International Bible Teaching Ministries
Questions Relative to Other Religious Beliefs
Question 1: Why have many of your kinds of churches stopped using (fermented) wine and substituted grape juice?
ANSWER: The question implies an invalid assumption, i.e., that many of our "kinds of churches" at one time, scripturally and generally, used fermented wine during the Lord's Supper. Before the implication can be accepted, it must first be validated. Such cannot be done, either scripturally or historically (although rarely, individual congregations may have done so). The Greek word for wine (oinos) is used thirty-four times in the New Testament. It is a neutral word that may refer either to fermented or unfermented grape juice and is so determined by the context of the passage. When instituting His Supper, the Lord used, significantly, the phrase "fruit of the vine," rather than “oinos,” which could have been misconstrued by some to mean fermented wine. In view of these two facts, it is clear that the drinking of unfermented grape juice during the Supper is the justifiable and scriptural response to our Lord's commands. Those who insist on the use of fermented wine do not do so on the basis of scripture!
That heaven stands opposing the use of alcoholic beverages is made clear in Proverbs 23:29-35 and Isaiah 5:11. Note that these two passages show a correlation between "wine" and "strong drink." Then consider Habakkuk 2:15, "Woe unto them that givest his neighbour drink, that puttest the bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness." Certainly, this does not suggest that our Lord who was without sin, having kept the Old Law perfectly, including this passage, gave His neighbour (His disciples) to drink and "put the bottle to them." Clearly the opposite is implied!
Simply from a logical standpoint, we must consider the fact that the Lord knew of the many drunkards (I Corinthians 6:9-11) who would, following His glorification, repent of this sin and be saved. What kind of a loving Savior would then insist that these be reintroduced to alcoholic beverages each Lord's Day afterwards as part of their worship responsibilities? Would such not cause the drunkard to be tempted? James said that God does not tempt any man (James 1:12-15). We submit that those who would insist that the recovering alcoholic imbibe an alcoholic beverage each Lord's Day stands guilty of causing one to be tempted and putting a "stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way" (Romans 14:13; Mark 9:42).
With consideration to the above, the question then needs to be asked, when and why have some stopped using unfermented grape juice and turned to that to which the Bible is opposed?
Question 2: Would you please explain what is being taught in the document entitled "Breaking Bread."? Is it right or wrong?
ANSWER: The document submitted teaches that as Christians, when we partake of the Lord's Supper, we should:
A) Feel that God is talking to us.
B) Have feelings about how we are living in Christ.
C) Be thinking about who needs what in the Body.
D) Be thinking about the lost.
None of the four items suggested above are taught in the Word of God! The Lord's Supper is simply and solely a reminder; a commemoration of the death of our Savior and is to be taken on the first day of every week (Acts 20;7) in His memory (I Corinthians 11:24-25) to "show forth His death until He come" (I Corinthians 11:26). It is not to be taken to show forth anything else, nor to remember anything else! To partake of the Lord's Supper for the reasons listed by the author of the document in question is to violate God's Word!
The author of the document has suggested that Christians think about these four items in order to keep the Lord's Supper from becoming "boring." We would suggest that if the death of our Lord on the cross cannot keep the Lord's Supper from becoming ritualistic and boring, then it is certain that those things suggested by the author, as well, cannot! When a Christian's worship (John 4:24) is in spirit (the proper attitude) and truth (according to His will), the Lord's Supper will not be boring or ritualistic to him, but, conversely, will be a significant and praiseworthy highlight of his week!
Question 3: I hold the view that in things that are essential to our salvation there should be unity. In things that are non-essential we should allow liberty. Can issues like the number of cups used at the Lord's Table; women serving the Lord's Supper; ordination of women; and head coverings constitute essentials?
ANSWER: It is "essential" that we are obedient to the Word of God in all issues! In Colossians 3:17, we are told "Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name (by the authority of) the Lord Jesus . . ." Each issue then that arises must be weighed in the light of this passage and other passages that may be related to the issue. The primary question must always be, "Does the Bible command / authorize the action? For example: there is no commandment that specifies the number of cups to be used during the Lord's Supper. Therefore, it is not essential that we use one cup, nor is it essential that we use multiple cups. The option must be left up to each congregation, with none binding their opinion on the other. In this matter, there must be liberty!
