Questions & Answers

ANSWERS

"Love your neighbour as yourself". This is extremely difficult. I have been struggling with this commandment for quite some time. It’s easy to love those who love us. But extremely difficult to love those who hate us or who have done us wrong. Can I still be saved if I don’t love everybody? Is it easy or difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

All Christians are in the process of learning how to love God with all their hearts and to love their neighbour as themselves. It may be difficult now for you to love those who have done wrong unto you. But if you want to please the Lord and obey Him, ask Him to help you to forgive them, and even to love them. Jesus set the perfect example for us. When He was on the cross he prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

As a Christian, you must understand that you can only love those who are against you through Christ enabling you to do it. On your own, you will not be able to do it. But keep looking to Him for help and you will soon find the willingness and changed attitude in your heart toward them. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (Philippians 4:13)

Your salvation remains the same and does not change whether or not you love everybody. However as long as you do not do what God wants you to do, you may not feel at peace with yourself and with God. The Holy Spirit of God within you will keep on reminding you about this. You may even lose the assurance of salvation and feel, "Maybe I am not saved" as long as you do nothing about it. In 2 Peter 1:5-10, God’s Word tells us-- "And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

[Back to top]
I am a believer currently without a church. I am discouraged and disillusioned by the things that are happening in churches today. I now have a phobia committing in a church after experiencing the turbulence in past years. I also know that it is important to settle down in a local church to grow in and serve the Lord. It is my desire to settle down in a church, but till now, after much searching, I still could not find a church to settle in. What should I do?
What you need to do is to take a step of faith and trust God that the church He has led you to attend is the one that He wants you to settle in. If you are still unsure if this is the church He wants you to settle in, then ask Him in prayer. As you earnestly seek to do His will to serve Him in a local church, He will show you what His will for you is. Be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in this matter.

Objectively, you can find out if the church is teaching the right doctrine, if it is based fully on the Scriptures, if its leaders and members are trying their best to practise what the Bible teaches, if souls are being saved, and lives are being changed.

The doctrine of divine providence teaches us that nothing ever happens by chance (Romans 8:28). He has a purpose for everything that has happened to you, including the turbulence that you have experienced in the church split. One possible purpose is to teach you to put your confidence in God and not in man (see Psalm 118:8). Please do not attend a church just because you like its pastor or elder. You will probably be disappointed. They are at best fallible undershepherds, accountable to Christ, who is the infallible Great Shepherd of the sheep (Hebrews 13:20). Let your loyalty be only to Christ!

There is no perfect church on earth. Even in New Testament times, the apostles had to deal with problems that come from doctrinal and personality issues (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 1:11,12; 3:3; 11:18; Galatians 5:14,15; Philippians 1:15; 2:3; 4:1,2; 1 Timothy 6:3,4; James 4:1). Sometimes, even the apostles themselves were involved in such contentions (Acts 15:37-39; Galatians 2:11-14).

There has been an increase in disagreements and splits affecting many Bible-believing churches in recent years. I believe that it is because Satan is hard at work knowing that he has little time left before Christ’s second coming. He is very skilled at sowing tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25-30) and sowing discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:19).

You can overcome your discouragement and disillussionment by looking at all that is happening from God’s perspective. He is still on the throne and He is in control. He allows church problems and splits to happen for reasons that are best known to Him. It may be part of his purification process (Ephesians 5:25-27). On our part, we have to do our best to be faithful in our responsibilities, not allow the flesh to reign, and to be mindful of Satan’s devices (2 Corinthians 2:11).

[Back to top]
What is it that a Christian lady ought NOT to wear? How do we measure modesty and whose standards and guidelines do we follow?

(from a Christian sister’s perspective)

I was blessed by a sermon entitled, "Wanted: Women who are gentle, modest and quiet" by Steve Marquedant. I was enlightened by some of the points that he brought up about women’s dressing. Let me share it with you.

1 Peter 3: 3 & 4 talks about outward and inward beauty. All of us want to look good but how far are we willing to go? Is being fashionable and trendy so very important to us?

Let’s consider 2 points to dressing modestly.

1. Consider the culture that we live in.
We have to face the fact that different ages do see things differently. Different cultures too have different views and customs. What is absolutely scandalous in one culture is perfectly acceptable in another. However, there are certain things we should never accept even if the culture accepts it.

2. Consider the appropriateness of the dressing.
It’s not only about what you wear but also how you wear it and what you will be doing in it. Some attire is only good for standing around and looking good. Any movement such as bending or even sitting will reveal certain portions of the body that should not be revealed! We constantly see our young ladies pulling their t-shirts or skirts to try to elongate them or adjusting collars, sleeves and tops to try to cover up more. Why do we have to do that? Is it not because we feel uncomfortable and uneasy in our clothes? Can we honestly say that we are not aware that we are not as appropriately dressed for church as we should be?

From the sermon, I found two very practical pieces of advice that can guide us if we have a willing spirit that wants to please God in the way we dress.

1. Ask your father/husband/male mentor for his opinion
If you want an honest answer as to whether you are modestly dressed, ask the male fraternity around you – father, husband, male mentor, peers – people whom you know cares for you and will give you an honest answer. Who better to ask than a man because only a man knows how men think. If you think about it logically, which man wants a woman or lady whom he cares about - whether a wife, daughter or friend – to look like someone who has loose moral values or who come across as someone whom you can have liberty with. My daughters and I can testify to the effectiveness of this as the only male in our family ensures that we are dressed in a manner that is acceptable and pleasing to the Lord.

Through one of my conversations with some young men in our church regarding the young ladies in our church, I was quite taken aback when I was informed that “there are some girls whom you can only go out with and have fun but they aren’t the ones you would choose for your wife!” So, you see, the young men in our church do have a fairly good idea what qualities they would want in their future wife.

We are not talking about having our dressing controlled or restricted such that you come to church looking frumpy or prudish or old-fashioned. You can come to church looking stylish without being immodest or outlandish.

2. Don’t judge a book by its cover
How many times have people told you not to judge a book by its cover? But if you think about it, that phrase is not entirely true. Look at the covers of some books such as romance or horror stories or fashion or lifestyle magazines. Sometimes you don’t need to read them to know what is inside the pages.

The way we dress is our choice. It’s what we put on to show others. It’s what we want people to see and to identify us as. When ladies go shopping for clothes, you can frequently hear them say, “Oh, I can’t wear that, it’s just not me!” We each have an idea of how we want to look and what we are going to wear. Look at your group of friends. Do you dress in a similar manner? Or do you all dress differently? Interestingly, there is a tendency for people who dress in a similar manner to hang out together.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. When we do something that is out of the norm such as dye our hair green or dress in an outlandish manner, we basically aim to get a reaction from others. We either want to shock or surprise (depending on whether they are the parents or peers) the people around us. We want to provoke a reaction – it was a provocative action – one that expects a reaction from others. Is that what we want to do in church? Dress in a manner that will provoke a reaction from the people around us?

In the sermon, I learn to look beyond the words “outward adornment” in 1 Peter 3:3 which refers to women adorning themselves to look good. Instead focus on why we so painstakingly put so much effort to “adorn ourselves”. We “adorn ourselves” on purpose and with purpose. This means that we choose to and willingly dress in that manner. Let us be reminded in 1 Peter 3: 4 that the inner self should shine forth and not be dominated by the outward self or outward image.

Is it not true that our outward appearance is usually a manifestation of our inner self? It is however not the only way that we judge others. We also judge others by the way they look and the things they say. These are the only ways that we can judge others – their outward self - because we can’t judge their inner self – what is in their heart. We can only get to know someone better across time and sometimes we are pleasantly surprised that they are not as bad as we had initially thought. But do we want others to have a wrong idea of us in the first place?

I can only conclude that it’s not about what we can wear but what we should wear. No one can force you into clothes that you don’t want to wear. Some parents have given up and allowed their children to go to church in whatever they want to wear as long as they go to church. Is your going to church dependent on how good you look? It has to do with the state of your heart. How do we see the heart? It’s through our actions and conduct. It’s not about dressing for vanity sake or to please your parents. It’s about dressing in a manner that is pleasing to God. If you love God and have God in your heart, you will know what is the right thing to do. Your manner of dressing will show your reverence and respect for the sanctity of worship in church. May we all strive to do that which is pleasing to our Lord Jesus who has done so much for us and asks so little of us. Amen. (Note: This answer was written by sister Tan Poh Yok)

[Back to top]
What about abortion? When is a life considered a life? Is removing the undeveloped foetus considered murder according to the Word of God?

Because of research made in prenatal life, it is virtually agreed by all that human life begins at conception. Once the ovum is fertilized a new person that bears God’s image has come into being and he or she has the right to live. (Psalm 139:14-16). By the 6th week of pregnancy the new person is already able to think and experience pain. The Bible records that John the Baptist rejoiced over being visited by the mother of Jesus by leaping in his mother’s womb at the 6th month of pregnancy.

