Central Church - Who We Are

Question:I have looked up anointing in the bible but I don't understand. What does it mean to be anointed? Can something be anointed, like a house or a chair? A friend thinks an antique chair in my house is anointed, possibly used by a former owner to pray in. She says things are revealed to her when she sits in the chair.

Answer: things and people can be anointed. If you look up anoint in a concordance or an online Bible search program (like www.biblegateway.com) I think you will find that anointing served three purposes: (1) designation for service, (2) healing, and (3) grooming. People commonly anointed themselves for grooming purposes. The aroma served as a kind of perfume, I suppose. If you had a guest in your home you honored him or her by anointing his or her head with oil (Psalm 23). Oil was a symbol of God's presence and holiness, also, and so it was used to anoint the Tabernacle and other objects as well as people who were set apart for God's purposes (kings, prophets, priests). And oil had healing properties so was a symbol of healing (James 5:14).

It is quite possible that your chair was anointed and that someone could have a sense of God's presence when in the chair. Just be careful that what she says otherwise squares with Scripture. We are told to test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1). She may have wonderful insights into God's word and work, but we need to test. If something sounds a little odd, go to God's Word and check it out. Call someone you trust who knows the Scriptures well.

Randall Johnson

Question: What is Central's position on baptismal beliefs including immersion and sprinkling and adult/infant baptism?

Answer: As far as baptism is concerned, our church believes that both immersion and sprinkling are legitimate modes of baptism and that the individual should make a choice as to what mode they prefer. What matters is one's heart when it comes to baptism. Am I submitting my life to Christ who alone can save me? Then I am truly being baptized as a symbol of that fact. I must be baptized. I cannot baptize myself. I am a passive participant in the process, a fitting picture of my passive participation in the salvation of Christ. It is faith, not the act of baptism, that saves me.

We do not baptize infants, only those who have indicated that they have believed the gospel, whatever age they may be.

Randall Johnson

Question: Numbers 22:12 God tells Balaam "do not go with them" then in vs. 20 God says, "You can go with them." But once God does give the okay, why does He hinder and block the travel by sending the Angel?

Answer: This is a figure of speech, in this case irony on God's part to convey the opposite of what he means. Other examples are Genesis 3:22, "The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." It is apparent that this was Adam's desire but that he did not become like one of the Godhead and did not know good and evil the way God does, but in a fallen, captive way. Judges 10:14 has God saying to Israel, "Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble," though, obviously, He does not believe there are such gods or that they can save Israel.

Balaam knew he was not to go and curse Israel. Yet he was being offered a great deal of money if he would. He wanted the money (2 Peter 2:15) so he was willing to hear God's ironic statement as the permission he desperately desired. He knew better in his heart but was willing to rebel against what his conscience told him and go anyway. Despite his best efforts at cursing Israel, he couldn't. So he figured out that if the women of Moab sexually tempted the men of Israel, and they succumbed, they would incur God's wrath (Revelation 2:14). That was the advice he gave to Balak, king of Moab and it worked, in part. He later paid for his disobedience with his life (Numbers 31:8)

We are much like Balaam when we look for ways to justify what we're doing, even distorting the Word of God in our efforts.

Randall Johnson

Question: If death is the consequence of sin then, by implication, had there been no sin, there would be no death. Why then would God have been concerned about Adam and Eve getting to the fruit of the tree of life? Apparently, prior to sin they would not have died. Why then is there a tree of life in the first place? (Genesis 3:17-22)

Answer: There is too much that we don't know about the tree of life to give much of a definitive answer. It is possible that eating from the tree of life was a continual need for Adam and Eve in order to maintain their strength and health, since, even though there was not death, the body did need continued sustenance. But, if bodily death could not occur then what would be the point of eating, sleeping, or even protecting yourself from a tree falling on you or other natural dangers? It makes more sense to me that the absence of sin did not mean there was no death, but meant that death was not the normal occurrence from aging, and was not a punishment for disobedience. But it is likely death could happen if you failed to nourish the body or got injured.

