For those theologians who believe the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a useful tool in formulating systemic theology it is easily applied to the topic of marriage.  The four categories of theological formulation according to the Quadrilateral are: Scripture, History (or Tradition), Reason, and Experience. It is a matter of debate whether or not this is a listing in order of priority or if these four approaches are to function as a rubric.  It is my belief that they are a listing of order of priority with Scripture having the most prominent role in formulating one’s theology.   Understanding this let’s look at the subject of marriage.

Even a cursory reading of the Bible will give the reader a quick knowledge of what God has ordained as constituting marriage.  Adam and Eve were created as male and female and they were the first married couple (married by God Himself) and being the first, the marriage between Adam and Eve then becomes the “law of the first mention” or “rule of the first reference” we have in Scripture of what constitutes a marriage.

After Adam and Eve, we see generation after generation practicing marriage as originally designed by God.  With the giving of the Law of Moses it was made clear by God that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.  For those of you who still believe in honest Biblical scholarship, you cannot ignore the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Unfortunately, such references have almost become “politically incorrect” and/or “spiritually incorrect” in most churches today.  Therein lies the problem.  Not so much that Pastors are afraid or intimated to tell the particular story of Sodom and Gomorrah but more significantly, that Pastors are simply afraid to raise the standard of holiness.  Pastors simply will not preach on evil, judgment, right or wrong, and “don’t even” mention the name of Satan or the Devil.  Don’t you know, such talk is “medieval and unsophisticated.”

Not only is there confusion within the church itself as to what actually constitutes a marriage, there is also another frontal assault against marriage and it is what I will refer to as “Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.” By this I mean, the world has developed an almost fantasy type concept of what true marriage is to look like by relying on Hollywood Reality Shows, overpaid immature sports stars, overpaid immature musicians and other entertainers of various sorts to tell us what “real marriage” is supposed to look like.

Years ago I heard someone make a statement that has stuck in my mind.  This person said you have to be careful when watching certain movies as they will take a story line that chronicles a person’s life over a period of decades and compress it into a 90 minute screenplay.  You can watch a period of years simply be bypassed with the momentary “flip of the screen” to the next scene.  While this may make for a good movie, it can hardly be considered an accurate portrayal of “real life” in the “real world.”  In other words, in real life, those momentary flips from one scene to the next represent years and often times, tears.  But yet, this is exactly how we think our lives should go, that is, let’s just simply bypass all the hard times, the work, the discipline, the growing and maturing and simply “have it all” on a whim – Carpe Diem.  And it gets worse, for it is implied that you are one of the “enlightened few” who actually understand that life can be this exciting and most others don’t have a clue.  So, go for it, live for yourself as you are one of the chosen and enlightened who really understand how to live at the higher levels of enjoying and experiencing life. If anyone brings such thinking into a marriage, that marriage is doomed.  This is what I am referring to as Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.

Another word to describe what I am talking about is “antinomianism.”  Antinomianism comes from the Greek word that literally means “against law.”  A better way to describe antinomianism is the idea that you can hear the gospel message and at the same time, give no thought to, and simply ignore the code of conduct, morality, social convention and conviction of sin that goes along with the gospel message. 

A very good discussion of antinomianism can be found in the book titled “Pastoral Theology” by Thomas C Oden.  On page 8, Oden writes “Keep in mind that antinomianism is our own doing.  We cannot conveniently claim to be victims of some external, evil, socially alienating force.  We have welcomed it, confusing it with genuine Christian liberty.  Its modern forms are sexual permissiveness, egocentric romanticism and a vague taste for anarchy…Feelings of guilt are considered neurotic.  God turns out to be a naïve zilch who permissively turns his eyes away when we sin. How strangely different from the Holy One of Amos, Isaiah and Jesus.”

Another book where this concept comes up is found in “The Reason For God” by Timothy Keller.  On page xxiii of the Introduction, a counselee of Keller writes “While sitting in a coffee shop reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity, I put down the book and wrote in my notebook ‘the evidence surrounding the claims of Christianity is simply overwhelming.’ I realized that my achievements were ultimately unsatisfying, the approval of man is fleeting, that a carpe diem life lived solely for adventure is just a form of narcissism and idolatry.”

How can I get to this point and not bring up a most clear and explanatory example of what we are talking about.  How many remember the old country song titled “Help Me Make It Through The Night” by Sammi Smith.  Let’s see, the lines were “I don’t care what’s right or wrong, And I won’t try to understand, Let the devil take tomorrow, Lord tonight I need a friend.”   

With all of these faulty concepts stacked against what true marriage is supposed to be like, it is little wonder why so many fail.  But there is yet a more significant problem.  It is the absence of God in a marriage.  By this I mean, God has to be a part of a marriage, just like He was in the beginning, in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  In the beginning, God was very much involved with the first marriage.  God was Teacher, Counselor, Father, Creator and Lord.  This was how marriage was created and instituted to be, that is, God was to be involved and God was to be the covering for marriage between a man and a woman.  Seeing that this was the original model for marriage and the way God designed marriage, then how does anyone expect a marriage to succeed if God is out of the picture. Let me say it another way.  Seeing that God created man and woman and subsequently established the marriage covenant between a man and woman by His authority, then how can a marriage be successful today if the married couple leave God out?

The model for marriage is found in the first few pages of the Book of Genesis.  Adam and Eve are our example.  It is when they chose to push God aside and do things their own way that things went terribly wrong. When God is absent from a marriage, you will see self-centeredness quickly move into such a marriage.  And, with self-centeredness comes strife, resentment, anger and division. If Adam and Eve, being the first and perfectly created married couple were not spared the consequences of rejecting God as being a part of their marriage, then who is anyone today to believe that they would not suffer the same?

From the beginning of the history of man we have a clear and indisputable model of what a true marriage is supposed to look like.  It is a marriage in which God is the center and in which God is allowed to be a guiding influence. Apart from this, it is little doubt that any marriage will be successful.

read comments (0)

It is accepted by most Bible scholars that Luke is the author of the Book of Acts.  We see that the Book of Acts was written to Theophilus, as was the Gospel of Luke.  For one to challenge the authenticity of the Book of Acts would also require one to logically and sequentially challenge the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke as they are written by the same author. Likewise, if any student of the Bible chooses to “marginalize” the Book of Acts, then, by sequential logic, you would also be required to marginalize the Gospel of Luke. You cannot have it both ways. Either Acts is the Word of God, or, it is not.  

When reading the Book of Acts, one can see that many central figures of Bible history are mentioned in Acts.  Not only are Patriarchs of the Christian faith mentioned in Acts, but also Roman political figures and some degree of discussion of the Roman legal system all of which makes Acts rich in historical context.

The Book of Acts gives us the best and most comprehensive history of the beginning of the Christian Church as well as serving as a historical analysis of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.  Acts gives cohesion and interconnectivity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Here springs much disagreement concerning how much theology, if any at all, can be drawn from the Book of Acts.

To say that one cannot draw theology from the Book of Acts is about the most non-scholarly statement any serious student of the Bible could ever make. In Acts, you have the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and the birth of the Christian Church.  So, to say that one cannot draw theology from the Book of Acts is the anti-thesis of Biblical scholarship. If you don’t draw theology from the Book of Acts and thus treat the church history contained in its pages as merely “historical and transitional”, then where do you get a theological reference for the beginning of the church? Perhaps, one could “make it up.”

To say that we cannot draw and formulate theology from the Book of Acts would be similar to saying that we cannot draw theology from the Book of Genesis.  This leads to the point in the discussion about why some have difficulty with the Book of Acts.  The reason there is such resistance to drawing and formulating theology from the Book of Acts is because in Acts, we see Christians (including the founding fathers of the faith) all getting Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Notice I said “ALL.”  Everyone. In fact, as we shall see, if you were a Christian and not Baptized in the Holy Spirit, you were considered outside of the norm.

First, we see the disciples of Jesus who had been waiting in the Upper Room being filled with the Holy Spirit as described in Acts chapter 2. Notice that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and that they all spoke in tongues.  Some of those nearby heard languages known to them.  It is at this point of interpretation that denominations have been born and various schools of Christian thought have sprung from.  This one event, this one moment in time, this one story in these few verses of scripture generate some of the greatest debate in all of scripture.   