All of this means that abortion, or the killing of an unborn child is sinful and morally wrong. It may not be considered as cold-blooded murder, because the mother who wants an abortion does not know the unborn child yet and usually does not deliberately seek its life out of hatred, but it does violate the sanctity of human life, and is deserving of some punishment.

But is there any situation where abortion is not immoral? Historically Protestants have made one exception: the life of the unborn can be taken when a continued pregnancy would put the mother’s life in jeopardy. This is justified on the basis of self-defense and also on the basis of choosing the lesser of two evils. Due to rapid developments in medical science however, this situation has become very rare.

The other exception that is sometimes considered is when the pregnancy is a result of rape. In this case the new life did not originate form the mother’s choice at all. But this does not remove the unborn child’s right to life. The unborn child is not the attacker but is in fact the second victim who should not receive capital punishment for his father’s crime.

Once again however this situation is extremely rare. A study of 20,000 rape cases in a certain country recorded no pregnancy. Because of physical and emotional factors, pregnancy following rape is very rare. Many women who wanted an abortion in the 3rd month onwards have falsely claimed to have been raped, when they were not. Because this loophole has given them the opportunity to seek abortion without the social stigma attached to it.

The vast majority of abortions however, does not fall under these two exceptions, but are motivated by the desire for their own economic and social well-being. Most women who abort are not married and do so to avoid the shame of being an unwed mother and the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. They are just like king David when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and this act ultimately led him into murdering Bathsheba’s husband in order to protect his reputation -- in trying to cover up one sin, those who abort commit a sin far worse than the first one!

There are some married mothers who abort because they have found out that the unborn child is handicapped or not of the desired sex. A pregnant woman who undergoes amniocentesis might be disappointed to find out that the child has Down’s syndrome, or lacks an arm or a leg. And they think that the child’s life will be miserable, so they justify abortion as mercy killing. But physical or mental handicap does not necessarily mean a life not worth living. And besides that, a handicapped fetus also has a right to life. So abortion is still wrong in such cases.

Is there an alternative to abortion? Yes, if the mother is willing to face the consequences her past choices and make sure that the child is wanted either by herself or by others who stand in line waiting to adopt children. A mother who does not abort but goes through with the pregnancy will at least live with a clear conscience, and the consolation that she has helped to bring a new life into the world.

[Back to top]
I’ve been reading up about philosophy recently. Is there anything wrong with exposing myself to such matters?

Ecclesiastes 2:16-18 "I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

In these verses Solomon describes his sojourn into the deep waters of philosophy. He sought to investigate the value of human wisdom, and also what advantages wisdom had over madness and foolishness. And Solomon’s mind amassed so much wisdom that according to 1 Kings 4, he was wiser than all men, he invented 3000 proverbs, composed 1005 poems, and he was able to give lectures on any subject, including botany and zoology. Kings, queens and philosophers came from far and near just to hear Solomon speak and they were astounded by the wealth of his knowledge of these things and of philosophy.

About 400 years later, the Greeks began to develop philosophy into a science. Then from Socrates down to 20th-century thinkers like Bertrand Russel and Jean Paul Sartre, have devoted their lives to trying to determine what constitutes the good life for humans both as individuals, and as social and political beings. This resulted in a whole series of different schools of philosophy: Some adopted Platonic ideas. Others applied Aristotelian principles. Some were Stoics, some were Skeptics and others were Epicureans. The 17th century brought Rationalism and Empiricism, and later on, Hegelianism, Pragmatism and Existentialism came on the scene. In the east there were philosophers like Confucius, Mencius and Lao-Tzu.

Volumes and volumes of books have been written on philosophy. And Solomon himself tells us about this endless but futile pursuit when he wrote in Ecclesiastes 12:12 -- "of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Isn’t it significant that Solomon, the greatest philosopher who ever lived on this earth tells us that philosophy has very little value, and that it brings grief and sorrow instead of happiness? Instead of accomplishing what it set out to do, namely to determine what constitutes the good life, the pursuit of philosophy has left mankind more confused than ever, and nowhere nearer to attaining the good life.

There is only one kind of knowledge that can enable us to have happiness and attain the good life: and that is the knowledge of Jesus Christ, who is described by the Apostle Paul as the "Wisdom of God." According to Colossians 2:3, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ. Therefore, if you want to have true wisdom, and one that leads to a real, deep and lasting happiness and peace, you must seek to know the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Back to top]
Does God allow polygamy in the OT? Abraham, David and Jacob each had more than one wife. When David committed adultery, God sent Nathan to warn him, but God did not sent any prophet to warn David when he had more than one wife. Also the 10 commandments did not say Thou shalt have only one wife?

The OT does teach monogamy: The story of the creation of the first two human beings reveals monogamous marriage as the expression of the will of God. If polygamy was God’s plan, He would have created Adam and Eve, and Mary and Jane and Susan, etc. The ‘one flesh’ principle of Genesis 2:24 cannot make sense in the context of polygamy. Polygamy first appeared in the reprobate line of Cain, when Lamech took two wives.

The image of a monogamous marriage was in the minds of those prophets who represented Israel as the one wife chosen by the one and only God, Jehovah (and later on in the minds of the apostles who represented the church as being the bride of Christ). From the time of the Return from exile onward (536 BC) there is no reference to polygamy among God’s people to be found in any of the post-exilic books of the Old Testament. Malachi 2:14,15 - "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

By Christ’s time monogamy was the rule among the Greeks and Romans as well as among the Jews, and Christ’s affirmation of the "one flesh" principle of marriage (which makes sense only in a context of monogamy) found ready acceptance among His countrymen (Matt 19:5-6). The apostle Paul stated that a church office bearer must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6). If the higher standard required of leaders by God excluded polygamy, it could hardly be viewed as ideal.

While polygamy was contrary to God’s intention and ideal, nevertheless, because of what Christ called "the hardness of men’s hearts" (Matthew 19:8) it was ENDURED by God - especially in the case of a king whose dynasty would fail if he produced no son by his first wife. A state of civil war might well ensue from such a situation, with resulting bloodshed and disruption to the state. In Ancient Near Eastern cultures monarchs often had a large harem of wives and concubines as a display of their greatness. Perhaps David and Solomon were "following the trend of the times." But there is implicit disapproval from God on the kings’ polygamous marriages in Deuteronomy 17:17 - "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away"

In almost every case of polygamy described, there is a resulting situation of family strife, jealousy, unhappiness and spiritual failure. Jacob’s wives quarrelled with one another for his love and favour even though they were sisters. In David’s case: the rivalry between his sons by different wives caused them to kill one another. In Solomon’s case: it led to his own downfall into idolatry (1 Kings 11:3). Elkanah’s one wife was considered as a "rival" or adversary by the other, who "used to provoke her sorely, to irritate her . . ." (1 Samuel 1:6). No husband has the capacity to love all his wives fully and equally, and no wife has the capacity to receive a rival to the husband’s affection and attention.

Monogamy is best!

[Back to top]
If the God does not allow the inter-religious marriage as the Bible says, how should I understand God’s command to "Love thy Neighbour"...? The Christian’s love for another Christian and his love for a non-Christian must be different. Is his love for non-Christians really love? Would it be "like" or "care" or "concern", instead...?

The love that Christians have for the person they marry must be subject to their love for God. If a Christian marries someone who does not love God, then he is loving that person more than he loves God. God requires us to love Him first, and then to love our husband or wife. God also commands Christians to marry only Christians (2 Corinthians 6:14 - "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?") It would be wrong to love anyone more than God, even one’s husband or wife. Even if a Christian marries a Christian, he still must be careful to love God more than he loves his wife.

There are various degrees of love. This fact is recognised by all. A man who is married must love his wife. If he has children, he loves each child. If his parents are living, he also loves them. And if he has very close friends, he would also love them. But the degree of love he has for each of them may not be all the same. If all of the people he loves are in danger at the same time - who would he help first? And who would he help last? The fact that he helps all of them shows that he still loves them all.

Therefore when the Bible says ‘love thy neighbour’ - Yes, the Christian’s love for Christians (whom he is naturally closer to) would be different from his love for non-Christians, but it is a difference of degree.

People naturally have more love for those who share the same views, beliefs and attitudes as they have. Although Christians also love non-Christians, they have to be careful that their love for non-Christians must not make them compromise their own views, beliefs and attitudes, or else they may be drawn away from God by non-Christians.

