Is It Wrong To Celebrate Easter?

        It would be inaccurate to consider Easter, also known as Resurrection Sunday, a pagan holiday. Christians have for centuries set aside that time to specifically celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That day was formally recognized as such when Roman Emperor Constantine called for the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The annual dating for this holiday is determined by moon cycles as was the Jewish Passover, though both religious observances are distinct. Differences in timing and how the Easter celebration was to take place can be traced back to the earlier second century.

        Any parallels to pagan symbolism would be the result of primitive believers interacting with the culture of their day. Nonetheless, customs and traditions are not inherently sinful (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Scripture records believers assembling on Sunday (Acts 20:7-12), yet it nowhere mandates us to gather on that day. Is the church service being conducted in accordance with the Word of God? Thus, we see what amounts to a biblically permitted tradition. The question of Easter is one that deserves fair treatment.

        Most things nowadays have pagan parallels, which would even include the names of planets in our solar system and days of the week. Can we do anything at all? Can we use anything? Similarities do not in and of themselves prove something to be evil or malicious. Similarities do not inherently prove a logical connection or association. Symbols are subject to reinterpretation and can therefore be reused.  If pagans once did something, that does not necessarily mean Christians cannot do them for good reasons or simply for fun. Pagans also eat, walk, talk, and breath.

        Resurrection Sunday was celebrated by Christians long before it was made about the mythical creature called the Easter Bunny. The holiday points us to Christ, namely His resurrection. That historical event is of pivotal significance to our faith. If Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our faith would be in vain. That point is certainly worthy of repeated commemoration. Such a ceremony does not exceed or violate the principles of Scripture.

        Claims of Easter being pagan originated with pagans themselves and secularists who detest the truth of the gospel. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. No mere man has the power to make a day that God created corrupt. Christians who dogmatically condemn the celebration are guilty of making category errors and oversimplifications. No sacrifices or homage is given to false gods in the process. The English term Easter comes from the Old German word "erstehen," which means coming back to life. It does not pertain to the celebration of anything pagan.

        The form of compromise (which Easter is not) Scripture condemns is that which hinders service or allegiance rightfully belonging to God alone. There comes a point when separation no longer resembles a desire to grow in sanctification but a religious recluse. The latter is not the way God wants us to be. If we were to be absolutely disconnected from the world, then He would have to remove us at this very instant. We are to engage the culture with our beliefs, but lovingly stand firm in so doing.

        Even the act of painting eggs or the idea of imaginary rabbits are nothing more than childish means of entertainment. Such is not inherently involved or related to the worship of idols. Whether or not a Christian chooses to observe Easter is entirely a matter of conscience or personal preference. It is not meant to be a test of orthodoxy. It is not a matter to break fellowship over.

Does The Roman Catholic Eucharist Entail Cannibalism?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples of Catholic Answers wrote an article with the intent of addressing the charge of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism. The author provides three lines of reasoning as to why he believes that particular objection to be invalid, which are being examined here. His words are cited in bold and followed by a critique:

         "First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way."

          The Roman Catholic Eucharist does indeed imply cannibalism, since it includes literally consuming the human flesh of Jesus Christ. Eating only part of a victim does not remedy this dilemma. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he has eaten a whole victim or does so in a different manner.

          How can one consume blood in a non-bloody fashion? How can one eat soul and divinity when chewing is a physical process?

          "Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral."

          The usage of symbolism does not suggest as a logical consequence a literal understanding or act practiced. Jesus Christ is our source of spiritual life. We partake of Him by trusting in His work on a continual basis. He is not life to us because we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

          How come the inspired writers of the New Testament never clarified that the eucharist was not cannibalism?

          "Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word."

           Just because a figurative expression has a negative connotation in various contexts, it does not follow such always has that same meaning or intention in every occurrence. There is nothing ruling out the possibility of more neutral or positive usages of eating flesh or drinking blood in a symbolic sense. For example, Psalm 23:5 uses imagery of a table being prepared before enemies to signify God's provision, even in the midst of adversaries. Psalm 119:103 describes the words of God as "sweeter than honey" to one's mouth, giving praise to God for His wisdom. Further, there is no substantive reason to believe that the Jews may have taken "Christ at His word" because it seemed He was encouraging the practice of sin. In fact, His metaphor was more an invitation to be reconciled to God, which is a positive message.