Without getting into a specific debate about tongues, suffice to say that it is a most torturous interpretation of these scriptures to suggest that “tongues” must be a known language.  Just a simple exercise in word definition works at this point.  That is, we read in the Bible where the early Christians spoke in “unknown tongues.”  Therefore, if these same Christians (or Christians today), and the tongues they speak in, are to be described as a “known language” that God supernaturally gives that particular Christian the ability to speak for the moment at hand, for the purpose of ministering the Gospel, then you really cannot call it an “unknown tongue” could you, for if God gives you the ability to “know” and speak a language that you haven’t spoken before, then it would not be “unknown.”  Furthermore, to suggest that only “known” languages of the day were spoken at Acts 2:4 is a shallow and less-than-scholarly interpretation as we know that you cannot deduce that “heavenly or angelic” languages were not also being spoken. Let’s look at an analogy.  If I see a car and drive a car, let’s say a very expensive and luxurious car, perhaps a Lamborghini Reventon, and upon seeing, driving and experiencing such a car, I then afterwards have a discussion and describe the car to you. And, in the course of describing the car and my experience of driving it, I simply say to you “Oh, yes, it was a car, it had four wheels, two doors, an engine, a manual transmission and it made a distinct sound.”  End. To hear such a description of such a car, and my experience driving it, would be extremely inadequate and under-representative of the actual type of car it really is.  Likewise, to simplistically describe the event of Acts 2:4 where we see the forefathers of the Christian faith receiving the promise spoken by Jesus, as merely “a group of Christians speaking in French, German, Greek, Spanish, Persian and Italian” is hardly an accurate description of what was really going on.

And, Acts 2:4 is not the only time and place this happens. It is the anti-thesis of scholarship to not read further on in the Books of Acts and take note of the fact that there is more than one Acts 2:4 type of experience mentioned in Acts. In other words, Acts 2:4 is not the only place where we see Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. 

In Acts 10:44-48, some 10 years after the events of Acts 2:4, we see believers again being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.  Seeing that this is occurring some 10 years after the initial event of Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit, one could hardly deduce that such an experience could be theologically confined to “getting the church started.” I mean, it’s now 10 years later.

Then, let’s go on and take a look at Acts 19:1-6 where we see again Christians receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues after being asked the question “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?”  This event is said to have occurred some 20–25 years after Acts 2:4.  So, at this point, to try and confine the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as simply a “kick start” to get the church going, is hardly a scholarly approach to Bible interpretation. At this point, the gospel message has gone throughout most of the known world and multitudes of churches have been established and multitudes have accepted Christ as Savior.  Acts chapter 19 is hardly the “starting point” of the Christian church. The Christian Church is “well on its way” at this point.

In conclusion, we must see Acts as the foundational description of the early church.  There is not a more accurate description, historically or spiritually, of what was going on than is described in the Book of Acts.  This is the record of the early church. Acts establishes spiritual principles, doctrine, theology and a significant part of the frame of reference for Christianity.

read comments (0)

Upon reading Republican Gomorrah by Max Blumenthal one cannot help but get the sense that they are reading an attempt to catalogue all the examples of religious hypocrisy to ever occur within the ranks of the Republican Party.  It reads like a grocery store tabloid laundry list of Republican politicians and/or conservative preachers who have committed adultery or have participated in homosexual affairs. 

To be sure, there are many examples of blatant and sordid sexual encounters that have occurred within the ranks of the Republican Party leadership and the conservative evangelical community over the last several years.  Without doubt, some of the criticism offered by Blumenthal is justified. 

Having said that, I will also point out that it is not just the Republicans who are committing such sins, but, the Democrats as well.  One has to only think for a very short moment or two until many examples of Democrat Party leaders who also have committed hypocrisy in the sexual arena also pop up on the list.  Let’s see, one such example I can think of right away would be former U.S. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.  I mean…you could write a book on just that situation alone.  Anyway, you get my point.  Hypocrisy, religious hypocrisy, marital infidelity are not just specific to Republicans or conservative evangelical leaders.  For every Republican politician you can point to who was/is involved in a sex scandal, you can just as easily name a Democrat.  But, to read Blumenthal’s book, one is left with the impression that only Republicans and Christians commit such sins.  

OK, let’s take a look at the book.  By the title “Republican Gomorrah” it is clear that Blumenthal is making a strong and not so subtle statement about what he perceives as religious hypocrisy within, not only the Republican ranks, but also within the ranks of Christians in general.  Let’s be sure on one thing, this book is not friendly to Christianity.  Perhaps, Blumenthal’s sequel will be “Democrat Sodom”?

Next, the writing style of Blumenthal leaves a lot to be desired.  When reading the book, you sometimes get the feeling that you just happened to have been walking by a newsroom, back in the 1980’s, and someone forgot to turn off the UPI news ticker and you happened to stop by to read the latest news reports streaming in from the various media outlets.  And, these news stories have no rhyme or reason or correlation but, they are none-the-less news stories.  “Republican Gomorrah” has way too much detail and discusses way too many people, way too many incidents without really offering much in-depth analysis.  “Republican Gomorrah” is like an old UPI news ticker that someone forgot to turn off.

So, after having inundated the reader with a plethora of news stories and names, Blumenthal attempts to tie them all together into a vast Republican, Right Wing, Religious Conspiracy.  He fails.  It’s just way too much stuff, way too many names, way too much history, way to much religious history to try and “tie off” in the simplistic way that Blumenthal attempts to do.  Blumenthal makes no attempt to differentiate or separate-out those evangelical Christian, Republican politicians having been involved in sex-scandals from the overall pool of the evangelical Christian population.  Also, Blumenthal eqautes being an evangelical Christian as synonymous to being a Right Wing Christian Radical wanting to “take over the world”.  He makes no attempt to defferentiate within the overall evangelical population.  This is “intellectual dishonesty” as the liberals like to say.      

Next, we see Blumenthal rely heavily on the influence of Erich Fromm.  It seems even, at some places in the book, that Blumenthal appears to be offering his own psychoanalysis of certain people and events. 

Let’s get started by looking at the Introduction.  It is clear that Blumenthal seeks to portray conservative, evangelical Christians as extreme.  And, he makes absolutely no attempt to differentiate between the various groups or camps of Christians.  This is a grievous mistake by any analysis, no matter who you are.  There are many camps within Christianity. There are many denominations within Christianity.  There are many and very differing views held by Christians on a variety of subjects.  So, to simply attempt put all Christians “in a box” is a foolish way to approach one’s analysis.  

Here in the Introduction is where Blumenthal begins his psychoanalysis by quoting President Eisenhower on page 5, paragraph 3, as he states “…the rise of extreme movements could be explained only by the psychological yearnings and social needs of their supporters.”   Then, on page 9, paragraph 4, Blumenthal makes a feeble attempt to be a theologian as he states “The Christian right as a whole is called the pro-Family movement, and movement allies are known as friends of the Family.  In an actual family, blood ties are required, however, joining the Christian right requires little more than becoming born-again, a process of confession, conversion, and submission to a strict father figure.” 

By the above analysis given by Blumenthal, one can see that you will not be getting a very sound or critical theological review by reading his book.  Blumenthal’s casual reference to major doctrines of the Christian faith are simply jaw-dropping.  One cannot take Blumenthal seriously after this point when it comes to his analysis of anything Christian.  It appears that Blumenthal really doesn’t understand what it means to be a Christian.  Therefore, if he doesn’t understand what it means to be a Christian, how then can he possibly give an accurate analysis about anything Christian?

To prove my point further, just go over to page 10, paragraph 1 and see Blumenthal compare the crucifixion and sufferings of the Savior, as depicted in “The Passion of The Christ”, to, in Blumenthal’s words, “two hours of unrelieved pornographic masochism.”  This is an extremely inflammatory statement by Blumenthal.  I believe it represents a lot of personal anger and hatred coming from Blumenthal towards Christians and Christianity.  By making such a statement, Blumenthal shows a reckless disregard for all Christians and Christianity in total.  Such vulgarity is just unbelievable.  In my thinking, this proves that Blumenthal does not understand Christianity.  Blumenthal making such a statement appears to be a feeble attempt to sound esoteric, as he attempts to portray Christians as mentally unstable and weak minded.  I am surprised that we don’t see any quotes from Karl Marx.

