Two Testaments; Two Gods?

Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?

There seems to be some sense of belief that the God of the OT is not the same God of the NT. Is there two different concepts of God? Does the OT present only a God of wrath, while the NT deals only with God's love and mercy absent the wrath?

Well we do see OT stories of God's commanding the destruction of Sodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, the killing of the firstborn Egyptian babies and other such stories. So the accusers claim this proves a primitive, warlike deity which totally contradicts Jesus' love and mercy. After all Jesus taught us to love one another and to turn the other cheek.

So at first glance, yes ,it does seem to be a contradiction but careful examining of the scriptures teach otherwise. Jesus himself declared that the whole OT may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor, Matt 22:37. He also taught that the God of the OT desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice, Matthew 9:13, 12:7.

God says in Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked....and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

God as a God of justice could not let the nations' evil go unchecked. He could not and did not condone their behavior. Sin, in the bible is likened to yeast. Anyone who is familiar with that pantry product knows fully well what happens when yeast does its thing. It permeates the dough. It actually "sours" the dough. That's why the Jews rid their houses of all leavened products before the Passover begins. God is serious about sin and this ceremony serves as a reminder. Maybe we all need to do that once a year, rid our homes of leaven, to remind us of how God abhors sin. It wouldn't hurt.

God is always giving second, third and fourth chances. He is very patient and longsuffering. You don't hear about that attribute of God from His accusers. In the case of the Ammorites God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they chose not to. Noah preached for 120 years before the flood. We all know about Jonah. Do you know how evil the Assyrians were? Yet God spared them because they chose to turn around after hearing the message Jonah put out. But later on, they went back to their wicked ways, and God did eventually destroy them.

So we can see the proper OT picture of God is one of patience, giving the people numerous opportunities to repent and turn back to Him, and only when they refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds.

So now let's look at the NT and Jesus. Contrary to popular belief Jesus himself was responsible for some of the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the bible. Matt 23 is an example. He lashes out at the religious leaders, calling them hypocrites and false leaders and informing them their destiny was eternal banishment from God. Pretty strong language coming from Jesus that is not pretty to hear. The truth is not always attractive especially to one who is not practicing it. At one point he tells them they are of their father....the devil.

In Matt 10:34 Jesus said that he came to divide, not unite. He said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." He goes on to say that His Word will divide families. We see today that it still does.

This is a biggie in our day. We're being taught that spiritually we must all come together as "one" and be united. Where in the world does this come from? Not Jesus. Anyone familiar with the Tower of Babel knows that this is not a good thing. Eccumenicalism today is the shofar blast of old. In ancient days the blast of the ram's horn meant the gathering of all to hear what was about to be addressed to the people by their leaders and perhaps even to lead them into battle.

We find love and judgement scattered throughout the NT, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the OT. God does not change. He is constant and reliable. Different situations do call for different emphases and maybe that's the rub. But when the two testaments are read, as they were inteneded, you can't help but see the same God who is rich in mercy but will not allow sin to go unpunished.

8,433 views 75 replies
Reply #1 Top
KFC, you refer to the Bible to validate your views, but there is nowhere in the Bible that says the Bible is infallible or inerrant. The principle that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and that certain verses must be interpreted literally, actually only exists in your mind and in the minds of those with similar beliefs to you. It’s like a little bubble, where circular reasoning abounds.

The religious fundamentalists’ message is essentially: “Come and subscribe to our model of the world: The world is 6000 years old; and open and honest scientific enquiry is ‘of the devil’. The Bible is right - inerrant and a depiction of absolute Truth. When God exercises violence, cruelty and mass extermination – including putting a man to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath – it means that God is good, merciful and kind. All other religions are “wrong” – their religious books are errant and false, and when they die they will be punished in hellfire forever. Anyone who doesn’t agree with this model of the world will be punished in hellfire forever.”

For those living outside the bubble, and who can see things clearly, it’s not unlike being approached by a group of 3 year-olds, who are playing in a sandpit saying, “Come with us and join us wearing these nappies. You will find comfort and it be feel right for you - just as it feels right for us.”

