http://ichthys.com/ 
Gospel Questions XVIII
Question #1:  
 In Acts 8 Peter says to Simon to repent and pray that may forgive the wickedness of Simons heart. Peter doesn't sound sure God will forgive Simon if he repents. Peter is saying perhaps God will forgive you if you repent.

How should I understand this uncertainty in Peter?

Thanks,
Response #1:
We could worry about parsing Peter's words here, but I don't think it matters. The important thing about the book of Acts is that it is not strictly doctrinal but historical (see the link). That is to say, it records what people did and said in fact – and only Jesus Christ ever did and said everything in a completely godly way. Just because Peter was an apostle doesn't mean that he was perfect, and there are instances of his imperfection in the gospels, in Acts, and even in the epistles where it's a question of history not doctrine (cf. Gal.2:11-14). 

Regardless of how we read Peter's words here, he is not speaking qua prophetes, "as a prophet"; rather, this is his very understandable reaction to what he has just heard. He doesn't know what is in Simon's heart. If Simon is not really a believer, then there will be no forgiveness until he believes. Only God knows for certain what is in anyone's heart. We can only listen to the words of others and observe their actions, and from what Simon Magus had said, Peter's reaction is very understandable. But for the reasons just expressed above, we are not to draw any broader doctrinal conclusions from it. Of course God forgives us believers when we confess our sins. Scripture is very clear about that (e.g., Ps.32:5; 1Jn.1:9). But was Simon saved at this point? Only God knows for sure.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
I can see what you are saying, but if we do that won't it be problematic to decide which things are doctrine and which are not inspired? Further doesn't this lead to the danger of extending to things like women priests, homosexuality because it can always be argued something is historic, or Paul didn't know about things like sexuality or woman were not allowed to be ordained as back then it was patriarchal etc?

Further how would we determine which things in Paul's letters are theology and which are not?

Wouldn't also raise a question mark over Biblical Infallibility?
Response #2:
As to "won't it be problematic to decide which things are doctrine and which are not inspired". Not at all. All a person has to do is exercise a little spiritual common sense. 

As to "doesn't this lead to the danger of extending to things [etc.]". Certainly not by me. If you are talking about others who might use this truth as an excuse to pervert, twist, misinterpret scripture for their own ends, well, they certainly don't need our help for that! Besides, we teach the truth regardless of the consequences. 

If we were to pull back from the truth because of "how it might be received", we would not be serving God but men (cf. Gal.1:10). It is fine to explain things in whatever detail is necessary to help those listening avoid such pitfalls, but it is never acceptable to fail to teach the truth or to cover it up (cf. Acts 20:27). That is like teaching that is like attributing human spirits to unborn babies fetus because one hates abortion, even though scripture teaches that God is the One who gives the spirit to us at birth after the pattern of Adam (Zech.12:1). We teach that the Bible eschews abortion; but we also teach that life begins at birth when God creates the human spirit. 

I have had the same objection on this teaching (and others too), and I have seen the negative consequences of straying from the truth in that particular case, hyper-involvement in politics which is death to any true spiritual growth, with some erstwhile believers actually converting to Roman Catholicism on account of such cultural and political positions! And in this case you've asked about too, teaching that everything in the book of Acts is doctrinal has been the font of many heresies such as the excesses of the charismatic movement: because the apostles were given to impart the Spirit by touch does not mean that we are; because the apostles occasionally were given the power to heal physical injuries and diseases by touch, does not mean that we are; etc., etc.

As to "how would we determine which things in Paul's letters are theology and which are not", his epistles and all of the other epistles were written in the Spirit – and Peter's too. They are inspired as part of the Word of God, and are directive towards the churches over which he had apostolic authority. They are prescriptive NOT descriptive (as Acts is). The difference is one of night and day. So even if many are confused about this, to me the issue is quite clear (and I have written about it in great detail; see the links below).