Those who teach that it is essential that women wear hats in worship services have failed to understand that it was the "custom" in Corinth in the first century for women to wear an ankle length covering (veil) to show or denote submission to their husbands. This "custom" is not prevalent in most civilizations today! Although it would be improper to bind "custom," the principle of submission remains an eternal binding principle (Genesis 3:16)! Thus, the inspired apostle wrote in I Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God." In Ephesians 5:22, he would say, "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Therefore, submission of a wife to her husband is an "essential;" the wearing of a veil/hat by a woman is a "non-essential." For her to wear or not to wear is not sin, but a matter of liberty and opinion, to be left up to each individual!
As to the issues you raise relative to women being "ordained" and serving the Lord's Supper, suggesting that this matter is non-essential: In these issues, the Bible clearly specifies what is to be done, negating any opinion that man may have. In other words, in these matters, man has no liberty to exercise his own options. It is "essential" that we abide by the teaching of the New Testament (John 12:48; John 15:10)! In I Timothy 2:11-12, all are clearly bound by the following inspired directive: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Any position or activity, then, of a woman in the worship service that takes away the authority of the man is sinful! Within the intent of this passage, she is permitted only to vocally engage in congregational singing (Ephesians 5:19) and to say "Amen" with those occupying the room at the giving of thanks (I Corinthians 14:16), doing such decently and in order (I Corinthians 14:40) as she worships in spirit and truth (John 4:24). To this she is limited by the Holy Spirit! To make the issue of the use women in worship services to God a "non-essential," when God has clearly spoken on the matter, is to pervert the Gospel of Christ and be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
It is true that in things that are essential there must be unity and that in things that are non-essential there must be liberty. However to take the denominational position that only those things that pertain "to our salvation" are essentials, assumes an attitude and position that only a part of God's Word is essential to our salvation. This is not true! Obedience to all of God's Word is essential and critical to our salvation; every book, chapter, verse, and word! The essentiality or non-essentiality of a particular activity or action can only be determined on the basis of the totality of His word, by which all men will one day be judged (John 12:48)!
Question 4: Is everything we do worship to God?
ANSWER: No! The Bible clearly distinguishes between service and worship! In Genesis 22:1-14, We see Abraham serving God in that he was obediently preparing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. In the course of his service, Abraham said to the young men that were with him (Vs.5), "Abide ye here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder to worship, and come again unto you." He was not worshiping at the time he was talking to the young men and, clearly, he intended to go to a certain place in order to engage in worship. We can, therefore, scripturally conclude that "worship is service, but not all service is worship!" As well, we can see that "intent" is involved in worship to God, i.e., we must "intend" to worship. One cannot worship God by accident!
To suggest that "all" we do is worship to God, if not blasphemous, closely approaches it! Would those who so teach also hold that hygienic and bathroom functions constitute worship? What about sexual relations between husband and wife? Absurd!
The position is neither logical nor scriptural!
Note a few of many passages that show a difference between service and worship: Deuteronomy 4:19; 8:19; 29:26; I Kings 9:6; 9:9; Jeremiah 8:2; 16:11; 25:6.
Question 5: I am studying with an exchange student from Finland who says that they recognize Monday as the first day of the week, but worship the day before on what they call the Sabbath! How do I deal with this?
ANSWER: The New Testament does not name the first day of the week. It simply shows that we are to assemble to worship on that particular day and where that day, as we recognize it, begins and ends! In our time, all, including the Finns, recognize that a day begins in Greenwich, England. This has not always been the case. It has started in various places through the years, including Washington, D.C. However, today, given this fact, when it is 10:00 A.M. Sunday, the first day of the week, in Washington, D.C., it is 1:00 A.M. on Monday, the second day of the week in Sydney, Australia. The Americans and Australians will not be worshipping at the same time, yet both will be worshipping on the first day of the week. Our First day is not their First day and theirs is not ours! The same thing was true in the first century and has always been true. After the Gospel had been taken into all the world (Colossians 1:6, 23), the same condition existed then. Christians worshipped on the first day of the week as it was recognized where they were! The same would be true of those living in Finland today.
