Group Number 51

[0 1]  [0 2]   [0 3]  [0 4]  [0 5]  [0 6]  [0 7]  [0 8]  [0 9]  [ 10]  [ 11]  [ 12]  [ 13]  [ 14]  [ 15]  [16]  [ 17]  [ 18]  [ 19]  [ 20]
  [ 21]  [ 22]  [ 23]  [ 24]  [ 25]  [ 26]  [ 27]  [ 28]  [ 29]  [ 30]  [ 31[ 32]  [ 33]  [ 34]  [ 35]  [ 36]  [ 37]  [ 38]  [ 39]  [ 40]
  [ 41[ 42]   [ 43]   [ 44]  [ 45]  [ 46] [ 47]  [ 48]  [ 49]  [ 50]  [ 51]  [ 52]  [ 53]  [ 54]  [ 55]  [ 56]  [ 57]  [ 58]  [ 59]  [60]
[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

globe.gif (9362 bytes)       

How do you explain the scripture found in Matthew 24:15-22 each verse is a little confusing to me. 

Jesus had already hinted at the destruction of Jerusalem when His disciples showed Him the beautiful buildings of the temple. "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matt 24:2). Later, when He was with them on the Mount of Olives, they asked Him about what He had said. Actually, they asked Him three questions: "Tell us, when will these things be (the destruction of the temple)? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (24:3). Jesus then opened up the judgment against Jerusalem, as well as the end of the world itself.

Luke is even more specific in declaring Christ's words about the coming judgment of the city of Jerusalem. "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation" (Lk 19:42-44). This awful judgment was the consequence for rejecting the Savior who was sent to them.

Verses 15-22 are an elaboration of the coming judgment upon Jerusalem. The city would be surrounded by its enemies, the temple would be desecrated by the heathen, and the holy city would be reduced to ruin. The "abomination of desolation" was when the heathen enemies would actually come into the holiest part of the temple to destroy it. Daniel's prophecy of this terrible event is recorded in Daniel 9:27 and 12:11. It referred to the desecration of the House of the Lord, where He had placed His name, and which was identified with Him (1 Kings 8:29; Jer 7:11).

Verses 16-22 of Matthew 24 tells the people what to do when they would see this coming devastation begin to take place. They were to get out of the city, and do so quickly. They were not to take anything out of their house or return to gather up their clothes because of the danger such action would put them in. Even though this destruction would not take place for about 37 years, the people were to begin praying about it. Those about to deliver a child, and those with babies they were nursing would be put at a great disadvantage at that time. History confirms that many of them saw their children killed before their eyes, and expectant mothers were slaughtered like helpless sheep. Jesus also told them to pray they would not have to flee the city in the winter or on the Sabbath day. In other words, there was no way this judgment could be averted.

The tribulation to which He refers is associated with that destruction of Jerusalem--"THOSE days" (verse 22). The "elect" were those with faith, who had not rejected the Lord Jesus, but received Him. For their sake, the Lord would shorten the time of chastening inflicted upon the Jews (some of it is still going on). The "affliction" and distress that was unequaled had to do with a people identified with God being brought down to near-total destruction.

All of this was a sort of miniature reenactment of the end of the world, and the last days that would precede it. That is why Jesus spoke of global conditions and the final appearing of the Son of man (Himself).

We should learn from this judgment that it is lethal to provoke God, or to resist His Spirit, or to go on in transgression against Him.

How do you deal with the shepherd who has sinned? Do you make him go in front of the church?

If what you have said about your father is true--that he has been unfaithful to his wife, and threatened his children--he can no longer be a minister of the Word. At least, not while he remains in this condition. Not only that, he can have nothing to do with the people of God. Here is what the Lord says on the matter. "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; not even to eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:11). 

In the case of Corinth, they had a fornicator among them. The word give to them was, "Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person" (verse 13). The Thessalonians were told "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (1 Thess 3:6). In their case, that even included not working for a living (2 Thess 3:10).

When immorality is found in the professed church, the person is to be put out -- shepherd or not. There are no special rules for the shepherds. In fact, it is more serious for them to be involved in immorality than others. The hope is that this action will induce the person to repent. Scripture says it this way, "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 5:5). The text means that in isolation from the church, the individual will have to confront his sin alone, not able to take advantage of the faith of others. Too, God will work with that person through conviction, to bring him to repentance. 