As to "Wouldn't also raise a question mark over Biblical Infallibility?", absolutely not! Acts is the Word of God. Through that book the Spirit has outlined for us what actually did happen in this critical period of the commencement of the Church Age. But just because "it did happen" (infallibility) doesn't mean that the Spirit is telling us that "we can and should do things the same way". Even in Acts, for example, at the start, the believers in Jerusalem "had all things in common" (Acts 2:44; 4:32). But that clearly did not continue elsewhere nor did it continue in Jerusalem, so that it was clearly a special situation meant for that special time. It is a description – absolutely accurate – of what actually did happen. It is not a prescription for how we should do things today. We have to take into account what book we are reading and the purpose for which it has been given to us. If we don't make that distinction, then we are all in very great trouble for not going to Jerusalem three times a year to sacrifice at the temple (which, by the way, no longer exists at present). Just as the Law has to be understood from the perspective of the New Covenant, so also Acts has to be understood from the perspective of the completed canon of scripture and the end of the apostolic period – the period of transition from Law to grace.

I really think if you would read the link also given before in BB 6B it would clarify things for you on this important point. Here are a couple of other shorter links that would be helpful to read:
The Transitional Era of the Book of Acts and its Unique Spiritual Gifts
Acts transition and dispensations
Samaritans in the transition
Apostolic learning curve

Historical and Transitional Nature of Acts

Peter's "Learning Curve" in the Time of Transition

More on the Transitions in Acts
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
A Calvinist argued that Peter means that Simon may not be forgiven, because he may not sincerely repent.

I saw one article which said the Greek for forgive, could be translated to mean that maybe God would take away the thought of his heart if he repents.
Response #3:
I'm no Calvinist, and certainly not a hyper-Calvinist (which is what most who claim the title nowadays are inasmuch as Calvin would not endorse most of what passes for his teachings these days), so I can't get into the head of someone using that flawed paradigm to interpret scripture. This ministry's policy is to go directly to the scripture and its teachings without filtering the truth through inadequate lenses first or, worse, using such lenses exclusively as the only way to see the Bible regardless of what the Bible actually says. 

I have no idea what the article you reference was trying to say. In Greek, the verb aphiemi here is the standard NT verb for forgiveness. It is also in the indicative mood. Peter does say "if", meaning he personally doesn't know if forgiveness will be forthcoming because, as explained before, none of us know what is truly in the heart of another person.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
Appreciate it, and thank you for the kind words and for linking it to your site. My next project is going to be the sermon on the mount (verse by verse, section by section) based on Matthew 5-7. Then I want to do Matthew 24 (the Olivet discourse) verse by verse while stringing it all together with passages that speak on the same subject from Revelation and the old testament. Then I want to write an in-depth study on the fruits of the Spirit and virtue thinking. Do you have anything written up on the sermon on the mount, or any recommendations? Not that I need any, but they could be helpful. Introductions can be difficult to write (starting is always the hardest part for me. Really excited to write up on Matthew 5-7 because so many topics are covered in those three chapters (oaths, marriage, adultery, the way of salvation, giving, fasting, prayer etc.). 
Response #4:
Sounds like a great idea!

On Matthew 5-7, I would suggest starting your treatment of this passage with an introduction which explains 1) the physical situation (i.e., where does this come in the ministry of our Lord and why); 2) the spiritual situation: some of the questions here have to be addressed with a dispensational tack. That is to say, this is the Messiah speaking to Israelites who are expecting the Kingdom and also being offered the Kingdom (just not the way they expected or desired; cf. Jn.6:60; 6:66). While all truth in the Bible and certainly the words of our Lord are applicable to us today, these things do make a difference to the interpretation. Just HOW they make a difference is important to understand and spell out. I.e., on the one hand it is not correct to say that the fact that these words are being addressed to a people which is still under the Law and in anticipation of their rule by the Messiah when the Kingdom comes has no bearing whatsoever on their interpretation. On the other hand, it is also not right to dismiss anything which may make us feel uncomfortable or which may seem unworkable just by saying "it's a different dispensation". These are the standard approaches and they are both incorrect. We have to "do it right", even if that is not so easy to do.

As far as treating this passage completely as a piece, I have not done that. But I have spilled a lot of ink on individual parts. You might have a look at the following links/files:
Matthew Verse by Verse I
Matthew Verse by Verse II
Matthew Addendum
Mark Verse by Verse
Mark Addendum
Luke Verse by Verse
Gospel Questions XV  (n.b ., see also other "Gospel Q" postings and check prior postings list at the link).
John Verse by Verse
And for individual topics that occur:  Ichthys Subject Index
And for specific verses:  List of Ichthys Translations
You probably already know this but I'm putting it in here for when I may post this in the future.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
You might think this sounds strange but I've never used the Ichthys translations list before and only recently found out about them (silly me). A pretty cool resource to have! That helps a lot. 