To love God is more important than to love one’s neighbour. Jesus said: "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Mark 12:28-31)

Therefore, there is a priority that Christians must keep: I must love God first, and then love my neighbour. If my neighbour loves God like I do (e.g. other Christians), there is no problem. But if my neighbour does not love God, there may be a problem, especially when he wants me not to love God, but to become just like him. That neighbour may love things that God hates and he wants me to love him enough to love these things as well. He may say "If you don’t love the things I love, how can you say that you really love me?" or "If you love God whom I don’t love, how can you say that you really love me?" Then my love for God must come first. I can still love that neighbour, but now that love must necessarily be limited. I must first try to convince that neighbour to love God. If he responds well and loves God like I do, then I have no limitations to loving him. But if he refuses to love God after all my efforts to persuade him, then my love for him will have to be limited.

[Back to top]
In the case of a missionary who happened to go to a tribe where it is their custom/tradition to live in nakedness. Is it a sin by looking at them?

It would be a sin if a person looks lustfully at them. The difference is in the manner of looking. In a culture where nakedness is common, the people who grow up in such an environment may have a higher threshold of temptation to lust than those who live in an environment where nakedness is prohibited. I think that a missionary who is brought up in the latter type of environment will have problems initially when he goes to the former type of environment. But as he gets used to it, he may be able to look without lust. What he can do, if he anticipates problems, is to pray hard for grace to overcome the lust. He may have to consciously focus his eyes away from where the eyes are prone to wander - perhaps by concentrating on looking just at the heads of the people there all the time, and not at their bodies.

[Back to top]
The tribe themselves being naked, is that a sin?

Tribes that are naked have varying standards of morality. Some have been known to be extremely immoral. But others seem to have better standards. They are usually found in the equatorial regions where the hot climate makes it less needful to cover oneself up. Most of them have a minimal standard of modesty. E.g. the Palawanos at one time wore G-strings to cover their shame. Anything less than that would be unacceptable in their culture and would provoke their own people to lust and sin.

Someone may then argue then, that theoretically, nakedness can become an acceptable norm in modern society and there would be no lust and no sin, just like in these tribes. But this is not true, because modern society does not have the natural simplicity of the tribal people. Modern civilised living is complicated with a much more influences, history and culture than those who live in a tribe roving the forests. I do not think that nakedness can ever become morally acceptable in a civilised environment because of this.

[Back to top]
If a Christian happens to be a person who is often unsure of his decisions (may not be decisions concern with his faith), because he is not confident of himself, can this doubtful actions be classified as sin?

Lack of confidence in making decisions is not sinful. Sometimes we make decisions where we are not sure what the outcome will be and we wonder if it is the right decision. E.g. career, life partner, buying a flat, having a child. There is nothing sinful in being unsure of these kinds of decisions. But this can lead to sin if we allow those unsure feelings to make us fear, worry too much and to doubt God’s goodness to us. When you are unsure about any decision, the best thing to do is to pray, asking God to give you wisdom (James 1:5 – "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.") and to keep you from making the wrong decision. After you have prayed, use whatever wisdom God has given you to make the best choice, and then just leave the outcome of the decision to God, trusting that He has answered your prayer. What is sinful is to do things that are contrary to one’s conscience or knowledge of God’s Word.

[Back to top]
Why were marriages between brothers and sisters allowed in the times of Noah but not now?

The prohibition of marriages between brothers and sisters is found in Leviticus 18:6-9, together with prohibition of marriages with other family members and close relatives. These prohibitions still apply to Christians, since the apostle Paul disciplined a member of the Corinthian church for marrying his widowed step-mother (1 Corinthians 5:1) and he called this relationship an immoral one. Today, such relationships are known as incest, and are disapproved by the public.

However, in the times before Moses, there was some tolerance for such marriages. e.g. the children of Adam and Eve probably had to marry each other, since there was no one else for them to marry. Hence Cain and Seth must have married their own sisters and had children by them. God permitted this only at the beginning, out of necessity. As more and more people lived on earth, there was no more need for this practice, and hence it became sinful for anyone to marry his own sister.

Today, it is also known that incestuous relationships bring the problem of genetic defects and retarded children. This is due to the genetic depletion that has taken place over hundreds of generations since the time of Adam and Eve. Many different types of genes have been lost due to death and disease. The total number of gene types in the world today is much less than the total number of gene types that existed in the world at the beginning. This is true not only of human beings, but of animals as well. Hence any species that goes through a few generations of ‘inbreeding’ i.e. marrying within its own family, will soon manifest serious weaknesses, mental and physical problems.

This is the result of the Fall. It would not be true today if man had not sinned, because death and disease would not have depleted the genetic pool. In the first few generations, brothers and sisters could marry and have children without worrying about their children being retarded or abnormal, because their genes were perfect. Now, our genes are not so perfect. This may be the reason why God now disallows close marriages and wants us to consider them as immoral. It is for our own good.

[Back to top]
If a Christian interior designer is asked to design an office or home for a customer, but the customer wants him to design according to his Fengshui belief, is it ok for the Christian to do it?

If the customer wants the interior designer to work together with a Fengshui expert or to read Fengshui textbooks and apply its principles, then the designer should decline the job. But if the customer himself makes all the specifications to the designer according to his study of Fengshui, then it would be all right for the designer to accept, because it would be just like working for any other customer according to their own whims and fancies.

[Back to top]
Christians should not watch Harry Potter because it openly promotes witchcraft, but how about movies like Star Wars? There are some new age values being promoted in the Star Wars Series, like the "Force" as an energy that we can use. In fact every movie will have some negative values because it is produce my sinful men. Is it safe for Christians to watch movies for entertainment as long as we watch with discernment?

I agree with you completely that every movie has negative values because they are produced by sinful men, and that we need discernment when viewing anything on TV or at the movies. I preached on this just a few months ago during our worship service.

Our concern would be primarily for children, since they do not know yet how to exercise discernment. And sometimes even adults who accompany them, not having seen the show before, may only discern that a show has negative value after viewing it for a while and the only thing they can do then is to walk out of the cinema and not mind the loss of the money spent on their tickets.

Thus it is helpful to publish any warnings from other Christians about negative values that are a known about movies that are currently being shown, so that people won’t have to waste their money on them.

A better option is to recommend that Christians do not go to cinemas to watch movies at all, and exercise discernment when watching movies on videotape, VCD or TV shows. The problem of cinema entertainment is that the viewer has no control whatsoever over what he (and his children who are with him) sees on the cinema screen. Much of the advertisements contain unwholesome images that can stick in the child’s mind. An even if a ‘good’ movie is being watched in the cinema, there may be some shots of other shows that are going to be screened soon, and these may be bad.

In contrast, watching a ‘good’ movie at home gives the adult viewer control to cut out advertisements, change the channel or even stop viewing the show altogether without loss if it is discovered that the show is actually bad. An adult can also preview a videotape or VCD to evaluate its material before the children watch it.

We would encourage Christians to buy or borrow good wholesome videos, VCDs and DVDs, and even to get those that are produced by Christians and which teach good biblical values. There are some Christian media ministries that distribute such material.

Now, while all movies have some negative values, some, like Harry Potter have much more of it than others. Witchcraft and occultism are portrayed as good things. The greater the potential harm, the more urgently we need to warn people about it. And especially when the movie is very popular among children like this one. It may lead them to experiment with the occult world. Some who experiment with occultism by using Tarot cards, the Ouija board, or role playing games like ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ have been known to get trapped in the occult world. We should watch out for the devil’s devices (I Thess 5:22).

[Back to top]
God has given every Christian at least one spiritual gift. Does our spiritual gifts need to be discovered and trained? Is it wise for Christian to serve in areas where he or she is not gifted?

All believers should be using their spiritual gifts in the church (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6 - "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands"). Not to do so would be the sin of neglecting the spiritual gift (cf. 1 Timothy 4:14 - "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.") So to answer your first question - Yes, each believer should discover his spiritual gift and use it well.

But for the second question, the answer is that the Christian is doing nothing wrong or unwise if he serves in areas where he is not gifted. There is no prohibition concerning areas of God’s service, except those prohibiting women from usurping the man’s authority. Those who are not gifted for a particular ministry may have to serve in that particular ministry, simply because of his availability and the lack of willing helpers. He may relinquish that ministry when someone else who is gifted for it is found.

There are also areas of service where all believers are to serve, even though they may not necessarily be gifted for them. E.g. evangelism. Even though there is the spiritual gift of an evangelist, all of us must still be witnessing to people around us whenever there is opportunity. Another example is the gift of Faith. All of us are called to exercise faith. But those who have this gift are able to exercise it more effectively than others.

[Back to top]
Would God condone cloning animals or animal organs? What if animal organs are used for transplant to humans? Assuming medical technological advancement make it possible in future to genetically modify an animal’s organ to be suitable and compatible for transplant into a person - will it be OK?

