Who are the Illuminati, and what do they believe in?  Is it a cult?

Sincerely,
Not An Illuminati

Dear Not An Illuminati,

The Illuminati was a Bavarian secret society formed in 1776 in Ingolstadt, Germany.  Similar to the Freemason society, the Illuminati was a secret society with religious, as well as secular, elements to it.  The truth is that the Illuminati and societies that diverged from the Illuminati died out years ago.  It is the pop-fiction industry that has revived the term ‘Illuminati’ by creating conspiracy-theory books that portray the Illuminati as a surviving secret society bent on ushering in a new world order.  These books make for exciting fireside reading, but they are still fiction.  The Illuminati was a cult that existed in Europe several centuries ago, but it no longer is a factor in today’s society.

Do you believe in Annihilationism… because there are some people like the Jehovah's Witness, United Church of God, and Seventh-Day Adventists that believe a person's soul is annihilated (or extinguished) in hell, instead of being punished.  To me Annihilationism isn't biblical!  Some say it's a heresy!  But, also, there are some verses in the Bible that annihilationists interpret as "Annihilation" (Ex: Isaiah 66:24).  Also, annihilationists interpret the "second death" as annihilation.  Like I said before, though, I don't believe in Annihilationism!  It's also unbiblical!

Sincerely,
Keep The Flame Alive

Dear Keep The Flame Alive,

There are several very clear texts that deal with what happens to lost souls when they die.  Mk 9:47-49 says that hell is a place where “the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched” – the exact opposite of annihilation.  Jesus also told the story of a rich man that died and went to torments (Lk 16:22-23).  In torments, the rich man was in constant burning anguish without relief (Lk 16:24).  Abraham told the rich man that he would remain in anguish and that there was a great gulf eternally fixed between those in Paradise and those in torment (Lk 16:25-26).  Though some good brethren believe that hell is not an eternal location and that the wicked are destroyed at death, we don’t believe that this holds up to biblical scrutiny.  Hell is a real place, and you really don’t want to go there.

I've been dating a Hindu woman for about eight months.  I have fallen in love with her.  I would love to marry her, as she would be a great wife.  However, she is not a christian.  Over the months, we have talked about religion, and she has shown some (a little) interest in Christianity.  I know only God can lead her to Christ, so this is the question I pose.  Is it selfish for me to pray for her to be lead to Christ, so I can be with her?  I feel this is a self-centered prayer because I want her to be saved because I want to be with her and have a Christ-centered relationship… and not really because of her salvation.  I feel guilty and very confused.  I have prayed about this for quite a while, and I hope you will be able to shed some light on this issue.  Thank you.

Sincerely,
Praying To Propose

Dear Praying To Propose,

Why can’t you have both?  It is possible to pray for her conversion because you love her and want to marry her and so that she can go to heaven.  The two goals aren’t mutually exclusive.  In fact, we can’t think of a better win-win scenario.  God tells us to pray for the things we want but to also pray that His will be done (Matt 6:10, Jas 4:15).  In this case, you know that what you want is definitely the same as what God wants.  God wants everyone to be saved (Ezek 18:23).  Pray for her, be a good example, prepare ahead of time in your heart to never marry a non-christian, and be ready to answer her questions with logical Bible answers (1 Pet 3:15).  Hopefully, she has as honest a heart as you hope.

(This question is a follow-up to “Constantinian Shift”)

I am glad you have corrected your statement about Constantine "forcing" all to convert to Christianity.  There is a very fine line between statements of historical truth and statements meant to lead a reader to a conclusion by implication and exaggeration.  My only issue with your line of reasoning has to do with how you determine what is historically reliable and what is not.  You cannot have things both ways.  When presented with historical sources and actual named witnesses to a questioner laying a foundation of an organized church before Constantine, you rejected the history outright and claimed it was contradictory and unreliable (see your response to "A History Of Error" in the Catholic archive).  Then in response to other topics (canon of New Testament and Constantine's activities), you relied on extra-biblical historical accounts.  So on one hand, you are relying on history to make some points, while on the other hand, you are rejecting history to disprove other points.  I am hoping you see this contradiction as I really don't want you guys to keep sawing off the very branch you are sitting on in an attempt to influence your readers away from a faith you don't agree with.  Why do you accept the testimony of the witnesses to Constantine's subtle ways of influencing conversion?  What makes you think those extra-biblical accounts are reliable?  How do you know the early church historians (bishops and clergy) that attest to an organized church before the famous edict are unreliable?

Sincerely,
Cite Your Sources Please

Dear Cite Your Sources Please,

We appreciate your concern over our use of extra-biblical history.  Let's see if we can quickly clarify.  We use historical resources as reliable sources in regards to Constantine because that is the ONLY history of Constantine we have.  The Bible never directly deals with Constantine; therefore, we are left to use secular history as our only guide.  You may have misunderstood our statements about Constantine – we do believe Constantine forced people to obey his state-run religion.  As we mentioned in the last post, he forced them by using inducements.

The times that we have stated that the early church historians were being unreliable or contradictory is when we do have a biblical account to compare it to.  The Bible is always the first and foremost guide in church history, and the Bible soundly condemns Catholicism's practices.  Therefore, people who lived and taught anything in opposition to the Bible are wrong, no matter whom they are.  There were early church historians that were beginning to move toward the Catholic way of functioning before the era of Constantine (Constantine simply is the historical demarcation point when things began to quickly move downhill), but the fact that early church writers taught things contradictory to Bible teachings discredit them in doctrinal matters.  We can trust early historians in secular history unless they prove otherwise (i.e. contradict the majority of historians); we can trust early historians in religious history unless they prove otherwise (i.e. contradict Scripture).  Hopefully, that gives you some clarity as to why it seems like we are "cherry picking" the history that we want.  Everything gets compared to Scripture – even early church writers.

In a previous post, you stated "Both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church trace their history back to the days of Caesar Constantine.  …Constantine made Christianity the national religion and forced all people to join it.  By forcing people to join Christianity, Constantine removed all traces of the volunteer Bible-based faith that Christ died for."
The edict of Milan issued by Constantine only proclaimed religious toleration in the Roman Empire.  There is no historical record of Constantine "forcing" anyone to become christian.  Constantine was actually against conversion by coercion: “It is one thing voluntarily to undertake the conflict for immortality, another to compel others to do so from fear of punishment”.  As a student of history, could you please clarify for me your historical sources for your previous statements regarding this period of Christianity?

Sincerely,
Cite Your Sources Please

Dear Cite Your Sources Please,

You are correct that the edict of Milan only proclaimed toleration and that Constantine is on record as saying that conversion by coercion was a bad thing, but like all good politicians, what Constantine said and what he did were two different things.

Constantine issued the edict of Milan legalizing Christianity and then subsequently began to provide “inducements” to conversion.  These inducements included:

1. Government-conferred benefits for church leaders (this included immunity from military service)
2. Cash gifts to congregations
3. Building elaborate buildings for churches
4. Christians received career advancements within the government over and above pagans
5. Exile of preachers that upset him (even subsets of Christian beliefs – such as Arianism)

These inducements are well-documented in various sources, but one good book to look at is “Christianizing the Roman Empire” by Ramsay MacMullen.  It is also important to note that the edict of Milan, which legalized tolerance, was only the beginning of a movement to make Christianity a state religion.  The edict of Milan promoted tolerance in 313 AD, but by 380 AD, emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official state religion, and in 392 AD, all other worship was made illegal.  Constantine was the tip of the spear for a movement to turn Christianity into a government entity (eventually Catholicism) over the next hundred years.