it (and that is more and more the case with each passing day). And anything at Ichthys can be downloaded and off-printed and distributed free of charge (I only ask that a few hardly onerous rules be followed: see the link: About Ichthys). So while I sympathize with what you say about availability, I think that you would find what I and some of my like-minded potential pastor friends have found: we live in a world of consumer-driven contemporary Christianity, and the number of people who would be interested in a church where the teaching of the Word of God really was the focus is very small – and the number who would persevere after expressing initial interest even smaller, especially once they found out that pursuing the knowledge of the Lord in this correct way is work-heavy and entertainment-light.

As to the question of occultism and the passage you have supplied, I can only say that I heartily agree with all you have said. I have put virtually all of what I have been able to learn about this subject into the Satanic Rebellion series (see especially in SR#4 section V, "Satan's World System: Tactical Methodology"). One of the problems with the very issue that we are discussing in this correspondence is that when Christians are too lazy to read the Bible and to study the Bible, they inevitably end up getting involved in areas of extra-biblical speculation because these are "fun". But of course, even if one sees oneself on the side of "good" in such invented "spiritual warfare", the very fact of that the person is doing and saying and thinking things that scripture does not teach or condone is extremely detrimental to spiritual health. I have heard a plethora of claims and stories in my day such as in the excerpt you have included here – but I have never actually personally seen (or seen any convincing evidence of) anything that scripture does not describe (just “stories” like you include). In this respect especially, "going beyond what is written" is a very bad idea. I make it a policy not to get excited about things that come from sources other than the Bible; I rejoice with anything that is biblical or to the extent that things which seem odd or strange (or wrong) are biblical; but I refrain from believing or encouraging or acquiescing in anything that is not directly suggested or taught by scripture – and I try to stay far, far away from things that seem to me to be definitely contrary to scripture. Anyone can write a story. Anyone can make one up. Anyone can take a story that is partly true and embellish it with elements that are not true. But we don't have to believe things that are not in line with the scriptures, no matter what human being is telling us to do so.

Hope this helps.

Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ who is the very Word of Truth.

Bob L.

Question #6:

Shalom Robert,

I have a question regarding Rev. 20:13 with respect of the figurative/symbolic use of the word ‘Sea’. While it can be logically suggested that the word ‘Sea’ represents an element/compartment of the underworld – Hades/Sheol/Abyss etc., I humbly ask, “Might it also equally be suggested that the word Sea represents the mass multitude of natural ‘Living Dead – lost/sinners’ that will yet be alive following the Millennial Reign of Christ, who will inevitably become part of the Second Resurrection/Second Death, immediately following the Great White Throne Judgment?” To this end, just as Apostle Paul declared a changing in the ‘twinkling of an eye’ for the natural ‘Living Live – Saints/righteous, at the Coming of the Lord, (1 Cor. 15:52), will there be a reciprocal changing of the natural living dead just prior to the resurrection of ‘Death and Hell’ – an ironic inverse of the first resurrection wherein the dead in Christ rise before the transformation of the natural living in Christ?

Response #6:

In one sense I would agree with you, namely, that the usage in Revelation 20:13 is clearly meant to sum up “the dead” in toto, rather than to give us a set of distinct categories. For the sea is not, strictly speaking, a "compartment" of the nether-world, and only has that particular meaning when it is being used as a synonym for Hades (which, more precisely speaking, it covers).

Here is what I write about this subject in Part 2 of the Satanic Rebellion, The Genesis Gap:

This equating of the sea with the nether-world buried beneath it helps to explain the difficult passage in Revelation where we are told that at the final judgment, "the sea will give up her dead" (Rev.20:13). When John immediately adds to this statement that "death and Hades will give up their dead", he is merely explaining that in prophetic terms there is virtually no difference between the sea on the one hand and death-and-Hades on the other (a hendiadys for one single place: torments, or hell). These two venues are, from an earthly perspective, one and the same place (though, technically speaking, they are distinct: Hades is the place under the abyss or sea, and sea or abyss is what separates Hades from the world above): the sea (or, more properly, Hades-beneath-the-sea) is the present location of deceased unbelievers (believers have already been removed to heaven from Abraham's bosom at the ascension of Christ), and of the demons who are now imprisoned (cf. 2Pet.3:19-20; Jude 1:6-7; Rev.9:1-20). The latter, long since under sentence of judgment along with their leader, Satan (Jn.16:11), require no further adjudication after the Satanic rebellion is at last finally disposed. But "the dead" [unbelievers] in Hades, their abysmal place of incarceration lying below the sea's deepest depths, will stand judgment at the end of human history before being consigned to the lake of fire (Rev.20:11-15).

These "waters below" the firmament are also helpfully viewed in tandem with the separating function of the "waters above". From Coming Tribulation 2B:

These "waters above" also serve an important separative purpose. Just as the firmament was re-constructed by God to separate and restrain the two sets of waters (Gen.1:6-7), so the "waters above" serve to separate the third heaven, the holy temple of God, from the corrupted world beneath. This separating function is clearly visible as well in the case of the "waters below" which stand in the progression of heaven-earth-"waters below" (cf. Ex.20:4) between the earth and the subterranean chambers of Hades beneath it (Job 26:5-6). That is why, for example, Hades is also occasionally referred to as the "abyss", in exactly the same conflation of technically distinct regions as we saw in the use of "firmament" for "waters above the firmament" in Ezekiel chapters one and ten - because Hades is far beneath these "waters below" and can only be accessed through them, it can be described in biblical terminology as part of the same conglomerate (in the same way that since both the heavens and the "waters above" must be penetrated in order to reach the third heaven, these two technically distinct regions can for many purposes be considered as if they were of a piece, just as the laver-sea and its waters are considered a unit). This separating function of the "waters below" also explains why in Revelation 20:13 it is "the sea" which is said to "give up her dead" - not because there are any departed spirits in the sea, but rather because the sea is the separating layer which "locks in", so to speak, the unsaved dead beneath, in Hades (Job 26:5-6; 38:16-17). The "waters above" likewise perform an analogous separating function, forming an important wall of division between the holy precinct of the third heaven above them and the kosmos of the devil, Satan's corrupt world, which lies below them.

