Ask Augustine:
          By Paul A. Tambrino, Ed. D., Ph. D.

What is Ramadan and what should our Christian response be to it?

Ramadan for Islam marks a month of fasting from sunrise to sunset, and calls for them to focus on community, compassion and peace. In celebration of that occasion the Islamic Society of Central Florida invited area Christian and Jewish congregations to their "Building Bridges and Breaking Bread Banquet." We were treated graciously and there was a serious attempt by our Islamic neighbors to convince us that as American Muslims they are good citizens.

I found the Islamic society to be acutely conscious of extended family, caring comprehensively for its own. We rather than I is the pronoun of choice. As we entered their grounds a large sign on their school wall read, "Compete only against yourself. Cooperate with others." Companionship within the family is precious and ubiquitous. It is not uncommon to see brothers walking hand in hand. A solid defense against life 's calamities and the infirmities of advanced age is assured. For these Islamic virtues a smart salute is in order.

Muslims generally are among the most serious and devout people on the earth. Many of them have completely memorized the Koran. They pray at least five times a day. But salvation for them is something that must be earned. Allah does not graciously give it. Islam does have a high standard of morality called the "straight path," which must be strictly maintained. Women are regarded as possible temptations that would lead men away from the path, so women must be modest wearing clothing that completely covers them.

Islam like Judaism traces its lineage to the patriarch Abraham. The Arabs, however, trace their lineage to the firstborn son of Abraham by Hagar, Ishmael. The Jews trace their lineage to Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah who had been promised by God.

Muslims believe in one God, Allah. They believe in angels. The angel Gabriel is of first importance since he appeared to Muhammad to reveal the Qur'an. There are angels who intercede for men as well as those who are fallen and fight against man's higher interests. Shaitan (very close to the Hebrew Satan whose name means "Adversary"), and the followers of Shaitan, the djinn (demons) fit this category.

They believe in the Qur'an as God's final word to man, superseding anything previous. Our Bible plays a very minor role in Islam. Moslem authorities hold that wherever the Qur'an differs from the Bible, the Jews and Christians have corrupted or perverted the Biblical text.

Muslims believe in the prophet of Allah, namely, Muhammad. The Qur'an mentions 28 prophets, among them Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But Muhammad is the last and greatest of them all, the "seal" of those who appeared before him. None is his equal, either in knowledge or in authority; none has received or handed down so perfect a revelation. However, Muhammad was not divine; he was simply "man at his best" and God is the wholly Other, the One with whom Muhammad was united in will but not in substance.

They believe that Jesus is a faithful servant to Allah and virgin born, but He is not divine in any sense, nor did He die on the cross for man's sin. Jesus, according to the Qur'an, was taken unharmed directly to heaven. The Qur'an affirms that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and a true prophet of God, that He was virgin born and performed many miracles. Therefore, Moslems believe, because the Qur'an teaches these very true and proper things about Jesus, that Christians should be laudatory of them and look upon them as supportive of Christian beliefs.

Muslims have a belief in judgment, and paradise and hell. Unbelievers and sinners in Islam will suffer in hell. Paradise is a place of "every" delight.

During the course of the evening we were constantly shown a slide that read, "One God, Many Paths," and this did bother me. While indeed there is but one God we need to be careful that we do not conclude that all gods are the same. People assume that all religions have nearly the same moral teachings and ideals. Most will say that while there are different names for God, it is the same God. Since no Muslim will affirm that Jesus is God, we cannot conclude that Allah and our Christian God is "One God."

The "Many Paths" segment of their slide is equally erroneous. Unfortunately many people believe, other religions may travel different roads, but they all lead to God. As long as you believe in something, as long as you believe in God, it really doesn't matter what form your belief takes. The truth is that these religions are all very different and even contradict each other at crucial points. What this means is that we are left with two options: either none of them are true, or one of them is true and the others are not.

George Barna, who does a great deal of religious research found that most Americans, including many professing Christians, believe that people are inherently good and that their primary purpose is to enjoy life as much as possible. 38% believed that it doesn't matter what religious faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons. 44% believed that all people would experience the same outcome after death, regardless of their religious beliefs. 55% believed that if a person is generally good or does enough good things for others during their life, that they would earn a place in heaven.

The truth is that anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive and the law of non-contradiction says that positions that are different from one another cannot be equally true.

For us to affirm "Many Paths" would mean that we deny Jesus' exclusive words in John 14:6 where He says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." No one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness or admirable living, for "by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of "God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith. Grace, love, and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine.

Theologically, there are not many paths to God; nor is there even one path to God. There is instead one path from God to us, through Jesus Christ. This is the central distinctive message of the Gospel. No one is ever saved by religion. Christ alone saves us.

As I sat with our Muslim neighbors last Friday night "breaking bread" I could not help but think that one of the saddest things about the Moslem belief system is, like many others, they believe that they will either make it to heaven or not, based on either their good works outweighing their bad deeds, or maybe that God will simply decide to let them in. According to their beliefs there is no way to know in advance whether or not they are going to paradise or not. For a Muslim there is no assurance until the final judgment.

