Central Church - Who We Are

Question: : What is the "unforgivable sin" and "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"?

Answer: When Jesus heals a certain demonized man who is both blind and mute, the Pharisees say he had authority over the demons because he cast them out by the prince of demons (Matthew 12:22-37). In other words, they accuse him of being in league with Satan and using Satan's power to cast out demons as a way of tricking people into believing in him. Jesus argues that Satan would thus be dividing his own kingdom against itself and this strategy would lead to his destruction. He claims instead that his power has come from the Spirit of God.

But because the Pharisees have attributed the Spirit's power working through him to Satan instead, they have blasphemed (spoken evil against) the Holy Spirit. Every indicator in the miracles that Jesus performed pointed to the fact that it was the Holy Spirit and not Satan who was behind Jesus' miracles. The Pharisees were responsible as leaders of Israel to evaluate any contenders to messiahship. But if they had not had a personal agenda instead of retaining their own power and influence, they could have acknowledged that Jesus' compassion, the sheer number of miracles, the good results coming from them of people giving God glory, and their changed lives proved that God was behind Jesus' ministry.

Instead they hardened their hearts against the truth and attributed to Satan what only the Holy Spirit could have done. Consequently, Jesus said their sin would not be forgiven in this age or the age to come, that is, ever. The unforgivable or unpardonable sin is refusing to see the plain truth in front of you of the Holy Spirit's power and attestation that Jesus is the Messiah. Anyone who is blessed to see the truth this plainly but hardens his or her heart to it and refuses to submit to the truth cannot be forgiven. If someone you think might have committed the unpardonable sin does demonstrate repentance and faith, you know they did not commit the unpardonable sin, or else they would not be able to have repentance and faith. If someone wants Jesus in his or her life, they can have him. The fact they want him shows they did not commit the unpardonable sin.

Randall Johnson

Question: I have a question about giving 10% of the salary earned to the church. My friend tells me that this was done in the Old Testament but in the New Testament it is not required. We need only give as we feel. Can you tell me more about it?

Answer: Abraham is the first one we see applying the 10% principle (Genesis 14). After rescuing his nephew Lot from several invading armies, he takes the plunder from his victory and gives a tenth of it to one he identifies as a priest of God Most High named Melchizedek. The Law of Moses later makes this a requirement of all Israel (Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Because there are a couple of tithes they were responsible it is possible they were required to pay as much as 14-22% of their income at times.

Because the law of the tithe is not repeated in any of the New Testament letters to the churches, some have argued that it is no longer a requirement of followers of Jesus. I think that is basically correct. When Paul instructs the Corinthians to prepare an offering for the saints in Jerusalem, he tells them to "set aside a sum of money in keeping with" their income (1 Corinthians 16:2). He does not specify an amount or percentage.

However, it seems to me that Abraham's tenth is a principle of giving that we should aspire to. Even though we are not required to give a tenth, it should be a benchmark of our giving. I would strive to give a tenth or somewhere near that, and then, as the Lord prospers me, I would seek to give even more. This is what we teach at Central Church. The Lord honors those who give cheerfully and generously (2 Corinthians 9:6-11). [For more related study see "Are we still obligated to keep the Law?"]

Randall Johnson

Question: : Why does the Catholic translation of the Bible have more books in it than the Protestant?

Answer: The Catholic version includes a group of books called the Apocrypha (means "hidden"). When Jerome translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin for the western churches, he included these books. They were written between the books of Malachi and Matthew, in that period between the return of Israel from exile and the coming of Jesus. The Jews did not consider them Scripture and Jesus never quoted from them or acknowledged them as part of the Bible. They were respected in some cases as helpful historical accounts (Maccabees) and in others as containing some wisdom, but were not put on a par with Scripture.

Because Roman Catholicism has built some of its doctrines in part on passages from the Apocrypha, they have been more willing to include them in their translations of the Bible. If you were to read them you would find them of very unequal value, fantastic at times even in Biblical terms but at others very much in accord with what the Scriptures teach. They are not Scripture, so they are not authoritative for our lives.

Randall Johnson

Question: : Where does it discuss how Satan was cast out of heaven? I have heard that two thirds of God's angels that were loyal to Him were cast out with the devil but where is that in the Bible?

Answer: Revelation 12 is the source for this idea. You need to understand before we go much further in answering this question that there are several views of Revelation. Some view it as a record of things that had already occurred when John wrote them. Others see them as events played out over the course of church history. My view is that this book is meant to depict future events just prior to the coming of Christ's kingdom to earth.