Finally, Yes, I do think that scripture is quite clear that the final resurrection of the dead – to include all those not yet resurrected at the end of time – will be likewise immediate and comprehensive (1Cor.15:23-4; Rev.20:11=15). Please see the following links:

The Resurrection (in Peter #20)

The Resurrection

Transmutation, Resuscitation, and Resurrection

Sin, Baptism, and Resurrection

Aspects of the Resurrection I

Aspects of the Resurrection II

Hope this is of some help to you - thanks as always for your kind words.

In our Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

For more: E-mails at Ichthys

Science and the Bible.

Question #1:

Dear pastor Luginbill,

You wrote: "...obstinate perseverance in something so demonstrably false is folly in the extreme. We know evolution is false because the Bible very clearly documents the re-creation of all physical life on earth approximately 6,000 years ago...".

This statement tells me you either:

1. Never took geology 101
2. Believe the Bible is inerrant
3. Believe the Bible must always be interpreted literally
4. Have no awareness of modern genetic research
5. All of the above

1. The science of geology alone provides ample proof of the folly of your statement. But there are other scientific disciplines (astronomy, physics and chemistry for example) that provide substantial corroborative evidence to back up the fact that the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Making the kinds of offhanded statements you do about evolution only hampers your credibility as a teacher of Christ's gospel. I strongly recommend you educate yourself a bit more in the sciences before assuming so much. Ignorance is not a worthy attribute of a man of God.

2. The Bible is the work of men, albeit inspired by God, and that alone proves it cannot be perfect, since men are not perfect. As J. Vernon McGee once remarked, "Anything man touches is corrupted".

3. You of all people know that scripture cannot always be literally interpreted. How then would you explain Acts 17:29? That we are literally God's children? Sounds like blasphemy to me.

4. We've come a long way recently in the sciences – more progress has been made in the past decade alone than in all the previous millennia combined – there is literally an exponential explosion of knowledge happening that simply cannot be ignored. Francis Collins, long-time director of the Human Genome Project, a leading researcher in medical genetics, and
a sincere Evangelical Christian, recently made the following remarks:

"The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. Those who would deny that should sit with me some day and go through the DNA evidence of our relatedness to other species. If I look at our genome, and compare it with that of the chimpanzee, they are 98.8% the same. Now some might argue "well, God simply used some good ideas in a slightly different way over and over again in multiple acts of special creation", but the data doesn't support that. For instance, chimpanzees have two more chromosomes than humans do. When you look closely to see what's going on there, those two chromosomes have fused together to make one of ours, and when you look at the DNA sequence at that fusion point, it has a remarkable character; it has the type of sequence that one sees at what's called the telomere, the tip of the chromosome; no other chromosome has that in the middle. It's clearly the signature of two chromosomes having come together, and when you look at the chimp and you look at the human, it's inescapable to conclude that we are descended from a common primate ancestor. We humans have pseudo-genes; genes that have lost their function. They've acquired some sort of major flaw, and in some instances those are genes which are located in the same place in the chimpanzee, or even in the dog or in the horse, yet in us they have stopped working. What's going on? Would God have put those there just to confuse us or mislead us, when in fact we are completely different, special acts of creation? That sounds like a trickster god, not the God I worship. So, I don't think by the study of DNA, or for that matter the fossil record, one can any longer deny the reality of evolution. But that's not a problem for me as a believer. If God decided to use that mechanism of creation, that's incredibly elegant; that's incredibly awe-inspiring."

Pastor Luginbill, you are clearly a bright guy. I hate to see you put yourself in a credibility hole by showing your ignorance of scientific endeavor. Clearly not all of us fit your gross generalization when you stated: "Make no mistake. It is not the samples, nor the apparatus, nor the testing methods with which we are here finding fault. Rather, it is the myopic lens of interpretation through which the anti-Bible scientific community is viewing their results, blindly ignoring the crucial testimony of scripture because, ipso facto, they reject the validity of scripture. And this is hardly an unbiased basis from which to proceed to a critique of the chronology of scripture."

Not all scientists or science enthusiasts fit such a dire mold, nor are we "blindly ignoring the crucial testimony of scripture". We simply know that scripture isn't always perfect when it comes to understanding the world we live in, since men wrote it, however much (or little) they were inspired to do so. And it isn't all about Satan trying to undermine things, or scientists having an anti-bible agenda! THAT kind of thinking is myopic and patently false. Knowledge and truth get us closer to God. And God's truths have nothing to fear from scientists. We of all people, as followers of Christ The Great Creator, should embrace discovery and learning! Seek to understand and comprehend Creation, even as we ourselves participate in the process of our own Creation by choosing to follow Him to become like Him (Romans 8:16-17).

Much of your work is impressive. Please keep it sound!

Peace,


Response #1:

Thank you for you e-mail. Let me first reiterate something before getting started here, namely, that I can understand the joy of learning and discovery, and see no problem with science and the scientific process (indeed, I have benefitted from it as much as the next person). I see no reason why a scientist can't be a good Christian and vice versa, and, certainly, the issues you raise are common enough and not raised by scientists alone. Many people feel as you do, and that is, of course, their right.

So I certainly can appreciate your point of view. It is just that my point of view and yours cannot be reconciled. It is not a matter of education or fact finding. It is a matter of faith. Although the tone of your letter is courteous enough, I am sure you are aware that it is highly rhetorical in nature (e.g., the five choices). Take, for example, the assumption that physical evidence which you find persuasive must for that reason stand as a trump against all other possible ways of viewing life and creation. I would not be shaken in my position if there were no discernible differences in the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. Indeed, the fact that the DNA difference is so small and the true difference a gap that could never be bridged only serves to prove my point. What is of necessity left out of any materialistic explanation of the universe and its particulars is the spiritual dimension. And it is of necessity left out because it can never be seen, measured or quantified – and yet is clearly there for persons of even the most rudimentary intelligence and education to see (i.e., you don't have to be a scientist to see the difference between a human being and a chimp). Human beings have a human spirit imparted by God at the point of birth, a spirit which is endued with the free will to choose for God. This will never be something I can prove to you by means of the narrow materialistic criteria that some in your profession seem to prefer to what their conscience and their hearts tell them (impulses God put in there), but scripture is very clear on the subject (see the link: "The Human Spirit"). Yes indeed, I do believe that scripture – rightly interpreted – is inerrant (and I'm not sure of the precise basis for your assumption that it is not). People do make mistakes – but God does not. He has given us His Word so that we might know the truth about such things (as much as we need to know, that is to say), and has done so in a perfect way. We may not always (and in some cases, perhaps only rarely) interpret His Word correctly (interpretation is as much an art as it is a science, one which takes much effort, much sacrifice, and the requisite spiritual gifts to perfect), but His Word is indeed the truth. One particular verse that is especially applicable to this discussion comes from the Book of Hebrews:

By faith we understand that the ages have been constructed by the Word of God, so that what we see (i.e., the material world) has not come into being from the things we now see.
Hebrews 11:3

In other words, God tells me in very precise terms here that the universe is not exactly what it may seem to the empirical eye to be, precisely the opposite of what you are assuming. I do not at all agree that "God is tricking us" for doing this. He created Adam and Eve as adults. It stands to reason that He would create a universe that was, instantaneously, perfect in every respect. The fact that some would take the pattern of the things that He has made to posit other possibilities does not make Him a deceiver. Rather, the world is already filled with deception and currently in large measure under the control of the great deceiver himself, the devil. People choose to believe what is not true of their own free will. But anyone who genuinely persists in choosing to seek God will be led to the truth. Faith is usually about believing what God says in spite of what one's own eyes say (e.g., Abraham siring his heir at 99; the Israelites being miraculously delivered at the last moment when the Lord parted the Red Sea). I don't see any reason for it to be any different on this topic. But the remarkable thing to me is that your position appears to me to take more faith than mine. All I am doing is believing the Lord – and He is eminently worthy of belief. Your position, on the other hand, requires not only disbelieving the Word of God (a very dangerous thing to do for obvious reasons, unless you are in some sort of direct communication with the Almighty), but positing a process that can only be inferred (none of us was there when these things supposedly happened), and staking everything on something that was not seen and cannot be reproduced, and whose underlying theories are modified with every new discovery. Science, after all, is a quest for (secular) knowledge, so that by definition all knowledge is not yet known. Indeed, unless I am terribly misinformed, the number of things we "know we don't know" is increasing at a rate faster than those we do (to take a global assessment) – and certainly when it comes to digesting them all. This would seem to me to be something that ought to engender humility about what it is we think we know (materialistically speaking), rather than giving us confidence that we know enough to discount God's assurances about things we can never know except through faith by trusting what God has told us in no uncertain terms.

Long story short. From your particular point of view, your logic makes good sense assuming I view the world as you do. The problem is I do not. You find this incompatible with being a "man of God", but I would hope that all true men and women of God would put the least of God's words before the most persuasive evidence or rhetoric or trusted testimony the human race can muster. That, after all, is why we are here. The world tells us we are organisms. God tells us we are His children. The world tells us we have no hope, death is certain. God tells us we have eternal life in Jesus Christ. Paul said that to the Greeks (the scientific community of his day), Christ was "foolishness". But "the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of mankind" (1Cor.1:25), so that I, for one, would rather be a fool for Christ, than a Nobel laureate trying to explain before Him on that great day of days why it was that I wasn't willing to take His word for it. It is, spiritually speaking, a very dangerous game to discount any of the Bible, because that inevitably leads to distrust of all of it. And since by far most of what our faith is built on comes from the Bible, by doubting it in any of its (correctly translated / interpreted) particulars, we risk undermining our faith altogether. Ultimately, you have to decide whom and what to trust.

Please see the following links:

Is the earth ever described as round in the Bible?

The origin of the four seasons

The problem of science and the Bible

The shape of the universe according to the Bible

In Him who is the only way, the only life, and the only truth, the One worthy of our faith in every way, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #2:

Dear Bob,

You wrote (contradicting yourself in the same sentence): "Yes indeed, I do believe that scripture - rightly interpreted - is inerrant (and I'm not sure of the precise basis for your assumption that it is not). People do make mistakes - but God does not."

1. Scripture is the work of men, from start to finish.

A. Men wrote it. Fallible, sinful, error-prone, fallen men like Moses, David, Solomon, Peter, Paul, etc. Whether or not they actually speak for God depends on what they wrote, when they wrote it, and why.

B. Men copied it. Fallible, sinful, fallen men. Since we don't have a single scrap of the Ur-text, all we have are copies. Making copies is subject to errors, omissions, and interpretive licence.

C. Men kept it and passed it along. Fallible, sinful, fallen men. Some things got lost. Others portions got misplaced for a time. Men compiled it. Falllible, sinful, fallen men. Men decided, among the vast assortment of ancient, sacred writings, what was to be included, and what was not. Some things clearly belonged, others were debated over, and there was hardly a consensus as to what ultimately made it in, and what was cast aside as unworthy (the gospel of John for example). And what on earth are we to do today with recent finds (Dead Sea Scrolls for example)? "Sorry, the council has already ruled centuries ago! Anything else we find is immediately suspect and unworthy of critical examination!"

D. Men translate and interpret it. Fallible, sinful, fallen men, men like you, who do not claim to be prophets, but who justify their authority with the secular degrees of man's learning, deductive
reasoning, and logic. Men with their own biases and prejudices, men with pride in their accomplishments, in their own skills of discernment and logic, their ability to tease and wrest subtle meanings out of certain Hebrew or Greek words and phrases, and build entire doctrines on and around one or two verses of scripture. If, as you say, it's an art and a SCIENCE, then, by your own reasoning and admission, it is flawed.

And the proof of all this is self-evident! Men are the reason we have hundreds of different, splintered, combative, diverse factions, denominations, and cults today, instead of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" that scripture says we should have. There are as many interpretations and translations of the Bible as there are men doing the interpreting and translating. Excuse me for "lacking faith" in such a dismal reality pastor Luginbill! The Bible we have today was, for millennia, a dynamic, diverse assortment of prophecy, history, musings, prose, and correspondence. Then, suddenly, the door is slammed shut, God no longer communicates directly with prophetic or inspired men (or women), the dark ages ensue, corruption and vice takes over the church, and centuries of apostasy and confusion follow in its wake. Far too many churches today, professing to teach God's Word, are instead self-serving mega ministries bent on the accumulation of filthy lucre, and the vain ambitions of a prideful pastor who, bedecked with Armani suits and gold rings, struts in front of the camera in all his peacock glory. Hardly the kind of result that gives a girl seeking truth warm fuzzies!