I am so glad that God has given us the words of assurance from the writer of 1 John 5:11-13, "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

Note: The views expressed in this email may not reflect the views of some at First Presbyterian Church Maitland or in the PCUSA.

What is the Liturgical Calendar and what are the church colors used during the year?

Liturgical calendars, used in both Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, are based on the cycle of the Roman or Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church.

Advent, the four Sundays before Christmas, is the first season of the liturgical year. Originally observed as a fast, its purpose was to focus on the coming of Christ-child at Christmas. However, modern lectionary points more toward end-times (eschatological) themes, the final coming of Christ. An Advent Wreath, an evergreen wreath with four candles, is often used during this period to count down the Sundays until Christmas. Three candles are purple because purple was the color of royalty and so they mark the coming of the King. One candle is pink or rose color because years ago the pope, to give some relief to the solemnity of Advent would give out a rose. Churches most often attach the themes of "hope, faith, joy and love" to each candle. Many Protestant churches will place a large white candle in the center of the Advent wreath to represent Christ and this candle is lit on Christmas Day. The parament colors used on the pulpit, communion table, etc. during this season is violet or blue. However, on the third Sunday of Advent (fourth in Roman Catholic Churches called Gaudete Sunday), pink may be used.

Christmas begins on the evening of Christmas Eve and ends on January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany. During this 12-day period of Christmas the parament color is white or gold.

Ordinary Time is the 33 or 34 (depending on the year) common weeks that do not belong to a proper season. Ordinary Time (period one) is the first portion of Ordinary Time that occurs after Epiphany or during Septuagesima (the pre-Lenten season) and extends from the day following the Baptism of Christ until the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday, the day that marks the beginning of Lent. This first portion of Ordinary Time may have anywhere from three to eight Sundays depending on when Easter falls. During this period the parament color is green.

Lent is a forty-day (excluding Sundays) period of fasting by the church to prepare for Easter. It begins on Ash Wednesday and ends with the Easter Vigil, the conclusion of Holy Week. The final three days (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday) of Lent are known as the Easter Triduum. During Lent the parament color is violet, with the exception of Maundy Thursday when the color is white, Good Friday when the color is red or black, and Holy Saturday when no parament of any color is used.

After sunset on Holy Saturday the parament color is white or white and gold. The Easter season extends from Easter through Pentecost Sunday. Technically Pentecost is the fiftieth day of Easter and Ascension is the fortieth day of Ester. The parament color during this period is white or gold, except on Pentecost when the color is red.

Ordinary Time (period two) is the time after Pentecost and ends on the Sunday before the first Sunday of Advent. Several significant Sundays occur during this time period such as Trinity Sunday which is on the first Sunday after Pentecost, Michaelmas or St. Michael's Day on September 29, Reformation Day for Protestants on October 31 or its preceding Sunday, and All Saints Day on November 1 to name a few. This time period is also known as Kingdomtide and the parament color is green.

When is Reformation Day and what is its significance?

October 31 is Reformation Day. Dr. D. James Kennedy has noted that many Protestants have no more idea of what the Reformation was about than they could explain to you the special Theory of Relativity. They are members of a church by accident of birth, and they attend by mere habit. Many would have no more idea when they went into a church whether the preacher was preaching the Gospel or whether he was preaching the absolute antithesis to it.

October 31, 1517 was the day in which an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the church door in Whittenberg as an invitation to scholars in the church to debate those issues. What Martin Luther did 489 years ago, was to shatter centuries of dogma and tradition that had hidden the Gospel from the world. Up until that time, the Gospel of grace had been overlaid with hundreds of years of accretion of human merit. Everywhere men and women, by their own strivings and their own pious endeavors, sought to save themselves by good works.

The major debate back in the 16th. Century centered not on the sale of indulgences, the role of the papacy, penance, purgatory or Mary and saints, but on the article of how is a person justified. These other items on which Roman Catholics and Protestants differ, all hinge on our respective view of justification and the role of works in our justification. To this day, this article of how one is justified continues as the focal point or the difference between our theologies. This difference may be expressed in two formulas:

Roman Catholic theology says: Faith (by grace) + Works Þ Justification

Protestant theology replies: Faith (by grace) Þ Justification + Works

All other differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are mere trifles. What is at stake here is the Gospel itself. It answers the question raised by the Philippian jailer to Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" We are not engaged in a controversy over whether to sprinkle, dip or immerse but of salvation itself. It is the most important question we have as Christians. It is the problem of the justice of God. God is just and you and I are not. David raised that question is antiquity when he asked, "If the Lord mark iniquities, who would stand?"

If God is not going to negotiate His justice, how are we saved? This was the debate of the 16th. century between Luther and Rome and which continues today between Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism. Does God wait until we become just before He declares us just, or does He declare us just in His site before we are just? Luther's formula was simul iustus et pecator, translated as at the same time just and sinner. That is we are justified by the work of Christ yet we still sin.