The fact is that a person who chooses to continue in sin forfeits any right to the assistance of saints. That may seem hard, but God will not tolerate sin in His church. Ananias and Saphirra were stricken dead because they lied about how much money they gave (Acts 5). Compare that with a man being unfaithful to his wife, and choosing to excuse it.

The elders and deacons should be knowledgeable of God's direction on this matter. It is good that they have asked you for some advise, but it is bad that they had to do so. Elders are to be "able to teach" and be able "by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict" (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:9). Those requirements are to be taken seriously.

As to forgiving your father, it is good that you are willing to do so. But you cannot forgive a person who does not repent -- not even God does that. In fact, Jesus said of those who sin against us personally, "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him" (Lk 17:3).

I regret that you have to even deal with such things. Immorality has become all too common in the churches. I would suggest that you meet with the other leaders of the church on the matter. There is no question about what is to be done. Your father must not be permitted to preach while in this condition. If he is living in immorality, he has also forfeited his right to be among God's people. 

But there is another matter that should be discussed. How is it that this sin could develop and continue in the environment of the church? What would make a sinner comfortable in continuing in sin while in the assembly. What is the tone of the assembly? How serious are the people about God? Should there be a more aggressive effort to be aware of God and His will? I am not being critical of the assembly in these matters. I am saying it would be profitable to discuss them with godly people -- and they must be godly. These are not things to be discussed with the ungodly. It just may be that this tragedy may be a turning point for the whole church. Bath your mind in prayer and in the Word of God. You will be able to do the right thing.

Is it really serious when a spiritual leader is immoral?

Indeed it is! Although the modern church has become tolerant of immorality among its leaders, no such attitude can be found in the word of God. I do not doubt that Christian leaders who fall into immorality can be recovered--but you have to go outside of the Scriptures to find one who did. Think what has to be done for such a fall to occur.

1. The leader had to resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).
2. He had to quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19).
3. He had to grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30).
4. He had to make room for the devil (Eph 4:27).
5. He was drawn away of his own lust (James 1:14).
6. He had to walk in the flesh (Rom 8:4).
7. He had to stop walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:16).
8. He had to turn his eyes away from Jesus (Heb 12:1-2).
9. He had to quit running the race (Heb 12:1-2).
10. He had to stop fighting the good fight of faith (1 Tim 6:12).
11. He had to remove his affection from things above (Col 3:1-2).
12. He did not abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul (1 Pet 2:11).
13. He had to refuse Him that speaks from heaven (Heb 12:25).
14. He failed to resist he devil (James 4:7).
15. He refused to be taught by the grace of God to say "NO" to ungodliness and worldly lusts (Tit 2:11-12).
16. He had to stop living by hope (1 John 3:3).
17. He had to refuse to be led by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14).
18. He did not let the word of Christ dwell in him richly (Col 3:16).

I presented the words "Hypostiatic Union", "Three fold Alienation" and
"Marvelous Exchange" as they were presented to me my readings and I was
hoping you may be better able to elaborate on their meaning or
relationship to the Kingdom of God and Communion. 

I appreciate your desire to understand the meaning of the terms you mention. Your quest, however, must be to understand God's Word, not what men have said about it. As I have already said, the words you mentioned are terms created by men, and they alone are responsible for them. As theological terms, I do not honor them as valid. If they are not found in Scripture, they cannot possibly unfold the truth of Scripture. As a matter of conscience, and in honor of my Lord, I cannot devote myself to trying to research these words and decipher their meaning. I mean no offense when I say, I do not care what they mean -- any more than I am interested in any other purely humanistic words.

I suggest you discard the books you have been reading--I mean those that have produced this confusion. God has spoken on the pursuit of such things. "Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen" (2 Tim 2:14). "If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions" (1 Tim 6:3-4).

When speaking of the things of God, we are to use "spiritual words," or words spoken by the Holy Spirit in Scripture (1 Cor 2:13). These words are also called "the words of faith and good doctrine" (1 Tim 4:6).

When we pass the truth of Scripture through the filter of humanly developed theological terms created by men, we will not be able to understand their meaning. Such filters only serve to obscure Scripture, not clarify it.

