Ask Me Anything!

[Clete]

This thread is all about giving answers to questions from a biblical worldview and so I've placed it in the "Religion" forum, but is not intended to be limited only to biblical or religious questions. As the title indicates, feel free to ask me anything you wish on any topic you want an answer about.

I've taken everyone off of my ignore list for the purposes of this thread because I do not intend to debate people here. Anyone can ask any question they like and I will answer to the best of my ability. I do not, however, promise to answer every question asked.

The first question that I'd like to answer has to do with the biblical worldview I mentioned above. There are lots of people who claim to have a biblical worldview and so, one might be thoughtful enough to ask...



Why are there so many different denominations if we all read the same Bible, and how can we know which is right?


That’s a bigger question than a lot of people realize. To answer it fully would be to write an introductory course on the field of hermeneutics, which I am not inclined to do, no one here would read anyway. Stated simply, hermeneutics is the method of interpretation that we bring to the Bible. Every denomination, whether they admit it or not, has a set of principles that guide how they read and apply Scripture. Those principles shape the doctrines that emerge.

My doctrine, and what I consider the truly biblical worldview, comes from what I would call a plain and rational reading of Scripture. By "plain", I mean that words are taken in their ordinary sense unless the text itself makes it clear we’re dealing with symbolism, figures of speech, or a weak translation. By "rational", I mean that God gave us reason and expects us to use it. Truth cannot contradict itself, so any interpretation that creates contradictions must be re-examined.

Another key point in my hermeneutic is recognizing distinctions that God Himself makes in His Word. One of the most important is the distinction between Israel and the body of Christ. Israel’s promises, covenants, and kingdom program are not the same as the mystery revealed through Paul concerning the body of Christ. If we blur that line, we end up with the very contradictions I just mentioned, which lead to confusion, and confusion is what leads to denominations multiplying.

Finally, I believe in reading the Bible with the understanding that God is personal, relational, rational, righteous, and just. He is not playing word games. When He says something, He means it. When He gives instructions, He expects us to follow them. When He makes promises, He intends to keep them.

So while we can’t untangle the entire history of denominations in one sitting, we can say this much...
The “right” way is the one that handles the Word of God carefully, consistently, and without forcing passages to say what they do not. That is the hermeneutic I’ll be using in answering other questions here.


P.S. I just went to take people off my ignore list and can't find a way to do it. Can someone help me out here?

 

[Right Divider]

P.S. I just went to take people off my ignore list and can't find a way to do it. Can someone help me out here?

I'm not sure that there is a way to list all ignored users, but they will show up on the thread if they post.

There will be a "Show ignored content" at the bottom of the thread if someone that you've ignored posts. You can click on that and they will be seen... then you can take them off of your ignore list.

I know that's not as straightforward as you'd probably like... but it works.

 

[Clete]

Okay, so right off the bat I get to tackle what seems to me like a pretty big one. I wasn't asked the following question by anyone here on TOL but it did come up yesterday and this particular issue hits close to home for me personally because one of my daughters really had a difficult time understanding the biblical teaching on this when she was a teenager. Her soft heart just couldn't understand the harshness of the biblical teaching on this one...

Why Is Homosexuality a Sin, and What Should Our Policy, as Christians, Be Toward Homosexuals?

The issue of homosexuality is not about private feelings or personal preferences. It is not a political category or a matter of taste. It is a moral issue that cuts to the heart of what makes civilization itself possible. It is not simply one sin among many, nor is it an identity to be accepted or affirmed. It is a rebellion against nature, a rejection of design, and a pattern of behavior that, if left unchecked, leads not only to personal ruin but to societal collapse and death on a massive scale.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

Well, the Bible doesn't exactly whisper about this or tiptoe around this issue. It speaks quite plainly, in fact. In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexuality not as an isolated moral failing but as the visible consequence of a much deeper rejection. When a society refuses to retain God in its knowledge, God gives it over. Women exchange the natural use for what is against nature. Men burn in lust for one another. In other words, these things are not the first cause of societal decline, they are the results that come from a society that has detached itself from the moral foundations that civil society requires. Paul's statements in Romans 1 are a divine diagnosis of what happens when the moral foundations of a culture rot from within. It is not merely wrong; it is a sign that judgment has already begun.