Rome heard in this formula a legal fiction. It would be unworthy, they say, of God and make Him a liar to declare a person just before a person is indeed just. Roman Catholicism agrees that justification occurs when God declares one to be just, but He does not do so, according to Rome, until one is indeed just.

The Reformers countered that it is not a legal fiction, but a legal diction. It is a legal diction by the One who does the justifying. God declares one just on the basis of the real work (the life and the death) of Christ. One is justified by faith, and that little word by, is the means through which one is justified as Christ both lived and died for us.

Roman Catholicism has two instrumental causes of justification, baptism and penance. Protestantism has only one, faith that lays hold of the merit of Christ. The critical questions then are: Is justification infused through the Roman sacraments of baptism and penance? Or is justification imputed (transferred) to us by the righteousness of Christ? A righteousness that is not in the believer, but a righteousness that is for the believer. Is it justification by infusion or by imputation?

Reformation or Protestant theology holds to the latter. Justification for Protestants means to have the perfect righteous of Jesus Christ clothe them as a white robe, as their sins were ALL imputed to Christ at Calvary. Christ's righteous life is also imputed to them who are thus made faultless to stand before the eyes of an all-holy God. Salvation for Protestants is by grace alone through Christ alone. It is unearned, undeserved and unmerited. It is received by a simple trust in Christ.

Do you agree with the word changes made by those who attempt to modernize old hymns?

I believe we are misguided when we attempt to modernize our hymns. But, you may argue are not such efforts intended to make the messages of our great hymns more accessible to the average worshipper of today? Might not the second verse of Robert Robinson hymn, "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing," which begins, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer" conjure up thoughts of that grumpy Ebenezer Scrooge? So instead our misguided revisionists delete the word "Ebenezer," re-phrase the entire line and thus change the intended meaning. Another example of a theologically significant revision may be found in The Presbyterian (PCUSA) Hymnal in the third verse of that great hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy." In the original text the hymn writer, Reginald Heber, wrote, "'Tho the eye of sinful man, Thy glory may not see." The revisionists, citing cultural relevancy and sexual sensitivity have changed the wording, and thus its entire meaning to, "Through the eye of sinfulness, Thy glory may not see." I oppose these revisions for several reasons.

First, I oppose any change in wording on artistic grounds. As a writer myself I believe the hymn writers carefully choose each word or phrase to say succinctly, biblically, poignantly, and theologically what they intended to say. What gives the revisionists license to change the original wordings?

Second, I oppose any change in wording on biblical grounds. Ebenezer, which means "stone of help," is a reference to I Samuel 7:12. After Israel had been given a great victory by the Lord, Samuel took a stone, named it Ebenezer and said, "Thus far the Lord has helped us." Thus, the use of the single word in the hymn, "Ebenezer," ushers us, as we raise our voices in song, into the biblical narrative and the greatness of God's redemptive dealings with His people.

Third, I oppose any change in wording on educational grounds. By removing the word, "Ebenezer," we probably remove it from our worshipper's vocabulary. Such revisions contribute to biblical illiteracy. When we were first given our faith, all of us were unfamiliar with terms like atonement, propitiation, expiation, Sabbath, Passover, Melchizedek, etc. How did we become familiar with them? We were taught the meanings and significance.

Fourth, I oppose hymn revisions on theological grounds. Consider the wording changes made in "Holy, Holy, Holy" that was cited above. The revisionists, in addition to removing any reference to masculine terminology, made a very serious theological error in the re-wording. They depersonalized sin by poetically and illogically stating that sinfulness has an eye. The revised wording now states that sinfulness is objective; it is something outside of us that hides God's glory. The original wording is clear in that sin is subjective; it is the sin in us that blinds us to God's glory.

But, you may argue, isn't it culturally relevant to no longer personalize sin? Well if so, then the next step in cultural relevancy would be to remove the cross (which in fact has been done by at least very popular television evangelist), for there is no need of a personal savior if sin is only an abstract concept.

Other types of hymn revisions that are theologically equally troubling are some of the contemporary choruses that have lifted titles or phrases from the old hymns. Charles Wesley's "Jesus, lover of my soul" turns up in one contemporary song in which the worshipper is invited to promise Jesus that "I will never let you go" and "I will worship you until the very end." These new words totally reverse Wesley's intended theological emphasis. Wesley's words request that Jesus hide us till the storm of life has past and that we have no other refuge but to hang our helpless souls on Him. These are cries of utter dependence upon God's faithfulness. The focus of Wesley's hymn is on God. The revised contemporary wordings erroneously promise our determined faithfulness to God. The focus of these contemporary words is on us and erroneously state that we, of our own accord will never let Jesus go and will worship Him until the very end. No one of us can honestly make that statement.

We are misguided when we attempt to modernize hymns. Rather than rewriting these treasures, or worse not singing them at all as is often the case in many contemporary services, let us lift high our Ebenezer's of old with humility and deep gratitude.

Is "In God We Trust" in the Bible?