My fire and passion for God is all but gone, and I don't know how to get it back. I have prayed and prayed for God's spirit to fill me but still I am ashamed and a total hypocrite. It seems that I have lost total decency and reverence for God.   

You must do what Jesus' parents did when they lost Him. Remember when they returned from attending the feast of the Passover in Jerusalem? They went three days journey before they realized Jesus was among them. They had supposed he was with some of their relatives, but He was not. In order to get Him back, THEY HAD TO RETURN TO WHERE THEY LOST HIM. They did, and found Him in the temple (Luke 2:41-46). he was about His "Father's business."

Your decline began at some point. Ask the Lord to help you identify it. Wherever that point was, you started feeding your soul less, and began to be more exposed to corrupting influences. The approach to life that once fired your spirit toward God is what you must recover. That is like finding Jesus where you lost Him.

I am sorry to hear you have used intemperate speech, and respond inappropriately to vile jokes. You can, however, recover from all of this. God desires for you to do so, and will strengthen your efforts. But you must get within the circle where God works, not the one where the devil works. Quite simply, you are subjecting yourself to hurtful influences. The Scriptures remind us, "Bad company corrupts good character" (1 Cor 15:33).

There are no easy solutions to a lapse into carnality--which is what you are experiencing. You have two people within you. Scriptures refer to them as the "old man" and the "new man" (Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:9-10). The "old man" is the unregenerate part of you, and is linked with your body. It is to you what the Canaanites were to the children of Israel--intruders in the land. The "old man" is also called "the flesh," or "sinful nature." The "new man" is the part of you that is born again. It is the "new creation" (2 Cor 5:17).

The nature you feed and nourish--the one you cater or yield to--will be the one that dominates you. I do want to speak as gently as possibly with you, because I earnestly want you to recover. In some way, you have been feeding your "old man," and thus he has become more able to express himself in your speech and attitudes. Maybe you did this without realizing it, I do not know. I do know, however, that your recovery must be deliberate and intentional.

I am making the following suggestions, not as a surefire method, but as things to consider. You are not experiencing anything that has not been experienced by other believers. And, you can overcome these things through the power God has devoted to you (Eph 1:19-20).

1. Confess your discontent with your life to God, and ask Him for forgiveness and cleansing. That must come before the Spirit can fill you. God is eager to forgive you (1 John 1:7-9). At this point the most important thing is not to be filled with the Spirit, but confident that you have been forgiven. That is the purging, or cleansing, of the conscience mentioned in Hebrews 9;14.

2. Set aside a period to fast and pray. Separate yourself from all distractions. Do so as you are able. You need a period of time when corrupting influences are not being hurled at you.

3. Spend time reading the Psalms. You will find scores of them in which the very things you are experiencing are expressed in petitions to God. Here are some examples of chapters to read; Psalm 6; 25; 32; 38; 51; 102; 130; 143. These Psalms will teach you how to speak of your desires to God.

4. If you do not already have some, obtain the Bible on audio cassette tapes, and listen them. Saturate your mind with the word of God--particularly the Psalms, Gospels and Epistles. This will give the Holy Spirit something to work with in your recovery.

5. Develop some close friendship with people who prefer to talk about the things of God--who have a heart for him and a fervent desire to go to heaven.

All of the above influences will have a cleansing and encouraging effect upon you.

Who is Paul telling the Thessalonians about in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. I have heard some say it's the "antichrist" but I'm not buying the antichrist thing. Is it the Roman empire that will destroy Jerusalem, is it humanism, the pope of modern day? I'm lost. Please enlighten me if you get the chance. 

The passage is one that is emphasizes principle more than detail. Throughout history, the men have exhausted themselves to give a particular earthly identity to "the man of sin." In my opinion, this is a serious mistake. 

"The man of sin" is to Satan's kingdom what "the Son of God" is the God's kingdom. He is the embodiment of sin, whereas Jesus is the fulness of God, and the express image of His Person. The particular trait of this "man of sin," that is expounded, is his emulation of God. That is, he comes as a religious impostor, not as a political power. He appears to promote sin in a religious setting. The result of such an approach is declared in 2 Timothy 3:5-7--a form of godliness that denies the power of God.

I understand that such an approach was embodied in the Roman apostasy, but do not see it as confined there. Wherever religion is exalted at the expense of holiness and Divine power, 'the man of sin" has shown himself. In this sense, he is more a spiritual power of darkness than a particular man.

