In the book of Acts, when Peter gives his first sermon, he concludes it by saying, "Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Just what is the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Sincerely, Wrapped Up In The Question

Dear Wrapped Up In The Question,

The gift of the Holy Spirit is salvation. In Acts 2:38, Peter offers the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who are baptized. The problem is that in this verse, Peter doesn’t specify whether the gift is from the Holy Spirit or the gift is the Holy Spirit. We need to compare Peter’s sermon in Acts to other verses. What do other verses say you receive when you are baptized?

1. Mk 16:16 says you will receive salvation.
2. Acts 8:16 shows that several people had been baptized but hadn’t received the Holy Spirit – which means that the Holy Spirit can’t be what the gift is.
3. Acts 10:47 shows several people receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism, also proving that the gift of baptism isn’t the actual Holy Spirit.
4. Rom 6:4 says you are given a new life through baptism.
5. 1 Cor 12:13 says that you become part of the church when you are baptized.
6. Col 2:12 says you are raised with Christ in baptism.
7. Gal 3:27 says you put on Christ when you are baptized.
8. 1 Pet 3:21 says baptism saves you.

The truth can always be found in the sum of God’s Word (Ps 119:160). Baptism washes away your sins, and you receive the gift of salvation. The gift of salvation is a heavenly gift offered to us by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God (Heb 6:4, 1 Cor 2:11-13).

My boyfriend says that pastors are wrong when they say, “Give 10% in tithes."  He says that the Bible says 1/10^th. His argument: the dictionary defines ‘one tenth’ as ‘one part of ten’, and ‘10%’ is defined as ‘10 parts per hundred’, thus meaning that 1/10^th is actually smaller. So in all actuality, we should only give:

1cent, $1, $10, $100, etc. (not) 2 cents, $1.54, $12.25, $149, etc.

What he does is if he makes $487.00, he'll put $40.00 into his tithe envelope and another $10.00 into the offering plate going over the 10% anyway. When I ask why argue when you put in over the percentage anyways, he says it's not about the money; the preachers may or may not know the difference, but he does, and it's about facts. Is this true?

Sincerely, By The Numbers

Dear By The Numbers,

Your boyfriend is missing the point and using a modern definition for an ancient word. If I understand your boyfriend’s argument (and I’m not sure I do) it revolves around rounding numbers and an American dictionary. His point is that there is a difference between 1 part per ten and ten parts per hundred. This may be true in certain chemistry and technical applications, but it is not true in the normal usage of 1/10^th. Tithe does mean 1/10^th. It is a fraction. Ask any math teacher how to find 1/10^th of something, and they will tell you to divide by ten. The Old Testament doesn’t use an American dictionary for its word definitions, so the parts per hundred and parts per ten argument doesn’t hold water.

Having said all of that, tithing is an Old Testament Jewish practice, not a command for New Testament christians. Your boyfriend and your pastor are arguing about something that doesn’t even apply to christians! See this post for more details about tithing, and see this post for details about finding a faithful church. Though 10% is a good ‘rule of thumb’ for how much to give, the Biblical commandment for christians is to ‘give cheerfully’ and as you have ‘purposed in your heart’ (2 Cor 9:7)... which it sounds like your boyfriend has been doing. If the leadership of your church doesn’t understand the difference between Old Testament and New Testament teachings – they probably aren’t paying very close attention to their Bibles.

In your previous post, Divided We Stand, you wrote, "When we take the Lord’s Supper, we use Christ’s example as our guide.  Christ took the bread first and then the juice (Matt 26:26-27), so we do it in the same order." I understand this, but would this not also mean that we should only use one cup?

Sincerely, Cupbearer

Dear Cupbearer,

We should only use one cup… unless the Scriptures give us a reason to think that the one cup was an unimportant detail – which they do. Jesus states that it is what is in the cup that matters, not the cup itself (Matt 26:29). When Jesus took the cup, He gave thanks for the grape juice inside of the cup (Mk 14:23-24). The grape juice represents Christ’s blood; the cup does not. In fact, Jesus told the apostles to divide the juice among themselves (Lk 22:17). We don’t know how the apostles went about doing that. They may very well have poured the juice from Jesus’ cup into twelve other individual cups. When we use multiple cups to distribute the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper, we are doing what Christ did… dividing the juice among all the believers who are going to remember Christ’s death.

What was God's purpose in specifying unleavened bread as opposed to leavened? Did leavened bread have bacteria in it that could harm?

Sincerely, Health Conscious

Dear Health Conscious,

Unleavened bread was eaten during certain Old Testament feasts (like the Passover) and during the Lord’s Supper for symbolic reasons, not for medical ones. Aside from the days of Unleavened Bread, leaven was allowed in homes during the rest of the year (Ex 12:19). Certain sacrifices even required leavened bread (Lev 23:17). So yeast was not considered bad or good, but it was considered an additive.

The idea of unleavened bread is that it is bread that hasn’t been tainted by anything. Unleavened bread is pure bread. The symbolism of unleavened things representing holiness can be found throughout the Scriptures. The false teaching of the Pharisees was called ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’ (Matt 16:12). Herod’s worldliness was considered ‘leaven’ that could harm godly people by its influence (Mk 8:15). The christian that had fallen into the horrible sin of sleeping with his father’s wife was considered ‘leaven’ that could spoil the whole congregation (1 Cor 5:6). On the other hand, life in Christ is considered unleavened (1 Cor 5:7). Unleavened bread is compared to a life of sincerity and truth… while leaven is compared to a life of malice and wickedness (1 Cor 5:8). Paul compares false teaching to leaven that can destroy the whole church (Gal 5:9).

It isn’t yeast that we need to be wary of. What christians should fear is a world that will tear them away from God’s Word and leaven their lives with corruption (Jas 4:4-8).

This relates to your post on Ida, the supposed "missing link" fossil. Would it be possible that this animal (and other fossils, dinosaurs included) never actually lived and walked the earth but were simply placed by God as fossils to test our faith? I know there is an animal in the Old Testament that sounds similar to a dinosaur, but couldn't it have been an elephant or some other large animal?

Sincerely, Planted Evidence

Dear Planted Evidence,

The problem with God placing the fossils in the earth on the first several days of Creation is that it would be a willful act on the part of God to deceive mankind. God never deceives (Tit 1:2). He also says that the Creation is evidence of His existence (Rom 1:19-20). Evolutionary “missing links” being planted in the geologic strata would be a direct contradiction of God’s promise.

No, fossils aren’t planted evidence against God. Most creation scientists will tell you that fossils are a great example of what would have happened to animals under the intense pressure created by the Great Flood of Noah’s day (Gen 7:17-24). Geology, like all fields of science, screams of God’s existence. It isn’t science that is against the Bible; it is scientists that are against the Gospel.

As for the creature from the book of Job… it isn’t necessarily a dinosaur, but it sure isn’t an elephant. Elephants don’t have tails the size of cedar trees (Job 40:17). There are no guarantees that the ‘Behemoth’ of Job 40:15-24 or the ‘Leviathan’ of Job 41:1-10 are dinosaurs, but they certainly don’t match the description of any animals we see roaming around today.