As to the specific situation you bring up: I have visited Finland on business and am not aware of such. However, it may possibly be that the Finns recognize Monday has the first day from a work or secular standpoint, but I am reasonably sure that they recognize Sunday as the Lord’s Day and, therefore, religiously as the First Day, especially since 95% of all Finns are Evangelical Lutherans. The fact that they refer to Sunday as the Sabbath is insignificant as relates to the matter at hand. Doing so is in concert with the majority of the rest of the denominational world who in error hold that the Ten Commandments of Moses are applicable today. To make this appear reasonable they misapply the fourth commandment, making it applicable to the First day, rather than the Seventh! The New Testament does not agree with their theology (Romans 7:1-7; Colossian 2:14-16)!
Question 6: We say we take the body and the blood in communion. Why, in the Roman Catholic Church, do they only give the body?
ANSWER: Because they believe they have a right to overrule and change God’s Word. The longer they are in existence the more they leave the truth and turn to the ideas of their own man-made human hierarchy.
At one time the Catholic Church did demand that their people partake of both the bread and fruit of the vine. They say in their Confraternity version of the New Testament when commenting about Matthew 26:28 that, “The Catholic Church for a long time allowed all church members to have the fruit of the vine, just as the Lord commanded: All of you drink of this.”
According to the Catholic Church in the Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 176, “Communion under both kinds (bread and fruit of the vine) was the prevailing usage in apostolic times. In the fifth Century, Pope Gelasius commanded the laity (regular church members) to receive both elements (Question Box, 446, 1913 edition).
Not only did they command it, but Pope Leo and Gelasius also condemned all who did not partake of the cup (Catholic Dictionary, 202).
Apparently later Popes ignored and rejected the alleged infallibility of what the earlier Popes had pronounced and the practice of communion “under both kinds’ was “entirely and formally abolished in 1416, by the Council of Constance” (Lives and Times of the Popes, De Montor, I, II).
The Bible is clear on the matter regardless of what the Catholic Church said, did, or does. Faithful Christians in the church of Christ will always partake of both the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine on the first day of every week in keeping with God’s Word (Matthew 26:26 29; I Corinthians 11:23-29; Acts 20:7)!
Question 7: Does John 14:9-12 and Acts 7:59 teach that we ought to pray directly to Jesus?
ANSWER: Jesus in John 14, 15, & 16 is discussing the coming Comforter and the miraculous with His disciples, giving them assurance that He would still be with them, though absent in the flesh, and that He would still be working with them through the Holy Spirit. In John 14:9-12, He is discussing His relationship with the Father and then assures them that, because He has that relationship, He can and will grant those things for which they ask that are in concert with the Father's will. He, thereby, comforts them! He is not here setting a pattern for all disciples everywhere to follow in prayer, i.e., He is not suggesting that Christians are to pray directly to Him. Of course, no prayer can be answered that does not pass "through" Christ and, thereby, His approval. Surely, in this sense He answers prayer, as well as through His oneness with the Father, but to suggest that one may pray directly to Christ without the Father's participation and response rejects what the scriptures teach in Matthew 6:9 and Colossians 3:17! The same thing is true relative to Acts 7:59. This account of Stephen's death is not meant to set an example as to how one is to pray. Stephen was permitted to look into heaven and see Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of God. It would only have been natural for him to speak to the One he saw; the One whom he loved and trusted unto death. If this is an example of how one is to pray, may I suggest the circumstances of that example must also be present? Neither of these passages constitutes directives or examples as to whom and through whom Christians are to pray. In Matthew 6:9, the Master directs the following: "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven." That should settle this end of the matter for all time! The command is direct, clear, and complete! Our prayers are to be directed to the Father! Why should one look to overturn or reject the words of Christ in the matter (John 12:48)? Christ said what we are to do! Why not do just that? In Colossians 3:17, we learn, through the Holy Spirit-inspired apostle Paul, again that prayer is to be directed "to" the Father "through" Him (Christ)! That should settle the other end of the matter once and for all! John 14:13-14 and Acts 7:59 is not discussing the manner of prayer, but without doubt Matthew 6:9 and Colossians 3:17 are!