The text also associates 'the man of sin" with a great falling away. The revelation of "the man of sin" takes place in that falling away. Those who speak of this text as applying to 'the antichrist" do not generally relate it to a "falling away." They choose a political and economic environment as the climate in which "the man of sin" will arise. But they are wrong, as our text clearly indicates.

The point of the text is not the rise of "the man of sin," but a falling away from the truth of God -- a departure from the faith. That departure will be the work of "the man of sin." Who he is, is not the point, but what he has done.

In my judgment, we are living in the midst of that falling away. It is a time when Christianity has become powerless and insipid. There is little difference between the professed Christian world and the heathen world. Morally, there is not much difference between them.

This powerless form of religion has allowed for the entrance of religious professionals who impart nothing to the people of God. They range from highly educators pastors, to counselors who are specialists in psychology, motivators, statisticians, economic experts, and specialists in other than the things of God. This has all resulted in God being put the back seat, and man unduly being exalted.

I understand "the man of sin" to be a spiritual power who works in influential men. I do not believe his work is limited to a single person. I further think that it is his influence that has led men to interpret this passage with a coming political despot in mind rather than a grievous falling away.

When is the rapture, before the tribulation 7 years, 3 1/2 yrs into the tribulation, or at the end of that time?

The term "rapture" is not found in the Bible, nor is the extensive teaching pertaining to it that is popular among many Christians. The idea of the "rapture" is based on First Thessalonians 4:17, where all believers, both dead and living, are said to be "caught up" to meet the Lord in the air at His return. That very coming is said to be accompanied by "a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God" (1 Thess 4;16). As you can see, that is hardly a secret affair, as is taught in the doctrine of "the rapture." That it could occur undetected seems to me to require a corruption of the text.

The coming of the Lord, and our gathering together with Him, will occur at the conclusion of time and human history. Peter tells us when the Lord returns as a "thief," the heavens and the earth will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat (2 Pet 3:10-12). Any tribulation, whether personal or global, will occur BEFORE Christ returns -- and the saved will be caught up to meet Him when He returns.

The idea of a seven year tribulation, and the 3-1/2 year period within it, is taken from some of the most ambiguous and figurative sections of Scripture. Revelation 11:9-11 refers to God's two witnesses who are killed. Their dead bodies are seen by their enemies for three and a half days. After those three and a half days, they rise and ascend into heaven. 

The above passage is joined together with Daniel's prophecy of the midst of a one week period, called by many the "seventieth week (Daniel 9:24-27), and Daniel 7:24-26, which refers to a time, times, and half a time. Men have also concluded that the 42 months of Revelation (11:2; 13:5) are the last half (3-1/2 years) of the seven year tribulation. Mind you, the Holy Spirit did not assemble all of these passages, compacting them into a finely spun doctrine. Men did that--and they were uninspired men at that.

I maintain that it takes a highly imaginative mind, and a predetermined humanistic theology to use these references to concoct a seven year tribulation period, and a three and a half year period in the midst of it--then to build all of Divine history around it.

Keep in mind, the terms "seven year tribulation," "first half of the great tribulation," "middle of the great tribulation," "last half of the great tribulation," "mid-tribulation," and "post tribulation," are not even found in the Bible--in any version. They all are found in highly developed human theologies. However, God found no place for them in his Word, and therefore we should give no place to them in our thoughts. Moses did not use these words. Jesus did not use these words. John the Baptist did not use these words. The Apostles did not use these words. Why should we use them?

It is our aim to speak about the coming of the Lord in precisely the language the Spirit through which declared that blessed coming. All believers will be "caught up to meet the Lord" when He comes, at the end of time, and after everything spoken by the prophets since the world began has been fulfilled (Acts 3:20).

I was wondering if you might lend your biblical insight as regards Women being called in the ministry of the Preaching and teaching of the Word especially as a
senior Pastor of a church.

The calling of women into positions of leadership has generally been the exception rather than the rule. There have, indeed, been some notable women leaders and prophetesses. I understand any prophetic role, whether that of a man ("prophet") or a woman ("prophetess") to be one of leadership through teaching or proclamation. I know of no reference to back-seat prophets who had no prominence in any sense.