Those outside the sandpit would naturally conclude, “No. That’s not for me. My model of the world is different from yours, and I can see things differently to you. I am happy to let you be, however, because that is ‘where you are at’, and it's right for you. It's not right for everyone, however."
Reply #2 Top
Well Andy I would respectfully disagree. When I read scripture it says quite clearly all over that the word of God is perfect, and profitable for all men, powerful and unchanging, and as you know the truth does not change. Jesus referred to scriptures repeatedly encouraging us to listen to the words written. He also told the Apostles that the HS would bring into their minds the rememberance of what they needed to write down. Paul wrote to Timothy to "Preach the Word." What word? The writer to the Hebrews said the "Word of God" is quick and powerful and reaches into the inner parts like nothing else. What else could it be? Is God not strong enough or powerful enough to make sure his scriptures, the words he wanted us to know stay undefiled?

I concure with most of our founding fathers who also felt the same way. They were not priests, or ministers but quite clearly saw the hand of God, as I do, in their lives and moving among the people. The recognized "The Book" for what it was.....here's a few quotes......

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world."-- President John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 25, 1813

I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it." -- President Abraham Lincoln, Sept. 5, 1864


"The Bible carries with it the history of the creation, the fall and the redemption of man, and discloses to him, in the infant born in Bethlehem, the Legislator and Savior of the world." -- President John Quincy Adams, Feb. 27, 1844

"That book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests."-- President Andrew Jackson, referring to the Bible, June 8, 1845


For those living outside the bubble, and who can see things clearly


so what you're saying is......, I as well as these great men are not seeing clearly? But you are?

I am happy to let you be, however, because that is ‘where you are at’, and it's right for you. It's not right for everyone, however


this is relativism not the truth. You're making a choice. There is no moral absolutes. So what you are saying is that you will disregard the truth for an ear tickling experience? So instead of using scriptures for your guide, you use.......everything that tickles your fancy? Sounds good, so let's add it to the mix type of thing?

I do agree with you tho, "it's not right for everyone" and it's a choice.
Reply #3 Top
Jesus referred to scriptures repeatedly encouraging us to listen to the words written.


Which is a big reason I believe He is God of both. If Jesus, being who he and history claims him to be, God OR a man of peace, often cites and refers to the OT...then how can I not believe it?

He was quick to correct wrong behavior, I believe He would also correct wrong scripture. But He didn't. He let it stand.
Reply #4 Top
If Jesus, being who he and history claims him to be, God OR a man of peace, often cites and refers to the OT...then how can I not believe it?


EXACTLY.

Also another thought, I think it's in Luke 4 where Jesus stands, "opens the scroll" and reads directly from Isaiah. It is worded in such a powerful way, you can see He is clearly demonstrating the need to read the scriptures. The scripture He read pointed directly to him as the whole OT does.
Reply #5 Top
When I read scripture it says quite clearly all over that the word of God is perfect, and profitable for all men, powerful and unchanging, and as you know the truth does not change.


Yes but it was MEN who decided which writings should be included in our "bible". Martin Luther wanted to take James out because he considered it an epistle of straw. Do you think those MEN were perfect when they decided which writings made the cut and which didn't?

I think you can learn a lot from the bible stories but I do think that most of them are just that - stories.
Reply #6 Top
Yes but it was MEN who decided which writings should be included in our "bible". Martin Luther wanted to take James out because he considered it an epistle of straw. Do you think those MEN were perfect when they decided which writings made the cut and which didn't?


Yes, God ALWAYS using people for his work. We are supposed to be the hands and feet of God. You're right about ML's refusal, but if I remember right later he relented on that but it wouldn't have mattered anyhow. God directed this bible to be put together. No I do not think the men were perfect but I do think they were God directed. That's the difference.

think that most of them are just that - stories


well, which "most" are you talking about? How do you decide which? That's the problem and the reason we have so many groups out there. They take and choose what they want and throw the rest out. They build a doctrine around what they keep. As an evangelical or a fundamentalist I believe in the WHOLE counsel of God so when and if I need to look for a church that's the first thing I check on.

Reply #7 Top
Do you believe that there was an actual historical figure - Job? Do you believe the creation story that there actually was one man named adam and eve was made from his rib? I believe those are stories not historical events.
Reply #8 Top
Do you believe that there was an actual historical figure - Job? Do you believe the creation story that there actually was one man named adam and eve was made from his rib?