I like to think that God doesn't make mistakes. But it seems clear that he also likes to accomplish his work through men, who are, by definition, not perfect. Why he chooses to do this is another subject for another day (I have some ideas!).

If God truly wanted perfect communication with us, he would do it himself. He would write perfect, unambiguous text. All of scripture would inspire, uplift, and comfort us! There would be no need for Bible scholars to tell us how to correctly interpret what we read -- it would all be plain, unadulterated, unambiguous truth, and nobody would have any question about what it meant, and why.

But of course that's not what we have. Since "God is not the author of confusion", we therefore clearly have the work of men. Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a remarkable work! It often does inspire, uplift, and comfort! Much of it is beautiful, wonderful truth, that speaks to my soul and spirit like nothing else! Often gems of wisdom and truth leap from its pages straight into my heart! I love scripture! Most of it anyway.

When I read about commands to Israel to wipe out entire villages; every man, woman and child and beast, I have to wonder if it's God giving the commands, or men. How could running a sword through a baby's heart not canker the soul of the man doing it? And how do I reconcile the commands of such a God to the Christ, who told his followers to love (and forgive) their enemies?

I can see some of Solomon's wisdom in the proverbs. I can also see the beginnings of his slide down the slippery slope to his ultimate folly as I read the truly uninspiring, shamelessly erotic prose that is the Song of Solomon.

I can easily feel the inspired beauty and passion of Paul's sermons, yet take his counsel to keep covered and silent as a woman with the perspective of the repressive culture in which he was raised. I do not believe I am a 2nd-class citizen, nor that a membrum virile is required to teach God's word!

Anyway, you (hopefully) get my point here. I find it far more dangerous a precedent to NOT question men who claim to speak for God, whether they are in scripture, or among us today, interpreting past words. To not question is to accept an invitation to Jonestown for a glass of Kool-Aid, or a government-sponsored weenie roast in a Waco compound...

So, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here. I question everything and everyone. I believe that's what God wants me to do -- question, ponder, pray, be discerning, and yet believe in him. I do believe in him! I see evidence of his love and concern for me all around me. I see the wisdom of keeping his commandments -- they are designed for my happiness and my peace. I love John 7:17, for I know it to be true. I have come to know the truth of many of God's commands in the very way described there. I have faith in the power of his atoning sacrifice for me! It brings me comfort and hope beyond comprehension. I have faith that obedience to his commandments is the only thing that will bring peace to a war-weary world. Not guns, tanks or bombs! Not the policies of wicked presidents and corrupt governments! I love and trust and have faith in the beautiful, transforming principle of forgiveness. Of the wonderful gift of repentance. Of the power of the sermon on the mount. There is nothing else like it in all the earth! I have faith that loving God and my fellow (wo)men is the heart of the gospel message. That if all (wo)men would practice gospel principles in their lives, if they would follow the Savior Jesus Christ, the world would be a far different, better place! I do have faith in his marvelous, wonderful gospel! I do NOT have faith however that this book we call the Bible is an inerrant, perfect representation of it in all its aspects. It certainly is not the sum total of all truth. I'm frankly saddened that it is now a static document, no longer being added to; surely there are
men and women today with prophetic, inspired perspective to share as well...? Surely today, as
much as ever, we are in need of contemporary counsel from God. Where are the prophets and inspired counselors who were once called "as was Aaron"? Instead all I find are scribes, pharisees and hypocrites. Men of secular learning, applying art and science to wrest scripture this and that, instead of prophecy and inspiration leading us to new truth and new understanding.

I also see pretty clearly where we would be without science. Still living in the superstitious world of the dark ages. Still battling diseases like plague, smallpox and polio. With little hope when our children get sick. No penicillin to combat strep throat or an infected cut. With little understanding of the world in which we struggle to comprehend. With little free time to even ponder or comprehend. Witch doctors and leper colonies...

Science is one of God's ways of bringing light into the darkness. It has improved the quality of life on the earth for all of God's children, and that is a wonderful thing. No need to vilify the process! If wicked men wrest it (as some do scripture) to fill their own wicked purposes, blame men, not science (or scripture).

Religion provides the necessary moral compass that science (by definition) does not always provide (science can help the moral compass however by showing us the folly of failing in our stewardship to protect this earth from pollution and reckless burning of fossil fuels for example).

We need both. Both are (or at least can be) good. One without the other is incomplete. And there should be harmony in truth. God's truth has nothing to fear from scientific truth. When they conflict, resolution is required. Resolution does not come by burying our heads in the sand! It comes by understanding, by application of context, and by wisdom. I fail to see the wisdom of a stubborn, closed-minded insistence on a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis, when it flies in the face of mountains and museums of evidence to the contrary! My great fear is that when our
children read these simple Bible stories, and then learn unreconcilable scientific truths, that their
entire faith structure is abandoned in the process of thinking they've been deceived by their gullible and naive parents! Far better, IMO, to create a context of belief that allows for both. For example, yes, there was a prophet named Noah. Yes, God told him to build an ark. Yes, he took aboard mating pairs of animals to preserve them. Yes, the floods came as prophesied and flooded his world, killing the wicked disbelievers in that area. As far as Noah was concerned, the world was flooded. Did it cover the entire earth? There is overwhelming evidence that it did not. As far as Noah was concerned however, it did. And God's promise was kept. Is that the first time light was refracted by water droplets into a rainbow? Why would or should the laws of physics operate any differently then? So it's the first someone noticed apparently (it probably didn't rain much in those days where he lived). And so it goes. The lesson learned? God loves us. Therefore he warns us when we lose our way (which most of the time we do). Those who heed him are protected and saved. Those who ignore him risk death and destruction. Lesson learned!

One last point. You state that "the world is already filled with deception and currently in large measure under the control of the great deceiver himself, the devil." But you and I both know that the devil did not create our DNA, Christ did, since (we are told) Christ created ALL things (John 1:3). So don't drag the devil into this aspect of the discussion, because that kind of deliberate misdirection on your part is tantamount to dishonesty. Likewise the Devil did not create dinosaurs, as you seem to think, God did (see again John 1:3). He did so, in all likelihood, to lay
down vast deposits of oil and shale to benefit his children (the fact that we are killing each other over these oil deposits is another matter!). So when you tell me you have faith in His word, that's great. But HIS word isn't, apparently, always YOUR word.