Would you say oaths and fasting would be two examples of what you are? Fasting and oaths are not things believers have to do today (nor do we have to present any gifts at an altar-Matthew 5:24). Am I understanding you correctly? It seems to me that just about everything else in the Sermon on the mount is still applicable to the church today in one form or another. What do you mean by the sentences I have quoted above? 

In Him, 
Response #5:
No worries. Ichthys is large and it takes time to get used to all the features.

Yes, these are two excellent examples. There may be principles that apply but the actual rituals themselves does not. This is along the lines of Sabbath observance which under the New Covenant is spiritual and not one day a week (a lot more to come on this subject when I post Hebrews chapter 7 in a month or so). 

Our Lord was holding the Old Covenant in one hand and the New in the other. He is the same "yesterday, today and forever" (Heb.13:8), and the truth has always been the truth, regardless of how it has been shown to us (whether through the Law or the Spirit). So the principle behind all of the teachings is the truth; how we are to apply them is what is at issue. For example, if someone breaks into my house with the intent of doing my family bodily harm, I'm certainly not going to "turn the other cheek". That is not what our Lord is asking of us, and as Bible teachers we are doing everyone a serious disservice if we don't make things like that clear.
And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”
Luke 22:35-36 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
I will pray.

If you have a short moment, could you tell me why you say that the part of Luke 24:51 where it says the Lord was taken up into heaven is not part of the original text. Usually when you say this kind of thing, the Bible does say in bottom that such and such manuscripts lack it (when I checked). But I didn't see anything for this one.

Please take care.
Response #6:
The best and oldest ancient Greek manuscript of the Bible is Sinaiticus, and this part of Luke 24:51 is absent there – for no particular reason other than it is not original. While we can't say that Aleph is always right 100% of the time, it's so good that whenever it's different, any textual critic should take notice. Codex Bezae (D) also lacks it. And while it is true that many more good witnesses have this part of the verse, it's easy to see how the interpolation came to be, namely, to harmonize it with the parallel passage of Acts 1:9-11 ("harmonize", that is, in the thinking of whatever scribe added it). It is also possible that it was added in half-remembrance of the ascension in Acts: a scribe may have added it in thinking it belonged here. 

On the other hand, there is no good reason to have left this part of Luke 24:51 out if it were original, and certainly not in two ancient mss. which are not derivative of one another at all (i.e., they are in different chains or "families" of the copying tradition). So it's a very unlikely probability that both mss. would have left out the exact same wording through some accident. I.e., there's no clear homoiteleuton (i.e., an omission or repetition on account of similar endings) or homoioarcheton (i.e., an omission or repetition on account of similar beginnings] situation here). The best evidence points, therefore, to "and carried up into heaven" not being original to scripture. And since we know from the book of Acts that the ascension did not, in fact, happen at this time but later (Acts 1:3), this also fits with the truth we know.
For more on all this please see the link:  Interpolations in the Bible

Best wishes for the week and the new hire – keeping your car situation in prayer.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Hey Doc.

How are things going with you?

I have a guy who can’t grasp the idea that the blasphemy of the spirit is disbelief, also that it’s implied that said disbelief is a matter staying in that state to remain unsaved. He’s convinced it’s one and done, which is crazy as most everyone would be lost and heaven near empty as many deny yet later accept Him. I know it’s a Greek issue, but I’m working so much lately I can’t dig in and was hoping you could help.

I would greatly appreciate it, and thank you ahead of time.
Response #7:
The more you get into ministry, the more you'll bump into types like this. As you probably know from reading the email exchanges on Ichthys, there are plenty of Christians out there who are fixated on one false idea or another and just cannot seem to get beyond it. There are many reasons for this, but it's important for someone ministering/pastoring like yourself to remember that it's all about the actual truth, not our presentation of it. Of course, we try to do a better and better job of the latter with each go, but it is not uncommon to hit a brick wall of resistance to the truth, however presented. As I say, there are lots of reasons why believers fall into this pattern, none of them good. We do our best to be patient with these types, but we can't let ourselves get too wrapped up in lack of positive response. Remember our Lord's words to Samuel: ". . . for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me" (1Sam.8:7). Just as in giving the gospel, where the Spirit is the actual Evangelist and we just provide the information, the critical factor is the responsiveness or lack thereof on the part of the listener. And it's the same in teaching the truth.

