Answering Unbeliever’s Questions

As a Testimony Against Them

Q.   An apostate Christian asked me why is an omnipotent god so silent?  He has asked for a sign and has not received an answer.  He has read the Bible and does not believe what it says and tells me that I should not use the Bible to prove the Bible.  He does not want to listen to me when I use secular history to prove the reality of Jesus and all the prophecies in the Bible.   He is too stubborn and lazy to do research on them.  I want to tell him not to challenge God’s power.  People have seen God’s signs only when they have life threatening dangers.  It is God’s grace that nothing has happened to him yet. He denies that his unbelief is from a tragedy in his life.  He is disenchanted by the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh day Adventist and Muslims.  He is too lazy to find out the differences between these religions and real Christianity.  He does not want to listen to me. What should I do?

1. Let me give you some principles to guide your action. First, the responsibility of a watchman in the OT:

• Ezk 3:17-19  “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. ¹⁸ When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. ¹⁹ Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.

God’s instructions to Ezekiel are repeated in Ezk 33:1-9 to “the sons of your people” (33:2) i.e. Israelites in general, not just Ezekiel in particular. The responsibility of the watchman is to warn the wicked. They are not responsible for the result, whether the wicked listens and repents, or refuses to listen and keeps on sinning. The same applies to Christian witnesses.

Second, the responsibility of disciples in the NT:

• Mt 10:14-15 Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. ¹⁵ Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. See also Mk 6:11; Lk 9:5.

The disciples’ responsibility is to preach the kingdom of heaven. They are not responsible for the reaction of the people, whether they receive them and heed their words, or reject them and their warnings. Again, this applies to Christian witnesses through the ages, not just first century.

Now, some specific comments about your friend.

• Lk 23:8-9 Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. ⁹ And he questioned Him at some length; but He answered him nothing.

God is not obligated to answer those who ask with sinful intent.

Your friend asks you not to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Presumably he assumes that to be circular logic. Wrong! The Bible is not one book written by one author, but 66 books written by over 40 authors over a span of 1,600 years. So, to use one section of the Bible to prove another section is NOT circular logic. Do lawyers use one section of the law code to argue for another section? Of course they do!

Your friend does not want to listen to proofs from secular history either. Well, if he won’t accept sacred or secular evidence, there is not a third option. Science is no use here as history is beyond the realm of science. Science depends on experiments, observation, and deduction. But you can’t conduct experiments on things in the past, so science is useless here. He has closed his mind to any evidence, and therefore foolish.

He is stubborn and lazy. Unless he changes his attitude, I see no point in trying to convince him with truth and logic. It’s not that there is insufficient evidence. There is a preponderance of evidence, but his mind is blinded:

• 2 Co 4:3-4  And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, ⁴ in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

My suggestion is to pray that his eyes might be opened:

• Acts 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’

Until he humbles himself and asks in sincerity, he won’t be convinced by sheer eloquence. So, don’t waste your time:

• Mt 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Bid your time. I assume you’ve tried many times already. Move on to somebody else. There are plenty of people who are willing to listen. Return to share with him only when he is ready. He is responsible for his own soul, you’re not. I care about the eternal destiny of sinners, but I refuse to let them waste the limited time available to share with the willing.

Prayer for Healing

Q.  Does Jas 5:14-16 mean that when we pray for physical healing, we should first ask for God’s forgiveness of sins for the prayer and the person being prayed for? “Confess sins to one another”. What sins are they? Does it mean forgiving the wrongs done to each other? “The prayer of a righteous man” Would it help me to become a bit more righteous at the moment when I pray and my prayer to be a bit more effective if I ask for forgiveness of my sins before I start my supplication?

A. First let’s read Jas 5:14-16

• Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; ¹⁵ and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.¹⁶ Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

My observations and deductions are as follows:

• V14 the sick must call the church elders to pray over him and anoint him with oil;
• V15 the prayer offered in faith will restore the sick i.e. it is a prayer for healing;
• V15 if the sick has committed sins, they will be forgiven implies that asking for forgiveness is part of the prayer.
• V16 “confess your sins … so that you may be healed”. The context indicates the sins confessed relate to the healing i.e. they are part of the causes for the sickness. Details are not provided, but could involve envy and covetousness for what others have, jealousy for what others would take from you, anger, bitterness or resentment at being treated unfairly, guilt over what you have done to hurt others etc. The confession should include forgiving the wrongs done to each other, else why bother? I don’t think unrelated sins are included, as indiscriminate confession to unrelated parties could cause more harm than good.
• V16 “the effective prayer of a righteous man”. Two conditions are stated – (1) the person is righteous i.e. in a right relationship with God; (2) the prayer is effective i.e. producing the desired result, targeted, relevant. While asking for forgiveness of my own sins before interceding for others is a good idea, God knows our hearts if our intent is simply to be a bit more righteous at the moment. That would not constitute being in a right relationship with God, being righteous. Aim to keep short accounts with God all the time, not just before petitions.

I suggest two more thoughts. The first is that sin sometimes is the cause of sickness, though not always:

• 1 Co 11:29-30 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep (die).