In my view, it is crucial to consider the often mentioned time marker of three and a half years. It is also referred to as "time, times, and half a time" and "42 months" and "1260 days" (see 11:2,3 and 12:14 as examples). Though the description of Satan as the "red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns" who sweeps a "third of the stars out of the sky" could refer to Satan's original rebellion before earth's creation (the "stars" are interpreted by some as angels who rebelled with him), the description of his war with Michael the archangel and his subsequent loss and expulsion from heaven (vv.7-9) seems to take place in the future.

I say this because after Satan is hurled to earth a voice from heaven announces the soon coming of the kingdom of God and His Christ and that Satan is "filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short" (v.12). He pursues the woman (Israel) but she is cared for "a time, times and half a time," that is, three and a half years, the time of the Great Tribulation. This is determined by a comparison with Daniel 9 and his prophecy of the 70 sevens, the king who makes a covenant with Israel for seven years then breaks it in the middle of that period (three and a half years in) and desecrates the temple by setting himself up for worship there.

All indications are that up until this time, even right now, Satan has access to heaven where he "accuses" us before God "day and night" (v.10; and see Job). Of course, Jesus intercedes for us so Satan's accusations are baseless and futile.

So, Satan has not yet been cast out of heaven, is still considered the "prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2) and leads a band of fellow angels (Revelation 12:7, perhaps one third, not two thirds, of the angels created by God) who are at war with God. His doom is certain, but he continues foolishly to battle on.

Randall Johnson

Question: : In Genesis 15:1-18 it discusses 5 animals that Abram was asked to use as a sacrifice. Is there any significance to the number and types of animals in this?

Answer: I'm not sure I really know the answer to this. Each of the animals are those accepted as sacrifices. Maybe having one of each was a way of showing the seriousness of the covenant being "cut" (the Hebrew for making a covenant is "cut a covenant" because of this procedure Abram does). Typically both parties in the covenant would walk between the pieces, but in this case only the burning torch (symbol of God) passes between the pieces. The person passing through is saying, in essence, "so may it happen to me (be cut in half) if I fail to keep this covenant." This is why we would say there is an unconditional element to this covenant with Abraham. Only God is obligating himself to the agreement. That doesn't mean he did not require anything of Abram, but that he would make sure Abram would keep his part of the covenant.

Randall Johnson

Question: : Question; the other night I had a conversation with some people that dwelled around true belief and insincere intentions. One party was of the opinion that a person's core beliefs, whatever those are, are the beliefs that compose a person's morality and are unchanging and cannot be gained or lost through action. As if, you might say, whatever you might act upon, those actions reflect your true beliefs. If then, a person was to act contradictory to what their previous beliefs had supposedly been-those beliefs were merely insincere intentions and not true convictions. An obvious rabbit trail that followed was belief in God, and salvation. One party was of the opinion that salvation, if genuine, could not be lost. In a scenario where a person might recant their once held convictions concerning God, it was determined by one party that those prior convictions were, as I said earlier, merely insincere intentions. I would be very interested to know your personal feelings on this matter.

Answer: When we act against core beliefs we are miserable with guilt. This demonstrates that they are not insincere intentions and that the only way to have any joy in life is to continue to act according to our sincere intentions, our core morality. Can a person's conscience become dulled and no longer sensitive to his core morality? Yes, and in this case we might conjecture that his core morality has changed.

But with regard to salvation, the Bible seems to indicate that once you have been redeemed by Christ through faith in Him and His provision for your forgiveness, the new core of you is something placed there by God that He will ensure remains and grows (1 John 3:9, for example). This does not absolve us of responsibility to maintain the health of our new core. The author of Hebrews asserts that true believers are disciplined by God in order that we might share in His holiness (12:10). So we are to make every effort to be holy because without holiness no one will see the Lord (12:14). If someone who has professed to be a believer demonstrates through his actions and/or beliefs that he has abandoned this core, it suggests that he may not be a believer in fact. If the discipline of the church and of God (they are considered of equal authority by Jesus, Matthew 18:15-20) do not serve to turn this person back to the truth, then he is to be considered as an unbeliever ("a pagan or a tax collector").

Historically, this view has been termed the perseverance of the saints. It holds that true believers cannot lose their salvation, but salvation is evidenced by continuation in the faith. Just because someone says he is a believer does not make it so. He must demonstrate that his core has truly been changed. When he goes against his core, he will be miserable. He will not be able to finally dull his conscience because God will not allow that. God will bring discipline into his life to turn him back to holiness.