As to the specifics, here is what I read in scripture:
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
Mark 3:28-30 ESV
From this passage we see that the REASON why our Lord made this remark was because of Pharisees and scribes who were claiming that the devil was behind Jesus' miracles – whereas in fact it was the Holy Spirit. Now the miracles were done as a witness to the truth of our Lord's gospel appeal, for as He says elsewhere . . .
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”
John 10:34-38 NKJV
The works/miracles were done to provide a basis for belief for those who were otherwise reluctant to believe (a great additional boon that most in the history of the Church have not experienced; cf. Jn.20:29). Calling "an unclean spirit" the One who was empowering the works designed to lead to salvation, namely, the Holy Spirit, was not only resisting His salvation appeal but calling Him a liar by saying that the devil did the miracles. That is blaspheming the Spirit, namely, rejecting Him and His testimony. As long as a person is in that mindset, of course they cannot be saved since salvation comes from believing the truth of the gospel which the Spirit provides and makes understandable in the heart of the listener, directing that truth directly to their human spirit in a miraculous way (link).

It is true that our Lord puts this in very stark terms, read in Greek or in English, in all three of the synoptic passages where it occurs (Matt.12:31-32; Mk.3:28-32; Lk.12:10). We have said that "blasphemy against the Spirit" and "the unpardonable sin" are the rejection of Jesus Christ. If we were to recast the three passages with this as the interpretation, it would be beyond clear: Matthew: "Rejection of Christ will not be forgiven, not in this age or in the one to come"; Mark: "Whoever rejects Christ has no forgiveness but is guilty of an unpardonable sin"; and Luke "The one who rejects Christ will not be forgiven". This makes perfect sense and is indeed what the passages mean. The question then becomes, if someone rejects Christ – ever – can they ever change their mind and be saved? What we do know is that if someone accepts Christ but later rejects Him, they are not saved, because only believers are saved (Jn.3:18).
Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we persevere, we will also reign with Him. If we disown Him, He will also disown us; If we are faithless, He will remain faithful, for He cannot disown Himself.
2nd Timothy 2:11-13
So there is no unconditional eternal security since salvation is indeed conditioned upon maintaining faith in Christ. But although unbelievers are not saved all believers ARE saved, so how could it be that someone who DOES come to believe in Christ would not be saved, regardless of any earlier behavior of any kind?
"Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation."
Ezekiel 33:12a NIV
It's not where we start the race – it's where we end up. That is whole tenor and tone of scripture from Genesis to Revelation, encouraging the wicked to repent and the righteous to persevere, because if the wicked repents, he is saved, and if righteous fails to persevere in faith he is lost. But as to God's mercy, we know that He wants all to be saved (Ezek.18:23; Matt.18:14; Jn.3:16; 12:47; 1Tim.2:4; 2Tim.2:24-26; 2Pet.3:9), that He judged His Son for the sins of all mankind so that they might be saved (Jn.1:29; 12:47; Rom.3:23-26; 2Cor.5:14-15; 5:19; 1Tim.2:4-6a; Heb.2:9; 7:27; 1Jn.2:2; 3:5), so that it makes no logical or theological sense to posit a God who is not willing to forgive someone who wants to be forgiven, to save someone who wants to be saved – especially since scripture tells us so clearly that this is what God wants too, and most especially since He has already paid for that person's salvation at an unimaginably high price: the death of His own dear Son. In fact we know from throughout scripture that our God is amazingly merciful and forgiving beyond any expectation we might justly have – toward any and all who are merely willing to receive that mercy and forgiveness (2Pet.3:15).
The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.
Psalm 103:8-13 NIV
Against all of this irrefutable evidence all we have is the (false) impression that some take from the gospel passage you ask about – and it is only an impression. Clearly, blaspheming the Spirit is serious business and anyone who goes down that road and doesn't come back is lost. But neither in the English nor in the Greek do I find any irrefutable support for an idea that there can be no recovery from this incredibly arrogant rejection of God's truth. Rejection of Christ will never be forgiven. So the answer to that is reversing rejection by turning it into acceptance through repentance and belief in the truth. 