          If transubstantiation is true, then the consecrated elements should taste like human flesh and blood. However, the communion elements taste just like bread and wine, even after consecration by the priest. There is something fundamentally wrong with a proposition which tells us that things are not consistent with the reality of our surroundings. If transubstantiation is true, then that would mean the full human body of Christ is literally inside the stomachs of partakers during the liturgical service. Even getting His entire body into our mouths at one time would be an impossibility. These conclusions are nonsense, as our digestive system would be holding far beyond its natural capacity. Jesus Christ has a material body, just as we all do. That means His body and blood would have been consumed a long time ago. They would have been all eaten up two thousand years ago, making such in future generations a logical impossibility! Nothing is sacrificed during the Mass except one's own common sense.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Fulfillment Of The Jewish Passover?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist De Maria wrote an article titled The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Mass, in which he tries linking the sacrifice of the Mass to the Passover feast. He also responds to certain objections to Roman Catholic theology based on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Each of the author's claims in regards to the Mass will be analyzed in this article as follows:

          "The Mass is our Passover feast. Because Christ is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). Perhaps you refuse to keep the Feast. But we don’t."

          1 Corinthians 5:7-8 says that Jesus Christ is our Passover. He died on the cross. That is what the slaughter of the Passover lamb typified, not some miraculous change of the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. The point of this passage is that when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are to do so without malice. It does not specifically address the mode in which we partake of Christ in communion.

          "If you choose to deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and disannul the Mass, then Christ died in vain for you. (Hebrews 10:25-31)" 

          Hebrews chapter ten says nothing regarding the sacrifice of the Mass. Rather, it addresses the singular act of Jesus Christ at Calvary. The people who forsake Him have denied the only sacrifice available for sin. Note that this context denies the work of Jesus is ongoing or reenacted (Hebrews 10:18). That point is stated emphatically.

          "Did you not understand that the Eucharist is the self same sacrifice that took place on Calvary?"

          That is merely begging the question. No explanation of how or why is given for us to believe that the eucharist is the same sacrifice that took place on Calvary.

          "Here is what Protestants miss and don’t understand. And the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t understand the Scriptures."

          Must a "Protestant" become a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon in order to see those particular systems of doctrine in Scripture? This actually sounds like something the Gnostics would have said with their emphasis of obtaining "higher knowledge" about God upon joining their sect. De Maria reads foreign ideas into Scripture as he engages in circular reasoning and strains typology beyond its original intent.

          "In the Old Testament, we learn that Sacrifice is not simply the slaughter of the victim. Sacrifice is also the offering of the Victim. And Sacrifice is also the consuming of the Victim. Christ takes care of the first two aspects of His Sacrifice. We participate in the same Sacrifice by consuming the Passover. Have you not read in Scripture (Exodus 12:1-10)?"

           It is a non-sequitur to say that we eat the literal body of Christ during the Lord's Supper because the Israelites ate the flesh of the animals that they sacrificed. Further, no transubstantiation took place in the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The Lord's Supper is a New Testament institution. It is the New Covenant form of Passover. However, no transubstantiation takes place in the latter any more than it did in the former.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:22] We believe that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. Therefore, Blood is involved. But it is not visible to the eye of flesh. By faith alone does one discern this Blood of Christ in the Cup of Salvation. (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:27). Therefore, the Blood of our Lord is consumed in the Eucharist and that is why it is propitiatory for our sins."

          Nice try with the use of flowery philosophical language, but Hebrews 9:22 is still a problem because there is no blood shed during the Mass. That is the means by which atonement and forgiveness of sin is enabled. So it does not actually have propitiatory value as Rome teaches.

           Observe Paul's analogy of the body of Christ to the Jewish altar. Did the Jews eat pieces of the table? Are we literally one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)? The reference to "partaking of Christ" is obviously not meant to be understood literally. We do so through faith by looking at the memorial.

          If sacrifices for sin have to continually be made, then those offerings have insufficient power to redeem lost souls (Hebrews 9:13-14; 10:1-2; 10-11; 18). Thus, the eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church is idolatry and blasphemous.

          "Where do you get the Blood of Christ which you claim washes away your sins, since you deny the Eucharist?"

          Christ translated His literal blood to the heavenly sanctuary so that it could be applied to the Mercy Seat and sprinkled on believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:12-28).

          "[Responding to Hebrews 7:27] True. But if that means that Christ no longer offers Himself to the Father, why is the Lamb standing in heaven as though slain (Revelation 5:6)?"

