“But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation” (1 Thessalonians 5:8).
In light of the imminent Rapture and the approaching day of the Lord (1 Th. 4:13 – 5:3), we are to put on “the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation” (1 Th. 5:8).
Problem: Following Israel’s exodus from Egypt, God instructed them to make a small wooden ark (box) overlaid with gold. The ark was 2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and 1.5 cubits high (or about 3.75 x 2.25 x 2.25 feet) and was called the “Ark of the Testimony” or the “Ark of the Covenant” because it contained the tablets of stone whereon the Ten Commandments were written (Exodus 25:16). According to 1 Kings 8:9, “Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone” (emp. added; cf. 2 Chronicles 5:10). The writer of Hebrews, however, indicated that the ark contained “the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant” (9:4). How can both of these passages be correct?
Modern evangelical churches have spent the last twenty years trying very hard to prove something. Not that the gospel is powerful. Not that the Word of God is sufficient.
Continue reading →
Problem: In Exodus 40:26, the Bible states that the “golden altar” was in the holy place of the tabernacle, in front of the veil. On the other hand, the book of Hebrews (9:3-4) indicates that the altar of incense was in the most holy place. How can these passages be harmonized?
What is warm-blooded, sits on its eggs like a hen, but flies much better than a hen, and has six legs? It’s the bumblebee.
Problem: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Hebrews 7:3)
There are some who identify Melchizedek as the pre-incarnate Christ. That is, they believe that Christ Himself appeared to Abraham in Genesis 14. This seems to be based primarily on a misunderstanding of the verse cited above (Heb. 7:3).
I will guard my ways. (Psalms 39:1)
Heb. 5:8—“Though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered.”
Problem: Though he were Son [i.e., ‘notwithstanding the fact that he was the Son,’ and thus not in a place of obedience or subjection, but co-equal in every way in the eternal relations of the Triune Godhead], he learned obedience [not, ‘learned to obey,’ but ‘learned obedience’ by experience]
from the things which he suffered [on earth as the God-Man].
If I must be “born again,” I may be born again, for God never commands an impossible thing. We have considered the manner and the means of the communication of the New Birth, it now remains to show how it may be secured. In the night interview of Nicodemus and Jesus, Jesus used three illustrations. (1) That of a BIRTH. (2) That of the “BRAZEN SERPENT.” (3) That of the WIND. We have explained the first, let us now consider the second.
Problem: There is a “Heavenly Prince of Light” described in the Dead Sea Scrolls by Qumran, particularly in the fragment 11Q13. In Geza Vermes’, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (7th ed., 1997), even Vermes somewhat equates Melchizedek in Hebrews with the one mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls (p.500). However, this comparison between Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and Qumran is not very persuasive:
The following paragraphs are excerpted from the final chapter of Ernest Pickering’s book The Tragedy of Compromise (Bob Jones University Press, copyright 1994). This important book documents the destructive nature of the New Evangelical movement.
“One young man who had been for years a member of a fundamentalist church suddenly left it to join a New Evangelical congregation. Upon enquiring as to the reason, the pastor was told that the New Evangelicals were more loving than the fundamentalists and that the young man was attracted to them for this reason. None of us can claim a corner on love, and no doubt it is true that many fundamentalist congregations could greatly improve in their love toward the Lord, toward one another, and toward the world in which they live. However, what some perceive of as love is, in reality, compromise. Many confuse a broad acceptance of various doctrinal positions, lifestyles, musical tastes, and methodologies as a demonstration of Christian love. In other words, if one is broader and more lenient, one is more loving. But this concept is not grounded in Scripture. Truth and love are not to be divorced. They walk together and are in perfect agreement. Some believe that if one is truly loving, one will not denounce error nor evaluate in a negative way the positions of others. Since New Evangelicals do not do this, they are perceived to be more loving than fundamentalists, to be kinder, more gracious, and more tolerant.” (p. 158)
Problem: According to Scripture, Jesus was Deity in the flesh (John 1:1-5,14; 20:28). He was not sired by man; He was not conceived naturally by woman (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23). Rather, Jesus came from heaven (John 3:13; 6:38), proved His “mighty God” Messiahship (Isaiah 9:6) through a variety of verified miracles (John 20:30-31; cf. Lyons and Butt, 2006), accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38), and claimed a unity with God the Father that even His enemies understood was a profession of Deity (John 10:30,33). Some, however, question the Bible’s consistency of Jesus being God. The argument goes something like this (cf. Wells, 2010): The Bible declares that Satan tempted Jesus (Matthew 4:1), and that Jesus was “in all points tempted as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). Yet, the Bible also declares that “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13). Therefore, the Bible (allegedly) contradicts itself regarding the nature of Jesus. How could He be God, if God cannot be tempted?
I don’t believe in God. I believe in something, just not in God?.
Continue reading →
Program: The translators of the Authorized Version (KJV) rendered this phrase, “that He…should taste death for every man.” Other standard versions have done likewise: “for every one” (NASV); “for everyone” (NIV); “for every individual person” (Amplified); “for every man” (R.V.); “for every one” (RSV), etc. This is a case where those holding to a limited atonement are forced to re-translate. For example, in The Christian Counselor’s New Testament by Jay Adams, a reformed Christian, the passage is rendered: “that…He might taste death for all sorts of persons.” This is a case of amending the text in order to fit one’s theology. Likewise the New Geneva Study Bible says that “every man” (v.9) refers to the “many sons” of verse 10. This would mean that “every man” does not really mean “every man,” but it refers only to the elect. Why do Reformed scholars insist upon this? Because their theological system demands it.
New data from the Barna Group shows that church attendance surged in 2025, led primarily by Gen Z and Millennials. For the first time since Barna began tracking attendance, “Millennials and Gen Z Christians are attending church… much more often than are older generations,” Barna reported. “These are easily the highest rates of church attendance among young Christians since they first hit Barna’s tracking.”