I have to wonder if you aren't perhaps caught up in your own pride pastor Luginbill. You've clearly invested a great deal of time and effort into your pet Genesis Gap theories. So much so I fear that you are unwilling to look any more at alternatives, however viable or plausible or logical. That, to me, is a dangerous precedent.

I wouldn't tell you this if I didn't care about you, or admire you. Sorry if this comes across as
combative. It wasn't meant to be.

Best Regards,

Response #2:

First let me thank you for your kind words of encouragement. They are certainly appreciated even if we don't see eye to eye on everything.

To respond, Jesus quoted scripture repeatedly, as did all of the New Testament writers, so they certainly believed it to be the Word of God. Peter makes it very clear that the process of divine inspiration sets scripture apart from every other form of human writing (2Pet.1:19-21). Whenever God intervenes in the world directly, by definition He violates the principles of physics. Therefore if one believes in a God who is involved in the world in any way whatsoever, one believes that the principles of physics (to the degree that scientific theory understands them at present) are in fact capable of being violated. If one really does believe that our God can make the sun stand still, can part the Red sea, can create the stars in the blink of an eye, can heal the sick . . . can resurrect us from the dead, then I don't see believing that He can superintend the creation, transmission, and preservation of His Word as a very great leap of faith, no matter how it may seem to violate the laws of probability. From the human, secular point of view, I understand where the objections you proffer come from. Although I can tell you that upon close inspection they are far less valid even in these terms than first meets the eye. Science, too, is done by “men”, and so by the standards you put forth here, it is capable of every potential error you impute to the transmission of truth – and more (since science is dependent upon imperfect people making perfect empirical observations, passing them on by imperfect means to other imperfect people, etc.). The big difference is that I am relying upon God to preserve His Word of truth, whereas you are relying entirely upon the work of fallible human beings. But the main point is that at some point one has to have faith.

Therefore, of the four links in the scriptural chain as you describe it (i.e., "A - D"), point "D" is the only one with which I would assent to any degree. Through the supernatural superintendence of God Himself, we have access to the complete truth of the Word of God. What we may do to access that truth, however, is often another matter. Correct interpretation of what God's Word means is by no means a "slam dunk" sort of thing. First, the person doing the interpreting (beyond obvious and straightforward pronouncements), must have the gift of teaching (and that is supernaturally conferred by the Spirit at salvation). Second, such a person has to prepare adequately for a teaching ministry, learning the original languages, culture and history, systematic theology, hermeneutics and exegetical techniques. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, such persons have to give themselves and their will over to the Lord to superintend this process too – anyone who has a personal, or political, or financial, or organizational bias will always be hampered. And the process of effective study and teaching is time-consuming and lengthy. No one who is not extremely serious about it and committed to it has a chance of doing it right.

I do my best to find out what the Bible actually says, not from preconceived opinions but from the text itself, using all the tools at my disposal. Believe me when I say that I have had to change many of my original opinions over the years because that is where study of the Word and the Spirit led me. But even diligence and preparation and good intentions and hard work do not guarantee that I (or anyone else) am always (or even ever) "right". There are plenty of cults out there where the nonsense that is spewed forth in the name of God is seldom (if ever) "right". What are you as a Christian seeking God to do? I would suggest that you are to do exactly as you are doing, namely, read your Bible, learn more and more about God and His truth from it day by day, and use this base of truth in your search for solid, orthodox Bible teaching, with the Spirit of God within you making use of the truth you know to discern whether or not what you are examining is good or bad. And trust God that in spite of the weakness and insufficiency of human flesh that He is capable of providing you with exactly what you need.

You will never find a perfect source, but that does not mean you cannot find an adequate source of substantive Bible teaching (God does provide for all who are genuinely seeking). I certainly would never want to suggest that the materials I have posted to Ichthys are the end all and be all of legitimate Christian teaching. They are as good as I can make them (and am in process of making them), but I am definitely not going to tell you can't find better, or just as good, or even something that, while inferior, wouldn’t be good enough. But "nothing" is not an answer, and "something" that is not really based upon truth or seeking truth to any meaningful degree is not sufficient either. I do my best to keep tradition, money, politics, and personality out of the equation. My deep desire and constant prayer for all who make contact with this ministry is that they find sufficient, substantive Bible teaching somewhere, then learn and grow from it.

In order to learn, in order to grow, in order to be and do what God would have you to be and do, the one thing that is absolutely critical is faith. An often misunderstood element to faith is authority. When you trust someone, you are in at least some sense respecting their authority, however limited. In order to trust God, you have to trust what He is telling you. It is ultimately impossible to separate the written Word of God from the living Word of God, Jesus Christ. They are one and the same. It is very tempting, especially when there are things in the Bible that trouble the heart (and no honest Christian can say that he or she has never read something in the Bible that they would not prefer to write down to "cultural relativism" or "textual error" or "problems with the canon" [i.e., your points A, B, and C respectively]). But one cannot really pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe without destroying the authority of scripture, because when you make yourself the referee as to what does and what does not have to be taken seriously, you unavoidably invest all authority in yourself. It's great to love scripture, but unless it is understood properly and believed completely, it can't do you any good. The only way you know about Jesus is through the Bible. If the Bible were wrong, then anything you might think you know about Jesus (or anything spiritual for that matter) could be wrong too.

I am a simple man, and no great intellectual. Everything I know that is worth knowing comes from what the Lord has put in His book of books for me and for you and for everyone who chooses to seek Him. For those who value empiricism above all, there can be no answer. This is partly because they have already rejected the truth in their hearts which by definition can only be known by faith. As that very well educated Roman, Pontius Pilate, retorted to our Lord, "What is truth?" Even if someone relying upon empiricism could have a conversation with God Himself, that would still not do it, for how could it be known for sure that what was being experiencing was not an illusion or a hallucination? At some point faith has to take over – it is by grace that you are saved through faith (Eph.2:8-9). No one will ever be able to show you beyond argument from material existence that the spiritual realities which you know in your heart are true are in fact the real truth. That takes trusting God through what He says in Word. God would never leave you here without a way to find Him and know Him and learn about what He has done for you and what He wants you to do.