Next, let’s look at page 32, paragraph 1, as Blumenthal takes aim at Howard F Ahmanson.  I just can’t help but point out that in this paragraph as Blumenthal states that Ahmanson lives in Newport Beach, he actually feels that he needs to tell the reader where Newport Beach is located.  I mean, come on already!  Perhaps, Blumenthal should have told us where California is located as well?  Anyway, back to Ahmanson.

Notice on page 33, paragraph 4, as Blumenthal portrays Ahmanson as a misguided psychopath who happened upon his wealth by default and didn’t know what to do with it until, in his weak-minded state, he linked up with the Christians.  This is exactly the picture Blumenthal wants the reader to see, not only of Ahmanson, but of all conservative, evangelical Christians.

Indeed, Blumenthal has been reading Fromm so much, too much, that he seems to think that he now is a “psychologist for the world.” 

Next, on page 37, paragraph 2, look at how Blumenthal attempts to downplay the prominence of the character of “Frodo” in the book/movie titled “Lord of The Rings”.  We see Blumenthal state that Frodo was “…the Hobbit protagonist of Tolkien’s novels who must destroy a magical ring in order to save the world”.  Let’s see, the last I heard, the three part movie series titled  “Lord of The Rings” had so far grossed over $4,000,000,000, and this ranks number 2 of all time.  I think it is somewhat of an understatement and somewhat casual to refer to something so significant to the people of the world, as Blumenthal does. 

By this, it seems to me that more than pointing out the failings of Republicans, the real goal of Blumenthal is to strike against anything Christian.  Not convinced, well let’s look at page 45, paragraph 5, as Blumenthal makes an attempt at giving Ahmanson a psychiatric diagnosis and implies that conservative, evangelical Christians are neurotic.  Perhaps, Blumenthal could suggest a medication regime for Ahmanson as well?

Next, we see on pages 224 and 225 as Blumenthal takes on the movie “Braveheart” and he attacks Mel Gibson and attempts to portray the quest of Christian men to be masculine as some sort of latent attempt to cover up homosexual tendencies that “all Christian men have”.  In no uncertain terms, Blumenthal concludes that conservative, evangelical Christians choose to be what they are, because they are trying to escape or hide from some form of inner sexual perversion. 

Next, we see on page 298 where Blumenthal mocks the Biblical manifestation of Speaking in Tongues, and expresses disdain for an African Pastor, and unsuccessfully attempts to describe what certain Christians were praying about.  Then, on page 299 Blumenthal takes a shot a Governor Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs as he suggests that she apparently believes in witchcraft.  Here, it might be pointed out that God has plenty to say about witches and witchcraft in the Bible.

So, in short, Blumenthal has failed in his attempt to psychoanalyze all Christians of the world.  Blumenthal has failed at his attempt to be a theologian.  Blumenthal has failed in his attempt to give a broad and comprehensive political analysis as he portrays Republicans and even more so, Christians as the source of all the ills of the United States of America.  Blumenthal “splashes” all of these stories into one book and then plays the psychologist for us all and tells us how we should interpret the facts.  Blumenthal attempts to compress decades of religious and political history into a few esoteric sound bites.  It just doesn’t work.  The world is more complex than that. 

Finally, Blumenthal attempts to portray Jesus as an anthropomorphic manifestation of misguided, narrow-minded, neurotic, ego-dystonic homosexual Christians.  Blumenthal attempts to get the reader to believe that American Republicans are the only people in the world who are serious about their Christianity.  And, that because of this they are evil and dangerous.  In reality, Blumenthal’s book doesn’t seem to be about Republicans so much as it really appears to be a book written to ridicule and make a mockery of Christianity.             

read comments (2)

Jesus said to Nicodemus “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

Romans 3:23 tells us “…all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”

So, what happened to man?  Why do we need to be “born again”, as Jesus said?  To answer these questions and to understand what being born again means, one must go back to the beginning, back to the Garden of Eden.  For it is in the Garden of Eden that we see everything set in motion for mankind. 

Adam and Eve were created by God and they were created to live forever.  They were, in their original state, perfect and without sin.  Being perfect and without sin meant that they would live forever, if, they obeyed God’s command concerning a certain tree in the Garden of Eden. 

But, as we know, it didn’t take long before Adam and Eve fell to the temptation of the Devil to be “like God” and to know the difference between good and evil.  They both disobeyed God and with their disobedience, sin entered into the world and sin entered into the human race.  So, everyone born thereafter was born into a sinful state of existence and born with a sin nature. 

With the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden we see that sin and all of its consequences entered into the world.  These consequences include sickness, disease, pain, suffering, heartache, fear, anger, depression, jealously, envy, strife and the flesh nature of man.  It wasn’t supposed to be this way, but this is how it ended up.  Also, with the Fall of Man, we see that Adam and Eve lost the “life connection” they had with God.  Adam and Eve lost their eternal life, and now one day they would die.  But, there was still hope.    

A note at this point.  For those who challenge Christianity as being the legitimate religion of the world today and challenge the origin of Christianity, it must be noted that Christianity began in the Garden of Eden at the time of the Fall of Man.  It began with God’s prophecy to Adam, Eve and Satan concerning the coming Messiah who would be called Jesus.  Therefore, for those skeptics, who say that Christianity is an “invention” of someone’s mind that evolved late in the overall history of mankind, that is simply an inaccurate and underdeveloped analysis.  Adam and Eve were the first human beings.  And, we see a Messianic prophecy introduced to Adam and Eve at the very beginning of man’s existence on the Earth, therefore, how can anyone say that Christianity “came later” than the other religions of the world.  To say such a thing would mean that the other non-Christian religions of the world would have to have existed…before… Adam and Eve.   

At the time of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, we see a prophecy come forth concerning all that had happened and the state of sin that man now found himself.  God says, at that time, these words to Satan “…And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed, He shall bruise your head (tread your head underfoot) and you shall bruise His heel.”  This is the first prophecy in the Bible and it is a prophecy about Jesus Christ who would be born into the world centuries later. 

So, getting back to the Fall of Man.  Now we see that Adam and Eve and every human being subsequently born into the world are now separated from God and have a sin problem that they have no power or ability to get rid of.  And, according to God’s holiness, if a man does not get rid of his sin, he can never be in the presence of a Holy God.  So, what is a man to do?

At first, in the Old Testament days, God required animal sacrifices for sin.  We see in Leviticus 17:11 that God says “For the life of the flesh in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”  This is one of the most important verses in all of the Bible.  The importance of which we’ll visit later. 

We see that God, at first, set up a system of animal sacrifices for man’s sins.  The innocent animals were having to die for the sins of men.  This is the way that God set it up.  You simply have to accept this reality.  Our sins are unbecoming and ugly in God’s eyes, so, in turn, the “ugliness” of sacrifice was required to deal with sin.

So, finally, after many long centuries and many additional prophecies about the coming Messiah, we see in the Book of Matthew where Jesus arrives on the scene.  We see Jesus being born of the Virgin named Mary into the human race.  Jesus a God Man.  The first ever of His type, and the last of this type.  He is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.  Jesus was both man and God at the same time. 

There is a pop song that has a line in it that goes “What if God was one of us, just trying to make it”.  Well, in fact, in the person of Jesus Christ, God was one of us and…He did “make it.”  Jesus did make it through all the trials and temptations of being a man without ever sinning. 

Then, we see in the Bible where Jesus came to the moment of allowing Himself to be taken prisoner by the Romans guards under the authority of the Pharisees and religious leaders of the day and falsely accused of crimes against the Roman government.  After a bogus trial, Jesus was beaten and then crucified on a cross where He bleed and died.

Then, on the third day after Jesus’ death, we read in the Bible where Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to many, ate food with the disciples, gave some final words of  instruction and then ascended into Heaven where He sat down at the Right Hand of The Father. 

So, today, as a human being, we must first recognize and accept the fact and reality that we have sin in our lives that must be forgiven.  Jesus says in Mark 1:15 “Repent and believe in the gospel.”  This means that we must ask God to forgive us for our sins.  Now at this point, there is a newly developing debate that you need to avoid.  Some are saying that it is impossible to remember all the sins you ever committed so, therefore, how can anyone ask for forgiveness for sins they can’t remember.  This argument is futile and comes from the Devil and it is a device to rob men’s souls.  Don’t go there. 