Randall Johnson

Question: Recently, I thought about the movie, "The Exorcist of Emily Rose." In the movie, a Catholic woman is possessed by the devil. While the main point - that the devil really exists - is right, I questioned whether someone who is truly filled with the Holy Spirit could be possessed by the devil. As sinners, we all have some "devil influence" but I don't think we're all "possessed." I know that Jesus drove demons out of a woman, but can people perform this act? So, in summary, my questions are: Can people be "possessed" by the devil? Are all sinners "possessed" or just "influenced?" If you're filled with the Holy Spirit, can you be "possessed?" Can exorcisms be performed today?

Answer: There are several descriptions of demonization given in the Bible. When we use the word "possessed" we usually mean the individual does not at the moment speak for him or herself and seems to bear the personality and behavior of the host demon or demons. Perhaps the most striking example of this is the Gadarene or Garasene demoniac in Mark 5. This poor soul was living out among the tombs, people there had tried to chain him but could not (because he acted so fiercely and with such strength), he was constantly crying out and cutting himself, and when he was confronted by Jesus he did not speak, but the demons inside him spoke to Jesus.

Another likely example of "possession" was the serpent in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. This "beast of the field" spoke the words Satan wanted him to speak. But interestingly, Jesus addresses Peter at one point and says, "Get behind me, Satan" (Matthew 16:23). Satan's influence is being experienced by Peter at some level. He was connected to God by His Holy Spirit, but he was still subject to some influence from Satan. The question that has been often asked is, "Can a believer be possessed by Satan the way the Gadarene demoniac was?"

Let me try to answer your questions the way you asked them. Can people be "possessed" by the devil? I think the answer to that is an unequivocal "Yes." Satan has not changed in his desire to control humans contrary to God's agenda, and he will take whatever form of control he can get. He is definitely able to control some people nearly totally.

Are all sinners "possessed" or just "influenced?" There were many unbelievers (this is what I assume you mean by "sinners") whom Jesus dealt with who did not seem to be possessed by demons. Those who were possessed, when confronted by Jesus, typically reacted by announcing who Jesus was ("I know who you are - the Holy One of God!" Mark 1:24). But Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:26 that unbelievers need to "escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." So though they are not "possessed" by Satan, they are under his influence in a way that blinds them to truth. (It is not only Satan, however, that keeps unbelievers from trusting in Christ, it is our own sinful nature.)

If you are filled with the Holy Spirit, can you be possessed? No, of course not. What the Holy Spirit fills will have no room for Satan's influence. But can believers be influenced by Satan or demons? Surely! We have already seen Peter's unknowing yielding to Satan's lie that Jesus will be okay and not need to suffer for our sins. Paul warns us that we must have God's "armor" so we can withstand the devil's schemes (Ephesians 6:11) and that our anger and disunity can give the devil a "foothold" in our lives (Ephesians 4:27). Peter tells us to resist the devil because he is looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8,9). James says we can harbor bitterness and selfish ambition and that such comes from the devil (James 3:14,15). Satan will take as much ground in our lives as we give him.

Are exorcisms performed today? Yes, we still have Jesus' authority to cast demons out of people's lives. We may still see unusual behavior on the part of those who have demons plaguing them when the demons are forced to leave. The "exorcism," however, may not always be this dramatic. It might be helping a believer come to truth as they submit themselves to God and resist the devil. We may not see a demon leaving or with the level of control we see in someone possessed, but a demon has been there attempting to get a believer to follow a lie. Deception is their game. Truth is their enemy. Jesus has the truth we need to overcome the deceiver.

Randall Johnson

Question: Leviticus 25:44 says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." I'm thinking after reading the entire chapter that slaves were only permitted at that time because they were paying off debts and in the year of jubilee they were to be freed. In this case, even though they are called "slaves", they are simply working off their debt as in Proverbs 22:7. Am I on the right track? Is there anywhere else in the Bible that God speaks of having slaves as okay?

Answer: I would answer that there are no places in the Bible where God endorses slavery. What we do see in the Bible is legislation and teaching regarding something that was already a reality in most cultures during which the Bible was written. It was common to make slaves of those you defeated in battle, probably with an eye to getting the spoils of war, but also as a practical response to what you were going to do with the survivors on the losing side to keep them from getting back at you. If you keep them enslaved and oppressed they can't get strong enough to defeat you. This was the attitude of Pharaoh toward Israel in Exodus 1.