In God We Trust, the motto on all United States coins, is not in the Bible, but it may have been suggested indirectly by various biblical phrases. According the Psalms 56:11, David sang, "In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid." In Job 13:15, the patriarch said to the Almighty, "Though He slay me, I will trust Him."

According to Matthew 27:43,the chief priests, scribes and elders, mocking Jesus on the cross, said, "HE TRUSTS IN GOD: LET HIM DELIVER HIM now, IF HE TAKES PLEASURE IN HIM; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.'" The underlying thought of In God We Trust, though not expressed in these exact words, was current long before the motto was first placed on United States coins.

Francis Scott Key's The Star Spangled Banner, which was first printed in The Baltimore Patriot on September 20, 1814, under the title Defense of Fort McHenry, contains the couplet, "Then conquer we must, for out cause it is just, And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'." In a letter dated April 25, 1861, and addressed to Cassius Lee, Robert E. Lee acknowledged that mediation between the Northern and Southern States was impossible and declared that, "In God must be our trust."

It was during that same year that the Reverend W. R. Watkinson of Ridleyville. Pennsylvania, wrote to Secretary of Treasury Salmon P. Chase suggesting that the Deity be recognized in some form on American coins. Acting upon this suggestion, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, director of the United States Mint at Philadelphia, to have prepared without delay a device with a motto expressing such national recognition of the Deity. Secretary Chase wrote, "No nation can be strong except in the strength of God or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins."

Owing to legal difficulties, Pollock did not submit his designs until 1863. One of the mottoes suggested was God Our Trust. At a cabinet meeting during that same year it was proposed to place In God We Trust on paper money as well as on coins. President Lincoln, however, observed dryly that if a legend was to be engraved on the greenbacks he would suggest that of Peter in Acts 3:6. "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I Thee."

In 1864 Congress passed an act authorizing the coinage of the two-cent piece, and it was upon these bronze two-cent pieces that the motto In God We Trust first appeared. Later Congress passed an act giving the proper officials authority to place the motto on all coins that would have space for the inscription.

During the second administration of Theodore Roosevelt, Augustus St. Gaudens, the sculptor, prepared some designs for new coins with a view to improving the coinage from an artistic standpoint. When the double eagle and eagle of the new designs appeared in 1907, the motto In God We Trust was omitted. President Roosevelt objected to the motto on the coins on the grounds that such use of the beautiful sentiment tended to cheapen it.

A storm of criticism all over the country was the result. Once a design for a coin is approved and accepted, it cannot be changed under the law within twenty-five years without an act of Congress. Therefore an act of Congress was required to restore In God We Trust on the eagle and the double eagle. This was done by a bill that passed Congress in 1908, providing that, "the motto In God We Trust heretofore inscribed on certain denominations of gold and silver coins of the United States of America, shall hereafter be inscribed upon all such gold and silver coins of said denominations as heretofore."

Who was the first woman to translate the Bible?

Julia Evelina Smith (1792-1886), of Glastonbury, Connecticut, translated the Bible into English from Latin, Greek and Hebrew and was the first woman to translate the entire Bible into any language. She started the project when she was 77 years old and completed it when she was 84. Her translation of the Bible was published in Hartford in 1876 at her own expense. She and her sister, Abby Hadassah Smith, were prominent abolitionists and advocates of women's rights. When Julia was 87 she married Amos A. Parker, who was 86.

Of additional interest is the fact that their father, Zephaniah Smith, was originally a Congregational minister but quit the ministry because he decided preaching for pay was wrong.

Is it not arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way to God?

It is important to understand that Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity. Muslims radically claim exclusivity as well. They do so not just theologically

but linguistically as well. Muslims believe that the sole, sufficient, and consummate miracle of Islam is the Koran and that it is only recognizable in Arabic. Any other translation "desacralizes" it.

Buddhism was born when Gautama Buddha rejected two fundamental assertions of Hinduism: the ultimate authority of Vedas (their scriptures) and the caste system.

Hinduism is absolutely uncompromising on two or three issues. These are: the law of karma (which is the moral law of cause and effect so that every birth is a rebirth that makes recompense for the previous life), the authority of the Vedas, and reincarnation.

Hinduism appears on the surface to be a tolerant faith in that it allows one to practice one's own religion as long as it buys into Hinduism's notion of truth, which is syncretistic. Syncretism is the attempt to blend together different or even opposing beliefs.

Sikhism challenged both Hinduism and Buddhism. Atheists reject the viewpoint of those who believe in God. Baha'ism claims to be the cosmic embrace of all religions and thus excludes the exclusivists.

Therefore it is not true that Christianity is arrogant when it claims exclusivity; every other major religion does so as well. All truth is by definition exclusive.

If truth does not exclude, then no assertion of truth can be made. Truth excludes  its opposite and anything contrary to it must be false.

Don't you think that some people place too much importance on the location of altars, communion tables, pulpits, etc. in a church?

While I would agree that the placement of church furnishings are not salvific (that is have redemptive power) the location of such furnishings are of theological significance. Unfortunately we live in an age where some newly constructed or reconstructed churches have neither a cross, pulpit nor communion table. Many churches now have portable lecterns that can be easily moved to make room for drama and musical presentations. The chancel has been replaced by a stage in the post-modern church.