There is nothing sacred about animal life since they are not made in God’s image. They don’t have souls and their existence ends at death. There is therefore no biblical warrant to prohibit man’s use of technology on animals, except to attempt to crossbreed two entirely different species of animals (e.g. cat and dog) to create a new one (see Leviticus 19:19). Jacob did some selective breeding which received God’s blessings (Genesis 30:37-43) but it was limited within the same species.

Animal cloning does not violate the ‘after their kind’ principle of Genesis 1:25. In fact some creatures do reproduce asexually or by a natural cloning process (e.g. the phenomenon of parthenogenesis in bees and other insects).

I don’t see anything wrong with transplanting animal organs to save a person’s life. It is the same as slaughtering a pig or cow to eat its flesh. Getting an organ transplant from a living and willing human person whose life is not taken by the loss of the organ, or from a brain-dead person is also all right as no human life is taken at all. But when a human embryo has to be created from a person’s cell by cloning, that human embryo must be regarded as a person, for it has the potential to develop into a full-grown person under the right conditions. It is not just a mass of tissue. It is not right to treat it the same way that animals are treated.

[Back to top]
Does premonition exist and should a Christian believe in it? What are the Bible texts that support it?

A premonition is a feeling that something is going to happen before it actually does. This is oftentimes subjective. Sometimes it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, e.g. if the person who has the premonition that he is going to fail his driving test, performs badly in his test as a result of it. Although some people have reported that their premonitions came true, what is not reported are the many premonitions that did not come true, and that turned out to be false.

Some people have bad dreams and they firmly believe that this dream will come true. I have had my share of such dreams, which for a while made me worry if they will come true. But I realised later on, that they do not mean anything at all. They are merely the result of our worst fears working on our minds.

The Bible does not speak directly on the subject of premonition, but it emphasises that our faith should always be based on the revealed word of God, and not on our subjective feelings. E.g. Elijah felt so fearful of Jezebel when she sought for revenge, that he fled to Mt Horeb. He should have trusted in God to defend him against her. But he trusted his feelings which kept convincing him that Jezebel will succeed in having him killed. Simon Peter denied Christ three times because he was convinced by his subjective feelings that he would probably be arrested and executed with Christ if his identity was known.

I think that premonitions may sometimes be used by Satan to convince people that they can be like God. It is God’s prerogative alone to know the future, or secrets of the spiritual realm. Everyone wants to know the future. But God alone knows the future. Instead of consulting God, they try to consult someone who can tell them what the future will be. If we believe that our premonitions are correct, we would be usurping God’s prerogative. Isaiah 46:9,10 - "for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure."

[Back to top]
What is the role of fasting in a Christian’s life? Does the effort one put into fasting contribute to God answering the prayer?

There is no requirement for us to fast, but a Christian may fast when: a. He is seeking God’s guidance for an important matter (e.g. Acts 13:2); b. He is about to start an important undertaking that requires God’s enablement (e.g. Acts 13:3; Esther 4:16); c. The church calls for a fast in times of danger and national disaster (2 Chronicles 20:3). Fasting does not ‘expedite’ God’s answer to prayer! It is meant to express our sincerity in seeking after God and wanting to do His will. Any fasting that seeks after benefits for oneself is not acceptable to God (e.g. Zechariah 7:5,6; Isaiah 58:3-7).

[Back to top]
The Merlion is a mythical figure and, most mythical figures are symbolisms conjured by satanic forces at work. Is the Merlion then something that Christians should have in their possession, in sundry souvenirs, eg key chains, fridge magnets, etc.?

I am aware of Satanic symbols such as the inverted pentagram. Christians should not identify themselves with Satan, and hence should refrain from wearing such things or using them as decorations in their homes. Even if something is not overtly Satanic, but related to superstitious practices and idol worship, they should not be used. E.g. I have seen a Christian home where an upside down Chinese character ‘Fu’ was prominently displayed in the living room. It would lead non-Christian visitors to think that Christians believe in the power of such ‘talismans’ to ward off evil and bad luck.

However, I think we should be careful not to carry this to an extreme. Some time ago, one of our dollar bills in Singapore had a picture of a dragon on it, and some were saying that Christians should not use those bills at all, as it is Satanic. Someone called me this past week saying that her husband had bought a videotape documentary on snakes in the Amazon. She had protested, saying that the snake is a symbol of Satan. I explained to her that snakes are God’s creatures, like all other animals, and only the snake used by Satan in the Garden of Eden to tempt Eve had anything to do with him.

As for the Merlion, this is the first time I have ever heard that it has anything to do with Satan. There is no mythology that I know of, behind the Merlion. It was invented in the ‘70s by the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board as their emblem, and I think it was based on two ideas: Singapore is named after the lion (Malay: Singa) because of the legend that an Indonesian Prince saw a lion (probably a tiger) when he landed on this island. The fish body of the Merlion was derived from the fact that Singapore is an island nation surrounded by water. Perhaps it was also an adaptation of the famous ‘Little Mermaid’ of Denmark that has remained as Denmark’s tourism symbol to this day, based on the story by Hans Christian Andersen.

What the statue of liberty is to the U.S. and the Maple leaf to Canada, the Merlion is to Singapore. Therefore I do not think that Christians should refrain from having objects with the Merlion in their possession.

[Back to top]
I know of many Christians who actually believe that predestination only applies to salvation and not marriage, thus embracing free will. As for me, I believe that predestination does apply to marriage. Being under the Lordship of Christ, we are all subjected to His sovereign, perfect and immutable will. As such, free will is never an option. Is this the ‘right’ view? Correct me if I’m wrong...

As you mentioned, there are two views on this. The first which is predestination in marriage, means that there is only one person in the world that God has chosen for a Christian to marry, and it is his/her duty to find that person if he is to be in the perfect will of God.

Some years back someone wrote a book challenging this view, and proposing that there is not just one person that a Christian can marry to be in the perfect will of God, but several, who meet all the biblical criteria for Christian marriage. The Christian can therefore choose to marry anyone within this ‘pool’ and still be in the perfect will of God.

I tend to take the first view, based on my understanding of the eternal decree of God as given in our Westminster Confession of Faith. However, I would also include that finding that person whom God has chosen for a Christian to marry is not left entirely to that person alone, but God will providentially guide the circumstances for him/her to meet and get to know the person well enough to make an informed decision to marry that person. The Christian must apply biblical criteria to determine if that person is truly God’s choice for him.

I feel that this view provides the best security for marriage. If rough spots are encountered in marriage life, the Christian will not doubt whether the person he married was the right one. He will take it as part of God’s sovereign will for him to press on through the rough spots together and resolve them, since he is convinced that God has chosen this person for him for a good purpose. He will also trust in God’s enablement to help him.

[Back to top]
Is it acceptable that a husband marries again if his wife has eloped for more than 3 years without news?

Matthew 19:9 - "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The exception made in this verse is for fornication – i.e. if the wife has slept with another man. To remarry for any other reason is to commit adultery. If the wife is a Christian – Find out what happened to the eloped wife. If she has slept with or married someone else, then remarriage is permissible. If she has died, remarriage is permissible. But if she is still alive and has has not married someone else nor slept with another man, the husband cannot remarry. Instead he should try to love her enough to win her back. In fact even if she has committed fornication, the husband can still decide to forgive her and win her back – e.g. Hosea, who brought Gomer back, instead of putting her away and marrying another.

But if the wife is not a Christian, then 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides one more exception where remarriage is permitted – desertion by an unbelieving spouse, with or without fornication. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." The term ‘not under bondage implies that the husband who has been desserted by the unbelieving wife can now remarry. But once again, this should be done after all efforts have been made to win back the unbelieving spouse.

[Back to top]
Is it biblical for a wife to insist on divorce if the husband wants to continue in infidelity and yet wants to keep the marriage?

(Assuming that he has not eloped.) In any marriage, divorce should not be seen as the first course of action but as the last. If the husband wants to continue to be unfaithful, the wife should first confront him about his actions, and if he is a Christian, she should appeal to the Biblical commandments he has broken – adultery, unfaithfulness to vow made before God. If he refuses to listen to the scriptures she should threaten to make his unfaithfulness known to others, so that they can get involved as objective witnesses. Very often the shame of having one’s sins revealed beyond the home may be enough to make the husband change his mind and behaviour.

If he still refuses to repent, but continues to sleep with other women, she should carry out her threat and bring a mature Christian to help as a witness to the wrongdoing and persuade the husband to repent of his infidelity.

If this does not work, she can then seek the church to deal with the husband – He should be excommunicated, as an example to all believers to show the seriousness of this sin. This would be an appropriate time for her to move out and live separately. The church would know that she is not the guilty party and show love and care for her.

If even excommunication does not make the husband repent, she can then divorce him. Matthew 18:17 – "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Even if the husband does not want a divorce, she can sue for a divorce. She would not be sinning against God, because Matthew 19 already states that divorce from a believer is permissible on grounds of fornication.