          Revelation 5:6 is imagery describing eschatology, not the eternal state of Christ. It is using imagery to identify Christ as the one who has been slain, not as one who is continually being slain. The context indicates that His work is a completed action:

          "And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." (Revelation 5:6, emphasis added)

          "And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9, emphasis added)

           "Saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12, emphasis added)

          The Apostle John's message is perfectly consistent with the author of Hebrews. How it is even possible to re-present a once-for-all sacrifice? Jesus Christ completely paid our debt of sin at the Cross. His work has already been accomplished in full.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:12] Well, He did. How does this contradict the Mass. It is because He did that we can celebrate the Mass."

           Jesus died once for all. His one sacrifice is complete and perfect. It will never be repeated or ongoing. It is not like the Old Covenant sacrifices, which were repeatedly offered because they could never actually atone for sin.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:26-28] This also does not speak against the Mass, but confirms it."

          The Roman Catholic Mass is contradicted because the text tells us that Christ is only going to appear twice with the later time to bring salvation for those who believe. Moreover, Christ's work is contrasted with the work of the Old Testament high priests whose work was ongoing.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 10:10] Yes. Once for ALLLLLLLLL. That includes us. And the benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ, are applied to us, in the Mass."

          Jesus Christ was offered up once for eternity. It is that single act by which our redemption was made possible. Only Christ could offer Himself up (John 10:17-18). He made His sacrifice one time. He died one time. It is not happening today because it was finished at Calvary. His work has already been accomplished. The benefits of the Cross are applied to us by faith (Romans 5:1-2; Romans 8:1).

          "[Responding to Romans 6:9-10] Excellent! It is Protestants who accuse us of killing Christ over and over. But we don’t believe that at all. We simply obey His Word and “do this in remembrance” of Him. We “re-present” the once for all sacrifice upon the altar as He commanded. Yes, we have an “altar”. It is the Table of the Lord. But it is an altar of Sacrifice (Hebrews 13:10)."

          There cannot be an atonement sacrifice without the death of a victim. This only goes to show that the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation requires us to believe that which is totally unimaginable! In fact, the notion of "re-presenting" a once-for-all sacrifice sounds similar to the time traveling that we read of in science fiction literature.

           In Hebrews 13:10, it is not clear at all that the reference is to the eucharist. It seems rather to be talking about the cross, the salvation, and benefits of Christ, which we have in Him.

1 Timothy 3:16 And The Deity Of Jesus Christ

           "By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)

           Some of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we possess contain a textual variant when it comes to the Greek word that is translated as "who" (who was revealed in the flesh) and the Greek word for "God." It seems likely for a number of reasons that the pronoun "who" is the original word in the original autographs penned by the Apostle Paul.

           It would have been tempting for a scribe who held to a high Christology, one who acknowledged Jesus Christ's full divinity, to change the word "who" for the "God" in emphasizing Christ's divinity. First of all, His deity is not the main aspect of the text in question. Further, the use of the pronoun is perfectly consistent with the manner in which Paul writes elsewhere in regard to Christ (Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:5-11).

           Nonetheless, 1 Timothy 3:16 supports the deity of Christ in a subtle fashion. The language of "he was manifested in the flesh" suggests that He existed prior to His incarnation. He was not created, but took on human flesh. This text reflects a primitive Christian hymnal.

           The phrase "justified in the Spirit" refers to Christ resurrecting bodily from the grave (Romans 1:4; Ephesians 1:19-23). The phrase "seen of angels" points to Christ ascending into heaven (Acts 1:9-11). The phrase "proclaimed among the nations" refers to His glory being revealed by the Holy Spirit through the gospel to the world (1 Corinthians 15:1-6; 2 Corinthians 4:2-4). The phrase "taken up in glory" refers to Christ being exalted at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:56-60). Jesus Christ is God incarnate. This note is also insightful as to how 1 Timothy 3:16 points to Christ's divinity:

           "Notably, the phrase “great indeed, is the mystery of godliness” may intentionally echo the phrase frequently heard in Ephesus: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:28). If so, Paul is indirectly subverting the cult of Artemis, Ephesus’ patron goddess."

Exposing The False Gospel Of Physical Well-being

        Prosperity gospel teachers such as Joel Olsteen are known for making fraudulent promises of physical recovery, financial blessings, and freedom from demonic influences to those who voluntarily donate large sums of money. It is claimed that God gives people who have enough faith a hundredfold in terms of wealth and health in addition to the forgiveness of God for sin provided at the Cross. Professing Christians who give money to prosperity gospel ministries are wrongly assured that God will materially reward them as a result of their contributions.