At its core, sin is not just the violation of a list of rules. Sin is what destroys life, defiles what is good, and turns something that could be fruitful into something that is barren and corrupting. Goodness builds, protects, and nourishes life. Evil degrades, perverts, and kills it. Homosexuality is not sinful because it violates an abstract religious code, it's sinful because it breaks down the very structure of life. That is what makes it evil. Indeed, that is what makes it not merely evil, but criminal.

Not every sin is a crime, but every crime worth punishing by the state is a moral one. In the Old Testament, Israel was given many capital statutes, some of which were symbolic, tied to the nation’s priestly role and to the coming of the Messiah. Those have passed. What remains, however, are the moral laws that reflect God’s eternal character. These are not limited to a covenant with a particular people. They apply to all humanity and form the basis of any society that hopes to endure. Even societies that overtly reject the Judeo-Christian worldview tacitly accept its precepts in order to sustain itself, but that's a discussion for another time. For now, we're specifically discussing the Christian worldview.

Romans 1:32 is not written in the past tense. It says that those who commit such things are “deserving of death,” and that those who approve of them are equally guilty. That is not a private opinion, that is the verdict of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, affirmed in the New Testament, well after the cross. Paul did not say, “we were all once deserving of death.” He said plainly that he did not object to dying if he had done anything worthy of death. The governing authorities, he wrote, are ministers of God to execute wrath on the evildoer, bearing not the sword in vain. The sword is not for spanking, it is for blood. Romans 13:4 is a direct New Testament endorsement of the death penalty.

To be clear, this is not a call to mob action. It is not about rage or vengeance. It is a call for lawful justice under the authority of civil government, carried out with due process, and based on objective truth. A society that refuses to punish moral crimes with the seriousness they deserve is a society that has already abandoned the concept of justice itself. Laws that are not enforced may as well not exist, and you cannot preserve your nation if you are too “nice” to confront the perversions that destroy that which the laws are there to protect.

So, what should Christians do?

The Christian is not called to take the sword into his own hand. That role belongs to the state. But that does not mean that the Christian should be silent, either. We are not ashamed of the truth, and we are not bound by the emotional blackmail of a culture that identifies compromise as compassion. Our response must be grounded in the truth of God, the standard of life, and the hope of redemption.

A just society will not celebrate perversion. It will not pretend that lies are love. It will not place tolerance above truth. It will guard its children, defend the family, and punish those who deliberately undermine the moral framework upon which all liberty depends. And the Christian should proudly advocate for such precisely because we cherish children, we love our country and we wish to defend, uphold and improve not only life but the quality of it for the whole of society.

What then should our policy be?

We must speak the truth without flinching. Homosexuality is sin. It is not an identity to be affirmed or a lifestyle to be tolerated. It is a moral crime with real consequences that go far, far beyond what happens behind closed doors in someone's bedroom. We must support laws that restrain evil and protect what is good, including laws that punish those behaviors which corrupt the body politic and poison the next generation. We must resist false mercy, the kind that spares the wicked while sacrificing the innocent. And we must remember that redemption is possible, not through affirming sin, but through repentance and truth. The Cross is still open and Christ still saves, but He saves sinners! How is a sinner going to get saved if they're being told, even by Christians, that their gross sin is "love"?

The choice before us is not between tolerance and intolerance. It is between life and death. Either we uphold a moral order grounded in creation and truth, or we descend into confusion, injustice, and decay. There is no middle ground. There is no third option. Choose life!

 

[Clete]

Did Christ’s Death at Calvary Make Everyone Alive Spiritually, or Only Those Who Believe?

This question gets to the heart of the gospel and reveals whether we actually believe in justice, in doctrinal clarity, and in the universal reach of what Christ accomplished. The popular answer, of course, is that only those who believe are made spiritually alive, but that answer cannot bear up under biblical scrutiny or basic rational coherence.

Scripture is clear. Christ’s death at Calvary reversed what Adam’s sin brought into the world. Romans 5:18 says:

“Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.” - NKJV

The parallel here is intentional. Adam’s sin had a universal consequence, and so did Christ’s obedience. The result of Adam’s act was condemnation but not inherited guilt. It was a condition of broken relationship and alienation from God, which is what spiritual death is. In the same way, the result of Christ’s act was the reversal of that condition. Spiritual life was restored to all. The text does not say that all are automatically saved. It says the free gift came to all, resulting in justification of life. That is not personal salvation, but the restoration of the spiritual life Adam lost.