All unbelievers are guilty of this same unpardonable sin, whether they reject natural revelation, the gospel message itself, or, in our case, the actual miracles of Christ seen with their own eyes. Rejection of truth in all cases is the rejection of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit in all cases is the One who makes the truth understandable to unbelievers. Rejecting the truth is rejecting the Spirit; rejecting the Spirit's message is rejecting Jesus Christ who is the truth. It is all one and the same thing. There is no "special sin" that "once committed forestalls any hope of repentance". But it is true that unbelievers forestall themselves by clinging to their unbelief and hardening their hearts against the truth more and more day by day. There is no "percentage" in rejecting the Spirit's witness or guidance, ever. But we have all done that, many times. Believers rebound from our sins through confession; unbelievers likewise have the opportunity to have a change of heart – as long as they live. After that, rejection of Christ "will not be forgiven in the age to come".

I do hope this is of some help. It would be interesting to know just why your correspondent is so het up about this – but in the end it's a rejection of the truth, just as we've been discussing (which is pretty ironic).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Also, I never understood Matthew 21:44?
Response #8:
Re:
"Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed."
Matthew 21:44 NIV
Compare:
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone (Ps.118:22)", and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall (Is.8:14)." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
1st Peter 2:7-8 NIV
Falling over the Rock is taking offense at the gospel so as to be lost (rejecting Christ in this life actively); having the Rock fall on you is allowing your life to run out without turning to the Lord (rejecting Christ passively by never being willing to come to the truth). But for all who accept Jesus Christ, there is eternal life.
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen!
2nd Peter 3:18 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Matthew 5:25-26 

If the previous verses were referring to fellow Jews or the same religious community, who are verse 25-26 referring to? What courts in Jesus time had the power to force people to pay the last farthing? Roman, religious courts, Herod? Who is the adversaries Jesus alludes to?

Sincerely
Response #9:
Comparing this passage to the companion passage in Luke, we get a better sense for why our Lord said this:
Then He also said to the multitudes, “Whenever you see a cloud rising out of the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming’; and so it is. “And when you see the south wind blow, you say, ‘There will be hot weather’; and there is. Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time? Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you shall not depart from there till you have paid the very last mite.”
Luke 12:54-59 NKJV
This passage you ask about, Matthew 5:25-26, thus also has to do with not "judging the time aright". And what judgment was that at that time? It was to "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" (Matt.3:2; 4:17). 

We only have so much time. If we see death and judgment approaching, we ought to respond and accept our Savior while we still can. Just as a man who is guilty of some offense and being dragged into court would be wise to resolve the issue when there is still time to do so, so also those listening to our Lord who were refusing to be reconciled with the Father should have made haste to repent while there was time to do so – and so should every unbeliever at every time.

Point of application for us. The end times are swiftly approaching. Simple prudence would seem to indicate that getting spiritually prepared now as best we can would be the wise thing to do, making use of the time we have been graciously given.
. . . redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Ephesians 5:16 NKJV

Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time.
Colossians 4:5 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
John 6:70
King James Version
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Jesus mentions a devil

How would you explain the difference between a devil versus the devil?

Thanks 
Response #10:
"A devil" is one who is "of the devil", a servant of Satan (i.e., a fallen angel), rather than the evil one himself (see the link). Of course, in Judas' case, he was actually possessed by Satan himself before the betrayal of our Lord (Lk.22:3; Jn.13:27).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11: 
I have another question, is the command not to eat blood in Acts meant for everyone, or was it just an order to the Gentile believers at the time to make a good case to the unbelievers of the time? I've been confused on this for a long time.
Response #11:
The point of this prohibition along with the others in Acts 15 was to avoid offending the Jewish converts. Gentile practice at this time was occasionally to not drain the blood from animals. That doesn't happen now in this country for anything you would buy in the store, so no worries.

Here is a related link:  "Prohibitions against eating blood"
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

Just wanted to send you a brief article that I compiled this morning after reading some in the Book of Galatians. My wife and I attended Pentecostal church's for a number of years, but since we left some 10 years or so ago, I have learned much from your website. I am always grateful to the LORD for leading me to your Website; still today it is a mystery to me how He did that; it had to be the Holy Spirit.

