An atheist proposed a challenge he believed would prove both that god exists and also which god is the true god.  Here is his idea:

Take the sacred writings of every religion.  Close the books or roll up the scrolls.  Place all of them in a bank vault overnight.  Lock the door.  Let the followers of each religion pray or practice their religion outside the vault, doing whatever their religion teaches is to be done in order to receive an answer from god.

In the morning, open the vault.  If one of the sacred writings is open or unrolled, then its religion is the true one, its god is the true god.

Sounds like a good, valid test.

But he forgot something. 

He never figured out how to go to each of the gods to get from them commitments to participate in this experiment.  Perhaps an unopened book would result from a god's unwillingness to be tested in this way. 

The atheist thought that every god wanted people to follow him.  So an experiment like this would work because many people would begin to follow the god who opened his sacred writings. 

If gods want people to follow them, isn't it likely they already have inaugurated their chosen ways to convince people to follow them?  They probably don't need this experiment at all.

 "What came first. The Church or the Holy Bible?"

You are asking the wrong question. The right question is, "What came first. The Church or the word of God?"

The first occurrence of the word of God coming was recorded in Genesis 1:, "God said, 'Let there be'..." That word of God was subsequently written down. There was the Scripture.

Six days after God first said, "Let there be," He created Adam and Eve in His own image and likeness. His work of creation was later recorded in writing. There was Scripture.

When God created Adam and Eve, He called them to be His people, assembled before Him to tend the Garden, to be fruitful and multiply. Thus, He created the Church. That was recorded in Scripture. There was Scripture. There was Church.

Therefore, the word of God is six days older than the Church.

Having determined that the word of God came first, we can now ask, "What came first. The Church or the Bible?"

The Church began with the creation and calling of Adam and Eve.

Scholars disagree as to whether Genesis or Job was the first word of God to be made Scripture by writing it down. In either case, it is self-evident that the Church came first. Scripture first came, perhaps, a few centuries later.

But the content of Scripture, the word of God, is six days older than the Church. That word created the Church While Scripture is a running account of the history of God as He worked in the world to accomplish His will, it is also a running account of the history of the Church. God would take a step along the path He determined for His history. He would also take a step along the path He determined for His Church's history. He wrote a running record of each step He took in history and church. Sometimes He took the steps first, then had prophets, kings, and priests write them down. Sometimes He had those same men write first to show what was going to happen in the future. So there were times when the Church was first. And there were times when Scripture was first.

In either case, God and His word were always older than Scripture and the Church.

What is wrong here is for the Church to say it compiled Scripture. God compiled Scripture by acting in History and inspiring those who wrote the record of Who God is and what He is doing. The Church merely received what God revealed. God is the Chef, deciding what ingredients and how much to put in the soup. The Church is nothing more than the one who listened to the Chef explain what was to be included on the list of the soup's ingredients.

Without the Chef, there would be no soup. Without the Church, God would raise up other people whom He would inspire and lead, later, to make a list of ingredients.

Canonization

Some people teach that their church is the one that compiled the Bible.  They say that the rest of Christianity would not have Bibles if it were not for what this church did in canonizing Scripture.

In response to that claim, let me ask you to look at a can of soup.

On its label, you will find a list of the ingredients that went into the soup.  Someone made that list and had it printed on the label.

But are the people who made the list the ones responsible for putting the ingredients into the soup?

Or was there a cook who put all the ingredients into the soup and then told the label-maker what to list as the ingredients?

Now, look at your Bible.

You will find a table of contents that lists all the individual books included in it.

Someone put that list together.

But did the table-maker write any of the books in the Bible?  

Or did God inspire, "breathe out," His word into prophets and apostles, causing them to write down God's own word, His word being the content of the Bible?

Did God tell the table-maker what to list in the table of contents?

Should we not consider God to be the One Who compiled the Bible by inspiring only certain books and giving them to those who would write out the table of contents?

Who really gets the glory and honor for giving us the Bible?

Catholic Test

I am on some discussion forums with Catholics that debate Catholic and Protestant doctrine.  One of the Catholics on a forum sent me this test to see if the Reformed Baptist Church I attend is a Biblical church that follows Scripture.  Here is the test and my answers.

1. Does the church have ministers who can forgive sins in the name of Jesus (John 20:21-23)?"

According to both John 20: 21-23 and Matthew 18: 18, Christ gave the authority to forgive or retain sins to His disciples, not just to the apostles. Those within the Reformed Baptist Churches who are born-again believers with God-given faith, have this authority.