Some object to this by pointing to the word “condemnation” in Romans 5:18. They assume it must mean guilt, but the Greek term Paul uses, katakrima, simply refers to a judgment with a negative outcome. It does not mean personal blame. Indeed, it cannot mean guilt inherited from Adam, because that would directly contradict the plain teaching of Ezekiel 18:20:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father…”

If that’s not a clear rejection of inherited guilt, then words have no meaning. And this isn’t merely stated in verse 20. Ezekiel spends the entire chapter recording God’s own words to drive this specific point home. There is no inherited guilt. None. And if there is no inherited guilt, then there can be no inherited condemnation in the legal sense. What we inherited from Adam was not guilt, but consequence. We were born into a broken world. We were born subject to mortality, corruption, and spiritual separation from God. Not because God counted us guilty, but because Adam’s sin severed the human race from the source of life and since we are all members of that race, that breach affected us all.

But Christ fixed it!

By His death and resurrection, Christ restored spiritual life to everyone. He undid the consequence of Adam’s sin for the whole human race. That is what makes Ezekiel 18 true! The son does not bear the guilt of the father, because the barrier has been removed. The relationship has been restored. Every person is now born spiritually alive. That is why Paul could say in Romans 7:9,

“I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.”

He was not born dead. He was born alive. And he remained alive until he sinned. Then he died. That is what spiritual death is. It is the loss of spiritual life through personal rebellion. That is the biblical pattern. That is how it works.

This is also what makes the idea of an age of accountability not only reasonable, but essential. If we were born spiritually dead, there would be nothing to account for, no transition, no change, no loss of life to mark. But if, as Paul testifies, we are born spiritually alive and only die when we sin, then there must be a point at which that first sin takes place. Until that point, the child is spiritually alive, not guilty, not condemned. The age of accountability is not some arbitrary religious invention. It flows directly from the principle of justice, as does the gospel itself. It is the recognition that each person is held accountable for their own sin, not for Adam’s, and not for anything they are incapable of understanding or choosing.

This was not only true after the cross. It was also true before it. Paul was born alive prior to Calvary and Ezekiel was a prophet of God six centuries before Calvary would take place.

Though Calvary happened at a particular time in history, God applied its effect to people who lived before it. He did this not by pretending, but by planning. Romans 3:25 explains that God “in His forbearance had passed over the sins that were previously committed.” He withheld judgment on personal sins because Christ would pay the full price. In the same way, He withheld the final consequence of Adam’s sin and treated people as spiritually alive from birth, even before the cross, because He knew the cross was coming. God was not ignoring sin, He was simply anticipating the cure.

This is why Ezekiel could write what he did. His declaration in chapter 18 was not just wishful thinking; it was rooted in the truth that God had already made provision. The soul who sins shall die. Not the soul who is born. Not the soul who inherits guilt. The one who sins. That principle was only made possible because Christ’s work was already settled in the mind and plan of God.

So then, to answer the original question directly:

Yes. Christ’s death at Calvary made everyone alive spiritually. That spiritual life is not eternal life. It is the restored condition that makes relationship with God possible. It is what Adam lost and what Christ regained. And it was applied to all, even before the cross, because God knew exactly what He was going to do.

To be clear, eternal life is a separate matter. That gift is given only to those who believe. Spiritual life is restored to all through Christ, but each individual dies again when they sin and all do sin. That’s what happened to Paul and that’s what happens to everyone. We are born alive. We sin. We die. And we need to be made alive again (this time forever) by being joined to Christ.

That is what the gospel is. It is not confusion. It is not injustice. It is righteousness, it is clarity, and it is true.

(I think, in addition to posting it here, I'll use this post as an opener for a new thread.)

 

[Lon]

Ask Clete: If someone rejects Pauline authority and apostleship, does it damage both their Christian identification, and their walk with Christ? I am just starting to study implications, but I believe they are dire. Your thoughts and study? Thanks.

 

[Right Divider]

Ask Clete: If someone rejects Pauline authority and apostleship, does it damage both their Christian identification, and their walk with Christ?

Absolutely 100%

I am just starting to study implications, but I believe they are dire. Your thoughts and study? Thanks.

I'm sure that Clete will address this far better than I ever can, but...

1Cor 4:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.​

​

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

Paul was inspired by the Lord Jesus Christ to write that. We should take it seriously!

Paul followed Christ differently than did the TWELVE apostles that will sit in TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

 

[Clete]

Ask Clete: If someone rejects Pauline authority and apostleship, does it damage both their Christian identification, and their walk with Christ? I am just starting to study implications, but I believe they are dire. Your thoughts and study? Thanks.