Where a church places the communion table and pulpit (and if they are overwhelmed by drums sets and other musical instruments, Plexiglas stands, and various elements of lighting) makes a theological declaration to its worshippers before the service begins. While I may disagree with my Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran and other friends in having an altar, I applaud the way in which they, in keeping with their doctrines, have kept it at the center of their chancel, communicating to their faithful its sacramental necessity.

At the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century one of the most dramatic changes occurred in church adornment; there was a shift from the altar to the communion table. Prior to the Reformation the priest stood in front of and faced the altar that was elevated above the people. With his back to the congregation, the priest presented a sacrifice (albeit un-bloody) of Jesus to the Father under sacramental signs on behalf of the people. The Reformers rejected the idea of the Lord's Supper as repeated sacrifice and, in accordance with Hebrews 7:27 and 9: 26, believed that Jesus had been offered once for all on the Cross. Consequently the altar was replaced by the Communion Table as the offering was not to God, but to the people. Since in Holy Communion the real presence of Christ is coming to us, the Communion Table "should be placed on the level of the congregation rather than elevated above the people's level as an altar would be." (Exploring Christian Faith, Donald K. McKim, p. 29).

In the Reformed tradition, the "Centrality of the Word" is of great importance; "indeed the centrality of the Table and the Pulpit (from which the Word is read and preached) is the desiderata (considered necessary) of Reformed architecture and adornment" (Howard Hageman, "Journal of the American Academy of Religion," vol. XXXl, no. 1, pp. 88-89). That the pulpit and the table (the Word and the sacrament) are aspects of a single whole is quite evident in the symbol of the PCUSA and therefore should be located, if possible, in the center of the chancel giving evidence of their significance. They are the centerpieces of a service of worship and a central pulpit is intended to give visual representation to this idea.

In many churches today there are two speaker's stands in the front of the church. The one on right side (or the left as viewed by the congregation) is called the pulpit. Due to the importance of the "Centrality of the Word," the pulpit is given the place of honor, which is the right side, as Christ Himself is seated on the right hand of the Father. Since the Gospel lesson is often read from the pulpit, the pulpit side of the church is sometimes called the Gospel side.

The other speaker's stand on the left side (or right as viewed by the congregation) is known as the lectern. The word lectern comes from the Latin word meaning "to read", because the lectern primarily functions as a reading stand. It is typically used by lay people to read the scripture lessons (except for the Gospel lesson), to lead the congregation in prayer, and to make announcements. Because the epistle lesson is usually read from the lectern, the lectern side of the church is sometimes called the Epistle Side.

In churches where there is only one speaker's stand in the center of the front of the church, it serves the functions of both lectern and pulpit and is more properly called the "ambo." In common usage, however, ambos are incorrectly called pulpits.

Unfortunately many churches today pay little attention to the placements of their Communion Tables and pulpits or ambos. The placement of the Communion Table and the pulpit/ambo is significant as it makes a doctrinal statement to the worshipper of their theological importance and esteem before the service begins.

Placing the pulpit in the center or on the right side (the place of honor) of the chancel declares the Word to be the foundation of the faith. Placing the Communion Table on the same level as the congregation illustrates that Jesus Christ comes to us, and believers in the context of Christian community receive His real presence. I affirm that if churches and church leaders would become reacquainted with reasons for the placement of church furnishings and adornments and its implications, it would go a long way toward reinvigorating the spiritual life and worship of the church.

What is the grace of God?

The Greek word translated grace has as its root idea the concept of bringing joy and gladness through gifts. The Apostle Paul uses this word to refer to the unmerited and freely given favor and mercy which God bestows upon the sinner in salvation. Through this grace, the sinner is delivered from sin and judgment. This grace, though freely given, is precious and costly, for its basis is the saving work of Jesus Christ. A salvation that is received by grace is the very opposite of a salvation that is earned by working or by obeying the law of God. A person who is saved by grace has no basis for boasting in his salvation for he has done nothing to earn or merit it. Those who teach a salvation that is earned or merited through obedience of any sort have to some degree fallen from the teachings of grace into legalism.

What is the relationship of God's grace to salvation?

There are three possible answers to this question. A few argue that there is no grace in salvation. Some maintain that salvation is mostly of grace. And others, like myself, maintain that salvation is all of grace.

The first position argues that salvation is not at all a gracious gift from God but a human achievement based on personal goodness and moral self-effort is characteristic of pagan religion and philosophy. Early in church history, a British monk named Pelagius tried to teach pagan moralism as Christian doctrine. Pelagius was condemned as a heretic, and his system was labeled Pelagianism. In Pelagianism, the saving work of Christ is not necessary; a man can save himself by leading a good and moral life.