The universe sings the reality of God and the goodness of Him, and everything that has been made is designed to lead us to Him (see the link: Natural Revelation). When we are willing to hear it, all we need to know has been preserved for us in the Bible. All we have to do is seek Him. Although that may not be easy and may take some time and effort, it is the best thing we could ever do in our lives. And the fact that some people made mistakes and some people misuse the Word, either deliberately or out of ignorance, is not an excuse, nor will it be an excuse before the throne of Jesus Christ on that day of days to come. He is going to show every person from their lives and what they have done and said and thought where their true priorities really lay. On that day every true purpose will be laid bare, and no amount of human wisdom or argumentation will weigh in the balance with the truth of God.

I encourage you to persevere in your seeking of the Lord. If this ministry is “too much for you to swallow" for whatever reason, please find one where your conscience (directed by the Spirit) and your mind (informed by scripture) tell you that what you are getting is right and good and true and substantial and full, leaving nothing out by reason of expediency (cf. Acts 20:20; 20:27). Wherever you go, you will inevitably find "bones in the fish" (as my old pastor used to say). Rather than choke or stop eating fish, the best thing is to put aside what you can't stomach at present – if it is clear that this is only a small part of something that is in the main very good – and not deprive yourself of the good part for that reason.

I write you these things in the love of Jesus Christ and in hope and prayer for your spiritual growth and fulfillment, and the for the fulfillment of the Lord's purpose for your life as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Dear Bob,

This may not pertain to anything the Bible could explain, but in your opinion, if you've ever looked at pictures of deep space on the hubble or other sites, why did God make such an infinite universe? Especially, when we compare our little earth in that scope. Do you think everything out there balances the existence of our planet? Do you think it will still be so infinite at the end of times with our new earth and new heavens? It just amazes me when I think about the vastness of it, the beauty of it, the complexity of it...to us, but how simple it probably is for our God. I don't believe in aliens or anything. I think we are special in God's eyes, but it just makes me wonder if He makes use of it in some way we could never understand or will make use of it one day. I know in your studies you've ascertained that it is used as a gateway for angels to pass from our earth back to heaven and used as a viewing lens of sorts. But the vastness beyond our earth is what I wonder about. What do you think?

Response #3:

This is indeed an interesting set of questions and all I can offer (beyond what you are aware of from the site) are some speculations. I have said before (see the link: "The Shape of the Universe"), that my best guess from scripture is that the universe is a perfect cube. I do not believe it is infinite. God is infinite, but God is not bounded by time or space. It is true that all of our investigations of the known universe make clear that its magnitude is truly beyond our ken – but that does not make it infinite. God created it – for us. And as a created thing, it is very likely that it has boundaries. An ant poised on a leaf in Central Park may think the park infinite, and indeed it will never be able to compass its bounds within its lifetime. Yet of course Central Park is a very finite part of New York City (let alone, the state, the country, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, etc. – all of which are finite). So while the universe may well be bigger than we have any idea, I doubt that it is truly infinite. On the cube theory, if we were dead center in the middle of a cube of space, since our vision is not flat but curved (i.e., we perceive and see things out there in a circular sweep), we would not at all ever realize the universe's true shape without it possessing perceptible "sides" – we perceive it and so would think of it as being amorphous (even if that is incorrect). Another interesting thing to consider is that the original universe was filled with light and contained no darkness. Darkness only came as a result of creature rebellion (at some unrevealed time in the distant past) while the light we do see presently in the universe was only "re-lit" some six thousand years ago. So the assumptions of astro-physics in this regard are, like much related science, suffering from some massive misconceptions. There is no question but that any astronomer or physicist reading this would laugh and ask for an explanation of how light from distant stars could have reached us in such a short time, but I have never been embarrassed about the truth even in the absence of being able to give scientifically palatable explanations. Most such theory starts with a construct which excludes supernatural explanations in any case, so in truth there is little common ground to work with here. It is interesting to note on that point, however, that unless I am greatly mistaken the way we "know" how far away most of these stars and systems are is by making assumptions about the light they emit (i.e., parallax only works for very close-in objects, of three thousand or so light-years). So I do feel it is fair to point out that it is certainly possible (even if most scientists would deem it improbable) for what I find likely based upon scripture to be the case in fact (especially since I have the benefit of knowing certain things from scripture, like the six thousand years of restored light). So I certainly do not rule out that the earth truly is the center of the universe.

The third heaven, the abode of God at present, may not even be, technically speaking, in the space we observe. In fact, I think it unlikely that anything composed of the temporary material of this present creation can enter it at present (so its "distance" from earth is likely not to be measurable in spatial terms). The separation of God the Father from the tainted universe is an important theological point, and He will of course only return to earth when it is the New Earth in the New Heavens (Rev.21:3-4). The New Jerusalem will be massive in size (also cube shaped) and we cannot rule out the earth and the universe in their perfect and untainted new iteration will be even more impressive than before. Since our Lord in His resurrection body is capable of moving through material and moving from heaven to earth and back it is certainly likely that we will be able to explore the seemingly boundless new universe at will (and on the analogy with the New Earth it may retain features of the old one, only better and perhaps bigger – there will be no darkness in it). However, the greatest thing will be to be with Jesus and face to face with Him and the Father forevermore (Ps. 84:10). Whatever marvels there may be to explore in the finite universe now or even more so then, they cannot hold a candle to the wonders of the infinite God, and on that great day of days we shall "know even as we are known" (1Cor.13:12).

Whatever wonders that future day of days will bring, we know now that they will exceed anything we can imagine by unknown orders of magnitude. I think that may perhaps be one of the reasons behind the boundless nature of the present universe as we perceive it. As we consider the heavens, the work of God's hands, we cannot help but be overcome with humility and a sense of our hopelessness and helplessness apart from God on the one hand, and also of the wonders and glories of Him who made it on the other (Ps.8:1-5; 19:1-6; cf. Eccl.3:10). Since this is just the beginning and since we are looking only at the bare surface of such things, such contemplation ought to help us remember that a God of such power and wisdom can certainly be trusted with the small minutiae of our lives even when they seem to our limited eyes out of control.