FYI: I have taken (i.e. am taking) everyone off of ignore for the purpose of this thread.

Yes, it absolutely does damage both!

To reject Paul’s apostleship is to reject the very means by which Christ is currently ministering to the world. Paul is not just another disciple. He is the apostle to the Gentiles, the steward of the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:2). Christ from heaven gave Paul a distinct gospel, a distinct message, and a distinct apostleship, not derived from men nor even from the earthly ministry of Jesus, but by direct revelation from the risen, glorified Lord (Galatians 1:11-12).

To reject that apostleship is to sever oneself from the very truth God is making known in this age. It is not merely a doctrinal detail. It is a denial of the Headship of Christ in His present work through the body.

People who diminish Paul often think they are exalting Jesus. In reality, they are rejecting the Jesus who sent Paul. He said to Paul, "I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21), and He said of him, "he is a chosen vessel unto me" (Acts 9:15). Christ identifies Himself so closely with those He sends that He once told His disciples, “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16). That was said prior to Paul's ministry, but the principle still holds. When the risen Christ appeared to Paul and made him the apostle of the Gentiles, He was not commissioning a man with optional insights. To despise Paul’s message is to despise the One who sent him.

To reject Paul’s God-given role is to misunderstand the nature of the body of Christ, the uniqueness of this dispensation, and the heavenly calling we have been given. That affects doctrine, identity, and walk. So yes, the implications are dire.

A great way to see this for yourself is by simply reading through Romans to Philemon straight through, asking the question, What is different here? What is being revealed? Then go back and compare it to what was revealed before. Ask yourself what portion of what you and everyone else recognizes as the Christian faith would exist at all apart from what Paul and only Paul preached.

To be clear, Paul is not the foundation of the church, Christ is. But Paul is the wise master builder (I Corinthians 3:10), and if someone sets that blueprint aside, they are not just building poorly, they are building wrongly. Come judgement day, each one's work will be tested. Those who disregard Paul's distinct ministry, who build their lives around unsound doctrine, who mix law with grace and works in the flesh rather than in the Spirit, may indeed find that, while they are saved, their life’s work is burned up. They themselves will be saved, yet so as through fire (I Corinthians 3:15).

 

[Lon]

Ask yourself what portion of what you and everyone else recognizes as the Christian faith would exist at all apart from what Paul and only Paul preached.

Very huge. I argue "we don't even know what it means to be Christian (as gentiles) without Paul!" The council in Acts would have had to go the other way: Only Judiazed Christians could be Christians without Paul and the necessity of Christ's revelation through him, to us. To minimize him, is to minimize the very Savior one names.

To be clear, Paul is not the foundation of the church, Christ is. But Paul is the wise master builder (I Corinthians 3:10), and if someone sets that blueprint aside, they are not just building poorly, they are building wrongly. Come judgement day, each one's work will be tested. Those who disregard Paul's distinct ministry, who build their lives around unsound doctrine, who mix law with grace and works in the flesh rather than in the Spirit, may indeed find that, while they are saved, their life’s work is burned up. They themselves will be saved, yet so as through fire (I Corinthians 3:15).

Good call, but I do believe in extreme, some who reject Paul are liberal churches. One church by my house: "We believe accepting homosexuality is salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ." (paraphrased, but all the content of the statement). Not only do they reject Paul, but the meaning of biblical salvation. One member of TOL I have befriended has told me that Paul is not authoritative. That statement along with the church billboard message, has me seeing a need to address not only orthodoxy, but the very means by which Christ has spoken to us, and called us gentiles. Without Paul, there is no Western church. It is unfathomable to me that I'd see cults heading along this line, but am finding such among the liberal 'social gospel' churches and am hearing the echo of Paul, 'which are no gospels at all." Thank you for taking the question.

 

[Clete]

Very huge. I argue "we don't even know what it means to be Christian (as gentiles) without Paul!" The council in Acts would have had to go the other way: Only Judiazed Christians could be Christians without Paul and the necessity of Christ's revelation through him, to us. To minimize him, is to minimize the very Savior one names.

That is Mid-Acts Dispensationalism in a nutshell.

The more of your doctrine you get from Hebrews - Revelation, the more Judaized you'll be. Go visit a Church of Christ some time, or just watch a sermon or two on YouTube. They're one of the most Judaized sects in all of Christianity. They're not two steps behind the Seventh Day Adventists.