I would appreciate your critique on this one that I just wrote today. I always look forward to reading the responses to questions I have and your comments; they give considerable benefit to both of us, that is my wife and I. Thanks so much for all that you do.

Ephesians 3:20-21.
To God be the glory, great things He has done.

I am going to share this with the couple in the Bible Study, which is going great. A dissertation on Galatians chapter 1 verses 6 and 7. 

Galatians 1:6-7.
6“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for different gospel. 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort[add to, or take away from] the gospel of Christ”.

The Gospel of Christ is briefly defined as follows:

1. The “good news” that God became a man in Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus Christ lived the perfect sinless life we should have lived.

3. He was crucified, and died the death we should have died.

4. He was raised from the dead after three days, proving that He is the Son of God.

God offers the “Gift” of salvation to all who will repent of their sins and believe in Him; There is no other Gospel “good news”.

Anyone who preaches a different gospel, which as Paul says in Verse 7 of Galatians chapter 1, and there are some Charismatic’s [who are so-called preachers], disturbing you and want to distort, or claim another benefit of the Gospel of Christ, such as God wants all believers to be [worldly]rich.

According to God’s Word preached by the apostle Paul, if anyone does preach a false gospel as stated above, they will suffer the consequences as indicated in:

Galatians 1:8.
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

See Luke 12:15.
“And he said unto them, Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Christianity is defined as a “religion”. The definition for “religion” is a particular system of beliefs. A true Christian follows the Word of God as their guidance, and lives their life by it.

See James 1:27.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit the widows and orphans in their distress, and to keep one-self unstained from the world.

Typically, Pentecostal, and Charismatic believers concentrate on the spiritual gifts; little or no attention is given to the “fruit” of the Spirit.
Response #12:
Very nice, my friend!

Of course, many Pentecostal groups have more problems than what's mentioned here by you (link).

The only observation I have is that it might be possible for someone reading this to think that Christ's physical death is the death you mention (whereas, of course, salvation was accomplished by His spiritual death prior to His exhaling of His human spirit: link).

Thanks as always for your encouraging words, my friend! I keep you and your wife and family in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Hello--I hope you have a blessed Thanksgiving. I have a quick question about the following, posted by a Catholic on the CARM board:

"Matthew 6:11, "Give us this day our daily bread." 

Luke 11:3, "Give us each day our daily bread."

ἐπιούσιος, epiousios - this Greek word only appears only twice in scripture and both are found in the Lord's Prayer; it is not found in any other ancient Greek literature. Scholars are not certain what the word means or why it is found only in the Lord's Prayer. It appears to be a word that was made up to describe the bread we are to be praying for. Scholars have broken the word down into two parts: epi - above and ousios - substance.

It appears that Jesus is asking us to pray for Eucharistic bread. What other kind of bread would epiousios be referring to?"

I was wondering if this is accurate. Thanks. No hurry. And thanks plus, I wish you a blessed Thanksgiving! 
Response #13:
The way correspondent describes the word gives the impression that a Greek speaker of the day would have been dumbfounded about its meaning. In fact, it's meaning is clear. At Acts 7:26; 16:11; 20:15; 21:18; 23:11 we have an almost identical form of this adjective which is derived from the same verb meaning "to come on" in a temporal sense. In the Lord's prayer, anticipated as a prayer prayed at the start of each day, the "bread for the coming day" is the bread/support we need to get through the day ahead. We are not supposed to worry about tomorrow (Matt.6:34), but it is legitimate to pray at the start of it for what we need to get through "the coming day".

Here is something I've posted about this:
I translate the verse in which the word occurs in Matthew as follows (Lk.11:3 has identical wording for "daily bread")
Give us today the bread [we need] for the coming day.
Matthew 6:11
The adjective is derived from the participle of the verb come/go plus the preposition epi which commonly "points"; so "coming here" is the meaning, namely, in the near future in a temporal context (and we know it is a temporal context from the verse: "this day"). So "daily bread" is not a bad translation. Our Lord provides for us each day for what we will face that day, and if we follow scriptural advice we will not be concerned about yesterday nor will we worry about tomorrow, for we can be sure that He will take care of us "today", "as long as it is called 'today'" (Heb.3:13).
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Hi--Thanks for this. However, the Catholic was talking about the word translated as "bread." So, are you saying that the word here for bread also incorporates the idea of "daily" or "for the coming day"? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. 