Yes. One of the reasons? Jesus quoted from these books. He gave them credibility. Now the question is..."Do you believe in Jesus?" If so, do you believe in what he told us? If so, why wouldn't you believe in what He wrote?

I believe those are stories not historical events.


but....sorry for the 21 questions but it has to be asked....what do you base this belief on?

When I think of Eve being crafted from Adam's rib I think of the modern day cloning idea. It seems as tho it was started way back in Adam's day and we're just figuring it out now.
Reply #9 Top
"Yes. One of the reasons? Jesus quoted from these books. He gave them credibility. Now the question is..."Do you believe in Jesus?" If so, do you believe in what he told us? If so, why wouldn't you believe in what He wrote?"


I quote Shakespeare, does that mean I believe he wrote inerrant literature? I quote the Bible all the time and I don't believe it is inerrant. Yet, if Jesus quoted something, it MUST mean he thought it was completely, 100% factual, even 2000 years later translated into a language that didn't even exist then.

"but....sorry for the 21 questions but it has to be asked....what do you base this belief on? "


So you believe everything you read to be true unless you have some reason to believe it isn't? If someone said that God has a big purple nose, you'd believe it until you found scripture to prove otherwise? No, there are some things that need to be proved BEFORE you believe them, aren't there?

"When I think of Eve being crafted from Adam's rib I think of the modern day cloning idea. It seems as tho it was started way back in Adam's day and we're just figuring it out now."


But then your crossing up the explanation given by your pals over at AIG for why Adam and Eve's kids weren't inbred for having kids with their siblings. If adam and eve were genetic clones I don't see how the human race could have survived.

...but... you'd just say that God fixed it, since God can do anything. That's why it is so annoying to argue with creationists, because they can just say "All things are possible with God" with a glazed look in their eyes. They don't have to explain anything, all they have to do is believe.
Reply #10 Top
Yes. One of the reasons? Jesus quoted from these books. He gave them credibility. Now the question is..."Do you believe in Jesus?" If so, do you believe in what he told us? If so, why wouldn't you believe in what He wrote?


I saw a special on Discovery channel or something. Mysteries of the bible. They said that Job was not a historical figure and that Job was the oldest book in the bible. It was just a story written about someone's suffering to teach us to continue to have faith through suffering. Just like Jesus told stories about the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. They were not actual people just characters in a story.

I do believe in Jesus and I know that Jesus did not write the Bible. It is what other people whote to tell us about him.

When I think of Eve being crafted from Adam's rib I think of the modern day cloning idea. It seems as tho it was started way back in Adam's day and we're just figuring it out now.


Every culture has a creation story. I don't think any of them are true accounts. Anyway it doesn't matter what we believe. What is is and maybe when we die we'll know the answers and maybe we'll just cease to exist but what we believed won't change reality.
Reply #11 Top
They said that Job was not a historical figure and that Job was the oldest book in the bible.


Well I'd agree with it being the oldest book but I do believe Job was a real character. James a NT writer speaks of Job and Ezekiel said Noah, Daniel and Job were in Palestine. So yes, I do believe he was a real person.

Just like Jesus told stories about the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.


Now these could be real stories like you say. I believe IMO that Jesus was basing these stories off real happenings. It's not like they are far fetched at all.

I do believe in Jesus and I know that Jesus did not write the Bible. It is what other people whote to tell us about him.


well this differs from the Christian perspective. We believe the whole of scripture was written by Him using the personalities of the men who physically wrote down His words. So yes and no. The only thing we see him physically write was something in the sand one time.

There is no other explanation for the perfect continuation of all the books. It reads as tho one author was behind it. Remember he's called The Logos, which means "The Word of God."


Every culture has a creation story. I don't think any of them are true accounts.


Are they all wrong? I would think the opposite. If every culture has a story, maybe there's something to it. Every culture has a flood story too.

Anyway it doesn't matter what we believe. What is is and maybe when we die we'll know the answers and maybe we'll just cease to exist but what we believed won't change reality.