The other factor that would limit death in an unfallen world would be the absence of malice in the human heart. But it might be possible to accidently kill someone. What When sin entered, however, death began to reign in every person born because it was a punishment for Adam's disobedience. Every human being was destined to grow old (a chemical process in which our cells cease functioning the way they're supposed to) and, of course, death could be made even more abrupt and at younger ages because of the evil of the human heart. The tree of life might have been a factor in keeping our cellular structure from aging, and removal of access to this tree may have been the way God introduced the aging process into the fallen human race. Just a thought.

Randall Johnson

Question: My husband and I got into a theological discussion last night on prayer. The question was - after you have prayed about something, should you continue to repeatedly pray about the same thing throughout the day, or is just the initial prayer sufficient?

Answer: This is such an excellent question and the Scriptures give seemingly opposing advice.

There is that line of Scriptural teaching that seems to say, "Pray once and no more." Jesus taught, "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him" (Matthew 6:7,8). However, the NIV Study Bible note on this says, "They used long lists of the names of their gods in their prayers, hoping that by constantly repeating them they would call on the name of the god that could help them. Jesus is not necessarily condemning all long prayers, but meaningless verbiage in praying." So this admonition is not necessarily against repeating the same request, either. But we might consider what a friend would feel if after we asked him for something we kept on asking him over and over until he answered. Would he feel we didn't trust him?

On the other hand, Jesus also gives us the example of the persistent widow in Luke 18. He says that she "kept coming" to the town judge pleading for justice and he kept refusing, but finally gave in for peace of mind. Are we supposed to bother God until he answers? Jesus says, "Will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly" (Luke 18:7,8). Jesus is saying that we may have to cry out day and night, but that from the Father's perspective He is not an unwilling judge. Rather, our Father will answer us "quickly."

Paul says, "Pray continually" (NIV, 1 Thessalonians 5:17). This doesn't mean, necessarily, that we pray the same request over and over, but that we not give up on prayer as our lifeline with God.

Paul himself prayed three times that God would remove the thorn in his flesh (2 Corinthians 12:8), and God then told him He would not remove it. I think this gives us our pattern for repetition of our requests. We may pray for a specific request continually as long as God doesn't say no. This means we must be listening to how God is responding to our requests. If He gives us a sense that they are going to be answered, there is no need to continually keep asking. If we get no sense either way, then we keep on asking as a symbol of our faith that He is the only one who can meet our need. If we get the sense that He is not going to grant our request, we also cease asking for it, and learn instead what it is we need to ask for (in Paul's case, grace and strength to go on with the thorn in his flesh).

Randall Johnson

Question: Somewhere, though I don't remember where, I have heard that it had never rained on the earth when Noah built the ark. That prior to the flood everything had been watered from within the earth. Is this biblically true or just something that someone came up with?

Answer: The Bible doesn't say definitively, but there is a theory among some more scientific Christians that when it says in Genesis 1 that God separated the water under the expanse from the water above it (1:7) that this was the formation of a water canopy above our atmosphere. Its properties would have served to create a greenhouse affect around the earth so that it would be evenly warm all over our globe. It would have filtered out harmful ultraviolet rays that do damage to organisms. In this view, the canopy also created a much different kind of air pressure that would allow for Pterodactyls to fly and reptiles to grow to enormous sizes, hence the dinosaurs. And it would have possibly prevented rain. On this theory, when Noah was told that it was going to rain and announced the same to his contemporaries, they had never seen or heard of this kind of precipitation. Noah's faith is perhaps even greater than we thought.

Randall Johnson

Question: Why was Cain's gift not as good as Abel's? How was Cain supposed to know the rules? I have never seen it in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Is it possible that his sin was not his initial gift, but his reaction to God after he gave his gift?

Answer: There is no evident instruction recorded in Genesis about how offerings were to be made. This does not mean God did not give instruction, but that it was not recorded. The fact that it is not recorded lends strength to the idea that Cain's offering was not rejected because he broke some rule (brought grain instead of an animal sacrifice, for example). Rather, it suggests that it was his attitude in bringing the offering that was so offensive to God. We can imagine what the attitude was by examining our own attitudes. Sometimes we do things "for God" out of an attitude of hypocrisy ("I have to do this or everyone will think I don't like God"), or anger ("I'm mad at God but I'm going to go through the motions of living as if I'm not"), or ingratitude ("I accomplished this but I have to make it look like I'm giving God credit"), or even jealousy ("I don't like the fact that so and so is living for God and gets credit from others, so I'm going to compete").