Well known prophetesses include Miriam (Ex 15:20), Deborah (who also judged Israel, Judges 4:4), Huldah (from whom leading men sought counsel, 1 Kings 22;14; 2 Chron 34:22), Noadiah (who was classed with the rest of the prophets, Neh 6:14), Isaiah's wife (Isa 8:3), Anna (who announced the birth of the Savior to those who were waiting for redemption in Jerusalem, Luke 2:36), and Philips four daughters (Acts 21:9).

We do have an example of a woman in the church at Thyatira who "called herself a prophetess," and taught Christ's servants to eat things offered to idols and commit fornication (Rev 2:20). However, she was not rebuked for teaching, for teaching Christ's servants to sin. She was not commanded to quit teaching, but given space to repent.

Scripture teaches that such women, if married, are to exercise their ministry as a subordinate of their husbands, not seeking to put themselves above them (1 Cor 11:2-10). Neither are they to aggressively assert themselves as teachers, thereby usurping authority over the man (1 Tim 2:12). 

I understand preaching and teaching sisters to be the exception, not the rule. It is not a matter of "This is right," or "This is wrong." From time to time, God has raised up women to teach men -- even to lead them, as with Deborah and Huldah. However, that was not the rule. When Jesus rose from the dead, "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils" (Mk 16:9). She then went and told His Apostles, who were weeping and mourning. You may recall the Apostles and those with them did not believe the women when they testified of the risen Christ, thinking their report to be idle tales (Lk 24:11). Later, when Jesus appeared to them, He rebuked them because they did not believe the women (Mk 16;14).

Each congregation should be close enough to God to recognize when a sister has something profitable for the believers. Truth does not lose its power when it is spoken by a spiritually insightful woman. Edification is not less powerful when it is comes from one of our sisters in Christ. We are in a covenant that includes the women as well as the men. As it is written, "Your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on MY HANDMAIDENS I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17-18). The Spirit gave no indication that this was a one-time event.

I agree that Christ was perfect, but one thing troubles me. When He cursed the fig tree, wasn't that in anger, and wouldn't that be a sin? 

First, being angry is not, of itself sinful. In fact the Scriptures admonish us, "BE ANGRY, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath" (Eph 5:6). Jesus also spoke of being angry "without a cause" (Matt 5:22). There was an occasion when it is categorically stated that Jesus was angry. "And when He had looked around at them with anger, being grieved by the hardness of their hearts" (Mk 3:5). God Himself is "angry with the wicked every day" (Psa 7:11). The phrase "the anger of the Lord" is mentioned no less than thirty times in Scripture. Of itself, therefore, anger is not sinful.

Secondly, the reference to the fig tree does not say that Jesus cursed it in anger. Matthew reads, "And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, 'Let no fruit grow on you ever again.' Immediately the fig tree withered away" (Matt 21:19). Mark reads, "And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In response Jesus said to it, 'Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.' And His disciples heard it" (Mark 11:13-14). 

The whole event is further confusing to many because it is stated, "for it was not the season for figs." This does not mean, however, that it was not possible for figs to come on the tree anyway. The Scriptures refer to "untimely," or "late figs" (Rev 6;13). Untimely can also refer to green figs, not yet ripe, but in the stage of development. It could also mean it was not yet time to gather the figs. 

The real reason for the cursing of the fig tree is found in its description. It stood out as a particularly productive tree. From "afar off" Jesus saw that is was all leafed out, "having leaves." It was like a large tree, standing out along the wayside, making a great show. However, when Jesus came to the tree, it proved to have "nothing but leaves." It was all show, with no productivity or fruit. On the surface, it looked like an unusual tree, but there was nothing unusual about it. That is why He cursed it.

The tree proved to be an example of what was going to happen as they went on. Immediately after this, Jesus came to the Temple, finding it occupied by money changers and those who sold doves. They were like a mass of leaves. But He found no fruit in their activity, and so drove them out (Mark 11:15-19). 

The next morning when Jesus returned with His disciples, they observed the fig tree He had cursed. It was withered from the roots, and the disciples marveled at the sight. Jesus told them, "Have faith in God!" He then told them how faith always produced results, and was never unproductive. It was not like the fig tree, which had only leaves. It only had an appearance of being a good tree.

At this time I've got a close relation with a Christian girl, I myself do not believe in God/Jezus (atheist). What kind of problems does this give for our relation, and her relation to God?