I think of eternity as a place to go to. It's a future trip. When I go on a trip now I prepare,plan and get things in order ahead of time. I don't wait until I get there to do these things. It will be too late. We will not be prepared. I believe that this life is a preparation for the next. We make our decision on where we're going from here. No decision is a decision.






Reply #12 Top
I quote Shakespeare, does that mean I believe he wrote inerrant literature? I quote the Bible all the time and I don't believe it is inerrant. Yet, if Jesus quoted something, it MUST mean he thought it was completely, 100% factual, even 2000 years later translated into a language that didn't even exist then.


Jesus said the OT scriptures spoke of him. Well how could that be? How would the OT prophets have known about this Jesus if it wasn't inerrant? There was a 400 year gap between the OT and when Jesus first made himself known in the flesh. Every single OT scripture that spoke about Jesus' first coming came true. Fulfilled prophecy is a very good indication that it is inerrent. There are just as many, if not more, OT prophecies speaking of his second coming. I expect they will all come true as well.

Since you mentioned Shakespeare...let's talk about that as well. You may check this out yourself. The NT copies we have are in better texutual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare written in the 17th century.....after the invention of the printing press no less. In every one of Shakespear's plays there are gaps in the printed text where we have no idea what was originally said. This forced textual scholars to make some fancy good guesses to fill in the blanks. But with the abudance of existing manuscripts of the NT we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.

If you would judge the NT documents with the same standards or tests applied to any one of the Gk classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the NT. If someone contends that we have a reliable text of the classics then he would be forced to admit we have a reliable text of the NT.

Reply #13 Top
"well this differs from the Christian perspective. We believe the whole of scripture was written by Him using the personalities of the men who physically wrote down His words. So yes and no. The only thing we see him physically write was something in the sand one time."


Good lord, don't you feel kind of sick saying such a thing? The "Christian perspective" is that the Bible is inerrant and written by Jesus? I think there are innumerable Christians now and throughout history that would take offense at such an idea.

It's the fundamentalist perspective, sure, but don't claim your beliefs are somehow definitive of CHristianity, because there's quite a few Catholics out there whose beliefs look nothing like yours. Honestly what you describe might not even be the opinion of all fundamentalists, either, given the dispute about Jesus' nature within fundamentalism.

Reply #14 Top
"How would the OT prophets have known about this Jesus if it wasn't inerrant?"


They wouldn't, and didn't.

"Every single OT scripture that spoke about Jesus' first coming came true"


If you would, find me the word Jesus in the Old Testament, please.

"Fulfilled prophecy is a very good indication that it is inerrent."


There's not a single prophecy in the Bible that you can prove played out. The book you hold was translated, edited and compiled long after the events that were supposedly predicted. When you work backwards from event to the prophecy you can interpret it to mean what you want. Again, go talk to the Nostradamus people.

"The NT copies we have are in better texutual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare written in the 17th century.....after the invention of the printing press no less"


Nope, More fundy mythology to go with your Jurassic park junk. We have First Folios in great shape printed only seven years after Shakespeare's death by Shakespeare's friends, John Heminges and Henry Condell in 1623, and proofread by the man who handled Shakespeare's scripts, Edward Knight.

The early quartos you mention had flaws, but never being authoritative texts, they were never needed to copy from. Many scripts had to be edited because some were censored before they were performed, thus there are different versions of some plays. These are things his friends, knowing his plays, had to iron out.

So, I'll agree with you. Shakespeare isn't any more inerrant than the Bible. Sadly, we have a lot more insight on Shakespeare, based upon a LOT more provenance and material than you have backing up the NT. The difference is that you bet your soul and claim doctrinal superiority based on the one and I just enjoy the other.

Find me a "first folio" contemporary copy of New Testament books, copied and compiled accurately within seven years of the authors' death by people who knew him that you can name. Give me the name of the people who copied what they compiled, and what year they copied it. You can't, so your claim falls flat.

The this is like the stuff you cut and paste from other preachers, like the one where you quoted that preacher saying Muslims believed the world rode on the back of a turtle. You aren't interested in the truth, you just cut and paste fundamentalist propaganda and then brush it off when people point out that you are wrong.
Reply #15 Top
I told you Baker, I'm done arguing with you. Because that's what it's turning out to be.