To ask forgiveness for your sins simply means that you acknowledge before God that you are a sinner and then ask Him to forgive you of all your sins (in general) that you have ever committed.  This covers all those you may have forgotten and I might add at this point, this also covers “all those sins you have committed that you didn’t even realize were sins in God’s eyes”.  So, to say that any one human being could even possibly know about and categorize every sin they may or may not have ever committed would in essence make that person equal with God.

At the same moment you are asking God to forgive you of your sins, you must ask Jesus to come into your life and be your Lord and Savior.  This is part of getting saved.  It is the blood sacrifice of Jesus that cleanses you of your sins.  And, by acknowledging Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you are saying that you accept His sacrifice for your sins.  It is extremely important that you understand this.  Remember the verse we looked at in Leviticus 17:11.   If the “life of the flesh is in the blood” then, this means that the life of Jesus was in His blood.  Jesus gave His “life” in order that you might live. 

So, if you have prayed this prayer with understanding, then, you are saved.  You are born again as Jesus said.  It is a spiritual re-birth.  Remember Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  They died spiritually on that day.  That is why we must be “re-born” or born again as Jesus said.   If you have said this prayer, then welcome to the family of God.  Amen.

read comments (0)

We read in Luke 13:3-5 where Jesus says “…unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.   Next, we read in I John 1:9 which says “…If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins”.  Finally, we read in Acts 3:19 where a person must “…repent therefore and be converted”.

By the above scriptures we see that repenting of one’s sins is necessary for salvation.  You cannot be saved unless you repent to God for your sins.  You will not go to Heaven unless your sins are forgiven.  Jesus offers us that forgiveness through and by His blood sacrifice on the cross.  This is the gospel message.

Unfortunately, a new group has emerged on the scene and this group is saying that the concept of asking God to forgive you of your sins is a “works” gospel.  They are even saying that the tried and true, old-fashioned alter calls for salvation are “demonic” because in their words “it is works oriented”.  They are saying in simple terms that the idea of repenting involves an “action” or “effort” on our part and therefore somehow means that we are “working to earn” our salvation vs accepting salvation as a free gift.  This may sound unbelievable but, it is true. 

This same group is saying that simply having “faith” that Jesus exists is what saves the soul.  They quote many verses about simply “believing on the Lord” and they say that the idea that you have to do anything to be saved (including asking forgiveness for your sins) is a doctrine of works and therefore wrong. 

This same group is placing an inordinate emphasis on the 1611 King James Bible.  There are videos on You Tube of various ministers of this group who are ripping apart and throwing the NIV Bible on the floor as they preach in order to emphasize their point that the NIV is “demonic” as compared to the 1611 KJV. 

This group is so adamant about their belief that Christians should only use the 1611 KJV that it is cultish.  It almost seems as if they are worshipping the 1611 KJV Bible, rather than the God and Savior that the Bible speaks of.  They seem to be worshipping the ink and paper of the 1611 KJV Bible rather than Jesus Christ that the pages and words talk about.  One could say that a new “1611 KJV Cult” has emerged within the ranks of Christianity. 

This group leaves absolutely no room whatsoever for the Holy Spirit to operate in the life of the believer today.  They relegate the Holy Spirit to a “retired status” theologically as though His work is complete and that His power and presence is no longer necessary.  This group believes that I Corinthians 13:10 is referring to the canonized 1611 KJV of the Bible.  Go to You Tube, type in Spiritual Retardation and Speaking in Tongues pt2 and drop down to the comments section and see for yourself that this is, in fact, what they believe.  While you’re at it, also type in Pentecostal Speaking in Tongues = Being Demon Possessed and see what is transpiring with this group. 

This group is also adamant about the doctrine of “Eternal Security”.  In other words, they believe that once a person is saved, then, that person’s spiritual status can never change.  Never change no matter what that person may do, get involved in, or even believe, after they have been saved or, in their words “expressed their faith in Jesus”.   They do not believe that a person can fall away from the faith as is clearly described and warned about in Hebrews chapter 6. 

Speaking of their emphasis of “having faith”, it seems that, according the 1611 KJV group that even “expressing” faith in Jesus would be a form of “action” and therefore could be considered “works”.  In other words, just to exercise one’s mind and simply “think” that Jesus exists would be a “works salvation”.

Let’s look further into the emphasis on the 1611 KJV.  If someone is going to say that we must only follow the 1611 KJV because it is the “original version” of the Bible, then, logically, if you are going to follow that track of reasoning then, one would have to continue and say “but wait, where did the writings or material or manuscripts from which the KJV was derived come from”?  Perhaps, going back to those writings would be the more sure way of theological accuracy.  Perhaps, the early century Catholics had it right when they believed that the scriptures should be kept in and only read in Latin.  So, that would make the Latin Vulgate the true source of scriptural authority.  But, then what about the old Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  Or wait, what about the language that Jesus spoke in, was it a now-extinct form of Aramaic?  If so, we’re now all in trouble, because no one living today could ever translate such a language, and adding to this dilemma is the fact that such manuscripts don’t exist.  And, we are not finished.  If you are going to say that we have to establish the authority of the language, or the original language in which scriptures were written, then one has to ask the question:  “What language did Adam and Eve speak in?”  This would be the source of true written  and recorded scriptural authority.  I mean, if anyone could “take us to school” about knowing God, understanding the nature and character of God, what works with God, and most definitely what does not work with God, it would have been Adam and Eve. Indeed.  Only one problem.  No one knows what language Adam and Eve spoke in and there are certainly no manuscripts written by Adam and Eve in our bookshelf. 

The only way out of this dilemma is to be led by the Holy Spirit.  We allow the Holy Spirit to bear witness in our hearts as to what is true or not true, as to what is of God and what is not of God, as to what we should believe is the true record and what is not genuine and inspired by God.  Only by the Holy Spirit can this be done. 

Furthermore, to say that I Corinthians 13:10 is talking about the 1611 KJV, and that with the canonization of the 1611 KJV all gifts of the spirit ceased to operate is totally illogical and cannot be supported theologically.  One quick question here that immediately pops into mind is if the 1611 KJV is what I Corinthians 13:10 is talking about, and if the gifts of the spirit ceased with the fulfillment of I Corinthians 13:10, and also, as this group believes, if the gifts of the spirit were dispensational and operated only in the time of the early 1st Century church, then, what about the 1500 year gap between the 1st Century and 1611?  What was the status of the gifts for this time period?  For that matter, I would like to ask if this group believes anyone could have been “saved” between 100 A.D. and 1611 A.D.?

It seems these fellows are painting themselves into a theological corner.  This new emerging group is a cult. 

Finally, on the question of Eternal Security which is also known as “Once Saved, Always Saved”, I have this observation.  The life that Jesus offers us through His blood sacrifice is a covenant.  It is known as the New Covenant or New Testament.  And, our relationship, as a body of believers to Jesus is described, even by Him, as that of a marriage.  So, to use the very analogy of Jesus, if we today, are going to say “Once Saved, Always Saved”, then, one would also have to say “Once Married, Always Married”. 

So, you are thinking of how many examples why you simply cannot say that.  You cannot say of a marriage today “Once Married, Always Married”.  It would be utter foolishness to speak in such terms, knowing that so many failed marriages in our society today are proof enough that you cannot make such a proclamation as a fact.   So, just the same, to say “Once Saved, Always Saved” does not hold water theologically. 

Sure enough, the New Covenant written in the  Blood of Christ will stand forever.  The New Covenant in Jesus Christ is established forever and cannot be altered, changed or negotiated.  We, as human beings, have the choice to join in this New Covenant with Jesus and accept His sacrifice for our sins.  And, we also, just as in a marriage covenant, have the prerogative and free will to “walk away” from such covenant if we choose.  We can walk away from our covenant with Jesus and simply say we don’t want to be in the relationship anymore.  It is the human choice that “breaks” the covenant with Jesus, for Jesus would never break covenant with us, so long as we desired His companionship. 

The problem with “Once Saved, Always Saved” or “Eternal Security” is that it takes away or bypasses the free will of man.  It is almost as if you don’t have a choice in the matter to begin with and that, once in the relationship, you cannot make the choice to “get out of it”.  This is totally illogical and it cannot hold water theologically.  It simply doesn’t work.  And, then, to make matters worse, if someone does walk away from their relationship with Jesus and falls away, the 1611 KJV group says “well, they weren’t saved in the first place”.  To say this would  be like seeing a couple get married, stay married for 10 years, have several children, live under the same roof and pay taxes together for 10 years, then, get a divorce.  And, upon getting a divorce someone would say of this same couple “well, they weren’t married in the first place”.  That would be illogical you say.  That would not be true you say.   Exactly.  Just as the fallacy of the doctrine of Eternal Security is not true.