It seems that the reaction of Cain to God's reprimand was a response to being exposed. His original bad attitude in making the offering was exposed when God did not accept it and then he got angry and perhaps depressed over it. That sounds like us, too, doesn't it?

Randall Johnson

Question: : John 5:25-29 reads, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." Here are my questions:

1. Does v.25 refer to pre-incarnation believers in God who have died anticipating the Messiah? Or does it refer to all dead people? Is there significance in the verb "hear" being used twice? What is the status of pre-incarnation believers? (Gen 15:6?). We figured it referenced believers and shows the breadth of His grace. Did they believe in Jesus even if they didn't know His name?

2. Does v. 29 advocate a works based salvation?

3. The title Son of Man is confusing/intriguing. What comments can you give about this?

Answer: Great questions. Here are my answers:

1. I believe this refers to all the dead. Those who died before Christ believed in the promise of God as it was explained up to that point. Abraham believed God's promise concerning his offspring becoming numerous and possessing the land, later Israelites believed the promise of the kingdom being ruled by David and his offspring, etc. All the focus on the promise was that God would restore the kingdom through the offspring of the woman (Genesis 3:15). Once Jesus came the focus of the promise is on the Offspring of the woman who has come and has restored the kingdom in principle and is restoring it in fact, as well. Faith has always been the basis of salvation, never works. I don't really know the significance of the word "hear" in this passage.

2. Verse 29 does not advocate works salvation but the characteristics of those who have salvation. This is an aspect of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Genuine believers will persevere in good works. Hebrews 12 says no one can see God without holiness. This probably does not mean just legal right standing with God (justification) but some measure of right living (sanctification). This is because God produces this kind of life in those who belong to Him (1 John says His "seed" is in us and we cannot continue in sin, 3:9). Paul says in Romans 2:13, "It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Paul obviously doesn't believe that works of the Law save us, but must mean, rather, that the characteristic of the true believer is that he or she does obey the law. This does not mean perfect obedience, but rather a growing conformity to God's character that God is working in us (Philippians 2:12,13).

3. Jesus probably used the title "Son of Man" because it was confusing/intriguing. He did not want to prematurely raise the resistance there would have been to calling himself the Son of God or the Messiah. The term was used frequently in the Old Testament for a prophet (see Ezekiel). But it was also used of the divine character who receives the kingdom from the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13,14. To those who came to know Him it became obvious after his resurrection that Jesus was divine, not just human, God, not just Man. He wasn't merely a prophet. But before that it could be interpreted according to the framework of the person listening.

Randall Johnson

Question: : I have a question about baptism. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) Is baptism a part of the way of salvation? I mean, is it a requirement to be baptized before we can receive the Holy Spirit?

Answer: Baptism is a normal part of the way of salvation, but I don't believe it is essential for salvation, nor is it a requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit. Let me explain.

In Acts 10 when Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius, the Roman Centurion who received a message from an angel to call for Peter to come and show him the way to life, as he was preaching, Cornelius and those with him received the Holy Spirit. Peter then said it was okay to baptize them. So they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized, but not before believing. When the thief on the cross asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom, Jesus said, "This day you will be with me in Paradise." Obviously, there was no opportunity to baptize the thief. When Paul told the Corinthians (1 Cor.) that he was glad that he had baptized very few of them because Jesus sent him to preach the gospel, not baptize (verse 17), he made it plain that baptism was not essential for salvation.

However, baptism is often associated closely with salvation because it is the symbol of salvation. In baptism I passively am immersed or sprinkled by another, symbolizing that I cannot save myself. It is a gift of God, not of works. By submitting to baptism I am signifying that I really believe this gospel. But the essential part of my salvation is not the baptism, but the faith. Nevertheless baptism can be associated with salvation because it is the symbol of our faith and faith is what saves us.

So Peter does not feel inappropriate in saying repent and be baptized in order to be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. In essence he is saying, "Repent and demonstrate that you really believe by submitting to baptism and you will be forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Paul can say later that in baptism his sins were washed away (Acts 22:16), though he tells the Philippian jailer in 16:31 that the way to be saved is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." If you view baptism as a symbol of faith, then baptism saves you, not, as Peter says, "the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God," i.e., believing.

Randall Johnson