2. Does the church have a healing rite for the dying that forgives the sins of the person who is dying (James 5:14-15)?

Reformed Baptists preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, praying that God will call His people to faith and save them eternally. If someone is dying and is a believer, his sins are already forgiven and no specific rite is needed here. If someone is dying and is not a believer, we use the opportunity to minister to him in this situation to call him to faith in Christ.

3. Does the church meet daily for the breaking of the bread ( Matthew 6:11, Acts 2:42-46)?

The Matthew 6: 11 passage is the petition, "Give us this day our daily bread. Acts 2: 46 mentions day by day breaking bread. These passages are about bread as part of a normal diet. They are not about the Lord's Supper. We have frequent times when church members gather to share a meal, but I cannot say these gatherings occur every day.

4. Does the church teach that you must physically eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood to have life in you (John 6:53)?

No, because the interpretation that the Lord's Supper is a physical eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood forces a contradiction into Scripture and must, therefore be false. The contradiction is that in John 6: 53, Jesus says that it is necessary for someone to eat and drink His body and blood in order to have life. But in John 6: 47, Jesus also says that whoever believes has eternal life. If the eating and drinking are required to be physical, then someone who believes and has eternal life through faith does not have life because he has not met the requirement for physically eating and drinking. On the other hand, if Catholic theology is true on this point, then someone who does eat and drink physically has life even though he does not believe. So faith becomes optional for salvation while physical eating and drinking are absolutely required.

5. Does the church history date back to the time of the Apostles (Acts 1:20-26)?

Yes. Believers in the Acts of the Apostles are never identified as Reformed Baptists. However, the teachings of Christ and His apostles which were believed by the disciples in Acts are the same as are believed in Reformed Baptist churches today. In this way, Reformed Baptists trace their doctrines all the way back to Christ and His apostles.

6. Does the church teach that individuals can suffer for the sake of the church, because Christ’s sufferings were lacking (Colossians 1:24)?

This is a gross misinterpretation of Colossians 1: 24 which reads, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church," Paul wrote that he is filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. He is silent about other believers also being required to fill up what is lacking. And we have to ask, "What was lacking in the afflictions of Christ that Paul was filling up? Was the atonement incomplete? Was propitiation less than perfect? Or was it simply that the spreading of the message of the Gospel was not complete at the time of Christ?

7. Does the church teach that salvation isn't a sure thing (Matthew 10:22, 2 Peter 2:20)?

These passages are interpreted to imply a believer can lose his faith and his salvation.  However, Scripture teaches in John 3: 16, several places in John 6 and 10 and Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 and 2 that believers cannot lose their salvation.  Salvation is a sure thing to all those who believe.

8. Does the church teach that prayers in heaven go through heavenly intercessors before reaching God (Revelation 5:8, Revelation 8:3)?

No.  Reformed Baptists teach that in the model prayer in Matthew 6, Jesus told us to address our prayers to "Our Father."  Jesus also invited us to pray in His name.  Thus, there is no reason to believe our prayers go through anyone else before reaching God.

9. Does the church teach that saints in heaven are alive and can appear to humans? (Mark 9:4-5, Matthew 27:52-53)

Saints in heaven are alive.  If God saw there was some reason for one or more of them to appear to humans who were still living on earth, it would happen, as in the case of Moses and Elijah.

10. Does the church teach that one must physically suffer to keep from losing one’s salvation (1 Corinthians 9:27, 1 Peter 2:19-21)?

No, nor do these passages teach such a thing.  Acts 14: 22 teaches that believers must go through much tribulation before entering the kingdom of God, but tribulation here is not necessarily physical suffering.

11. Does the Church preach Christian unity, or division (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)?

Yes, but this unity is found in Christ, not in the Church.  In fact, the Church results from the unity that is in Christ.

12. Are the church's decisions ratified in heaven as well as on earth (Matthew 18:18)?

Matthew 18: 18 does not teach that any of the church's decisions are ratified either in heaven or on earth.  It merely states that disciples have the authority to bind and loosen.  This is an authority Christ has given to all who believe in Him, not just to the apostles.