There is a vagueness about what those who promote Eternal Security really believe.  They say that once a person is saved, then that person’s state of “being saved” can never change.  Even if this same person goes out and sins and participates in things like stealing, lying, getting drunk, doing drugs, participating in violence towards others etc.  In the theology of Eternal Security, once you are saved, you cannot sin again.  That’s right.  This is the pulse beat of this doctrine.  For you see, if once you have been saved, and God has said that your salvation can never be lost, then, it would be impossible for such person to do anything that God would look upon as sin.  For if such a Christian person did do something that was sinful in God’s eyes, then, that person would have to ask forgiveness for that sin.  But, in the view of those who believe in Eternal Security, it is impossible for the Christian to ever sin again and thus place his or her soul in jeopardy.  Therefore, what they are really saying is that once a person is “saved”, then even if this same person participates in what most would consider “sinful” behavior, God does not consider it sin anymore for this person because to do so God would be contradicting Himself, because in order for God to deal with this person’s sin, He would have to forgive this person who is supposed to be “eternally secure”. 

In reality the doctrine of Eternal Security or Once Saved, Always Saved is, in fact, a license to sin.  And, there is an escape device in this theology.  Let’s say such Christian really gets “out there” in their sinful behavior and really walks away from the Christian faith.  The answer to such a scenario given by the Eternal Security folks is “well, he wasn’t saved to begin with”. 

So, you can see how this doctrine works.  It is not too much dissimilar to the modalist doctrine which says that “a Christian’s body is separate from his spirit; therefore, what one does with their body does not affect their spirit man”.  Again, this is a license to sin.  For to believe this way, a Christian is not accountable for any behavior either good or bad.   So, this is how the Eternal Security folks are able to believe that once saved, always saved because once saved, you can no longer sin in God’s eyes.  It is a heresy.

Mark 1:15 – Jesus said “…The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”   

read comments (0)

Who is shaping the future of America?  What is the future of America?  Do people even care anymore?  Or, are Americans more interested in who will win the next American Idol competition more than what type of world we are heading towards?

It seems almost as if it has become “uncool” to even think and have an opinion anymore.  Our society has become so lethargic and indifferent to certain realities that one could say that America is suffering from “reality avoidance”.

I remember years ago sitting in Economics class while in undergraduate school.  I distinctly remember learning about what is called “diseconomies of scale”.  It is a very interesting and very real thing that can happen to a large corporation.  And, I believe it can also happen to the Body of Christ.  It could be coined a “spiritual diseconomies of scale”.

First, let’s look at what is known as diseconomies of scale in regards to an industry functioning within our capitalist economy.  Let’s imagine a large corporation that has 100,000 employees here in the U.S.  With an organization of this size it is extremely important to keep track of what everyone is doing in order to prevent duplication and even outright competition between the various and different departments of such organization.  When such a breakdown does occur, that is, duplication of effort and competition among departments, it is called diseconomies of scale.  And, if the diseconomies of scale becomes pervasive enough, it can ruin the organization. 

One of the by-products of diseconomies of scale, that is described in Wikipedia, is called “isolation of decision makers from the results of their decisions”.  I encourage the reader, at this point, to refer to the Wikipedia article as it is very good at explaining all of this. 

To expand upon the term, as found in Wikipedia, I will say that what we are seeing today is “isolation of those who are making bad decisions from the consequences of their bad decisions”.  In street, the people who are making a mess of things are not having to deal with the mess they are creating.  Or, even worse, some decision makers don’t have a clue as to the unintended effect of their decisions.  Let’s take a closer look.

As a nation, the United States is facing what I believe to be an impending and devastating diseconomies of scale.  In particular, this problem is occurring in the area of interpretation of law, and the writing of law.  And, the church in America is setting directly in the crosshairs of the negative and unintended (or, in some cases intended) consequences of bad law.  But, it’s not just the church.  In reality, our society as a whole will have to deal with these consequences.  Let’s look at some current and pending examples.

In Massachusetts we see the debate going on about the rights of transgendered persons to have unrestricted access to either Men’s or Women’s restrooms, depending on which gender they have “chosen” to be.  This is impossible to interpret now, and it will be impossible to interpret in the courts once the lawsuits start coming in.  On a practical note, one of the reasons that cities and towns are even open to such a law is because the idea of building, retrofitting and paying for a “third” class of restroom at all public locations is prohibitive.  So, we see cities and towns falling back on the legal system for a way out, but, it will be even worse in the end.  It would be an “unenforceable” law.  Here’s an example.  Let’s say it’s 10:00 p.m. at a highway rest area stop and a young mother of 25 years of age who weighs maybe 120 lbs and her young daughter who is 4 years old start walking toward the Women’s public restroom.   Then, upon making their way to the restroom, the mother notices a large masculine appearing person who is let’s say 6’3” tall and weighs around 230 lbs.  And, this person is, as they say in bodybuilding, “ripped”.  But, upon noticing the hesitation of the mother to go any further toward the Women’s restroom, the person says to the mother “Oh, it’s OK, I’m transgendered”.  At that point, what is the young mother to do?  Would she say “prove it”? 

One can clearly see by the above scenario that such a “law” will be unenforceable.  Let’s look at another example of an unenforceable and un-interpretable law.  The pending Hate Crime law before congress which is designed to give protection to and special rights to the homosexual community.  Let’s say a Pastor of a large urban Baptist church preaches a sermon that includes a discussion of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in his discourse.  And, in the course of his message, this particular Pastor states that, according to his interpretation of the Bible, he believes that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are sinful and that anyone practicing such behavior will go to Hell.  This is his religious belief.  But, then, a gay person who happens to be sitting in his audience takes a CD of the message to the downtown police station and asks that the Pastor be arrested for “Hate Speech”.  Could such a thing happen?

Here is the complexity and what I see as a “political diseconomies of scale”.   The Hate Crime law, at this point, is un-interpretable and unenforceable.  Because, in order to arrest the Pastor for violating the “rights” of the homosexual, the police will, in turn, have to deny the Pastor his freedoms of speech and religion.  So, which is our society going to choose?  We are getting ready to see a legal environment in which the rights and freedoms of some groups are going to be taken away so that a different group can be free from what they perceive as public expression that they believe violates their rights.

So, we now see that the lawmakers (congress) who are promoting and passing such laws are fitting into the category that we see in the definition of characteristics of “diseconomies of scale”.  In other words, some of the very congressmen and congresswomen that are passing such laws will be “isolated from the consequences of their bad decision making”.  Isolation of decision makers from the consequences of their bad decisions.

It doesn’t stop here.  There is still one developing factor that will dwarf all that we have looked at thus far.  The issue I am referring to is Sharia Law.  This is the body of law that is practiced by Islamic countries.  You may be saying, “Well, what does that have to do with us here in the U.S.?”  Before we get to that point, let’s look at the concept of law and government for a moment.

I remember sitting in an undergraduate class called Federal, State and Local Government.  The professor of this course was a seasoned veteran who had taught for decades.  He was a classic liberal and he and I had an amicable professor/student relationship.  I remember it well, one day in class when a fellow student (the kind of student who thought he was the teacher rather than a student) made the statement “imagine a Presidential election in which the vote count margin came down to just a one vote difference between the two candidates and the winner wins by just one vote!  Imagine what that would do for democracy!”  Then, I’ll never forget the professor’s response (and, this was some 26 or 27 years ago) as the professor said “that really might not be such a good thing”.  And then, the professor went on to explain why he saw it as problematic, as if almost to prophetically describe what we all witnessed in 2000. 

It was this same professor who taught that one of the hallmarks of a government, one of the most legitimizing factors of a government, is to set a body of law and then set a framework to interpret and enforce such law.  So, we now see today, a serious and slowly developing effort on the part of Muslims to set up the practice and enforcement of Sharia Law within our society.  So, what happens when a Muslim and a non-Muslim are involved in a legal dispute over something and both sides are using two different bodies of law to interpret what has transpired and how the matter should be judged?  Which side will carry the most weight? Which carries more legal weight, Constitutional Law or Sharia Law? 