QUESTION No. 1048: Why have many of your kinds of churches stopped using (fermented) wine and substituted grape juice?
ANSWER: The question implies an invalid assumption, i.e., that many of our "kinds of churches" at one time, scripturally and generally, used fermented wine during the Lord's Supper. Before the implication can be accepted, it must first be validated. Such cannot be done, either scripturally or historically (although rarely, individual congregations may have done so). The Greek word for wine (oinos) is used thirty-four times in the New Testament. It is a neutral word that may refer either to fermented or unfermented grape juice and is so determined by the context of the passage. When instituting His Supper, the Lord used, significantly, the phrase "fruit of the vine," rather than “oinos,” which could have been misconstrued by some to mean fermented wine. In view of these two facts, it is clear that the drinking of unfermented grape juice during the Supper is the justifiable and scriptural response to our Lord's commands. Those who insist on the use of fermented wine do not do so on the basis of scripture!
That heaven stands opposing the use of alcoholic beverages is made clear in Proverbs 23:29-35 and Isaiah 5:11. Note that these two passages show a correlation between "wine" and "strong drink." Then consider Habakkuk 2:15, "Woe unto them that givest his neighbour drink, that puttest the bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness." Certainly, this does not suggest that our Lord who was without sin, having kept the Old Law perfectly, including this passage, gave His neighbour (His disciples) to drink and "put the bottle to them." Clearly the opposite is implied!
Simply from a logical standpoint, we must consider the fact that the Lord knew of the many drunkards (I Corinthians 6:9-11) who would, following His glorification, repent of this sin and be saved. What kind of a loving Savior would then insist that these be reintroduced to alcoholic beverages each Lord's Day afterwards as part of their worship responsibilities? Would such not cause the drunkard to be tempted? James said that God does not tempt any man (James 1:12-15). We submit that those who would insist that the recovering alcoholic imbibe an alcoholic beverage each Lord's Day stands guilty of causing one to be tempted and putting a "stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way" (Romans 14:13; Mark 9:42).
With consideration to the above, the question then needs to be asked, when and why have some stopped using unfermented grape juice and turned to that to which the Bible is opposed?
QUESTION No. 1073: Would you please explain what is being taught in the document entitled "Breaking Bread."? Is it right or wrong?
ANSWER: The document submitted teaches that as Christians, when we partake of the Lord's Supper, we should:
A) Feel that God is talking to us.
B) Have feelings about how we are living in Christ.
C) Be thinking about who needs what in the Body.
D) Be thinking about the lost.
None of the four items suggested above are taught in the Word of God! The Lord's Supper is simply and solely a reminder; a commemoration of the death of our Savior and is to be taken on the first day of every week (Acts 20;7) in His memory (I Corinthians 11:24-25) to "show forth His death until He come" (I Corinthians 11:26). It is not to be taken to show forth anything else, nor to remember anything else! To partake of the Lord's Supper for the reasons listed by the author of the document in question is to violate God's Word!
The author of the document has suggested that Christians think about these four items in order to keep the Lord's Supper from becoming "boring." We would suggest that if the death of our Lord on the cross cannot keep the Lord's Supper from becoming ritualistic and boring, then it is certain that those things suggested by the author, as well, cannot! When a Christian's worship (John 4:24) is in spirit (the proper attitude) and truth (according to His will), the Lord's Supper will not be boring or ritualistic to him, but, conversely, will be a significant and praiseworthy highlight of his week!
QUESTION No. 1078: I hold the view that in things that are essential to our salvation there should be unity. In things that are non-essential we should allow liberty. Can issues like the number of cups used at the Lord's Table; women serving the Lord's Supper; ordination of women; and head coverings constitute essentials?
ANSWER: It is "essential" that we are obedient to the Word of God in all issues! In Colossians 3:17, we are told "Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name (by the authority of) the Lord Jesus . . ." Each issue then that arises must be weighed in the light of this passage and other passages that may be related to the issue. The primary question must always be, "Does the Bible command / authorize the action? For example: there is no commandment that specifies the number of cups to be used during the Lord's Supper. Therefore, it is not essential that we use one cup, nor is it essential that we use multiple cups. The option must be left up to each congregation, with none binding their opinion on the other. In this matter, there must be liberty!