        The Columnist Tara Isabella Burton recounted the origin of the prosperity gospel in these words:

        "Its roots, though, don’t just lie in explicitly Christian tradition. In fact, it’s possible to trace the origins of the American prosperity gospel to the tradition of New Thought, a nineteenth-century spiritual movement popular with decidedly unorthodox thinkers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and William James. Practitioners of New Thought, not all of whom identified as Christian, generally held the divinity of the individual human being and the priority of mind over matter. In other words, if you could correctly channel your mental energy, you could harness its material results. New Thought, also known as the “mind cure,” took many forms: from interest in the occult to splinter-Christian denominations like Christian Science to the development of the “talking cure” at the root of psychotherapy."

        The Encyclopedia Britannica says the following about the origin of the prosperity gospel:

        "The early 20th-century New Thought movement, a mind-healing movement based on diverse religious and metaphysical presuppositions, shaped the later development of prosperity gospel. Although the movement was not necessarily Christian, religious strains of New Thought generally emphasized the immanence of God, the divine nature of humanity, the immediate availability of God’s power to humans, and the belief that sin, human disorders, and human disease are basically matters of incorrect thinking. Moreover, according to New Thought, humans can live in oneness with God in love, truth, peace, health, and plenty, and many groups emphasized Jesus as teacher and healer and proclaimed his kingdom as being within a person."

        Needless to say, neither the origin nor the essence of prosperity theology is Christian. Jesus Christ promised spiritual as opposed to material blessings to those who obeyed His commandments. Moreover, we are not to follow Him with the intent of receiving things from God. That is not Christianity. The core of religion is not what God can do for us, but what we can do for the glory of God. We serve Him because He is worthy of being served.

        People involved in the Word of Faith Movement have been guilty of abuses of spiritual gifts when it is claimed that there are Christians not filled with the Holy Spirit. They do this when it is claimed that a lack of healthiness and wealth is due to a lack of trust in God. He is not involved in any system of doctrine that leaves one penniless and unable to care for one's own needs.

        Jesus Christ warned against a materialistic mindset when He spoke of storing up treasures in heaven:

        "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:19-24)

        Christ exposed in simple terms the vanity of accumulating riches for oneself in this life by pointing out the fact that items can be stolen and destroyed. They have no eternal value so they should not be our chief focus. The prosperity gospel reverses this order by insisting on having our best life here on this earth. Jesus Christ spoke of the difficulty a rich man has in becoming saved (Matthew 19:23). How can such a person place his trust in a God that he cannot see?

        A balanced view of personal finance has been laid out for us in the Old Testament:

        "Two things I ask of you, Lord; do not refuse me before I die: Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." (Proverbs 30:7-9)

        The point is not that wealth is bad as such, but that it is hard to keep God in one's own thoughts when he has extravagant means of physical comfort.

        The Apostle Paul stated that the love of money is a root of evil:

        "Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

        The truth of these words has been proven time and time again. Many a life are like books illustrating the wisdom of the above saying. Money is not everything. It is not the key to lasting happiness or fulfillment. There is more to life than one's own riches.

Christians Can Speak Things Into Existence?

        A blatantly unbiblical idea present among people involved in the Word of Faith Movement is that Christians can use the "force" of faith to speak things into existence. In other words, faith is seen as the mechanism by which our words make personal wishes of health and prosperity come true. Nonetheless, this johnny-come-lately model of faith and prayer is utterly incompatible with everything that Scripture says regarding the sovereignty of God and the nature of His promises.

         The creation account of Genesis brings into light the grand majesty of our Creator. He spoke the entirety of the universe into existence ex nihilo. The fabric of life is sustained by His magnificent power. That provides an ideal description of deity. Thus, attributing the ability of creating things by command to human beings amounts to idolatry because that would also make us gods. Faith itself would become the object of worship. God Himself would essentially be dethroned of His unique position of honor and supremacy. We share traits such as emotion, intellect, and reason, but we are not partakers of His divine essence.

         Even the Egyptian magicians who were summoned by the Pharaoh to imitate the miracles performed by Moses recognized limits to their abilities (Exodus 8:18-19). The notion of people being capable of speaking things into existence is impossible because such a superpower transcends our physical limitations. If a person has been influenced by this dangerous deception, then he would do well to read Isaiah chapters forty through forty eight. That context goes on at length to tell us that there is literally nothing like God in terms of His power.