[Back to top]
Is it all right for Christians to be involved in occult practices such as: Astrology, fortune-telling, palm-reading, reading of tea leaves, consulting mediums, playing with ouija boards, consulting Napoleon’s book of fate?

All of these are forbidden because it is God’s prerogative alone to disclose the future or make known secrets of the spiritual realm. Those who seek supernatural knowledge about the future from any source but God are usurping this prerogative. We as Christians ought to have nothing to do with them – not even for amusement or out of curiosity – as they violate the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)

[Back to top]
How should we be careful not to break the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:3)?

Anything that usurps the prerogatives of God breaks the first commandment. Take for example God’s prerogative to save. If we place our trust in anything or anyone else but God to save us, protect us or deliver us when we are in trouble, we also violate the first commandment. For example, the Chinese use of the "pak-kwa", carrying talismans in pockets; reciting certain formula prayers (as if the words themselves have magical power); and asking for help from a certain patron saint. When these prayers are answered, who gets the thanks and the glory?

Another prerogative that is God’s alone is His prerogative to receive all glory. (see Isa 42:8) If we give credit to someone or something else for what God has done, we break the first commandment. For example: Attributing a blessing from God to good fortune or to luck. Some people who do not want to appear religious before their friends will substitute the word God with something else. E.g. Thank goodness! or thank heavens! Let us avoid doing this.

[Back to top]
Can Christians who were former idol worshippers keep the idols as decorative objects in their house? What if the idols are priceless antiques?

In obedience to the second commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" we should not keep idols in the house, not even as decorative objects. They should not be stored away in some cupboard or sold to an antique dealer. They must be destroyed together with all the joss sticks, joss paper, and other paraphernalia (Deuteronomy 7:5). As long as the idols are not destroyed there is always a possibility that they will fall into hands that will worship them again.

Some Christians who are antique collectors or dealers should take note of this. If something has been made as an object of worship no matter how priceless or valuable it is, you are not to keep it in your shop or home. Not because it can have any power on you, but because it is an abomination to God (2 Corinthians 6:16,17).

[Back to top]
Can a Christian participate in Chinese funeral rites?

Chinese funeral rites are very closely linked to ancestor worship, with bowing and offering incense to spirits. Bowing is only a sign of respect only if the person or thing one bows to can bow back. Anyone who sees a Christian participating in Chinese funeral rites will probably think that he is endorsing the religious element of the funeral.

[Back to top]
Can a Christian eat food that has been offered to idols?

No, he should not, because no matter what he thinks, those around him are likely to interpret it as an endorsement of offering food to idols. However, if he ate it unknowingly and was told later on about it, no harm is done, and he should really not feel guilty about it ( 1 Corinthians 10:25-33)

[Back to top]
Can Christians join in celebrations of Chinese festivals?

Some Chinese festivals are linked to idol or ancestor worship. It is not enough to say that a Christian is free to participate if he himself has no religious feeling in the matter. He may participate only when others see in his participation no endorsement of the religious element. However, many Chinese festivals, like Chinese New Year have become so secularized especially here in Singapore, that no one would see any endorsement of Chinese religion in our participation. But religious festivals like Vesak day and Ching Ming are clearly out for the Chinese Christian. And perhaps if you happen to visit to some remote province in China during a certain festival season and detect that it has a significant religious element, you should refrain from participating in it.

[Back to top]
James 5:12 says "...swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." Should Christians then refrain from swearing or taking any oath, even in court?
The problem with this view is that the Israelites were commanded to swear by the name of their God (Deut 6:13; 10:20) and it was considered praiseworthy (Ps 63:11). The apostle Paul often said "God is my witness" and at least took one oath (Rom 1:9, 1 Thess 2:5, 10). God Himself takes oaths and swears by His own name (Heb 6:13). In James 5:12, James was speaking not against oath-taking, but against oath-breaking. Many promises were made, but few were kept. This was a bad situation, and God’s people were not to follow this. People should be able to trust whatever we say. We should not have to constantly swear in God’s name to prove that what we are saying can be trusted (Matthew 5:37). But whenever we are required by the authorities to affirm the truth of what we say by swearing, we should willingly oblige.

[Back to top]
Is it all right for Christians to tell jokes?

Christ says (in Mat 12:36) that we must give account for every idle word that we speak. In Eph 5:4 Paul says that "jesting" should be left out of our speech. But the context shows that what he meant was dirty jokes or impure speech. Humor is good but we must be careful to maintain purity and wholesomeness. Humor should never be used to hurt another person, and Humor should never be irreverent to God. Our Lord Jesus Himself used some humor at times. e.g. He nicknamed James and John the "Sons of Thunder."

[Back to top]
Can I be employed in a job that requires me to work on Sundays?

Some say ‘yes’ it’s alright, since God understands that I need to make a living. But if God can make an exception for me, can He not also make the same exception for everyone else who needs to make a living? The main issue here is: who comes first: God? or my job? Isn’t God the One who gives me the ability to work and provides a job for me? If so, can I not trust Him to provide another job for me, one which will enable me to honor Him on the Lord’s Day?

However, there are some jobs where the nature of the work itself demands some work on a Sunday, e.g. if you are a doctor, or policeman or soldier, or a bus driver. If all of these would refuse to work on Sundays, there would be chaos all around. So they come under works of necessity. They are exceptions. And I know of some very busy Christian doctors who are still very faithful in keeping the Lord’s Day whenever they can.

Even those who are under extreme work conditions can still keep the Lord’s day, even though in a limited way. In the early church a large proportion of the Christians were actually slaves, who had no day of rest. They met for worship at first in the evening, after work on Sunday. But soon a decree made this illegal. Then they met before dawn on Sunday, and many of them had to meet in secret in underground caves called catacombs. If those slaves had such zeal to keep the Lord’s day despite their employment restrictions, how much more should all of us be willing to keep the Lord’s day.

Those of us who run our own business where we are employers or proprietors should have no difficulty keeping the Lord’s Day. If we are afraid that our business will suffer if we do not open our shop on Sunday, then listen to what God says in Malachi 3:10 "Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

[Back to top]
What about doing washing and ironing on Sundays? What about studying on Sunday for an exam or a test on Monday? What about buying necessary items marketing, eating out at hawker centers, buying food home on Sundays?

It is very easy to become legalistic about things like these, and once again each person has to come to his own conviction what he should do or not do on the Sabbath day, or else he will do them grudgingly or become unecessarily judgmental of others, like the Jews rabbis and Pharisees.

Paul said in Romans 14:5-6 -- "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." and in v.13 we are warned: "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way."

In dealing with these questions we must never lose sight of the purpose of these Sabbath day observances: they are supposed to free us from the daily work routine of life so that we will be able to spend quality time with the Lord and for the Lord.

Some may have no choice but to do things like washing and ironing on the Lord’s Day, particularly if they only have one or two sets of clothes to wear. E.g. in countries where people are poor, some have to wash clothes everyday or else they would have nothing to wear. But if we do not live within such difficult constraints, we should try our best to free ourselves from having to do washing and ironing on the Lord’s Day because our attention should be diverted away from mundane things of life toward God and our glorious heavenly hope.

[Back to top]
Do I always have to obey my parents even when they instruct me in non-moral matters, and even when I am old?

Although obedience is called for, this does not mean we cannot persuade them to change their minds on non-moral issues. Loving persuasion can be a big help if parents are willing to listen. But as long as we are dependent on them for our livelihood, we still have to obey them, if they refuse to be persuaded. But once we have our own job and become responsible for our own lives, parents must allow us to assume full responsibility for choosing a marriage partner, vocation, or investment in life. When a person is married he leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife. Marriage indicates that the couple is now independent of their parents’ control, and though they should still respect the counsel of their parents, neither should they feel compelled to obey everything the parents dictate on non-moral issues. "Much grief and marriage failure come from the sinful interference of parents in their children’s married life and the sinful acceptance of that interference on the part of the married son or daughter" (McQuilkin).

[Back to top]
Does the Scripture forbid family planning?

There is nothing in the Scripture either in direct command or in principle that prohibits the use of contraceptives by married couples. The Roman Catholic Church takes a very strong position against birth control by artificial means, because the church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is the generation of children. While we find no biblical grounds to take such a stand, we should be careful about which method of family planning we use. Any method that prevents conception from taking place is all right. But any method that terminates conception is morally sinful and it breaks the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".