Perhaps, seeing the problem as described above, we could set up yet another 3rd body of law and a 3rd party of law making and law enforcement to weigh out the matter and find the “common ground” between the two other bodies of law? Or, if that doesn’t work, maybe set up a 4th group to try and “work it out”.                       

But, it doesn’t stop here.  Did you see in the news where just recently, the Hizb ut-Tahrir held a “conference” in a Hilton Hotel just outside of Chicago.  The theme of the conference was “The Fall of Capitalism and The Rise of Islam”.  It is reported that several Arab States as well as Russia do not allow this group to operate within their borders.  But, the U.S., in the name of freedom of speech and religion, will allow it.  This represents more political diseconomies of scale.  In other words, this extreme, radical religious group that wants to overthrow the U.S. system of government has every right to express themselves.  It is their “right” to do so.  To put it in street “it is their right to promote and organize as a group and overthrow the very government that “gives them the right to do so”.  Then, the rights and freedoms of expression that used to exist under the old government will no longer exist.  This is exactly the scenario that is developing right before our very eyes.  It is already happening to a serious degree in England, France and Holland. 

So, the Christian church is caught in the crossfire of all this and the rights of the church are slowly slipping away in our society.  The respect that the church once enjoyed in the U.S. is no more.   We, as Christians, must give up our religious freedoms in the name of diversity.  We, as Christians, must give up our freedoms in order that those who want an entirely different body of law and government can have what they want.   Things are getting very interesting.  Perhaps, as a society, we are entering into a period of which the old Chinese proverb could apply.  “May you live in interesting times.”  I think with all the “pushing and shoving” between the different groups within our society, it is naïve to think that things are not going to get interesting.   

read comments (0)

I remember years ago, sitting in an undergraduate class on Recent European History.  The professor of this particular class was extremely confident and he came from the Brooklyn, New York area.  This man was very sure of what he was saying he had a very powerful mind.  And, he was rabidly anti-Christian.  He hated Christians, hated Jesus, hated God and hated the Bible.  He would taunt and mock Christians, Christianity, the Bible and anyone who hinted that they might be sympathetic to Christianity, let alone an actual Christian.  He was no one to “mess around with” unless you were ready for a fight.  It was a real wake-up call for me. I got a “C” out of the class.

Next, in my academic and scholastic experience, I remember a graduate school course I took while attending West Virginia University.  The course was called Advanced Policy Analysis.  It was a three hour night class and I’ll never forget the first night of the class as the professor stood up and made the declaration “There are two ways to view and interpret the economy and economics.  One is from a market/capitalist point of view and the other is from a Marxist/Leninist point of view.  I want you to know that I prefer the Marxist/Leninist point of view”.  Needless to say, at that point, there was a little smoke in the atmosphere and a palpable tension in the air.  I immediately thought, “I am so out of this class”.  But, after sitting through that first class and “getting a feel for this guy”, I thought “I can make this work”, even though I was diametrically opposed to the views of this professor.  I ended up taking two or three courses from him and I remember getting an “A” in one of them.

So, why all of this sharing about my personal academic experience, seemingly “out of the blue”?  The reason being, I want the reader to know that I have some experience in academia and higher education and, more importantly, I have experience in dealing with those whose are strongly opposed to my beliefs and my point of view.  I am somewhat qualified to write this post.  You will see the necessity of such an introduction as we get into this.

So, the other day, I was shown a CNN news article dated May 15, 2009 and written by John Blake.  The title of the news article was “Former Fundamentalist ‘Debunks’ Bible”.  Needless to say, this got my attention.  In this article, we read about a professor named Bart D Ehrman who is a professor of New Testament Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.   Ehrman has written many books and his most recent work is titled “Jesus, Interrupted”. In no uncertain terms, this book is anti-Christian and it portrays the Bible as essentially, a false work and not worthy of developing and formulating a system of faith and moral belief out of its writings.  So, one might ask “As a serious Christian, why would you read such a book?” I read the book first, because I couldn’t stand “not knowing” first hand what this guy was saying.  Then, secondly, when I was in the military, we were taught, at that time, that one of the best ways to deal with an enemy, is to learn and know as much about your enemy as you possibly can.  And, to put it in “street”, as a Pastor, you simply need to know what’s going on.

Upon reading “Jesus, Interrupted”, one cannot help but notice that Ehrman seems to be very determined to let the reader know that he is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary.  Indeed, Ehrman mentions “Princeton” 8 times in the 3 ½ page preface of the book.  Perhaps, this is OK.  One must be aware however, that Princeton is an “Ivy League School” and there is a well-known and very historical sense of intellectual elitism that goes along with “Princeton” and the “Ivy League”.   Ehrman is playing on this status. Big time.

In his book, Ehrman talks of how, early in his life, he was an evangelical Christian.  Something which he now seems ashamed of and, seems to profusely apologize for in his book.   He makes it very clear that he no longer considers himself an evangelical and portrays evangelicals as “narrow-minded bigots”.

Let’s take a look at some of the things Ehrman says in his book.  On page number 1, of chapter 1, Ehrman is talking about the Bible and he says “…it is also the most thoroughly misunderstood, especially by the lay-reading public”.  Here, as in the preface, Ehrman sets himself apart as an intellectual elite who is one of the few qualified people in this world to read and interpret the Bible.

Next, on page 4, of chapter 1, Ehrman teaches about the “Historical-Critical” method of Bible interpretation verses the “Devotional” method of Bible interpretation.  He makes it very, very clear that he utilizes the Historical-Critical method of interpretation and implies that the Devotional method of interpretation is for “misguided and uneducated” people.

So, now let’s get to the “nuts and bolts” of it all.  On pages 5 and 6, of chapter 1, Ehrman states that “The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions” and he states “The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend” and “It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught”.

Part of Ehrman’s reasoning and critique evolve out of the thesis that “if there are contradictions in the Bible, particularly in the Four Gospels, about a particular story or event, then, by the Historical-Critical interpretive method, the reader must conclude that the story or event never happened”.  In other words, if different people are describing what they saw or heard during an event, and, if there are differences in how they are describing the story or event, then maybe it didn’t happen at all.  So, what Ehrman has essentially done, is to point to a supposed plethora of supposed contradictions in the Bible and say, because of these “contradictions” the Bible cannot be taken as an accurate record of historical fact.

Here is the short-coming of Ehrman’s method of analysis and interpretation.  The “historical” example that “screams” to be used at this point is the JFK assassination.  So very well do many of us remember that day.  I know that I was sitting in class at school as the Principal’s voice came over the intercom at school and announced “The President has been shot in Dallas”.  And, then, the world changed.

Let’s look briefly at the Kennedy assassination.  There are a myriad of conspiracy theories swirling around this historical event.  Some examples are “It would have been impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gotten off the multiple shots required, in the few seconds that evolved, and to have been that accurate from such a distance”.  Next, there is the grassy knoll.  Several people who were there that day talked of seeing another gunman on the grassy knoll.  But, the experts say that a shot at such close range would have done much more damage.  But, others argue that a lighter caliber gun could have been used.  And, also at the grassy knoll, were the supposed policeman that “came out of nowhere and then disappeared” after the shooting.  And, then, there was the woman who was picked up as she was hitch-hiking around the New Orleans area a few weeks before and told the driver of the car that gave her a ride “They’re going to kill the President in Dallas”.

So, we are left with more questions than answers when it comes to the Kennedy assassination.  Who were “They” that this mystery woman was talking about? And, it does seem that it would be a lot to expect a lone gunman to accomplish at the distance and few seconds of time that Oswald supposedly was able to do.  And, what about the several eye-witnesses to things going on at the grassy knoll?  Indeed, it is a mystery.

My point is this.  We have many, many people who gave many, many varying and different and “contradictory” accounts of the Kennedy assassination.  There was even a formal governmental investigation of the event and still no solid conclusion and much disagreement among the legal and governmental experts.  So, no conclusion on exactly how and why the Kennedy assassination occurred.  So, according to Ehrman and his view and perspective of the Historical-Critical approach, we would have to conclude that because there are “irreconcilable contradictions” surrounding the Kennedy assassination that, we perhaps have to conclude that “it didn’t happen”.  Maybe, everyone simply had a “visionary imagination” about all of it, and Kennedy has been hidden away somewhere all these years for some mysterious reason.  You may say, that’s absurd.  Well, read Ehrman’s book.  This is exactly how Ehrman goes about “interpreting” the Bible.