There are many systems that teach the second position that salvation is mostly of grace but not all of grace. The most common of these is semi-pelagianism or Arminianism. This is probably the most popular position held in Christianity today. This position holds that the work of Christ has only made salvation a possibility for all but not a finished reality for any. God has done His part, and now those who are willing to do their part will be saved. In this semi-pelagian or Arminian view, while God has the "major" role in salvation, it is the human contribution to salvation that is the final necessity and makes the difference between heaven and hell. Under this view, the saving work of Christ is necessary for salvation but NOT sufficient. The sinner must supplement the work of Christ to obtain salvation.

Finally there is the historic Augustinian or Reformed or Calvinistic view that teaches that salvation is ALL of grace. The saving work of Christ is both necessary and sufficient to save sinners. In this view, it is the cross of Christ without compromise that makes the difference between heaven and hell. There is no room for any boasting whatsoever. All the glory goes to Jesus Christ, for He has done it all. Even our ability to come to Christ in saving faith is a gift based upon the cross of Calvary. At the cross, Christ purchased for His people deliverance from the spirit of unbelief. Through His resurrection, He secured for His people the spiritual life that enables them to believe. When a sinner is converted in response to the preaching of the gospel, it is only because Christ has poured out His Holy Spirit upon that sinner to apply to his or her heart the saving power of Christ's death and resurrection.

Why do you think most people reject the Reformed Doctrines of Grace?

I believe that most people reject the Reformed Doctrines of Grace because these doctrines are humbling. It is humbling to think that when I sin, the fault is totally mine, but if I do any good, the credit must go entirely to God. It is humbling to learn that there are doctrines that I will never fully understand because of my limitations as a finite creature. It is humbling to find out that but for the grace of God, I would still be in bondage to sin. It is humbling to discover that I found God only because He first found me. It is humbling to realize that I stand firm in the faith only because God keeps me from falling. These doctrines are very humbling, and perhaps that is why not all Christians accept them in spite of their strong and clear Biblical basis. William Temple put it best when he said, "The only thing of my very own which I contribute to redemption is the sin from which I need to be redeemed."

My Roman Catholic friends celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception yesterday, on December 8th. If Protestants also believe in the Virgin Birth, why don't they celebrate it too?

Protestants do believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, yet they do not honor the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because these two doctrines are entirely different. Although the term Virgin Birth does not occur in the Bible, this doctrine is held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants alike and is founded on biblical passages in Matthew 1:18, 22-25, Luke 1:34-35 and the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. This doctrine refers to the fact that Jesus was miraculously begotten of God and born of a virgin mother.

The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, is uniquely a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and does not concern the birth of Jesus but rather concerns the birth of the Virgin Mary by her mother, whose name is not given in the Bible, but which traditionally was Anna. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the Virgin Mary, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, was preserved exempt and immaculate from all stain of original sin. All other descendants of Adam, with the exception of Jesus, have been born with original sin on their souls.

Mary, according to the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, was immune from original sin at the moment her soul was created and infused into her body. The doctrine does not, as some erroneously believe, refer to Mary's physical conception by her parents who had the usual part in the formation of her body.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was a subject of controversy for about six hundred years. Finally, on December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogmatic article of faith for Roman Catholics. Thus, Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. of each year.

Why do Scandinavians celebrate the Feast of Santa Lucia on December 13, when Santa Lucia was an Italian saint?

Since I am of both Italian and Swedish ancestry, I appreciate the question. The Feast of Santa Lucia is celebrated all over Sweden and Norway on December 13. Yet, no one knows for sure why a 4th. Century Sicilian saint came to be so revered in Scandinavia.

The tradition, which can be traced to Italy, honors a young wealthy Christian bride-to-be who gave away her dowry to the poor, an act which angered her prospective groom and caused him to report her Christian religion to the Roman authorities. She was condemned to death by fire.

Legend has it that just before she died an intense inner light transformed Lucia and everyone present fell prostrate. Thus Lucia, a sign of light and hope to the poor died, illuminated by a heavenly glow, on December 13 in A.D.304.

In actuality, Lucia was probably a victim of the wave of persecution of Christians that occurred late in the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian. References to her are found in early Roman sacramentaries and at Syracuse in an inscription dating from AD 400.

The Lucia legend spread to Sweden at a time of great famine. In the province of Vanern, a large vessel appeared on the lake and at its helm stood a maiden dressed in a gleaming white robe. Believed to be Santa Lucia, she guided the ship along the lakeshore, distributing food to the poor and hungry. The ship disappeared as soon as its mission was completed.

Santa Lucia festivities, with pageantry and good food, mark the first day of the Scandinavian Christmas season that begins on December 13 and lasts one month until January 13. Santa Lucia day begins very early in the morning on December 13 in Scandinavian homes. The oldest daughter of the house, usually dresses in a long white gown, dons a crown of evergreens and lighted candles on her head, sings the beautiful Italian song "Santa Lucia," and serves special Lucia cakes and warm drinks to the rest of the family who are still in bed.

Why do Christians worship on Sunday, really the first day of the week, rather than on the Sabbath Day, the seventh day of the week?

Today millions of Christians gather on the first day of the week (Sunday) for worship, mainly in remembrance of Christ's resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit, which occurred on Pentecost Sunday. However, our adoption of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath was gradual.

