Question: If Christ paid the debt in full, then there's no need for us to repent...

The Berean Call

Question: If Christ paid the debt in full, then there's no need for us to repent...

November 13, 2024 • Dave Hunt & T.A. McMahon

Question: If Christ took upon Himself the grave and the Lake of Fire, then there is no need of repentance and trusting Him for our salvation. Wouldn’t both penalties be paid in full?

Response: We could not be saved unless Christ paid in full the penalty demanded by God’s judgment against our sin. The penalty of sin is death. That is the sentence death has already passed upon man and will culminate in his separation from his body and from this planet and from God forever. God cannot merely make a bookkeeping entry in heaven. The debt demanded by His justice must be paid in full for man to be pardoned.

Why do we need to repent and believe in Christ if the penalty has been paid in full for everyone? The good news of the gospel is that salvation is offered to all.

Question: Was it permissible to worship at the high places?

December 4, 2024 • Dave Hunt & T.A. McMahon

Question: I have a Bible question which I don't understand—would you mind teaching me? In a Zoom Bible study originating from a Hong Kong Ministry, the teacher who is teaching suggested it is permissible to worship and sacrifice to the LORD at the high places since the Temple wasn't built yet and is forbidden after the Temple was built: But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire (Deuteronomy 7:5); And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks…. (Deuteronomy 12:3-6) 1 Kings 3:2-3 said that Solomon offered 1,000 sacrifices to the LORD at the high place at Gibeon and after that God was revealed to him and accepted him, but in 2 Chronicles 1:5 Solomon actually went to the Tabernacle and offered at the brazen altar. So, did he do the right thing? Response: 2 Chronicles 1:3 tells us that Solomon, early in his reign and before the temple was built, worshiped at a high place. Verse 3 reads, “So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness.” We know that the tabernacle was set up there. But, both Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3-6 clearly tell us that all the pagan materials are to be removed from the high place prior to any worship of the Lord. A “high place” itself is not a pagan location, except if the statues and the other things used in their rituals are there. Consequently, the reason Solomon worshiped at this particular high place was, as already noted, that the tabernacle was set up there. It was the same tabernacle that the children of Israel, according to the instructions given Moses, had constructed in the wilderness. Therefore, before the construction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, the tabernacle was what God had chosen for the sacrifice and worship by Israel. It has been pointed out that Solomon’s father King David had previously worshiped the Lord at this high place in Gibeon. First Chronicles 16:39 notes, “[David left] Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon….” The tabernacle was where the altar of burnt offering had been set up (see 1 Chronicles 21:29). Again, it was not the high place itself that made it a suitable place for the sacrifices, but rather a place cleansed of all pagan paraphernalia and with the tabernacle already set up there.

Question: Should Paul's Epistles be part of Scripture?

November 27, 2024 • Dave Hunt & T.A. McMahon

Question: What can you tell us about a group who say they are Christians, but tell us that Paul’s epistles should not be in the New Testament? Also, they say that we must learn the Scriptures through Hebrew eyes and culture. Finally, the names “Hebrews,” “Israel,” “Israelites,” and “Jews” have different meanings in today’s context and that “Israel” and “Jews” don’t mean the same people. Response: From what you have said, you very likely have met a cultist who is presenting himself as the authority when it comes to learning Scripture. The intent to help Christians understand better the Scriptures through Hebrew eyes and culture is not in itself “bad.” But, if any group places emphasis upon these aspects, such as how someone is saved, we’re only seeing through their eyes and their assumed culture. To them the Bible “must” be in error, because it contradicts what they teach. Yet, if they won’t include Paul as a part of the New Testament, consider what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:16: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they doalso the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (emphasis added). Further, the Lord has promised to preserve His Word, as in Psalm 12:6-7: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” Regarding your question about the meaning of “Hebrews,” “Israel,” “Israelites,” and “Jews,” all speak of the descendants of Jacob (Israel). The Lord distinctly said that “...though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished” (Jer 30:11). As to their importance as “signs of the times,” the prophet Joel recorded that “I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land” (Jl 3:2; see also Zechariah 7, 8, 12, 14, etc.). Finally, the apostle Paul also noted that God was far from finished with the nation of Israel (Rom 11:1-25).

Question: Do Christians still commit sin?

November 20, 2024 • Dave Hunt & T.A. McMahon

Question: Our church is teaching that Christians will not commit sins if they are truly saved. So, are scriptures such as 1 Peter 4:15 talking about unbelievers? Response: Concerning your question, 1 Peter 4:15 tells us: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.” Peter is writing “…to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied” (1 Pet 1:1-2). It is to these believers that Jesus warns, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief…[etc.]” (1 Pet 4:15). It is to believers that John writes in 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Consequently, Peter wouldn’t warn those who cannot sin, nor would John have written of a remedy for those who haven’t sinned. Though the saved (still living in the “old man,” i.e., the flesh) can still say, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10). Yet, Peter still warns the church in 1 Peter 4:15.