There is no need to assume that someone who is sick must have sinned.

The second is that v15 does not guarantee that “prayer offered in faith” will heal the sick every time. Some commentators believe that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Co 12:7) to be a weakness (2 Co 12:9) or illness for which he prayed three times to be healed (v8), but it did not leave. Paul advised Timothy to use a little wine for the sake of his stomach and frequent ailments (1 Tim 5:23). I assume he would have prayed for Timothy’s healing. Similarly Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim 4:20). Most likely he would have prayed for him too, but again no healing. So the proper approach is to pray fervently for healing, but leave the results to God. It’s not our call whether God heals a person on that occasion, but His sovereignty. Don’t fall for the health and wealth (prosperity gospel) error.   

Paul’s Prayers

Q.  In the Bible, I have not found one occasion when Paul prayed directly to God.  He was always relating how and what he has prayed for.  Why did Paul always pray alone in secret? Is it because he didn’t want to be identified with the Pharisees?

A. There are many passages in Paul’s epistles in which he prayed for others, the church, and for himself. It’s just that unlike Jesus’ prayers in the Gospels narrated by the four evangelists in the third person, the epistles are written by Paul himself in the first person, and he had not recorded his prayers to God directly.

I don’t think this is because Paul did not want to be identified with the Pharisees. In Php 3:4-5

• although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: ⁵ circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;

he was not ashamed to be a Pharisee. Many people equate Pharisees to hypocrites. While this was true in most cases, there are exceptions. Paul was one, Nicodemus was another.

One possibility why Paul refrained from recording his prayers could be the Lord’s instructions in Mt 6:5-6

• When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. ⁶ But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

The hypocrites pray in public to be seen by men. The Lord wants His disciples to be seen by God, not men, hence Paul’s practice. That’s my conjecture, not stated in Scripture.

Baptism for the Dead?

Q.  Was there a practice of baptizing of the dead in Corinth?  Is that biblical? Or was Paul just using this practice to illustrate how the Corinthians were contradicting themselves since they claimed there was no resurrection?

A. Baptized for the dead is referred to only in 1 Co 15:29, a controversial verse, and practiced today mainly by the Mormons. There was such a practice by some in NT times, but it’s not biblical. Let’s see what some modern versions say to get at the meaning:

• Amplified Otherwise, what do people mean by being [themselves] baptized in behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
• ESV Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
• Expanded If the dead are never raised, what will people do who are being baptized for the dead [it is unclear what this practice was or whether Paul approves or disapproves]? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people being baptized for them?

The practice, then, consisted of someone being baptized on behalf of those who have died, by proxy. Some in Corinth believed that there is no resurrection:

• 1 Co 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Paul used v 29 simply to show that the claim in v 12 is inconsistent with the practice of baptism for the dead, because, if the dead are not raised at all, why bother? He did not endorse this practice, nor did he rebuke it strongly as another gospel. For a practice to be biblical for the church, I believe it needs to be taught by the Lord in the gospels, practiced by the early church in Acts, and reinforced by the apostles in the epistles. For example, both believers’ baptism and holy communion satisfy the above criteria, and are ordinances generally accepted by the Church, though there may be minor variations in their mode of expression. Some sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. confirmation, confession or penance, extreme unction, holy orders etc.) do not meet all three criteria and are not generally accepted by Protestants. Baptism for the dead is mentioned only once in an obscure verse, and not considered biblical, though some cults misinterpret this text and turned it into a doctrine.

Universal or Local?

Universal prohibition?

Q.  Does 1 Co 14:34-35 apply to women in the Corinthian church only or to all churches in the world? Does the question in v 36 apply to women or to the Corinthian church in general?

A. First, let’s read the passage:

• 1 Co 14:34-36 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. ³⁵ If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. ³⁶ Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

On the surface, it appears that women are not permitted to speak in churches, not just Corinth, but everything must be interpreted in context. Paul allowed women to pray or prophesy in Corinth:

• 1 Co 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
• 1 Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

The condition is that the women must have their heads covered, as a symbol of authority over them. Hence Paul could not have meant absolute silence. What then does he mean? We need to understand the cultural background. In Paul’s days, men and women were seated on different sides of the synagogue. Women were also less educated in patriarchal society. If they did not understand what was being expounded, there were two primary options. One was to wait till they go home and ask their husbands (for the married) or their fathers (for the unmarried). This is proper and what Paul instructed. The alternative was to speak up and ask their husbands or fathers sitting on the other side of the synagogue, which would be improper and disorderly. Paul wanted order, not chaos:

• 1 Co 14:40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

That is why he did not permit women to speak up. It was to address the cultural condition in those days, not an universal prohibition for all churches in the world.

With respect to v 36, again context determines the interpretation. The “you” in v 36 refers to the church in Corinth. The word of God did not originate from the Corinthian church, nor did it go to them only, but to all churches. So if they disagree with Paul’s ruling, the problem is with them, not Paul, who had the Lord’s commandment (v 37). V 36 applies to the Corinthian church in particular, but the principle applies to all churches in general.