          Despite the major biblical problems with this teaching, some proponents have desperately tried finding biblical support for their reasoning. A classic example of eisegesis would be Romans 4:17, which says, "...the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not." But the Apostle Paul in this text is speaking of God, not man. It is He who works in us. Faith involves us trusting and depending on God. The purpose of us praying is to conform ourselves to His will (1 John 5:14). It is indeed a terrible misfortune to see so-called ministers such as Joel Olsteen, Joyce Meyer, and Kenneth Copeland promote such aberrational theology.

Holy Laughter Or Demon Inspired Nonsense?

• Discussion:

          -The central focus of the Word of Faith Movement is health and prosperity. This loosely affiliated, diverse group upholds doctrine that ranges anywhere from outright bizarre to heretical. The Founding Father of the Word of Faith Movement is usually regarded as Kenneth E. Hagin, who was heavily influenced by E. W. Kenyon in the development of his theology. One of several problematic teachings prevalent in the Word of Faith Movement is the notion of holy laughter.

         These episodes of uncontrollable laughter are believed by proponents to be the result of the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, these wildly emotional experiences are attributed to supernatural intervention. They are associated with what British newspapers have called the Toronto Blessing. This excerpt from the Online Encyclopedia provides further context as to the mysterious nature of such phenomena:

          "The Toronto Blessing, also known as "the Father's Blessing" or "the renewal," began in the storefront facility of the Toronto Airport Vineyard Fellowship in January 1994, when participants in revival services manifested intense physical responses to prayer—crying, twitching, shaking, uncontrollable laughter, and falling to the floor in a trancelike state that lasted for hours. Word spread quickly through the Vineyard Fellowship, and the meeting place soon teemed with visitors. By mid-1994, people flocked in from across North America and Britain. Soon the crowds became more diverse as Australians, Europeans, Malaysians, Africans, and others found their way to the congregation's new, commodious quarters in a converted warehouse close to the Toronto airport. The revival's characteristic physical manifestations, folksy music, and dance spread beyond the Vineyard into congregations of many denominations whose pastors hoped for increased fervor in their ministries, especially in Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand."

          Margaret M. Poloma provides sociological background as to the nature of "revival" behind the Toronto Blessing:

          "The "Toronto Blessing" is the latest phase of the pentecostal/charismatic (p/c) movement, an approach to Christianity that began early in the century and now is said to account for one out of four Christians worldwide (Barrett 1982; Cox 1995). Beginning with the Welsh Revival (1903-1904), escalating with the Azusa Street Revival (1906-1913), and rekindled through the Latter Rain Movement (1948), the Charismatic Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the "Third Wave" (1980s) and now the "Toronto Blessing" (1994)1, the p/c movement (although seemingly waxing and waning but always continuing to draw new followers) may be characterized as a social movement struggling against the forces of institutionalization. From its Azusa Street days to the present time in Western countries (the developing nations have different stories to tell) the pressing need for institutional norms, structures, and resources have quickly controlled charismatic fires."

          What are we to make of all these random, ecstatic bouts of laughter that have been taking place among neo-Pentecostals? Advocates of holy laughter assert that the Christian church is going through a great revival. However, Scripture nowhere describes as a consequence of being filled with the Holy Spirit believers making incoherent animal sounds. It is not even true. Reason has been substituted with subjective feelings. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul declared self-control to be a characteristic of the Holy Spirit:

          "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23)

          In the context of properly administrating spiritual gifts, Paul said that God is not a God of disorder but peace:

          "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints." (1 Corinthians 14:33)

          The notion of holy laughter cannot be said to originate with God, since it is dysfunctional behavior. He despises chaos in His church.

          Solomon stated that sorrow has value in that it can lead to personal reflection and a change of perspective:

          "Sorrow is better than laughter, For when a face is sad a heart may be happy. The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning, While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure." (Ecclesiastes 7:3-4)

            It is in that state of heart we consider our ways. Even sorrow has redeeming qualities to it. Even sorrow has a legitimate purpose in our lives. No one can always be happy.

          The so-called holy laughter experiences that we hear of nowadays are uncontrollable to those who partake in them. Such occurrences are very much disruptive. It therefore does not make any sense to consider God as their source. He is the God of reason and order. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Word of God (John 17:17). Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Both are accomplished through an objective standard. Unintelligible expressions do not get us anywhere. Laughter is not even a fundamental theme of Scripture.