[Back to top]
If a Christian couple is not able to have children because of infertility, what should they do? Can they opt for artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilisation or surrogate motherhood?

a. Artificial Insemination: There are two types -- Using the husband’s sperm does not violate the marriage bond, but using an unknown donor’s sperm does. Because the father is not involved at all in the process, he may not feel completely at ease about calling the baby his own. When the child grows up and learns that the one he called ‘father’ is not his real father at all and that his father is just a $50-dollar test-tube of sperm imagine the sense of insecurity he will feel.

b. In-Vitro Fertilization: Once again there are two types -- using husband’s sperm (no moral problems in this) or using donor’s sperm (this violates the marriage bond).

c. Surrogate Motherhood. For mothers who cannot conceive because of a defect in their womb and so rents someone else’s womb to bear her child. This still introduces a third party into the reproductive process. It reminds us of what Sarah did when she was not able to conceive, she got Hagar her handmaid to sleep with her husband and have a child on he behalf (same principle as surrogate). The fact that God did not accept the son that was born showed His disapproval of this method.

Our conclusion is that surrogate motherhood is not an option and neither are artificial insemination or IVF if a donor’s sperm or ovum is used. The only ethical means that an infertile Christian couple may use is artificial insemination or IVF with both sperm and ovum coming from the couple themselves.

Some claim that it is unethical for Christian couples to go for any artificial methods at all, because they say that if a couple is infertile, they should take it as God’s will for them not to have children at all. In answer to that, it must be stated that technological advances have enabled man to exercise dominion over things that he has never been able to control before. One could say, it is wrong to fly in an airplane. Why? If God had meant us to fly, He would have created us with wings. Since he did not give us wings, it is not His will for us to fly. Secondly, these methods are not 100 % successful. There is still a significant factor of uncertainty in them. E.g. IVF -- a couple may have to try many times before it works. Success still depends on God’s sovereign control. Besides these artificial methods which are still costly in terms of time and monry, there are also other options for those who are childless:

a. Adoption.
b. Trusting God to overcome the problem.
c. Accepting their childlessness as God’s purpose for them and using it to make themselves more available for God’s Kingdom.

[Back to top]
If I find one day that I have cancer, would it be wrong for me to choose to let myself die by not having any treatment?

It depends on the prognosis. If detected early, cancer can be cured, and it is my duty to seek treatment, just as we should seek treatment for any disease. But if the cancer has progressed to a stage when hope of being restored is very slim, and treatment is very costly, it would not be wrong for me to cast myself on the Lord to dispose my case according to His divine will, rather than to struggle on for some hope of healing.

If I am being kept alive by a machine, can I request that the machine be turned off? I believe it is not sinful if there are biblical motivations behind it. Further treatment would prolong my suffering of agony. I long to be with Jesus and Jesus is calling me home. Further treatment would burden my family with crushing financial loads. New advances in medicine have made it possible to keep terminally ill patients ‘alive’ for a long period of time, but often at great expense to the family -- we call this "extraordinary means".

The most difficult question is what if the person going through suffering is not ourselves but a loved one, who is in a coma, and cannot decide for himself? Does the family have the right to decide for them and withdraw treatment? If there is no hope that the person may ever regain consciousness, and if the condition is judged by several reliable doctors to be irreversible, incurable and hopeless those who are responsible for the dying person should feel no guilt if extraordinary life-sustaining efforts are withdrawn. Of course we would still want to continue ordinary treatment for the dying, that is treatment to make the patient’s death as painless and comfortable as possible, which includes providing food, water, warmth, pain-control, and normal care. But there is no moral obligation to prolong artificially a truly terminal patient’s irreversible and imminent process of dying. But if there is a possibility that the person may recover or regain consciousness such a decision should be withheld.

While we do not object to the cessation of extraordinary means of prolonging life under these carefully defined conditions, we must object to euthanasia for any reason. We reject active euthanasia because it is the same as killing a person. Even if person himself requests to be administered with a lethal drug to hasten death, it would violate the 6th commandment to comply. Any doctor who assists a patient to end his life at the patient’s own request is going against God’s law. The doctor would no longer be fulfilling his commitment to healing and curing, but would now function as an executioner.

[Back to top]
Is it wrong for Christians to participate in war?

There are those who hold that it is wrong for the Christian to participate in war because they claim that all war is wrong (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses). But the Bible speaks of God as a God of war, the Lord of armies (hosts). The New Testament tells us that the final great war will be waged by Christ Himself. Therefore waging war is not always immoral. In fact all believers are involved in spiritual warfare. Military officers always seem to appear in the Bible in a favorable light, e.g. Cornelius, and in instructions for them, never are they told to leave military service.

Though most wars are not justifed there are wars that are. When the nation calls upon a Christian to use military force to defend it in a just war, he should participate in it. These are wars fought only for defensive reasons. All aggressive or offensive wars are condemned, except perhaps for preventive aggression. God no longer has a chosen people whom He sends into war by direct revelation (c.f. Israel conquering Canaan). The only legitimate intention for war is to secure peace for all involved. Neither revenge nor conquest nor economic gain nor ideological supremacy are justified. War is to be a last resort, entered upon only when all negotiations and compromise have been tried and failed.

[Back to top]
What is the biblical view of homosexuality?
The gay movement claims that being a homosexual is not sinful because it is due to inborn genetic traits that one cannot be held responsible for. But medical research has failed to find any evidence for this. It is now known today that it is a socially learned response. The Scriptures give us the complete picture: it is the result of man’s depraved sinful nature interacting with a sinful social environment. Homosexuality violates God’s design in marriage: He made Adam and Eve, male and female, and married them. It undermines what God has ordained to be the basic unit of society: the family. It brought God’s fiery judgment upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). In the Mosaic law those guilty of homosexual sins were to be put to death. It is a sign of society’s turning away (apostasy) from God (Romans 1:26-27). There are no exceptions to this. All homosexuals who refuse to repent and change their ways are outside of God’s kingdom and under His great wrath.

What to do if you have been a homosexual and want to put things right? Repent. Choose to reverse your condition. It can be done, especially with the power of the Holy Spirit. Many have successfully changed after conversion, and become normal Christians with families.

[Back to top]
Is it right for a person to go through a sex-change operation?

Those who advocate such change say, "This is my body, this is my life: I have the right to do whatever I like with it." But if we are in Christ, the Bible says that our lives are no longer our own but God’s. Only He has the right to change us. And since He made us what we are now – male or female – it must be His intention for us to be that way and to remain that way. God never makes mistakes. To change one’s sex by an operation is in effect saying to God, "Oh God, you made a mistake, and now I have to correct it for you." Let us learn to be content with what God has endowed us with, and make the best use of it for His glory. Wanting to be what we are not given by God to be is also the sin of covetousness.

[Back to top]
Is it all right for Christians to make plans for their future, to desire to succeed in business or to go up the corporate ladder?

No, it is not all right if God is excluded from it and the motivation is just to get rich and prosperous. (Mat 6:31-34; James 4:13-15; see the Parable of the Rich Fool, Luke 12:16-21). God hates the attitude of independent, self-glorifying ambitious planning and striving, to make a name for oneself -- cf. Tower of Babel.

But it is all right if our plans are made in submission to God’s master plan and has God’s glory as its ultimate goal. (Prov 3:5,6; Psa 37:4,5; Prov 16:9). Let God be the one to promote us up the corporate ladder, and not vie for it ourselves (Ps 75:6,7). E.g. Jabez (1 Chron 4:10).

[Back to top]
Should I keep any savings or insurance?

Saving itself is a good habit that should be cultivated (Proverbs 30:25 - "The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer."). There is nothing immoral about putting money in the bank to collect interest. (Some say it is not earned by work, and so is wrong) In the parable of the Pounds, the nobleman rebuked the lazy servant: "Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?" (Luke 19:23)

But the extreme of hoarding (as a miser does) is wrong (Ecclesiastes 5:13-15). How do we draw the line? We must strike a good balance. Saving as a protection against future adversity is acting in unbelief, but saving as a provision for future known needs is acceptable. Savings or insurance for what might prove crippling loss through common accidents or fire can be made in faith, but any attempt to protect against all potential hazards in life is futile as well as unbelieving (Larry Burkett).

[Back to top]
What should I do if a brother in Christ has stolen from me, or borrowed but failed to return it to me?

Remind him about the item. Perhaps the failure to return it is due to some careless negligence. If he still does not repay, do not bring him to court as this would be a bad testimony (1 Corinthians 6:1, 6-7 - "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? … But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers…") If the matter cannot be settled within the fellowship of believers, then don’t pursue the issue further. Permit yourself to be defrauded rather than to bring disrepute on Jesus’ name. Write off his debt and remember, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

Litigation against an unbeliever or an impersonal corporation however, may be legitimate for believers, so long as the law of love for neighbour (Christian or non-Christian) is not violated and so long as justice is served with integrity.

[Back to top]
Is it wrong to deceive or lie to the enemy in wartime?