Thanks again!
Response #14:
The Greek quoted by correspondent is, in Greek order, "the bread of us the daily", and it is last word, epiousios, which correspondent is speculating about (incorrectly). The word "bread" here is the standard Greek word for bread since Classical times (artos) and occurs countless times throughout Greek literature. The word epiousios, whose meaning we are debating, indeed only occurs here in the NT and then occasionally in the patristics. As mentioned, the word from which it is clearly derived, however, is very common so that, along with the context, there is little doubt about what is meant: bread that is "coming our way this new and coming day".

To give you a parallel, we had a meeting with our new dean yesterday and she was discussing long range planning for the college and the process of planning to which she described. She talked about an alternative top-down model which, she said, was "not particularly PLANFUL". I'd never heard that word before, but as a native English speaker I no doubt about what she meant. Even if our Lord was using that word for the first time (doubtful – they probably all had heard it before), they would have known exactly what it meant. "Daily" means "every day" . . . even if someone has not hear the word "daily" before.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

Well, no typos this time, but I do have a quick question. In the referenced verses noted above, I would like to know the meaning of the word "ask" in the Greek.

Some so-called preacher who has since passed away, claims that this word in Greek for ask in John 14:13-14 means to "demand". My opinion, we are not in a position and never will be, to "demand" anything from God. So he was incorrect in his deduction.

Your opinion would be appreciated.

Thanks so much as always,

Blessings to you.

Your friend,
P.S. Be careful of those typo;s LOL
Response #15:
"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it."
John 14:13-14
The Greek verb there, aiteo, is the standard one for making requests (as opposed to seeking information), that is "ask FOR" as opposed to "ask [a question]". In some circumstances we could be justified in translating it "demand" if the person doing the asking has authority over the person of whom the request is being made. I.e., if my battalion commander asked me for something that would be quite different from if a lance corporal in my platoon asked me for something. But that "request from an authority" is certainly NOT the case in John 14:13-14 where our Lord is the ultimate authority and we are the ones doing the asking. In fact, I don't think the verb is used anywhere in scripture where it is necessary to translate it that way, namely, "demand".

It's very typical of people who don't actually know Greek and Hebrew to rummage through lexicons and find something they like and then proclaim that "this is that". That's not the right way to treat the scriptures, but it is all too common in our day.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s., I commit many typos despite my best efforts, so stay alert!
Question #16:
Thanks Dr. Luginbill,

I just had to LOL about your comments on typo's. 

I will keep looking.

Blessings to you alway,

Your friend,
Response #16:
You know what it says in scripture, my friend: "He who seeks shall find".
Question #17:
Dear Bob,

I am toward the end of Luke in my readings, and I have just started on Luke 18. I got to the part where Jesus is speaking of the rich, and I was wondering if you could help me understand this part? He speaks of it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. He also said that the things which are impossible with men, are possible with God.

I know most people take the first part in isolation, but I am trying to keep the context surrounding it in mind. I would say that He is speaking of earthly riches versus our heavenly ones, but He did say 'enter' into the kingdom of God, so I am not sure about this?

Also, are these instructions on what we are to do with our money? In other parts, earlier on, I recall that we are to give gladly and not expect anything back, and I understand that much. I just want to make sure I know how to handle money in a way God would find approving.
Response #17:
"Impossible" means impossible . . . seen from man's point of view. 
Why should I fear when evil days come, when wicked deceivers surround me—those who trust in their wealth and boast of their great riches? No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—so that they should live on forever and not see decay.
Psalm 49:5-9 NIV
The ONLY thing people should be thinking about in this short life (before they are saved, that is), is "how do I avoid the grave?" Because if a person cannot prevent the onset of death, then what is the point of great wealth? "No ransom is enough": no one can buy their way out of death. But rich people tend to act, as this person our Lord was commenting on apparently did, as if that wealth were someone a lock on eternal life:
Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
Luke 12:15 NIV
If you ask a rich person they would give the right answer about death being inevitable – but they actually live as if they will live forever because of their wealth. Thus, being wealthy, makes it even harder for a rich person to put their trust in God since they have conditioned themselves to trust instead in their riches.
Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendor of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendor will not descend with them. Though while they live they count themselves blessed— and people praise you when you prosper—they will join those who have gone before them, who will never again see the light of life. People who have wealth but lack understanding are like the beasts that perish.
Psalm 49:16-20 NIV
Animals don't have a consciousness of death (Eccl.3:18-19; cf. Eccl.9:4-5); and the wealthy have hardened their hearts against it so as to remove from their thinking any consideration of the one thing that is designed to turn us to God – our inevitable mortality. In that regard, they have become no better off than the animals . . . and in fact much worse because animals, not having free will, are not subject to the last judgment.