What the Bible does that is counter-cultural, however, is to legislate fairness in the treatment of slaves and to regulate the way to freedom for slaves from among brother and sister Israelites. Mistreatment of slaves was punishable (for example, Exodus 21:26,27). Liberation of Israelite slaves was required in the year of Jubilee legislation (Leviticus 25:8-55). Fellow Israelites could not be forced into slavery but could only voluntarily sell themselves to an Israelite to pay off debt and they were to be treated as hired hands (Leviticus 25:39-46). Paul picks up in the New Testament where Moses leaves off. By writing what he does to Philemon about his slave Onesimus, who has become a believer, it becomes apparent that in Christ there really isn't room for believers to allow slavery among themselves. And by extension, it is not right to allow slavery period. That is the direction the Bible is leading us, even if it doesn't come right out and state it.

Randall Johnson

Question: Leviticus 20:9-16 speaks on death as punishment for certain sins. Seems sort of extreme but I can justify it by saying these are held in higher esteem by God as "bigger" sins. However, I was under the understanding that all sins were equal in God's eyes. Even though Jesus dies as atonement for sin, these punishments are definitely more harsh than other at the time. Any thoughts?

Answer: I think there is a mistake in our thinking here. From God's standpoint there is no sin that is any more rebellious against Him than another. Every sin, no matter how small in our sight, is the equivalent of saying, "I know better than God what is best for me and I am going to follow my way." However, there are definitely sins that have greater and more damaging consequences in the lives of those sinned against. For example, Jesus does not say that lusting after a person in your heart is the same as adultery, but is a committing of adultery in one's heart (Matthew 5:28). But it is far better to keep that adultery in your heart than to act on it with someone else. Adultery results not only in your committing a sin in your heart, but leads to involving another, most likely also to lying about it, and has devastating impact on the lives of any family members of the adulterers. Having hatred in my heart is bad, but actually killing someone is worse.

The sins that were punishable in Israelite law by death were sins of devastating consequences in the lives of other Israelites. Murder, of course, was such a sin. Rape was another. But a child cursing his parents was considered so because of the devastating impact such rebellion would have on others by encouraging this kind of disregard for authority. It could mean the social destruction of Israel that would lead to all kinds of other sins. Still, physical and spiritual death is the divine penalty for all sin. And either God will exact that from us upon our deaths, or we can receive Jesus' forgiveness by resting our trust in Him as the one who took the punishment for us.

Randall Johnson

Question: What is Jesus talking about in John 20:23? ("If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.")

Answer: This is similar to a passage in Matthew 18:18 where Jesus tells the disciples that in the process of determining who is right or wrong in a church conflict, whatever decision they make as the church has Jesus' authority (verse20) and he states it in these terms, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What I believe is basically going on here is that Jesus is establishing His authority on earth through the church. As the church meets in His name to determine who is faithfully representing Christ and makes a pronouncement regarding a person's status with the church of Jesus Christ, that pronouncement is backed up by Jesus.

Let's say a person used the property of another believer and they came to the church to settle a dispute because the borrower destroyed the lender's property and refused to make restitution for it. Let's suppose that the whole process resulted in the leadership determining that the borrower needed to reimburse the lender, but he refused to do it. He has thus resisted the authority of his leadership and thus that of Christ. If the leadership determines that he needs to be, in Christ's words, viewed as a "pagan or tax collector," both of whom in those days were equivalent to unbelievers, and put under the discipline of the church, then that is Christ's decision, too. The borrower's sins have not been loosed, forgiven, until he repents and is restored to fellowship.

Somewhat the same situation might arise from someone saying they are a Christian ("forgiven") but they do not believe that Jesus is God, reject the atoning nature of His crucifixion, and believe that sex outside of marriage is allowable. If the church determines that they cannot claim to be a Christian and reject such basic truths, then in a sense they have declared that this person's sins are not forgiven. Jesus is saying that God has also endorsed that determination. The church is required by Christ to make such judgments in order to preserve the purity of His body.

If the church makes a mistake, it is a given that the Lord will correct the church on this matter. God will always show His judgment on such concerns. For example, when the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated Martin Luther for his teachings, they made a wrong judgment that they later corrected to some degree. And, of course, God showed His approval of Luther in numerous other ways and of the movement he spawned. This shows that it was probably not Jesus' intention for this passage to be taken to such universal levels of church leadership, but was something more intended for the local church government.

Randall Johnson