Another example I would love to “get into” to make my point, but for the lack of time I will only touch upon is the Princess Diana auto accident.  What of the mysterious white Fiat or Peugeot that may have “cut them off” in the tunnel that fatal evening?  And, what about auto accidents in general.  How many different interpretations and contradictions of who did what.   I think you understand the weakness of Ehrman’s broad-brush approach with the Historical-Critical method of Biblical interpretation.

Furthermore, on any given day, on any major news event, you can click on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and the BBC and read stories about the same news event, but, get varying and differing views of what happened and why and how.  Does this mean it didn’t happen?

OK, let’s get back to the book.  On page 16, of chapter 1, Ehrman’s challenges (in an almost taunting fashion) the authenticity of the Bible as he says “If God wanted us to have His words, why didn’t He preserve His words”.  Next, on page 32, of chapter 2, Ehrman writes about the reference of King Herod and the slaughtering of the children as found in the Book of Matthew.  Ehrman says of Matthew that this was “…a detail made up by Matthew in order to make some kind of theological point?”  Next, there is what I see as the most stunning and jaw-dropping arrogance exhibited by Ehrman found on pages 104-107, in chapter 4, in the section sub-titled “The Authors of The Gospels”.  Here Ehrman discusses who may have written the Bible.  Ehrman begins to paint with a very broad brush and indicates that all of the disciples were illiterate.  Then Ehrman makes a most stupefying, condescendingly, super-arrogant inference as he says, on page 105, “Jesus himself was highly exceptional, in that he could evidently read (Luke 4:16-20), but there is nothing to indicate that he could write”.

The magnitude of such a statement leads me to believe that, somewhere along the way, Ehrman was offended concerning Christianity.  And, he apparently has taken it so personally that he subsequently has made it his mission in life to “destroy” Christianity.  Somewhere along the way, there was an offense.

Next, one can get an idea of Ehrman’s doctrine (or, absence of doctrine) on forgiveness of sin as you see on page 172, of chapter 5, where Ehrman says “We have no historical record that can prove why, from God’s point of view, Jesus died”.

Next, Ehrman comes up short again on page 225, of chapter 7, where he summarizes that most Christians, in other parts of the world, particularly outside of the Southern U.S., don’t adhere to a belief that a person has to necessarily believe in the Bible in order to be a Christian.  In other words, Ehrman is telling us that one can be a Christian, while at the same time, believe that the Bible is a bogus forgery.  This would be an oxymoron.

Here Ehrman misses it completely.  Here Ehrman exhibits an underdeveloped sense of the Christian world view.  Here, Ehrman exhibits underexposure to Christianity in other parts of the world.  Remember, Ehrman “dropped out of the race” long time ago.  Ehrman needs to visit the Christian churches in places like Iganga, Uganda and the slums of Nairobi (where I have ministered) and ask the Christians there if they believe in the Bible.  Oh, but wait!  That’s right, how could I forget, the African Christians didn’t graduate from Princeton.  How could I have overlooked such a thing!

You know, to be honest with you, Ehrman presents, in an analogous way, as a thwarted athlete.  As a person who loved the game of football as a young boy, played at the junior-varsity level, but then never made it to the next level due to a combination of small-stature and lack of skill.  But now, Ehrman offers up critique of the game as if he is a veteran, all-pro quarterback who “hawks” 10 Super Bowl rings.  And, he feels like he needs to apologize to the rest of us because of “how good he is”.  But, at the same time he enjoys telling all the rest of us why we are not qualified to play the game.  Hubris?

Finally, on page 283, the last page of the book, on the 1st line, we see Ehrman “lay down his hand” as he says “Furthermore, even those of us who do not believe in the Bible can still learn from it”.

The glaring short-coming of Ehrman’s analysis is that he thinks he can get us all to believe he can intellectually dismiss the person of Jesus Christ and at the same time totally ignore the “Father” and the “Holy Spirit” that Jesus spoke frequently about.  We read in several passages in the four gospels that Jesus was “filled with the Holy Spirit” and “led by the Holy Spirit”.  We read in several passages in the four gospels where Jesus speaks of His Father in Heaven.  So my point is, if Ehrman is going to be so bold as to inform us that Jesus didn’t exist, then, to be “intellectually honest” in his analysis, Ehrman also has the burden to explain away the “Father of Jesus” and the “Holy Spirit”.  Ehrman does not and cannot do it.  Ehrman is being less than scholarly in his appraoch to Bible interpretation.  Ehrman is a spiritually blind man attempting to lead other spiritually blind men and they will all fall into a ditch.   Perhaps, Ehrman could have been so bold as to have titled his book “God Interrupted”? 

Years ago, when I was meditating on Christianity and how I have seen certain professors and even a few so-called preachers seek to de-authenticate the Bible, I had a vision.  Here is how it went:  I saw a chamber in Hell, it was sort of like a cave.  The chamber was dimly lit with a pulsating type light that is emitted from flames.  And, in this chamber there were approximately 20 or 30 demons that appeared to be assembled as if in a classroom.  Then, they brought out a man who apparently had been either a Pastor or a Professor in his life on Earth.  The conditions in this chamber were miserable.  Then, this man was asked (forced) to begin teaching, the group of demons that were assembled, on the subject of why he did not believe in the existence of God. So, the professor began his discourse and at first the demons seemed interested.  Looking at them, they almost exhibited a type of sadness that they were there and an extreme anxiety that their fate had been sealed.  They at first, appeared to respect what the professor was saying but, in short order, their sadness turned into mockery and extremely sarcastic laughter and taunting of the professor.  They were asking him questions during his discourse such as “Why did you believe us?” and “Why would any fool believe there is no God” and “Why do you think we are here?” and “Why do you think you are here?”  Then, these demonic spirits became very violent, almost as if sharks in a feeding frenzy as they began screaming at the professor and calling him filthy names.  At the same time, the light began to go out in the chamber, at which time, the demons began attacking the professor beating him and biting him in the dark.  Then, the vision changed.  The chamber was once again set up and the same scenario unfolded with the same man.  Then, the Holy Spirit impressed upon me that this cycle would continue for this man for eternity.

So, if Ehrman wants to talk about visions and imaginations (as he does in his book), then this is one I had years ago.  Perhaps, he would find it interesting.

In closing, I really admire the gracefulness and maturity exhibited in the response of Bishop William H Willimon in the CNN news article.  Bishop Willimon is quoted as saying that he doesn’t like the “breathless tone” of Ehrman’s work.  And, “He keeps presenting this stuff as if this is wonderful new knowledge that has been kept from you backward lay people and this is the stuff your preachers don’t’ have the guts to tell, and I have.  There’s a touch of arrogance in it”.

You know, I couldn’t agree more with Bishop Willimon.

A point of note.  The CNN news article also points out that Ehrman is a frequent contributor to the Biblical documentaries shown on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel.  Remember, a few posts back I expressed my extreme frustration with these documentaries.  Now I know why!

In closing, I will quote what one of my church members had to say upon reading the CNN news story.  He said of Ehrman “What a wasted career, what a wasted life”.

read comments (0)

My wife and I moved to Colorado back in the Summer of 1987. We lived there for just over nine years. Our two sons were born there. We lived in Lakewood the first few months and then moved to Castle Rock in January of 1988. Castle Rock sits just off Interstate 25 and is situated just between and, is a short drive from Denver and Colorado Springs. In fact, many people from the three communities would go back and forth to the different churches in the three cities.

I recall the one and only time I met Pastor Ted Haggard. It was in either late 1988 or sometime in 1989. At that time, New Life was still meeting in the building they were using just previous to the newer buildings they currently meet in. I was invited to go visit New Life with an elder of the church I was attending at the time, in Castle Rock. This particular elder was telling me that he and his wife had attended Pastor Haggard’s church a few years earlier when there were just a few people. He stated that he would like to go see how things were going for New Life and say hello to Pastor Haggard.