Nothing is impossible for God. God provided the ransom from death for us in the blood of Jesus Christ. And God has so planned everything that any and all who in their heart of hearts would be under some circumstance or other wiling to put their faith in Jesus Christ do get that chance.
(24) The God who made the world and everything in it, He is Lord of heaven and earth. He does not dwell in man-made temples, (25) nor is he waited on by human hands, as if He needed anything from us. He is the One who gives us all life and breath and everything else. (26) From one man he created all the nations of mankind – that they should come to inhabit the whole face of the earth. He fixed and determined the specific times and extent of their habitations, (27) to the end that they should seek out this God, that they might go in search of Him and so might find Him – for He is not far off from any one of us.
Acts 17:24-27
As to money in the Bible, here are some links on that for you to peruse:
Greed (in SR 4)
Uses of money
Cast thy bread upon the waters
Jobs, Money, Finances and Giving: What does the Bible say?
Financial crisis
Alcohol, Money and Dietary Issues
Job and Business (and use of money) in BB 6A
Also, from BB 6B commenting on 1st Timothy 3:2-7 on the qualifications of a pastor-teacher:
~ not greedy for money: Money is a necessity in the modern even more so than in the ancient world. The legitimate desire to pay one's own way and support one's family in an acceptable manner is not "loving money". But putting Mammon before everything else, however, is a surefire method to destroy one's spirituality and ministry (Matt.6:24; 1Tim.6:10; cf. Lk.16:14; Heb.13:5). Therefore a congregation calling a pastor-teacher or making arrangements to support one (so that he can devote more time to studying the Word and teaching them), needs to do what is right in regard to the issue of finances, but should be wary of putting too much confidence in a man who is preoccupied with this issue.
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Thank you for your answer, and for providing the links so I can further explore this matter. I think I understand that it again comes down to what is in one's own heart, and where they put their heart towards. I also look forward to coming to you for answers in the future, whenever something else needs some clarification. Thank you again, and I am grateful to God for the work you have done.
Response #18:
My pleasure!

Write me any time.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
In Matthew 7:7-8, how should we ask and how should we not ask? This asking can't mean pestering God until we get what we want? What is this verse referring to? 
Response #19:
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."
Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV
On Matthew 7:7-8, it seems pretty straightforward to me: if we ask, we receive. As to "pestering", I read this in scripture:
Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ' Give me legal protection from my opponent.' For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, 'Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.'" And the Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Luke 18:1-8 NASB
"Persistent prayer" is thus not only allowed by recommended by our Lord. As long as we are asking in faith for something legitimate, we ought to persevere. See the link.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:
What type of people are being referred to in Matthew 7:21-23? Is our Lord addressing a specific group here or just all people who believe they are saved but really aren't in general? 
Response #20:
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ "
Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV
As to the people in Matthew 7:21-23 who say, "Lord, Lord!", they are shut out of the kingdom, so they have to be unbelievers – because all believers are saved (e.g., Jn.3:18). Indeed, our Lord tells them, "I NEVER knew you" – which again, must mean that they are unbelievers, have never believed and so having never had that relationship with our Lord. 

So the actions these individuals claim to have done were not legitimate and the answer to "didn't we?" is a resounding, "No – you did not (in truth)". 

This is a very good passage to keep in mind today with so many claiming to be Christians and claiming to do all manner of miracles or relying on their "good deeds" as a means of salvation (whole denominations are based on this lie) – when in fact our Lord "never knew them". 
“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”
Luke 6:46-49 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/