If both of you are serious about your views, you are like oil and water that cannot mix. One of you will be a catalyst for grief and turmoil. The true Christian is living for another place and time, preparing to meet God and to be found favorable in His sight. The real atheist cares nothing for either, and considers this world and this time to be everything. The true Christian is living to please God and avoid the snares of the devil. The real atheist cares nothing for pleasing someone he does not believe in, and does not even acknowledge the existence of the devil.

As you can see, there is no way for such people to maintain a healthy relationship. One or both of you will have to abandon your position. If the Christian discards her position, she will be condemned by God. If the atheist leaves his position, particularly to be a Christian, he gains everything.

The kind of problems the Christian will have include, (1) Being pressured to change the way she lives. (2) Having to consider denying God and renouncing Jesus Christ. (3) Having twinges of conscience that will be unpleasant. (4) Being tempted to compromise her faith in, and love for the Lord. (5) Wrestling with whether she should please you or please God.

I appreciate you asking the question, and would like to ask you one in return. Why are you an atheist? What has led you to espouse the position that there is no God, and that you are not responsible to Him?

What makes someone a wicked person? Are all non believers considered to be wicked in God's eyes?

A wicked person is a sinful person--one that lives contrary to God and only for self. Often the person who is wicked commits base type sins--like adultery, murder, stealing, taking drugs, etc. But wickedness is not limited to those lower-type sins. Wickedness is living without God in mind, and with no regard for His will. It is seeking to satisfy self rather than God, and living just as though Jesus did not exist, and did not die for us. A wicked person lives as though this world was all there was, Jesus was never going to come, and he will never be judged by the Living God. Such a person is foolish, indeed.

In God's eyes, all who are not trusting in Jesus ARE wicked. Prior to being in Christ, people are described as "alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works" (Col 1:21). Ultimately, a wicked person is one being controlled by Satan, who is the "wicked one" (1 John 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18).

Does the Bible instruct if we should put our children in public school or Christian School between the ages of 6 to 14 years? I have a Christian friend that says it is good to put a child in a public school so that the child can be a light for Christ in the public school system. What would Jesus do in a case like this?

The Bible does not deal with the issue of public schools. Each family must decide for themselves how to handle this situation. Because I have ten children, we had to make a decision in this area. Most of my children are grown and have families of their own now, but three remain at home. During the time our older children were in school, the circumstances were considerably different than they are now. The public schools were not the best, but certainly were not like they are now. Our first children did go to public school. At that time, there were not many Christian schools, and no one heard of homeschooling.

In due time, there was a sharp conflict between what our children were taught in public school, and the Word of God. There was also more pressure put upon them to conform to the world and compromise their faith. At that time, we moved our children out of the public school and put them in a Christian school. Later, we started homeschooling them.

I have heard the argument your friend presented about our children being a light for Christ. In my judgment, it is a very foolish argument. In the first place, it assumes our children are strong Christians, able to defend their faith and stand against the wiles of the devil. If they are from six to fourteen years old, I seriously doubt they are such Christians. If they are, they would be very unusual -- even in Bible times. 

To put young children in some public schools is like putting them in a room filled with rattle snakes. They will taught the creation of God came into being through evolution. They will be exposed to sex education at a very tender age, and even to homosexual lifestyles and agendas. The entire thrust of their education will suppose this world is the primary world, that there is no eternity, and that they are not accountable to God. They will come in contact with other children who are already involved in deep immorality, and promote it at the schools. They also will be forbidden to speak of their faith, pray in public, or promote the Christian faith in any way.

Our children are given to us as a stewardship from God. It is dangerous, indeed, to throw them out to the world for their education, allowing them to spend more of their conscious hours with the world than with their own family. Some may consider this to be letting the light of their children shine, but that is only a foolish saying. Actually, such parents are allowing the light of the world to shine on their children. They are allowing this when their children are young and in their formative years. They will also account to God if they knowingly subject their children to sinful influences.

I realize that all public schools do not fall into the above category. Parents must see to it that they know the type of influence to which their children are being subjected. They cannot excuse their responsibility by saying their children are a light for Jesus. I know of no such representation of little children in Scripture. Parents must remember the word of the Lord: "Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character" (1 Corinthians 15:33).



Go to next page 01_04_B.gif (10479 bytes)  HOME.jpg (6133 bytes)