I'm going to write a more in depth post about this issue using the Church of Christ as a good example of what happens when you fail to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Good call, but I do believe in extreme, some who reject Paul are liberal churches. One church by my house: "We believe accepting homosexuality is salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ." (paraphrased, but all the content of the statement).

If the bible does not teach that homosexuals are evil people, it doesn't teach anything at all. Such a stance is not merely a rejection of Paul but of the entire biblical worldview.

Not only do they reject Paul, but the meaning of biblical salvation.

...and not just the meaning of biblical salvation, but of the entire bible! It isn't merely their soteriology that is flawed, it their whole theology.

One member of TOL I have befriended has told me that Paul is not authoritative.

Tell him, "If so, then neither is the risen Jesus Christ."

That statement along with the church billboard message, has me seeing a need to address not only orthodoxy, but the very means by which Christ has spoken to us, and called us gentiles. Without Paul, there is no Western church. It is unfathomable to me that I'd see cults heading along this line, but am finding such among the liberal 'social gospel' churches and am hearing the echo of Paul, 'which are no gospels at all." Thank you for taking the question.

Liberal churches masquerading as Christian churches reproduced like rabbits back in the 90s and early 2000s. We're now dealing with the problem of churches intentionally NOT wanting to indicate in any public way which denomination they're affiliated with. They're all giving themselves these sort of generic names like "The Way Church", "Real Life Church" or just "Life Church" or "The Gathering" or other goofy sound byte sort of name with no indication on any signage what sort of church they are. Even their websites tend to hide it. Many of these are fake churches that are far more interested in making you feel good about yourself than they are in telling you the truth.

There is a glimmer of hope that the pendulum is beginning to swing back in a more biblical / conservative direction but I'm not exactly holding my breath in wait for it. The more strongly one clings to a rationally consistent and thoroughly biblical worldview, the more isolated they become. I see no light at the end of that tunnel yet.

 

[Right Divider]

There is a glimmer of hope that the pendulum is beginning to swing back in a more biblical / conservative direction but I'm not exactly holding my breath in wait for it. The more strongly one clings to a rationally consistent and thoroughly biblical worldview, the more isolated they become. I see no light at the end of that tunnel yet.

I believe Paul when he says things will go from bad to worse. Some may consider me pessimistic, but I just believe what the Bible says.

2Tim 3:1-5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. (3:2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, (3:3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, (3:4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; (3:5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.​

​

I believe that much of the transgender ideology, the "gay pride", etc., etc. can be seen right there in verse 2.

 

[Clete]

I believe Paul when he says things will go from bad to worse. Some may consider me pessimistic, but I just believe what the Bible says.

2Tim 3:1-5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. (3:2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, (3:3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, (3:4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; (3:5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.​

​

I believe that much of the transgender ideology, the "gay pride", etc., etc. can be seen right there in verse 2.

Well, just remember that every generation of Christianity going all the way back to Paul himself believed that they were living in the end times. The fact is that the pendulum has swung back and forth a few times over the centuries.

For me, the biggest clue that we may really be near the end this time is the fact that the whole globe is so interconnected. The WORLD WIDE Covid freakout brought the lunacy of the entire planet into sharp focus. It truly is, in many ways, as it was in the time when God confused the languages at Babel and perhaps it is approaching that of the days of Noah.

Come Lord Jesus, COME!!

 

[Clete]

Very huge. I argue "we don't even know what it means to be Christian (as gentiles) without Paul!" The council in Acts would have had to go the other way: Only Judiazed Christians could be Christians without Paul and the necessity of Christ's revelation through him, to us. To minimize him, is to minimize the very Savior one names.

Good call, but I do believe in extreme, some who reject Paul are liberal churches. One church by my house: "We believe accepting homosexuality is salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ." (paraphrased, but all the content of the statement). Not only do they reject Paul, but the meaning of biblical salvation. One member of TOL I have befriended has told me that Paul is not authoritative. That statement along with the church billboard message, has me seeing a need to address not only orthodoxy, but the very means by which Christ has spoken to us, and called us gentiles. Without Paul, there is no Western church. It is unfathomable to me that I'd see cults heading along this line, but am finding such among the liberal 'social gospel' churches and am hearing the echo of Paul, 'which are no gospels at all." Thank you for taking the question.

What Happens When You Don’t Rightly Divide: The Case of the Church of Christ