Believe what you will. But I know the bible has been read by more people and published in more languages than any other book in history even being the first to be printed on the Gutenberg's press. So you go and read Shakespeare and I'll stick to God's word.

Oh and BTW you may want to check out Ex 12:38 and Numbers 11:4-6.

I think you'll understand.

I said Gideon was right on your blog...or was that Jen's blog.....I'm getting confused.

You have your opinions and I have mine. You have your "experts" and I have mine.

Believe what you want.
Reply #16 Top
The trouble is, when you experts say dingy things like Muslims believing that the world rides on the back of a turtle or that Shakespeare is less textually reliable than the NT, you believe them. When it is proved false, you just ignore it. If you rely on such "experts", how can anyone rely on you?

Better to find your own path, and toss out the self-serving commentaries. You won't be able to blame them later.
Reply #17 Top
A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put.

No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scruntinized and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? with such venom and skepticism? with such thoroughness and erudition? upon every chapter, line and tenet?

Bernard Ramm


while I cannot "prove" the Bible is the Word of God I can show without a doubt that it is a very unique book (different from all others and having no like or equal) This book has drawn more attention than any other and deserves at least a thorough investigation at the least.

Reply #18 Top
No argument there. Great book, yes. Truths in it, yes. Philosophically or religiously inerrant? Not if men were responsible for it. One of the great truths of the Bible is that mankind doesn't do anything that is inerrant.
Reply #19 Top
Boy, you're quick Baker....I hardly have time to breathe here. I think it's all the dirt that you're pushing over my head.....it's a joke ok?

Now you're going back months ago to a sermon that McArthur preached about the Muslims with the world on the back of.....it was elephants, not turtles. I was hoping to ask him why he used that thought/quote or whatever it was in person, since I was hoping to see him in March in Orlando. I noticed in the whole sermon I sent you, and he covers quite a bit, that was the only thing you chose to pick on. Either it was an error, and he did not do his HW or it came from outside the Koran in the many other Muslim writings. I actually agree with you on this one. I don't think he should have said that without better clarification and I really like JM.

Better yet, why don't you go? You can listen in to him and Dr. R.C. Sproul who I think would really be your type of guy. He goes very deep and delves right into history....all kinds of history. He's a reformed preacher/teacher at a Seminary. To Check out Sproul....www.ligonier.org. I'm sure he'd answer all your questions.....and your head will spin, like mine does when I listen to Him via the radio.
Reply #20 Top
Not if men were responsible for it.


men weren't.
Reply #21 Top
well this differs from the Christian perspective.


I think this would be better stated that "this differs from THIS christian's perspective." Not every christian would be so quick to agree with you. That's the problem with most people's (and I include my own errors in this) lumping of christians together under the banner "christian." Take ten of them off the street and you'll get ten different sets of beliefs, even in the same sect.

men weren't.


Except they were. You've got bloody hands all over that book, and consequently, many of the plain and precious things that were there have been lost. Pity, really.
Reply #22 Top

God did not "take" a rib from Adam. The Hebrew word for rib used here is "Tsal'ah". It means curve or arch, meaning God made the female with more curves than male. Many things in the Bible get all twisted around in the reader's mind when only reading the text in english. In many cases, the translators used words 180 degrees opposite of what was actually being said. Then there are the Hebrew idioms, figures of speech, transliterations instead of translations, but the truth can be sorted out if one has the patience.
Most people want an instant, microwavable, high speed internet answer, which leaves them lacking, so they merely brush themselves off, and go about their daily affairs, groping in the dark.

OB77
Reply #23 Top
KFC,

(1) if, hypothetically, you heard God’s voice instructing you to go out around town killing hundreds of people - let’s say Buddhists and Hindus in your local region for worshipping “false gods and idols”, or maybe “for the failings of their great-great grandfathers” (Numbers 4.18), would you stop and think, “Hang on. This is just wrong.”? Or would you do it, after all, you are being asked to be an instrument of God, exercising God’s “mercy, kindness and goodness”, and will help eliminate those who don’t please God?


(2) Where does the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” fit in with the hundreds of Biblical verses in which God commands His followers to massacre masses of men, women and children?