In any war both sides recognize that deception is one of the best weapons of war, and a person takes a risk by trusting the enemy. One example of this is the soldier’s use of camouflage to deceive the enemy as to his whereabouts. Truth must always be given to whom it is due, but it may not be given to whom it is not due, such as an enemy who may plan to use that truth for evil purposes. In the wars that the Israelites fought against the Canaanites, Joshua was instructed by God to set up an ambush on the city of Ai, and this is one of the deadliest forms of deception.

However the deliberate telling of lies when one is questioned is never justified, even in war time. Hence, if a soldier is captured and interrogated as to the whereabouts of the rest of his batallion, it would not be right for him to give a false location to throw the enemy off the trail. He should rather keep silent and refuse to say anything rather than to tell the truth (which would jeopardise the lives of his fellow soldiers) or to tell a lie (which would jeopardise his testimony as a Christian, and the integrity of his conscience before God).

How about Rahab the harlot? Did she not lie to the men sent by the king of Jericho to search for the Israelite spies? (Joshua 2:1-6) Does the saving of the spies’ lives not make her lie necessary? Looking at the passage again, one will find that her lie may not have been needed at all, since she had already taken the precaution to hide the spies with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof. The king’s men may not have bothered to search among the stalks of flax if they searched her house. But Rahab, fearing the worst and perhaps wavering in her infant faith in God to protect them, told a lie to ensure that the soldiers would not even begin to search her house. Even though the desired result was achieved, the end does not justify the means that she used. It is important to note that Rahab was praised by God not because of her lie but because of her faith in Him which worked by receiving the spies into her house (Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25).

A soldier who is a Christian need not worry about situations where it may be difficult to maintain his moral integrity without endangering innocent lives or the lives of his fellow soldiers. He can trust the Lord to give him the wisdom to answer or act at that moment. Jesus said in Mark 13:11 - "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Some have testified of surprising results from doing that in a wartime situation - the danger was avoided without compromising moral integrity.

[Back to top]
Is it all right to drink if I do it moderately?

No, because that is often the first step toward addiction. Many alcoholics started just by drinking on social occasions. They never thought they would become addicted to it. God’s Word says in Proverbs 23:31-33 "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Besides this, if we say that we are strong enough to resist addiction, we still set a bad example for others who may not be as strong as we are, and who will fall into alcohol addiction because they followed us.

Some try to justify drinking by showing that Christ drank wine and also performed the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding feast. But the study of the background to these passages in Scripture will reveal that wine was the common mealtime beverage of that time and that it was diluted up to 200 parts of water to one part of wine. In fact it was considered barbaric to drink wine that was undiluted or mixed with only an equal amount of water.

The only way to avoid alcohol-influenced thinking, speaking or behaviour and to avoid addiction is not to take the first drink. The production, sale and use of beverage alcohol is incompatible with biblical principles. Christians should have no part in them. If you own a shop or restaurant, be sure that no alcohol is sold or consumed in it. In the U.S. about 10,000 murders occur each year in situations involving alcohol. Alcoholism also leads often to suicide and crime. Thousands die each year from liver cirrhosis - a condition caused by alcohol consumption.

[Back to top]
Can Christians participate in any form of gambling?

Gambling is a social evil that has promoted covetousness and ruined many lives and even whole families. It ranges from playing with one-armed bandit coin machines, to games like mahjong, and poker to betting on horses, buying four digits, or buying Singapore Sweep tickets. Christians should totally abstain from any form of gambling, even if it is legal, because of its harmful effects:

1. It is addictive. In 1 Corinthians 6:7 the Bible says, "all things are lawful, but I shall not be brought under the power of any."

2. It causes people to lose sight of reality. Gamblers live in a dream world of riches. Hoping for that unreal ‘chance of a lifetime’ to fall into their lap. All their problems will be solved, if they strike it rich.

3. It makes people believe that luck rather than hard work is the way to prosperity. It goes against the Christian work ethic.

4. It causes people to become intensely self-centered. Nothing else matters to them except the indescribable thrill of risking one’s assets to make some gain. It leads to getting rather than giving as a way of life.

5. It often draws people into a life of dishonesty and sin. Gamblers often resort to borrowing money, cheating, stealing and embezzling funds to feed their habit.

6. It results in families destroyed by poverty. The parent who gambles becomes so caught up with gambling that he becomes unable to feel for others. He gambles late into the night instead of spending time with his family who needs him. He sells off the house and other family securities, and destroys the lives of his loved ones.

Speculating on the stock, currency or property market is also a form of gambling, as it has the same risks involved. There is nothing wrong however with investing in shares just as a means of getting dividends from a long-term investment. No speculation is involved in this.

[Back to top]
Although investing in shares is not considered as gambling in your answer to Q42, will it be gambling if a person invests in certain shares because of a chance to win a car, household equipment or cash every month, even if he knows that the dividends will be less than what he would get from investing in other shares?

The important element in gambling is the taking of risk. The one who gambles risks his assets on a speculated result, in the hope of getting gains for himself. If the speculated result does not occur, he loses whatever he has risked. There is no gambling involved when there is no risk of loss. Speculating on the stock, currency or property market can result in huge capital losses. Therefore it is a form of gambling.

In contrast to this, investing more in certain shares because of certain incentives offered - like the chance to win a car or household equipment in a "lucky" draw - does not result in the loss of capital. The capital is still retained, although in a different form. The only difference is that less dividends may be received than if the investment had been made in other kinds of shares. But there are still overall gains in long term investments whether large or small.

It is a common trend in our competitive environment, for the same incentives to be offered by almost any commercial establishment, e.g. car salesmen, supermarkets, Internet service providers and mobile phone operators. Each tries to win the market by offering chances to win something in a "lucky" draw.

A Christian who chooses to buy a product from a certain vendor because he gets a chance to win something, is not gambling. But if he does this despite knowing that the product is inferior to another of a different brand (but with no such incentive offered), he is not exercising good stewardship of his resources. Good stewardship requires us to make good use of all the material resources that God has entrusted to us, to get good value for money.

Sometimes the choice may be between two brands which offer equally good value for money. Then there is no harm for the Christian to choose the brand that offers the best incentives for buying its product.

[Back to top]
How does one witness (to family members, especially parents) without being offensive and how persistent should one be? How does one minister to an unbeliever who is involved in the occult without being offensive?

Firstly, it is without a doubt that the Gospel will be offensive to anyone who hears it, some to a greater degree than others. The reason for this is because men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil (John 3:19). The very message of the Gospel is that God loves sinners that he sent Christ to die on behalf of them; but people will find that message offensive because they do not like to acknowledge themselves as sinners. So witnessing is an offensive task by nature. The word "to witness" in Greek is martureo, from which we get the English word "martyr." Martyrs are killed for preaching the Gospel - for witnessing, because the act is offensive. So there is no remedy for the offensiveness of the Gospel - rather, we preach and bear all reproaches and persecutions for Christ’s sake. But in preaching the Gospel; wisdom, tact, and finesse also play a part. We watch for every opportunity to preach the Gospel, and such opportunities abound. And when we witness, we should ask of God wisdom to use the right words, understanding of the person’s needs, how to assess the situation, to be warmly received, etc. Remember that Christ has sent us out as sheep in the midst of wolves (Matthew 10:16), so we must be blameless in this respect, to minimize any offensiveness contributed by us (such as being a bad testimony and a stumbling block). But the offensiveness of the Gospel we must never minimize, lest we preach a muted Gospel.

Concerning persistence, an important principle is found in 2 Timothy 4:2 where it is exhorted that we preach the word in season and out of season. This means that we are not to cease to minister the Gospel. However, we must also understand that witnessing is a process. More often than not, a person who hears the Gospel for the first time will not believe. It often takes time and many seasons of preaching. Evangelism, you could say, is like the agricultural process. In agriculture, the early rains soften the ground. This is followed by tilling, where the ground is prepared for the next step, which is sowing. This is followed by late rains and cultivation where the small seedling grows into a sapling which eventually matures enough for harvesting. So likewise, the Gospel may have to be preached many times before the person is finally harvested and saved. This takes patience and prayerfulness, especially if the unbeliever is a parent. One way of witnessing is through Christian literature. Recommended books include Josh McDowell’s "More Than a Carpenter," Robert Laidlaw’s "The Reason Why," and Frank Morrison’s "Who Moved the Stone?" Other means of witnessing to folks of an older generation is to have their peers preach them the Gospel - such as older church members or by the Minister conducting a home visitation.

Another important principle is also found in Matthew 10:14 which exhorts witnesses to shake off the dust of their feet if they are not received. This means that if there is persistent and chronic rejection of the Gospel by the unbeliever, the witness is to leave that person alone. God will deal with that person in good time as the Gospel seed has already been planted.