Those who teach that it is essential that women wear hats in worship services have failed to understand that it was the "custom" in Corinth in the first century for women to wear an ankle length covering (veil) to show or denote submission to their husbands. This "custom" is not prevalent in most civilizations today! Although it would be improper to bind "custom," the principle of submission remains an eternal binding principle (Genesis 3:16)! Thus, the inspired apostle wrote in I Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God." In Ephesians 5:22, he would say, "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Therefore, submission of a wife to her husband is an "essential;" the wearing of a veil/hat by a woman is a "non-essential." For her to wear or not to wear is not sin, but a matter of liberty and opinion, to be left up to each individual!
As to the issues you raise relative to women being "ordained" and serving the Lord's Supper, suggesting that this matter is non-essential: In these issues, the Bible clearly specifies what is to be done, negating any opinion that man may have. In other words, in these matters, man has no liberty to exercise his own options. It is "essential" that we abide by the teaching of the New Testament (John 12:48; John 15:10)! In I Timothy 2:11-12, all are clearly bound by the following inspired directive: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Any position or activity, then, of a woman in the worship service that takes away the authority of the man is sinful! Within the intent of this passage, she is permitted only to vocally engage in congregational singing (Ephesians 5:19) and to say "Amen" with those occupying the room at the giving of thanks (I Corinthians 14:16), doing such decently and in order (I Corinthians 14:40) as she worships in spirit and truth (John 4:24). To this she is limited by the Holy Spirit! To make the issue of the use women in worship services to God a "non-essential," when God has clearly spoken on the matter, is to pervert the Gospel of Christ and be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
It is true that in things that are essential there must be unity and that in things that are non-essential there must be liberty. However to take the denominational position that only those things that pertain "to our salvation" are essentials, assumes an attitude and position that only a part of God's Word is essential to our salvation. This is not true! Obedience to all of God's Word is essential and critical to our salvation; every book, chapter, verse, and word! The essentiality or non-essentiality of a particular activity or action can only be determined on the basis of the totality of His word, by which all men will one day be judged (John 12:48)!
QUESTION No. 1082: Is everything we do worship to God?
ANSWER: No! The Bible clearly distinguishes between service and worship! In Genesis 22:1-14, We see Abraham serving God in that he was obediently preparing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. In the course of his service, Abraham said to the young men that were with him (Vs.5), "Abide ye here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder to worship, and come again unto you." He was not worshiping at the time he was talking to the young men and, clearly, he intended to go to a certain place in order to engage in worship. We can, therefore, scripturally conclude that "worship is service, but not all service is worship!" As well, we can see that "intent" is involved in worship to God, i.e., we must "intend" to worship. One cannot worship God by accident!
To suggest that "all" we do is worship to God, if not blasphemous, closely approaches it! Would those who so teach also hold that hygienic and bathroom functions constitute worship? What about sexual relations between husband and wife? Absurd!
The position is neither logical nor scriptural!
Note a few of many passages that show a difference between service and worship: Deuteronomy 4:19; 8:19; 29:26; I Kings 9:6; 9:9; Jeremiah 8:2; 16:11; 25:6.
QUESTION No. 1092: I am studying with an exchange student from Finland who says that they recognize Monday as the first day of the week, but worship the day before on what they call the Sabbath! How do I deal with this?
ANSWER: The New Testament does not name the first day of the week. It simply shows that we are to assemble to worship on that particular day and where that day, as we recognize it, begins and ends! In our time, all, including the Finns, recognize that a day begins in Greenwich, England. This has not always been the case. It has started in various places through the years, including Washington, D.C. However, today, given this fact, when it is 10:00 A.M. Sunday, the first day of the week, in Washington, D.C., it is 1:00 A.M. on Monday, the second day of the week in Sydney, Australia. The Americans and Australians will not be worshipping at the same time, yet both will be worshipping on the first day of the week. Our First day is not their First day and theirs is not ours! The same thing was true in the first century and has always been true. After the Gospel had been taken into all the world (Colossians 1:6, 23), the same condition existed then. Christians worshipped on the first day of the week as it was recognized where they were! The same would be true of those living in Finland today.