Sunday, which occurs nowhere in the Bible, is derived from Anglo-Saxon Sunnandaeg, "day of the sun," the first day of the week having been dedicated to the sun by the pagans. The commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," referred to the ancient Jewish Sab­bath, which was the seventh day of the week according to the Hebrew calendar.

That the New Testament writers clearly distinguished be­tween the Sabbath and the first day of the week is shown by several passages in which the first day is mentioned as following the Sabbath. Although Jesus Himself observed the Sabbath, St. Paul seems to have placed observance of this day among the customs not obligatory on Christians. He writes in Colossians 2:16, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." This passage indicates that the ques­tion of the Christian's relation to the Jewish Sabbath was raised at an early date, although it is not certain that the passage refers to the weekly Sabbath.

In Romans 14:5-6 Paul says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it." Whatever the true meaning of these passages, from the beginning many of the Christians commemorated the first day of the week as Resurrection day, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.

Aside from the Sabbath, the days of the week did not bear special names in Palestine in the time of Jesus. They were generally referred to simply as the first day, the second day, the third day, etc. In the Gospels the sixth day, that is, the day preceding the seventh or the Sabbath, is called "the preparation." Originally Sunday as a holy day had no connection with the Sabbath.

Lord's Day first occurs in Revelation 1:10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet." First Corinthians 16:2 says, "On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come." This seems to imply some sort of observance of the first day of the week among the Christians in the time of Paul.

There is, however, no evidence in the New Testa­ment itself that the first day was originally intended as a substitute for the Jewish Sabbath. In fact it appears that most of the early Christians observed both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, and this was the tendency as long as the Christian community was composed chiefly of former adherents of Judaism. Neither is there any evidence that the first day was regarded in Apostolic times as a day for gen­eral rest from secular pursuits.

On the other hand, it is probable that the early Christians held special worship on the Lord's day, for, according to Acts 20:7, Paul preached at Troas on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, and the Apostle continued to speak until the break of day. This, of course, may have been only a special meeting.

The association of Sunday with the true Sabbath and its development as a day of rest came later. In the first century St. Ignatius wrote that Christians no longer observed the Sabbath but the Lord's Day instead. St. Justin, writing in the second century, was probably the first Christian writer to refer to the Lord's Day as Sunday. "On the Lord's day," wrote Tertullian in 202 A.D., "we ought to abstain from all habit and labor of anxiety, putting off even our business."

This tendency to observe the first day of the week as a day of general cessation from work was further confirmed in 321 A.D., when the Roman emperor Constantine, who had become a Christian, issued a civil decree restricting all but agricultural work on Sundays. This edict, which exempted farmers, was a good stroke of policy, because the pagan "day of the sun" and the Christian "Lord's Day" both fell on the first day of the week, and both Christians and pagans were pleased.

It seems that in the fourth century at Rome Saturday was observed as a fast day in the spirit of the Jewish Sabbath, while at Milan the day was kept as a feast day. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, wrote in the fourth century that even during Lent "not only the Lord's Day, but every Sabbath, except the great Sabbath before Easter, are observed as festivals and days of relaxation in the Milan churches."

Monica, the mother of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), paid her son a visit at Milan while he was a teacher of rhetoric there. She was a conscientious Christian and was greatly perplexed whether she should fast on Saturday as the Romans did or follow the Milanese custom of feasting. St. Augustine says in one of his epistles that he submitted the problem to St. Ambrose on behalf of his mother. The Bishop replied that he could give them no better advice than to follow his own practice in refer­ence to the point raised. "When I am at Rome," wrote Ambrose, "I fast as the Romans do; when I am at Milan I do not fast." Some authorities believe that the proverb, "When in Rome do as the Romans do," was suggested by this observation of Ambrose.

Later the Roman church prescribed the hearing of mass and rest from work on Sunday. The Council of Laodicea, which met during the fourth century in one of the cities of the seven churches of Asia, trans­ferred many of the obligations and solemnities of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday. At first it was not pretended that Sunday observance was based on any specific passage in the New Testament. But about this same time it became customary to refer the obligation of observing the Lord's Day to the Decalogue.

As centuries passed and the Christian church grew in numbers and strength, the majority of Christians paid less and less attention to the Jewish Sabbath and more and more to the Lord's day, until finally observance of the Jewish Sabbath was virtually abandoned by all but certain sects of Christians. In time the Lord's Day, or Sunday, largely supplanted the Sabbath in their eyes, and many began to take the position that the first day of the week had some kind of divine sanction and that the commandment about the Sabbath was applicable to it instead of to the Scriptural Sabbath of the Israelites.

It even became customary among English-speaking people to speak of Sunday as the Sabbath. Even as early as the reign of Elizabeth fines were imposed on persons who did not attend church on Sunday. Later persons were subject to a fine or a certain number of hours in the stocks for carrying on their trade on the Lord's Day.  Nevertheless, some Christian sects, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, still adhere to the practice of observing Saturday, the seventh day of the week, instead of Sunday, the first day, as the true Sabbath.

