I would like your thoughts on the office of elder in a church. Do you feel that the office of elder must be filled by a “pastor”? in a small church that can only afford to pay a single pastor, do you feel that there should be other elders appointed from the congregation, or should the pastor have sole authority for making all decisions related to the governing of the church? I can’t find anywhere in the new testament where a single elder was appointed in a church, or where church decisions were made by a single person.

My pastor has indicated several times that a board of “ruling elders” in a church is not biblical, but that elders must be those who have been called by God to be pastors. He stated that an elder is someone who is financially supported by the church so that they can devote their time to studying the Word in order to teach. Therefore, if a church isn’t large enough to support more than 1 paid position, there should be only one elder and he is responsible for making the decisions regarding the running of the local church.

I can’t find any scriptural support for this, and I don’t feel that the verses regarding the qualifications of elders, which he is using to support his position, say what he is implying. What are your thoughts on this?

I have seen on your site it was, I think, where you say Jesus was the last prophet. I just came across Acts 15:32, that says “Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.” Can you please explain this? I don’t understand. If our Lord was the last prophet, how could these two be prophets? Thank you for doing the wonderful and encouraging work that you do. God bless.

Is it right to assume that God created the universe before He created the world?

Some of the stars visible to the Hubble telescope are 4-8 billion light years away which means the light seen now has been reflected that much of years ago.

I was wondering about Luke 21:24 When Jesus speaks of the times of the Gentiles, what time frame is this? I recently saw that Olmert is ready of give over complete control of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians, would this tie in to the times of the Gentiles?

Your explanation of “Satan the hinderer” the other day caused me to wonder…how are we to determine whether the false apostles quoted in 2 Cor. 11: 13-15 are simply sincere Christians being deceived by false doctrines, or genuinely evil workmen? Is it our responsibility to even know the difference? How should we handle them, if they arise in our local congregations? Thank you, for your insight.

I recently heard another great Bible teacher discuss an alternate view regarding the concept of the ‘Times of the Gentiles being fulfilled.’ He wrote:

Weren’t the “Times of the Gentiles” fulfilled when Israel recaptured the city and Temple Mount in 1967? For many, that has become a matter of doctrine — 1967 marked the conclusion of the “Times of the Gentiles.”

Unfortunately, it is more a case of wishful thinking than doctrinal truth. Israel may have captured Jerusalem and the Temple in 1967, but neither has been under exclusive Israeli sovereignty. The Gentiles still call most of the shots in East Jerusalem and all the shots on Temple Mount.

Bible prophecy says that any handover over the city and sanctuary in the last days would be the temporary product of a false peace. The Prophet Daniel says that the anti-Christ will work out some kind of temporary accommodation over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount that will allow the Jews access to the Temple Mount, but that agreement will only last three and one half years.

The Prophet Zechariah (12:1-4) predicts the whole world would one day stand against Israeli possession of both Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, going so far as to say that any who ‘burden themselves’ with God’s city will be ‘cut in pieces.’

What are your thoughts on this very important prophetic theme?

My question for you today is in regards to another question that was posted, “forced to worship in secret”. I can not begin to imagine what the person who posted that question has to go through on a regular basis…having to try and to hide your faith because your family will disown you or, for some, face death because of your love for Jesus. But my question is, isn’t it wrong as Christians to hide our faith? Shouldn’t we be like many of the Old and New Testament believers who would have rather given up their lives than to deny the one and true God? Maybe I don’t understand because I live in the United States where I have the freedom to worship Jesus without the fear of being killed but the way I see it is that if Jesus was willing to die for us shouldn’t we be willing to die for him?

We place so much authority on the apostles’ teachings, because they were personally taught by Christ Himself. I understand that even the apostles are human and can make mistakes, but it seems that because some of them had even written part of the Bible which we hold to be error-free, their theological tenets should also be free of error. Yet in the NT, there are instances where even after the apostles are commissioned by the Holy Spirit, there are differences in the basic theology they held. To the point where the apostle Paul publicly challenged the apostle Peter (Gal. 2:11-21), telling him he stood condemned.

How can there be such a serious difference in basic beliefs among the apostles…those personally taught by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit?

I think I understand the basis for the validity of the Bible, and why arguments against it don’t hold up. However, I did have an issue that I don’t feel comfortable answering yet.

How would you answer a person who asked why God wouldn’t also “inspire” the copyists of the original manuscripts since God is omniscient and therefore knew that these were the (very important) copies which would be referenced for billions of people in the future? We take it by faith that the original manuscripts are absolutely perfect and without error because we don’t have the originals with us now, because we believe God is able to inspire his writers (from OT to NT times.)

I attend a Baptist church although I was raised Nazarene. The one area I disagree with Baptists is on the issue of once saved always saved. I believe once we have accepted Jesus as our savior nothing short of one thing can take that away from us….the one thing is ourselves. Humans have the God given right of free will, if we choose to leave God and reject his gift of eternal life, despite having accepted it prior, then we are doomed to destruction as if we had never chosen to believe in the first place.

I believe this can be accomplished by simply leaving the church and living a world centered life, not following God’s direction or will for our lives, in other words living a sinful life.

What do you think?