(3) As God chooses who becomes Christian and who doesn’t, (or, in the OT, chooses who becomes “God’s people” and who doesn’t), then where does God’s “justice and mercy” come into it, considering that all non-Christians are effectively chosen by God to perish in hellfire and to experience eternal pain and suffering? This is more evil than Hitler, incidentally.


(4) Is fundamentalism a wise and mature point of view? Or, if KFC’s views are representative of hearty Christians today, is humanity still in its childhood? If the latter is the case, then fundamentalist attitudes will represent a distorted view of reality.



(Please remove blinkers before answering questions)
Reply #24 Top
Many things in the Bible get all twisted around in the reader's mind when only reading the text in english. In many cases


Then there are the Hebrew idioms, figures of speech, transliterations instead of translations, but the truth can be sorted out if one has the patience.


some of this is true. I agree, and is the case whenever you take a word from one language and try to make it fit another. But I don't believe any of the true meaning has been lost in the transferring of one to another. As far as if it's a rib or a curve, I don't think that's the point....but interesting I'll have to check on that.

Most people want an instant, microwavable, high speed internet answer,


isn't this the truth for everything nowadays? I heard today that there's a guy who has put together a history book with just such a mind in mind so to speak. Just the most important facts that we need to know about history.....like Christopher Columbus' whole purpose and reason for discovering America in just a few sentences. And from what I understand the facts that he's putting on paper doesn't look like what's being taught in schools today.

I think this would be better stated that "this differs from THIS christian's perspective." Not every christian would be so quick to agree with you. That's the problem with most people's (and I include my own errors in this) lumping of christians together under the banner "christian." Take ten of them off the street and you'll get ten different sets of beliefs, even in the same sect.


well let me clarify then....Evangelical then ok? I can meet 10 Evangelical Christians that I don't know (happens all the time) from different religions and backgrounds and feel an instant connection with them immediately. And it would be safe to say, that these same Christians would believe in the complete inerrancy of the bible. Now do all Christians believe in the inerrancy of the bible? I'd have to say no. To be a Christian tho, you'd have to believe in the Essentials and as far as I'm aware, believing that the bible is directed by the HS without error is not one of them.

As far as you SC....you're a Mormon right? Well when I was a Mormon...many moons ago, they did not call themselves Christian. Neither did the JW's but now they do. I'm not sure why the change, do you? So you're off the hook, I wasn't including you in the complete inerrancy of the bible.

Reply #25 Top
Reply By: AndyBaker


#1-I Don't usually answer hypothetical questions. Would you like a hypothetical answer? The easiest way I could answer that would be to say, I use the bible as my guide. The New Covenant is what's in play here, not the Old. Why would I take vengeance on someone who believes in a different god? They are not sinning against me. They are sinning against Him. He says we are not to take vengeance. He'll take care of it in the end. He also said the wheat and the tares are to grow together until the end. And it's his angels who do the reaping. So why would I go contrary to His word?

#2- There is a difference between murder and killing. The commandment to not murder is found in the 10 commandments. It smacks of personal revenge and is born out of hatred. War on the other hand is justified and carried over to the NT as well. God does sanction war but he doesn't sanction murder under any circumstances. To show you from the NT perspective.

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordaineda of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rom 13:1-4

#3-Not one of us deserves eternity. We have all fallen short. We all sin against God. Not one is perfectly sinless. We all have some form of rebellion in us against God and we can't save ourselves . Instead of wiping us all out as we deserve God reaches down and breathes life into us. Paul said that we are all dead in our sins. What can a dead man do? We are in the land of the dead, not the living....as many believe. This is why Jesus said....."let the dead bury the dead." He was talking spiritually dead burying the physically dead. The other side of eternity is where the real life is. I am very grateful. And because I am grateful, I want others to hear what He has to say because only by hearing will they receive the message. And only by receiving the message can they too live forever. So I am a receipant of that grace and mercy he has to offer. I know it's real because I've experienced it and my life is forever changed because of what he's done for me.

#4-There's only two views from what I can see. The biblical worldview and the humanity worldview...some call it the secular or just plain worldview. I look at everything from a biblical worldview....surprise surprise!! I believe it's a battle between good and evil between God and Lucifer. I say Lucifer because that's the name this angel was given from the beginning.

Andy: I already know you know these answers so now I'll ask you...why ask them?