          The New Testament contains warnings against false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:4; 2 Peter 2:1-3). It also contains warnings against false signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). That is why we have been instructed to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1-4). The idea of holy laughter revolves around counterfeit revival. Similar incidents of disorderly laughing spells can also be found in the Kundalini Yoga, Subud, and qigong exercises.

Does God Promise Physical Healing In This Life?

        The Charismatic Movement is known for its emphasis on people having the ability to perform sign gifts that were originally conferred to the twelve apostles by the Holy Spirit. One of the miracles believed to remain operative today by a number of people who subscribe to this ideology is faith healing. It is claimed that sick people can be cured by means of faith and prayer. God is believed to restore a person's physical and spiritual wellbeing in response to our petitions.

        The purpose of God occasionally using the apostles and prophets as vessels to work signs and wonders was to verify that they were indeed His messengers. These men could not simply use sign gifts whenever they pleased. The problem with the idea of modern-day faith healers is that nowhere does God in Scripture guarantee complete healing from every sickness or injury. It is actually God's will that we sometimes endure suffering while on this earth. 

         Paul nowhere mentioned having the ability to heal when speaking of his companions who had illnesses. This is contrasted with what we encounter in the Book of Acts:

         "But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick." (Philippians 2:25-26)

         "Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus." (2 Timothy 4:20)

         If sign gifts were supposed to remain operative after the ministry of the twelve apostles, then it surely is strange how Paul could not miraculously heal individuals that he mentioned in his epistles. It would be nonsense to suggest that he lacked the faith in God to perform supernatural works. To spell matters out more bluntly, Paul had requested prayer and recommended the use of medicine to Timothy:

         "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." (1 Timothy 5:23)

        Wine had medicinal purposes ranging from the cleansing of bodily injuries to being mixed with other ingredients for consumption by patients. It retained that kind of use when the Greeks created a more systematized form of medical practice. Hippocrates believed drinking wine to be essential to a healthy diet. The Romans maintained its use. The above cited passage indicates that it is indeed appropriate for Christians to consult doctors when necessary. 

        This teaching of faith healing that is prevalent among charismatics is a variation of prosperity theology. It is not only unbiblical, but also dangerous. Countless Christians throughout church history have passed away due to organic diseases. Withholding medical attention for either adults or children who need it can only further harm them or result in their death. What if a man renounces his faith just because his health continues to deteriorate after believing false promises? It would be spiritual abuse to insist that his problems stem from a lack of trust in God.

        While it is one thing to say that all healing comes from God, it is quite another to say that He promises to take away all our problems in this life. There is a healing aspect to the atonement of Jesus Christ, which does not come to full realization until we enter into the fullness of His presence. Faith healing is tied to a placebo effect in that people may convince themselves of feeling better about their health conditions while not actually recovering. It has no therapeutic value.

Is Darwinism Truly Necessary For Biology?

"Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

[...]

Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs."

Professor Philip S. Skell,  "Why Do We Invoke Darwin?"

Is Conscious Eternal Torment Reasonable?

          A common objection that we hear to the doctrine of an eternal hell is that it makes God cruel, unloving, and unjust. However, it is presumptuous for us as creations to put our standards above that of our Creator. If we are servants of God, then we submit to Him on His own terms. Moreover, the reason that hell exists is that God is holy and just. It does not exist to merely torture innocent people. The degree of punishment that one receives for a crime depends on the standard violated. Sin is an offense against God whose glory and dignity is infinite.

          It does not require much effort to see that eternal salvation corresponds to eternal punishment. The idea, though terrifying and unpleasant, is perfectly reasonable. What we should find shocking is the fact that God even sent His Son to redeem us stiff-necked people from the sentence that we so deserve. We cannot simply water down His character to make Him pleasing to ourselves and other people. As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ spoke more concerning hell than He did heaven.

           Annihilation is an inadequate theory on how God deals with unrepentant and unbelieving people. If the wrath of God is satisfied, then why should He destroy the soul of the sinner in the first place? If a person has served his due sentence, then would that not mean that he has been justified? If the wrath of God has not been satisfied, then why should He put an end to the designated punishment? A person who does not exist cannot be punished. God would be compromising His holiness by destroying people who have already paid their due sentence.

          There is much more to Christianity than merely escaping from the wrath of God. That is only one of the consequences of entering the faith. Conversion marks the beginning of us being reconciled to a holy God. As regarding the immortality of the human soul, only God is eternal in the sense that He is uncreated and self-sufficient. Our souls continue to thrive after physical death for the reason that they are sustained by His power. The doctrine of eternal conscious torment was never intended to be a pleasant idea.