13. Is the Mother of Jesus considered to be the most blessed Woman, and do they call her blessed (Luke 1:42-48)?

Mary is not identified in Luke 1: 42-48 or anywhere else in Scripture to be the most blessed woman.  She is blessed, of course, but there is a lot of misunderstanding here.  Mary can be considered the mother of God.  That is, she is the mother of Yahweh, the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal God.  Mary contributed nothing to the deity of Christ because from eternity all the fullness of God dwelt in Him.

14. Does the church teach that the church itself (rather than the Bible) is the pillar and bulwark of truth? (1 Timothy 3:15).

Yes, provided a Biblical definition of "church" is used here.  The "church" is the called out people of God comprised of all who believe in Jesus.  It is not a hierarchy or those in apostolic succession.

15. Does the church teach that the whore of Babylon is a "great city" where Jesus Christ was crucified? (Revelation 11:8 and Revelation 17:18).

No.  Revelation does not specifically mention the whore of Babylon although it does refer to an immoral woman who is identified as Babylon.

16. Does the Church teach that celibacy is a good thing? (Matthew 9:12, Luke 18:29-30, 1 Corinthians 7: 25-27, 1 Corinthians 7:32-38, Revelation 14:3-5).

In Matthew 19: 12, Jesus mentions that some men have made themselves eunuchs so the sake of the kingdom of God.  However, He does not indicate that being celibate is a higher or better spiritual state than being married is.  Paul also did not commend celibacy as being greater than marriage.

17. Does the Church teach that life begins at conception? (Deuteronomy 30:19, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13, Luke 1:43-44,Luke 23: 2).

Yes.

18. Does the Church teach that contraception is intrinsically evil? (Genesis 1:28, Psalm 127:3-5, Genesis 38:8-10).

It depends on the kind of contraception.  Some methods prevent the fertilization of an egg.  Those are acceptable.  Some prevent fertilized eggs from growing and cause them to die.  These are sinful.

19. Does the Church teach that divorce and remarriage is adulterous? (Matthew 5:3, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18)

No.  If a husband or wife is divorced because he or she is a believer and his or her spouse is not and refuses to stay married, this divorce is not adulterous on the part of the believing spouse.  Nor is that believing spouse forbidden to marry again.

20. Does the Church teach that good works are a very necessary component of our faith? (Matthew 25:31-46, James 2:26, Colossians 1:10, Matthew 7:21, Revelation 20:12-13, Romans 2:6.

No.  Paul in Romans separates faith and works but teaches that faith always produces good works.  Faith alone saves. Good works are evidence that a person does believe.

21. Does the Church teach that Jesus Christ established his earthly Kingdom on earth before He was crucified? (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 16:19).

No, Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world.  He did not establish an earthly kingdom.

22. Does the Church teach sexual sins are transgressions that will keep one from gaining entry into heaven, or do they now say that they are no longer sinful? (Romans 1:24-32, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Ephesians 5:19-21, Colossians 3:5).

Sexual sins are transgressions of God's law.  But they are not unforgivable.  According to I Corinthians 6, some of the members of that church used to be adulterers and homosexuals.  But they have been washed and sanctified.

The Obedience of Faith

The words, "obedience of faith" are found twice in the New Testament:

Romans 1: 5, "through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,"

Romans 16: 26, "but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith."

But what is the obedience of faith?

When we speak of obedience, we often mean a command or an order. Someone in authority commands you to do something.  When you do it, that is obedience.  Or someone in authority orders you not to do something.  When you do not do it, that is obedience.

Obedience is bound to the command you receive.  If an authority figure commands you by ordering you to stand up, you obey by standing up.  If instead of standing up you lie down or run away, that is disobedience, not obedience.

Faith is a noun, not a verb.  People do not "faith" something.  The verb form of faith is either "believe" or "have faith."  People do believe.  They do have faith.  Just as obeying the command to run means running, so obeying the command of faith is believing, having faith.

Paul was only writing about people believing.  The obedience of faith is having faith.  

More needs to be said here.

Obedience and faith are linked together in some way.  Was the Apostle Paul writing about obedience that causes faith or obedience that is caused by faith?

A cause must be true before its result can be true.  Water (rain, melting snow, leaky water mains, etc.) must first be on the street before the street is wet.  In the same way, "And without faith, it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him," (Hebrews 11: 6).  Faith must be true before God is pleased.

Obedience apart from faith cannot please God because it is impossible to please God without faith.

Paul was not writing about obedience that leads to faith.  Such a thing is impossible.  He was writing about faith that causes obedience.  That is the obedience of faith.