In Him through whom are "all things", our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

Question #4:

At one time I also came to embrace the teachings of Pember in Earth's Earliest Ages. In point "e" on the Seven Days of Recreation in SR2 on the Gap theory, it says this is the most likely explanation for the perceived contradiction between the biblical account of the seven days of creation and the fossil record. This was a key reason I not only embraced it but taught it.

Eventually I came to a place in my ministry where I accepted the fact that there were a number of doctrines of men I taught which were not the uncompromised word of God and as a result, I was compromising my faith.

I began to let myself be challenged on a number of issues starting with this one. Long story short, the Lord taught me that he did not need me to defend Him by adulterating the word of God to appease human intellectualism as if He needed the testimony of the Einstein community to vouch His existence.

I don't go to debate you on this issue. That is not my intent. My intent is to ask you to challenge yourself to see if you have allowed in you the same motivation I allowed in me when I embraced a twisting of scriptures to say things they were not intended to say. For example, ask yourself "what is Jeremiah 4:23ff really intending to say?" Then read the classic commentaries: Henry, Barnes, Gill, Clark, Jameson Fausett and Brown, etc...The context speaks for itself but in our attempt to validate our scientific appeasement, we have compromised the plain intent of scripture.

This was only one of many areas I began to challenge what I embraced as doctrine. But I came to the realization that if I was accepting a feeble interpretation of the first verse in the Bible, how many others did I water down?

God bless,

Response #4:

I do appreciate your attitude. And I would certainly agree on the principle of teaching only what you believe, only what you know by faith, only what you are convicted of as being true in scripture from diligent study of the Word of God.

If I may, I think the fact that your quotation of this study is of an aside in a small sub-point speaks to the fact that my reasons for believing (and thus for teaching) the Gap that occurs between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are not for the purpose of contradicting science or attempting to reconcile the Bible with archaeological evidence. I would certainly agree that such is a very poor and dangerous motivation to use as a basis for any teaching.

Let me assure that my teaching of the Genesis gap comes from a firm conviction based upon careful and painstaking exegesis of scripture that such is in fact the case. It is true that it is not an "easy doctrine" - but then, neither is the Trinity (and I am sure you would agree that that doctrine should not be pitched overboard on that account). What I have found is that once the gap is properly understood, it opens up many other wonderful things in scripture (for instance, the parallel between the seven days of re-construction and the seven days of human history which correspond to them; see the link: The Seven Days of Human History).

As to Jeremiah 4, the point being made there is not that Jeremiah is referring to the gap directly, but that his description of divine judgment upon Israel shows clearly that the terms tohu-ve-bhohu are indicative of devastation coming from the hand of God (akin to the destruction of the original earth as a consequence of Satan's fall). It may, however, be the case that Jeremiah understood the gap, and was thus using it in the typical prophetic fashion of analogy to a more compelling divine judgment (in the way that many of the prophets use the Day of the Lord as an analogy for contemporary judgment: see the link: "The Day of the Lord Paradigm").

I am happy to answer any specific questions you may have about this issue as taught at Ichthys. I do feel it important to point out that the specifics both large and small may be different from what you are familiar with in the teaching of others on this subject. But in any case, I remain convinced from scripture of the orthodoxy of this position, even though I am well aware that it is a "lightning rod" for those with a different view on the subject.

Thank you again for your Christian love and concern.

In the One who is the truth itself – may He continue to unite us in that truth – our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #5:

I find all of your studies interesting and quite humble yet I can’t help but wonder how you came to embrace the Gap theory. Please explain your path to such a belief. Here is a site and ministry that I support and Ken Ham is a very studied individual, see what you think about what he has to say.

Response #5:

I had a look at some of the text files on link provided. Mr. Ham does a better job than most of arguing against the Genesis Gap, but, in my opinion, still falls short of what I see as the major reasons to believe and teach this truth of scripture. It's not a theory, but the word "theory" as it is employed in this case by opponents is very revealing. After all, scripture either teaches that the six days are a reconstruction following a cataclysm or else there is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Whatever scripture teaches, that is what I shall believe, and my whole life and ministry have been predicated upon finding out what scripture genuinely teaches, believing, and then teaching it to others as best I can. So to answer that part of your question I would have to say that this was my path. For example, I learned about the Trinity from others, and the truth of that truth of scripture has been reinforced in all my studies since; I learned about the pre-tribulational Rapture from others, but in the course of my studies it became clear that this was not the truth and I changed my belief to fit what the Bible actually had to say. But to call either the Trinity or the Rapture a "theory" is a rhetorical technique designed to have an emotional effect on a target by helping to call the teaching's validity into doubt as a means of destroying any belief in it through rhetorical means (it's only a "theory", after all, like evolution). I have made it my policy to try to teach my brothers and sisters what I have learned and believe to be the truth through diligent study by means of scripture, translations from the original languages, citations of parallel passages, and forthright, honest exegesis wherein the basis for my reasoning is set out as clearly as possible. That way, to believe or not to believe is in the hands of the Christian in question under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, it is a common characteristic of all cults to attempt first to destroy the foundations of the belief systems of their victims so that whatever they're peddling will thereafter be an easy sell, falling into the vacuum of discarded prior beliefs. In my opinion it's a very slippery slope for Christians to engage in such practices, no matter how strongly we may feel about our point of view. Sooner or later, one way or another, the Bible and the Spirit will win out – provided only that those who give attention to such things really are seeking God's truth as more necessary than their daily bread.