Concerning how to minister to an unbeliever involved in the occult, one must realize that the person knows no better. There is no life nor light in him - he is only doing what comes naturally to him in his sinfulness and blindness. The only way to minister to such a person is to minister the Gospel to him, and yes, the Gospel will be offensive; but it is the only means by which the person will be rescued from the occult. Do remind your friend that the Living and True God clearly forbids the consultation of spirits. Mediums receive their knowledge from such evil spirits who seek to destroy man and ensnare him in darkness. Remind your friend too, that many mediums are charlatans, who by their keen knowledge of and experience with human behavior, victimize those who are in need - those who are willing even to seek out a medium. Use this as a platform for witnessing - to spur the unbeliever to examine why he has to seek advice from a man and minor spirits when he can go directly to an Almighty God who knows all things, even the number of hairs on a person’s head. Watch for every opportunity to preach the Gospel.

[Back to top]
My brother who is a long term vegetarian and an idol worshipper suggest me to go on a vegetarian diet, his concept of eating animals and poultry is killing them and not respecting life. He thinks that he is so much better than christians and so he doesn’t need Christ. He loaned me 2 VCDs showing the abuse and slaughtering of animals, the scene is gruesome. How should I respond? I have witness to him several times. He is a father of 3 children, and the youngest one has Down Syndrome. Our whole family feels sorry for him. Has it got anything to do with his long term vegetarian diet?

Although there is a Christian cult that advocates vegetarianism (The Seventh Day Adventists) there is no biblical basis for it. God sanctioned the consumption of animal meat just after the flood, on the condition that the blood is drained from the meat before consumption: Genesis 9:3,4 - "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

Unlike man, animals are not made in the image of God. They have no afterlife. They live by instinct, not by moral choices. They do not sin. They merely cease to exist after death. This is why the sixth commandment that God gave, "Thou shalt not kill" is applicable only to the taking of human life, not animal life.

While we should not mistreat animals (Exodus 23:5; Proverbs 12:10), cause them unnecessary suffering (Deuteronomy 25:4), or kill them unnecessarily, e.g. for sport (Jonah 4:11), we can kill animals to eat their meat. As for the slaughtering of animals for meat, in local abbatoirs the animals are killed by applying high voltage current to their heads. It is very quick and merciful.

If we were to follow the vegetarian’s reasoning of not killing out of respect for life, to its ultimate conclusion, we should watch out before taking any step when we walk, just in case there may be a worm or an ant about to be stomped upon! We should also not spray insecticide or destroy a hornet’s nest. Would vegetarians disinfect their hands with antiseptic solutions? Even amoeba and bacteria may be considered as animal life. The fact is, we do kill a lot of animal life everyday. Those who feel good about not eating animal meat are therefore not very consistent. They have a zeal which is misdirected, and not according to knowledge.

Many who are idol worshippers however, refrain from consuming meat for a different reason: because of their belief in reincarnation. They believe that killing an animal may be taking the life of a creature who may be a human being in a previous life or future life. The Bible teaches that all creatures are only born once and die once physically. There is no rebirth. Hebrews 9:27 - "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a Christian wanting to go on a full or partial vegetarian diet for health reasons. E.g. to avoid consuming animal fat which tends to be saturated and high in cholesterol. But such a Christian should not condemn those who do not follow his diet. Romans 14:2,3 - "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."

[Back to top]
If a Christian has been coming to a church for sometime but still does not want to be a member. And the Christian may even be serving in the church, but for personal reason do not wish to be a member, is it healthy? The concept of church membership seems to come later in church history. During the early church, as long as a person accepts Jesus Christ, he or she is automatically a member of God’s family. So can we conclude that as long as a person believe in Jesus and is willing to serve God, to register or not register as a church member is not important, because church membership is something that is man-made?

When a person accepts Jesus as Saviour, he is automatically made a member of the Church which is the Body of Christ. This universal Church is mentioned in Ephesians 5:22,23, and membership in it is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:27. But at the same time, the Scriptures recognise the existence of local churches (Acts 8:1; 11:22; Romans 16:1, Colossians 4:15; Acts 14:23). Each local church is to carry out discipline of its members, and at times this discipline may include excommunication (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:4-13; Matthew 18:17). The act of putting a person out of the church implies that there is a defined group of local believers that one can be either in or out.

Each local church is also responsible to appoint its own church leaders from among its own members, following the criteria given in the Scriptures. In Acts 6:3 the local church in Jerusalem was told to "look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business." This phrase ‘looking out among you’ implies that the candidates for church leadership were to be selected from a defined group of local believers.

Moreover Hebrews 13:17 says "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." This implies that there is a defined group of believers that the leadership is accountable for, and those who are in the group are hence responsible to obey the leadership and submit to them. (see also Hebrews 13:7,24)

From the above, we can understand that membership in a local church is essential for every believer, even though he may already be a member of the universal church. It is not essential for salvation, but it is essential for obedience to the whole counsel of God ("Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", Matthew 28:20). Therefore I think it is wrong to say that local church membership is something man-made, or that it is something that came later in church history. The early church had its own way of defining local church membership for the purpose of discipline and church government.

It is the duty of every believer to be a member of a local church, and he should be careful to choose a church that is faithful to the Word of God, and not be a member of an apostate church (Revelation 18:4 - "Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.") If a Christian does not want to register as a member of a local church, it is very probable that he is not aware of the above teaching from the Bible, or not convinced of it. If he is aware of the above points but still does not want to register, then it must be asked, Why does he not want to register? Does he not recognise that local churches and church leadership are instituted by God? Is he perhaps motivated by a desire to be free from submission to all authority, including church authority? If he submits to Christ’s authority, should he not also submit to the authority that Christ has given to local church leadership?

Serving in a local church is actually a privilege. But with privilege, there comes responsibility. It is wrong to say "I accept the privilege, but not the responsibility." If a person who is not a member of a local church serves in it in any way he likes, but his service is not done well, or even done in a wrong manner, how can the church leaders correct him? Not being a member, he can say to them "You have no authority to correct me." It is therefore not healthy for a Christian who has been serving in a local church to refuse to be a member of that church.

I would understand why a Christian may want to serve for a short time in a church before becoming a member of it. He may still be seeking God’s will on whether this local church is the right one for him, and his ability to serve in it may be one of the factors affecting his decision. But once a Christian is satisfied that the church he is in is a valid Christ-instituted local church where he can worship God and serve Him with his spiritual gifts, he should not delay accepting church membership and submitting himself to the local church leadership.

[Back to top]
How can those who are retarded believe in the Gospel message when they cannot even understand simple words? And how can infants dying in infancy believe in Christ? Are they totally denied salvation merely because they lack the capacity to understand the Gospel?

It must be admitted that God’s Word does not speak explicitly on this matter. But Jesus did say in Luke 18: 16 – “Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” And King David expressed confidence that he will see his deceased infant son in heaven one day, 2 Samuel 12:23 – “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

But beyond these few statements and some good and necessary inferences that we can make from Scripture, there is a definite limit upon what we may legitimately say on this matter. To say more than this is to venture into the unknown. There are some who speculate that all infants who die in infancy are automatically saved because it is claimed that they are all innocent and have no sin. But the Scriptures teach the sober truth that we are are already sinners not only from birth, but even from the moment of conception, even though no actual sins have been committed yet. David testified in Psalm 51:5 – “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

This sinful nature can be seen even in the behaviour of newborn babies – you can see how quickly they learn how to get their mummies and daddies to respond to their griping and crying. And so even one who is still in a state of infancy is a sinner in need of salvation, and if he dies, there is no automatic salvation for him. And so we must be careful not to speculate on this matter or else we may end up believing things that are not scriptural at all. We may even end up teaching a new method of salvation – by dying in infancy! This is why the only thing that the Westminster Confession ventures to say about this matter is that “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” (WCOF Chapter X, para 3)

All that is stated here is that by the same divine election that we have been saved, those who are incapable of hearing the Gospel can also be saved. It does not go on to speculate how this happens, or how many of such persons are elected to salvation, whether they include only the infants of Christian parents or also those of non-Christian parents. All those whom God elects are ultimately saved, and their salvation is wrought by God only through Jesus Christ alone.

But what is good for us to know out of all this, is that because according to the Scriptures, salvation is completely wrought by the sovereign work of God, God is still able to save those who die in infancy and those who are retarded. Their incapacity poses no barrier to God’s work of salvation. That puts them on the same level as everyone else. And this gives us hope to comfort others and also ourselves if have loved ones in such a state – a child who dies in infancy or is born with some abnormality which makes him mentally handicapped. Let us do our best for them, knowing that God can save them. Pray for them, communicate Christ to them as simply as we can, and leave the rest up to God.

And actually, we too before we were saved, were just like them and not very different from them. We too were incapable of responding to the Gospel of Christ. Jesus said, “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” If God had not worked in your heart, and drawn you to Christ, you would not be saved today!

[Back to top]