The New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are "less intellectual." He cited the wording in the Revised and New Revised Versions of the Bible and the writings of many liberal theologians, who do not believe in the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament. He and they argue that the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 should be translated "young maiden" or "young woman." Is this not a better translation?

Isaiah 7:14 which states, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," calls our attention to an important birth and is cited as a Messianic text that also refers to Mary. However, there is often disagreement whether these verses are a literal reference to the Messiah and to His mother Mary. In this passage we are told to look with anticipation to the virgin and her Son who are announced as central figures in this prophecy.

The real questions in this passage are who is the virgin and who is Immanuel? A better reading of the passage should be "the virgin" instead of "a virgin" because the use of the Hebrew definite article in connection with the passage indicates that a definite woman is the mind of the prophet. When the prophet refers to her as "the virgin," it is highly unlikely that he meant to refer to any woman who might bear a child in the next few months. The passage begins by noting that the conception was to be a "sign" to the house of David. The normal conception of a "young married woman" would hardly be considered a "sign."

Those who make the argument for not translating the word in the Hebrew text found in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," point out that the word used is the unique and uncommon word 'almah and had Isaiah meant virgin he would have used the word bethulah because that is the more commonly used Hebrew word for virgin. But in spite of its frequent use to specifically denote a virgin, bethulah is used in at least one passage (Deuteronomy 22:19) to refer to a young non-virgin woman. Therefore, Isaiah's choice of the rare word 'almah better signifies virginity than the more common term bethulah. While it is true that 'almah can be translated "young woman," it is never intended in the Hebrew language to deny the legitimacy of a young woman's virginity. In fact it appears six other times in the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8). A study of each of these contexts reveals that almah is used only of one who is a virgin.

Moreover, the Septuagint (a pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures that dates from the 3rd century B. C.) translated 'almah by using the Greek word parthenos, which always means virgin. Thus, we have a Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 that is much earlier than when Matthew uses the same word parthenos in Matthew 1:23 ("Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel"), when he refers back to the Isaiah passage.

Immanuel, or Emmanuel, is the symbolic name of the child, meaning "God with us." It is obvious that Matthew regarded this Immanuel to be none other than Jesus Christ Himself. He quoted this prophecy as being fulfilled in the virgin birth (Matthew 1:23) and he considered the birth to be of divine origin, stating that it was "spoken of by the Lord by the prophet" (Matthew 1:22). He therefore recognized that the sign given in Isaiah 7:14 was authored by God and delivered to Ahaz through the prophet. There was no doubt until the rise of modern liberal scholarship that those closest historically to the actual statement found in Isaiah 7:14 by the prophet Isaiah have always taken it to be a prediction of the miraculous virgin birth of the coming Messiah.

What is Hanukkah?

Hanukkah is the Hebrew word for dedication and is pronounced CHA-nu-ka. Although it is a Jewish holiday, the only mention of it in the Bible is found in John 10:22-23 in the New Testament, "Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch." However, the story is found in First and Second Maccabees, books that are not recognized as part of the canon of Scripture by either the Jews or the Protestants, but which are considered canonical by Roman Catholics.

The Jewish historian, Josephus mentions the term Hanukkah in his history of Hanukkah. He explains, "The festival acquired this name because the right to serve God came to the people unexpectedly, as a light."

The holiday lasts for eight days. When kindling the lights, two benedictions are recited; one is a blessing on the lights and the other for the miracle. On the first night the blessing for the season is added and short prayer follows the kindling of the light. A summary of the event is recited in prayer and in the Grace after Meals. The entire Hallel (Praise of God), Psalms 113-118, is said on each of the eight days. The reading of the law is from the portion of the Torah, which describes the sacrifices brought by the princes at the dedication of the sanctuary, and the kindling of the candelabrum (Num. 7:1-8:4).

The story of Hanukkah is the age-old story of Jewish struggle for survival in a hostile gentile world. During the second century the Greek King Antiochus Epiphanes ruled Israel. The Greeks at that time worshipped many gods and goddesses. The Jewish people were divided into two groups, the Hellenists who adopted the Greek way and the Hasidim who adhered to the laws of the Torah and refused to pay homage to the Greek gods. King Antiochus was intolerant of the Jewish ways. He converted the Holy Temple in Jerusalem into a temple of Zeus. He placed a statue of himself in the temple, declared himself to be a god and held drunken orgies in the rooms of the temple.

A family (the Mattathias family) of righteous Jews, who lived in the village of Modin, revolted. Judah Maccabee, the son of Mattathias, led the revolt, which lasted almost three years. When the Maccabees reclaimed Jerusalem they found the Temple in ruins. They began to restore the Temple and on the 25th. day of Kislev the Temple was rededicated. A small amount of pure oil was found that was enough to keep the Temple menorah burning for one day, yet it miraculously lasted for eight days. Hence, the origin of the eight day celebration of Hanukkah and the eight branch menorah that is lit on each of the eight nights. A ninth candle, the shammash (servant) is used to light the others.