Believe me when I say that I understand how unpopular the teaching of the Genesis Gap is in many circles, and this ministry has come under some considerable fire for it (which may, in and of itself, be an indication its validity). It would be easier to ignore it – just as it would be easier to teach a lot of things that are more comfortable and stay away from all sorts of things that are controversial and uncomfortable. My job, however, is to find the truth as best I can and teach it as straight as I can. That's my path, the one to which I have been called. I certainly would never suggest that I have all of the answers or have gotten everything 100% correct (and I always stress the necessity for those who use this ministry to read scripture for themselves; see the link: Read your Bible). But that is my goal, and it ought to be every Christian's goal. How do we achieve that goal if not through diligent study and teaching of the Word of God? Indeed, that is the only way. Therefore my method has been to try and be positive in approach rather than negative. I don't say that I have been entirely effective at this, but I try. If someone has good reasoning to deploy against this interpretation (the Genesis Gap) I am certainly willing to hear it, and always try to respond to direct and honest questions about how and why it is that I believe and teach what I believe and teach. I've never met Mr. Ham and, to be fair, his refutations don't seem to be leveled at my study of this teaching in particular, but it does seem that he is doing what any good rhetorician would do in attempting to refute a point of view where one is actually in the weaker position, namely, to re-frame the issue by setting up the opposing side's proofs in the most advantageous way (rather than hitting the actual arguments head on). One of the reasons why I bridle at such an approach is that the average Christian has a hard time weighing the opposing arguments. Most Christians do not know Hebrew and have not been to seminary, etc., so that it is very easy for someone good at argumentation to escape their notice in ignoring the strongest argument(s) and pouncing on the weakest one(s) while obfuscating on the ones in the middle. In my opinion, if a person really does know Hebrew, the fact of the grammar in Genesis 1:2 should give great pause before pronouncing the gap a "theory" and setting out to ridicule and ostracize anyone else who doesn't agree – at least for someone who claims to care what the Bible has to say. I suppose that is one of my greatest qualms about the employment of rhetoric of this sort: people who use it want to win an argument, but the objective ought to be to find out what the Bible truly says, so that it begs the question of whether or not they really care about that or have another agenda which takes precedence.

It would take far too long to rehearse all of the information in The Satanic Rebellion part 2: The Genesis Gap (please see that link), but I will offer the following:

Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth (i.e., perfectly). But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled ......
Genesis 1:1-2a

This is my translation of the critical passage in question and it is explained in detail in the link above. This is how I read it when I read it in Hebrew, and it is a very natural way to read it. Now one can certainly translate this passage differently, and many versions have. In my view that is not because the scholars in question have not seen the gist of what I have given here as a natural translation possibility but rather because it didn't make entire sense to them as they were assuming prima facie that the six days were original creation. If it is the case that the above is a reasonable translation, then shouldn't there be at least a little humble consideration of what the scripture might be telling us on this point (rather than an all out rhetorical assault on those who are trying to get to the bottom of what the Bible has to say in all things)?

I hope this response was helpful to you - and thanks for your all good words about these studies. Please feel free to write me back about any of this.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill


Question #6:

I have a question about your theory on the re-creation of the earth following Genesis 1:1. Are you the first to come up with this? Can you tell me of any others who share this view? Could you tell me other works that present a similar idea? I've never heard of it before, but I find it fascinating & persuasive.

Thank you,


Response #6:

I would love to take full credit for the writings at Ichthys.com. I did write them all – but all you find here that is good and true is a mere exposition of what is in the Bible. Just as a miner can't really take credit for the gold he finds, I can't really take credit for the wonderful things it has been my privilege to find in scripture. As to your specific question, the fact of "re-creation" of the earth is, as you no doubt know from your reading of these materials already, also intimately tied into 1) the seven millennial days of the Plan of God, and 2) the "Genesis Gap". I may be the first to actual express these ideas in terms of "re-creating" earth, but I am certainly not the first (nor the only) exegete to teach the seven millennial days and the fact of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 wherein falls angelic creation and pre-history, including Satan's rebellion and fall. For example, as I relate in part 5 of the Satanic Rebellion series, the early church father Irenaeus (ca. 130-200) is the first on record to actually explain how human history has been laid out by God in seven millennia (see the link: "The Testimony of Irenaeus"). And as to the "Genesis Gap", there are a number of contemporary exegetes who hold to various versions of this teaching (for some references, see the link: "The Genesis Gap"). Of course, as Christians who have made it our first priority to follow Jesus Christ wherever He leads us, we should be prepared to believe and apply anything and everything which, convinced from scripture through the ministry of the Spirit, we are sure is true, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Ultimately, the Bible has to be our standard of truth and practice rather the traditions and opinions of people, no matter how ancient, scholarly or numerous they may be.

Thank you for your enthusiasm for the Word of God. Keep fighting the good fight of faith.

In Him who is the truth, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #7:

Thank you for writing back to me, and I apologize if I inadvertently offended you; it’s just that I never heard this particular interpretation of Genesis before, and I wondered how you came to it & which other Biblical scholars agree with it. Like you, I believe in the supremacy and accuracy of the Bible, but I doubt that the Bible is easily understood. I think God is a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend (at least not yet), and that all we really need to know is that we have failed Him, but He has, through His own grace & mercy rather than our merits, saved us. Nevertheless, I am always glad to gain a little more insight into His ways, and I think you have blessed me with such insight.

Thank you,


Response #7:

No offense on this end - and I hope I didn't give any on yours. I certainly agree with your statement to the effect that "the Bible is not easily understood". In many ways that is true, but I believe that it has been given to us to be understood. Clearly, you are correct in your feeling that there is so much that we, finite and earthbound sinful creatures that we are, cannot now know about God. As Paul puts it, though on that day of days we shall "know even as we are known" now we see "through a glass and darkly" to quote the KJV (1Cor.13:12). Yet Paul did devote himself to knowing and teaching all that could be known and taught from scripture. He had the benefit of direct inspiration and direct revelation, but we have the benefit of the entire canon of scripture. I firmly believe, and indeed it is the basis of the course of my life and of this ministry, that it is possible to find out from the Bible all that we need to know, even though that definitely takes much time and much effort. While there is much that is basic to our Christian understanding of the Lord and His desires for us (as you say, salvation through grace and mercy through faith in Jesus Christ rather than our works being the essence of the gospel), still we are called not to be babes drinking milk forever, but to move on in time to solid food (Heb.5:11-13), in order that we might not continue to be "swept to and fro by every breeze" of false teaching (Eph.4:14-16). Ultimately, only by learning and applying the genuine truth of scripture can we grow in Christ and grow closer to Christ. In my experience, every small point of truth one learns, no matter how insubstantial it may seem at the time, eventually contributes to the tapestry of truth we are (or should be) weaving in our hearts. Granted, true, substantive Bible teaching seems almost impossible to find these days – certainly very few local churches will abide it (and that explains why this ministry is on the internet). But God provides, and those who seek it will find it. While I do not presume to have all the answers, I hope you will find the studies at Ichthys helpful to your spiritual growth, and stand ready to try and answer any specific questions you might have.

Yours in the Word of Truth incarnate, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.

For more: E-mails at Ichthys