Was the letter sent after the conference on circumcision in Acts 15 binding for its recipients, or did it merely constitute strong advice? The letter ends with an exhortation to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols" among other things (Acts 15:29), yet elsewhere the Scriptures show that eating things sacrificed to idols is not inherently wrong (1 Cor 8:4-6).Clearly there is no conflict for the Corinthians, since they did not receive the letter sent in Acts, but what about those from Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia? Would they have been sinning if they had eaten something sacrificed to an idol after receiving this letter?

Sincerely, Letters in the Law

Dear Letters in the Law,

The letter sent to the Gentile churches in Acts chapter 15 is a binding set of laws. All of the things listed: eating meat sacrificed to idols, eating blood, and fornication (Acts 15:29) should be avoided by Christians. The Bible even says that the Holy Spirit commands that it is necessary to avoid these things (Acts 15:28). The only reason that we get confused about the issue is because later on Paul will say that eating meat sacrificed to idols isn’t always wrong (1 Cor 8:4). However, it was wrong as long as there were Jewish Christians worshipping with Gentile Christians.

In the first Corinthian letter, Paul says that when meat is sacrificed to an idol, nothing happens to the meat because idols are fake gods (1 Cor 8:5-6). The meat is not inherently bad. However, if your eating of the meat offends a brother, then it is a sin to eat it (1 Cor 8:13). When the apostles wrote the letter in Acts chapter 15 to the Gentile churches, every one of those congregations would have Jews in their congregation that would be offended by meat sacrificed to idols. Therefore, it was more than just strong advice… it was absolutely vital that they avoid idol-tainted meat. Eating meat that was knowingly sacrificed to an idol was just as sinful as fornication because it would destroy God’s work to unite Jew and Gentile under Christ (Rom 14:20-21).

We are instructed not to take the name of the Lord in vain, but can the word ‘god’ really be considered the Lord’s name? We do not know how to pronounce the Lord’s name, so we refer to the Lord as ‘God’, ‘Father’, and ‘Lord’, but aren’t those just classifications? God is what the Lord is; Father is His relationship to us (as is Lord), so should we consider those the name of God or just classifications for Him?  I know this doesn’t apply to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, for we are given Their names, and we know how to pronounce Them.

Sincerely, Name Recognition

Dear Name Recognition,

There is more to treating God’s name as holy than just avoiding the word ‘Yahweh’. It is true that the Jews didn’t pronounce the name ‘Yahweh’ (the name God gives Himself when He talks with Moses – Ex 3:13-14), considering it to be such a holy name that it was best left unsaid. The technicality of not being able to pronounce a particular Hebrew word is missing the point though.

The command to not use the Lord’s name in vain comes from Ex 20:7, otherwise known as the Ten Commandments (Ex 34:28). This is an Old Testament verse, but it is just as applicable to New Testament Christians because the concept is reiterated in the New Testament as well. Not using His name in vain is about more than just God’s technical name of ‘Yahweh’; it is about treating God as holy. Peter said it best when he said that you and I are to “show forth the excellencies of Him who called you” (1 Pet 2:9). We are to treat God with reverence (Heb 12:9). You would never use your parents’ names as swear words or exclamations of disdain. You would never speak ill of your friends or treat their names as bywords and cursing. When you say ‘God’ or ‘Lord’, everyone knows who you are referring to. Be very careful that you only use His name with the utmost respect. Sanctify all the names and terms you use for God as holy (Lk 1:49). God will not be mocked (Gal 6:7); if we don’t treat Him with respect and admiration – no technicality of pronunciation will save us on the Judgment.

     What kind of fallacy argument would you call it when someone says the following:

"You don't believe what I believe because what you believe is how you were taught to believe."

"It's because you never went to any other church."

"It's because you were raised in the church you go to."

Secondly, how would you convince someone that you are open-minded and unbiased when it comes to interpreting Scripture for what it says versus what you want it to say?

Sincerely,
Open-Minded

Dear Open-Minded,

A fallacy argument is any argument that isn’t based off of facts, but instead, some other persuasive and unreasonable argument.  In this case, the argument is a personal attack.  When someone says that you are wrong because you were raised in a certain church or because you haven’t seen every other church, it is the same as saying, “You’re wrong because I don’t like your parents”… whether or not you have good parents is irrelevant to the issue.

Just because you were raised in a church doesn’t mean that church is by default wrong.  People are raised in all sorts of environments, and wouldn’t it make sense that at least some of the population would be raised in good ones, AND if some people are raised properly, wouldn’t that also mean that some of those people would grow up and stay in the right church?

The way to handle this argument is to get back to the real issue – what does the Bible say a church should be?  Regardless of our backgrounds, we need to look at what the Scriptures actually say.  When you are having a religious discussion, they don’t have to trust you or your “interpretation”, they need to see the verse themselves, and then you can use the text as your standard of measure.  That is how to handle that argument; remind them that the Bible is the standard, and all you are asking for is to look at it and compare your religious beliefs to it.  No personal interpretation necessary.

Could you help me with I Cor. 11 as far as the head covering or not covering?  How long/short should the hair be?  Why is there such a multitude of different interpretations on this passage?  Also, if you choose to wear a covering, do you only wear it in the assembly or every time you pray as well?  A girl we worship with ALWAYS has a "hat" on.  Just curious for some clarification; thanks!

Sincerely,
In Over My Head

Dear In Over My Head,

Women must always have their heads covered while praying (1 Cor 11:5), but God has built into every woman a permanent head-covering – her hair (1 Cor 11:15).  God designed men and women differently… this should be no surprise to anyone that has ever dealt with the opposite gender!  Men are to be the leaders in the home (Eph 5:23) and the church (Tit 1:5-6).  Women are the heart of the family (Tit 2:4-5), and men are not complete without them (1 Cor 11:12).  Both genders are equal heirs of salvation, but they are designed with different strengths and roles (1 Pet 3:7).  One way that God signifies this is by having men look different from women.  When women have long hair and men have short hair – it pleases God (1 Cor 11:14-15).  There are varying degrees of long and short hair, but ultimately – men are to look like men, and women are to look like women.  This principle is even borne out in the Old Testament (Deut 22:5).  The teachings of 1 Cor 11:1-16 are simply teaching that a woman’s long hair is a God-given covering for her head, and men are not to have that same covering due to their varying roles in leadership.  The confusion over those verses is caused by people not paying attention to 1 Cor 11:15 when it says that a woman’s “hat” is her long hair.

When taking the communion, should you physically "break the bread"?

Sincerely, Not Enough Crumbs

Dear Not Enough Crumbs,

We must break the bread like Jesus did, by sharing it with others who are also taking the Lord’s Supper. The term ‘break the bread’ can mean two things:

1. Physically separating a loaf of bread (Acts 27:35)
2. To have a meal, share food (Acts 2:46)

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. Jesus used grape juice, so we use grape juice (Matt 26:29). So if Jesus physically broke the bread as part of the Lord’s Supper, we should to. The example we see is that Jesus gave thanks for the bread and then broke the bread to share it with the disciples (Matt 26:26). So when we take the Lord’s Supper, we are to do the same thing… share the bread with the other christians assembled. Without being too dogmatic on the point, the bread gets broken, by default, every time other christians take some from the loaf. The emphasis isn’t on who breaks the bread - but on us all sharing the meal together (1 Cor 10:16-17).