As to the specific situation you bring up: I have visited Finland on business and am not aware of such. However, it may possibly be that the Finns recognize Monday has the first day from a work or secular standpoint, but I am reasonably sure that they recognize Sunday as the Lord’s Day and, therefore, religiously as the First Day, especially since 95% of all Finns are Evangelical Lutherans. The fact that they refer to Sunday as the Sabbath is insignificant as relates to the matter at hand. Doing so is in concert with the majority of the rest of the denominational world who in error hold that the Ten Commandments of Moses are applicable today. To make this appear reasonable they misapply the fourth commandment, making it applicable to the First day, rather than the Seventh! The New Testament does not agree with their theology (Romans 7:1-7; Colossian 2:14-16)!
QUESTION No. 1094: We say we take the body and the blood in communion. Why, in the Roman Catholic Church, do they only give the body?
ANSWER: Because they believe they have a right to overrule and change God’s Word. The longer they are in existence the more they leave the truth and turn to the ideas of their own man-made human hierarchy.
At one time the Catholic Church did demand that their people partake of both the bread and fruit of the vine. They say in their Confraternity version of the New Testament when commenting about Matthew 26:28 that, “The Catholic Church for a long time allowed all church members to have the fruit of the vine, just as the Lord commanded: All of you drink of this.”
According to the Catholic Church in the Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 176, “Communion under both kinds (bread and fruit of the vine) was the prevailing usage in apostolic times. In the fifth Century, Pope Gelasius commanded the laity (regular church members) to receive both elements (Question Box, 446, 1913 edition).
Not only did they command it, but Pope Leo and Gelasius also condemned all who did not partake of the cup (Catholic Dictionary, 202).
Apparently later Popes ignored and rejected the alleged infallibility of what the earlier Popes had pronounced and the practice of communion “under both kinds’ was “entirely and formally abolished in 1416, by the Council of Constance” (Lives and Times of the Popes, De Montor, I, II).
The Bible is clear on the matter regardless of what the Catholic Church said, did, or does. Faithful Christians in the church of Christ will always partake of both the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine on the first day of every week in keeping with God’s Word (Matthew 26:26 29; I Corinthians 11:23-29; Acts 20:7)!
QUESTION No. 1103: Does John 14:9-12 and Acts 7:59 teach that we ought to pray directly to Jesus?
ANSWER: Jesus in John 14, 15, & 16 is discussing the coming Comforter and the miraculous with His disciples, giving them assurance that He would still be with them, though absent in the flesh, and that He would still be working with them through the Holy Spirit. In John 14:9-12, He is discussing His relationship with the Father and then assures them that, because He has that relationship, He can and will grant those things for which they ask that are in concert with the Father's will. He, thereby, comforts them! He is not here setting a pattern for all disciples everywhere to follow in prayer, i.e., He is not suggesting that Christians are to pray directly to Him. Of course, no prayer can be answered that does not pass "through" Christ and, thereby, His approval. Surely, in this sense He answers prayer, as well as through His oneness with the Father, but to suggest that one may pray directly to Christ without the Father's participation and response rejects what the scriptures teach in Matthew 6:9 and Colossians 3:17! The same thing is true relative to Acts 7:59. This account of Stephen's death is not meant to set an example as to how one is to pray. Stephen was permitted to look into heaven and see Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of God. It would only have been natural for him to speak to the One he saw; the One whom he loved and trusted unto death. If this is an example of how one is to pray, may I suggest the circumstances of that example must also be present? Neither of these passages constitutes directives or examples as to whom and through whom Christians are to pray. In Matthew 6:9, the Master directs the following: "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven." That should settle this end of the matter for all time! The command is direct, clear, and complete! Our prayers are to be directed to the Father! Why should one look to overturn or reject the words of Christ in the matter (John 12:48)? Christ said what we are to do! Why not do just that? In Colossians 3:17, we learn, through the Holy Spirit-inspired apostle Paul, again that prayer is to be directed "to" the Father "through" Him (Christ)! That should settle the other end of the matter once and for all! John 14:13-14 and Acts 7:59 is not discussing the manner of prayer, but without doubt Matthew 6:9 and Colossians 3:17 are!