The elder and I made the short trip down the freeway to Colorado Springs and attended the service that evening and then afterwards went up front to meet Pastor Haggard. Indeed, this elder was well known by Pastor Haggard as they began talking and asking each other about many mutual friends and acquaintances and, talked about how the church used to be in the early days. I may have spoken three sentences to Pastor Haggard. And, I certainly am not naïve to suggest now that I believe that he would even remotely remember meeting me. I mean, he has probably had tens of thousands of such encounters, meeting a friend of a friend kind of a thing. But, my meeting him is not the point.

New Life is not just any church. New Life is a regional megachurch. New Life is well known and well connected within the national evangelical, conservative Christian network. New Life could even be considered a “Flagship Church” of the Religious Right. New Life sits just off of Interstate 25 on the east side. It sits on a rolling hill which is somewhat elevated above the freeway and the front entrance to the church building faces in a slightly southwestern direction facing the southern most tip of the United States Air Force Academy and Pike’s Peak. The view from the entryway of New Life Church is what people take vacations to see. It is breathtaking in late Spring and early Summer as Pike’s Peak shimmers in the early morning sunshine reflecting off a heavy mantle of freshly fallen snow. Pike’s Peak is a 14,000 foot mountain that kind of sits out by itself from the rest of the Front Range. Then, just south of the church is the Chapel Hills Mall. The mall has an upper level grouping of restaurants with a southwestern wall with large 10 – 15 foot windows that provide the restaurant guest with a fantastic view of Pike’s Peak. My wife and I have dined there many times.

Pastor Ted Haggard is not just any Pastor. If you were to use a military analogy to describe all of this, then Pastor Ted Haggard would be a Three Star General of the Religious Right. He would be like a commander of an entire theater of operations. He would be like a leading officer who has been entrusted with some of the mission’s most sensitive secrets and strategies. And now, he has “gone bad”.

It must be understood that New Life was built on sound and fundamental Christian orthodoxy, on strict guidelines of Biblical interpretation, on sound and proven doctrines of the Christian faith. One of those is the doctrine that marriage consists of a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. Another of those is the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. But now, you have Pastor Haggard saying that he is confused on the subject of sex. He is saying that he is attracted to men as well as being attracted to his wife. He is saying that he is having trouble figuring out his own sexuality. But, at that same time, he is asking New Life Church to accept him the way he is, without any reservation or consideration of the foundational principles of New Life. This is the same church that has been taught and believes very strongly that same sex attraction is very much against God’s will and that it is sinful to have and/or act upon same sex attraction. In fact, Pastor Haggard was quite instrumental in teaching against and rallying against same sex attraction in the past. But now, after he himself has gotten caught participating in same sex activities, he is saying to the church, “hey, it’s not a big deal, accept me the way I am”. It is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too”.

All of this has put New Life Church in an impossible situation. Even though Pastor Haggard has been away for some time, he is now back in Colorado Springs and this is a very serious problem for New Life. I said to my wife when I first learned that Pastor Haggard was returning to Colorado Springs “New Life is going to have a very serious problem on its hands”.

If you were to use a political analogy, we could look at the example of former President Richard Nixon. Let’s say, after having been impeached and exiled by the leaders in the national government, President Nixon would have returned to Washington after a year. And, upon his return, President Nixon could have started holding interviews with the national media saying things like “they did me wrong”, “they don’t know all the information”, “they are mean-spirited”, “and, I think I still deserve to be President”, “and, you know what, if this government won’t accept me back as their President, then, maybe I’ll start my own government”.

Such a thing would have been a nightmare you say, even dangerous to the stability to the country. That would have been quite true. Well, in a microcosmic sense, this is the same type of scenario that you have playing out in Colorado Springs. You have a Pastor who was relieved of his command and sent away in exile. However, that same Pastor has now returned saying all sorts of things that suggest he is probing to see if there is any chance he could get his old command back, and, there are rumblings that if he doesn’t get his old position back he may start another church. All of this is just ruinous for New Life. And, on top of it all, there is now another individual who has come forward who is telling his story of very sordid and evil things that went on between him and Pastor Haggard.

There is an even larger and broader element at play in all of this. One has to ask the question why is the liberal, secular media going “ga-ga” over Pastor Ted Haggard. Why is he getting these prime-time interviews with some of the top names in the TV talk show world. There is a reason and, it is very sinister. For you see, Pastor Ted Haggard represents to the very liberal left wing of politics and to the homosexual community what I call the “missing link” in the debate over homosexuality. If you caught the pre-release interview done between Anderson Cooper and Alexandra Pelosi on CNN the other evening you could hear sounds and tones of what I am saying.

It is because of the church that Pastor Haggard used to pastor and it is because of the doctrinal belief system that Pastor Haggard is coming out of that makes him a most exquisite prize for the homosexual agenda. For you see, here you now have a very high ranking Pastor within the camp of the Religious Right coming forth and saying that he is confused about his sexuality. This gives the liberal left and the homosexual community an example of what they are saying proves that homosexuality simply cannot be confined to, or portrayed as, a lifestyle that is evolving out of the far-left. It is an opportune moment for the homosexuals to show that homosexuality is, in their minds, mainstreamed within our society. In street, they are saying “Hey look, if you are going to say that homosexuality is only for a few of us misguided individuals on the far-left, look here now at this Pastor who is a leading figure within the far-right religious community who is now saying that even he is confused about his sexuality”.

All of this has now moved the debate on homosexuality to the forefront. It is no longer an issue that Christians can choose to ignore because they might be uncomfortable with it. If this were a game of chess, one might say that the opponent has begun advancing the pieces from the back row. This debate will grow increasingly intense with greater and greater ramifications for our society. If you are still not convinced and don’t want to get involved then consider the following. If you are familiar with the policy in the military concerning gays which says “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, then you know that this is now being reviewed for updating or being changed. The suggestion is that gays be allowed to openly serve in the U.S. military. Not much difference than what is going on now you may say. But wait, consider this, if you simply change the policy from “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” to allowing military members to serve openly as gays, then, in short order, some of these members will start getting married, and, that marriage would then be sanctioned by the U.S. Government. If then, a marriage between two gay members of the military is endorsed by, confirmed by, officially recognized by the U.S. Government, then, how can any State Government within the U.S. say otherwise?

My wife and I have some very dear and close friends who are currently attending New Life Church and have been attending there for many years. So, writing about all of this is somewhat sensitive and I must take much care. But, one thing the Body of Christ cannot ignore is that what we see unfolding in Colorado Springs will affect the entire Body of Christ as the consequences of this saga are very far reaching in scope and substance.

Publish Date: January 29, 2009

read comments (0)

I  just finished reading the book titled The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. I had not planned to read this book, and, in fact, did not want to read this book. However, after hearing so much about it, after being asked several times if I had read it, and being involved in several discussions about the book with those of my own church, I decided it was time that I got informed. So, I read the book.

There is much to discuss concerning The Shack. To start with, it must be understood now and understood throughout this critique that The Shack was written as a fictional novel. So, it is an extremely difficult task to make a spiritual critique on a book that was written about God, but at the same time, understanding that everything said in the book, every conversation with God that is described in the book, is “fictional”. In other words, the book is written as sort of “if I were to sit down and have a one-on-one conversation with God, this is what He might say to me”.

Next, it is very possible and probable that the author of The Shack is using the characters, in the book, to vicariously express his own personal feelings and emotions surrounding his personal life struggles. It appears, after reading the book, and, after doing some research on the author, that in fact, he has vicariously expressed himself not in just one of the characters of the book, but, in multiple characters of the book…that is written as fiction. One point of note is that God the Father is portrayed as a highly relatable and friendly Black woman. You know, this doesn’t freak me out to be honest with you. It does present some problems with critique however. For you see, to be a Black woman is to be what we used to say in political science a “double minority”. It would be like saying something negative about outgoing Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, who I think very highly of by the way. So, to get involved critiquing this book is now like walking through a field of land mines (anti-tank type mines!). But, I am going to believe that serious Christians can get beyond this sensitivity and look at this book with a mature mind. However, all of these factors put together make a critique extremely difficult.

But, none-the-less, here goes. First of all, upon reading just the first few pages one can clearly see that this book was not just “thrown together” or casually written as some are wanting us to believe. This book is very well written with every other sentence communicating powerful and vivid imagery. The story line, up to the point of Mackenzie’s daughter getting kidnapped, raped and murdered is very powerful and has a magnetic grip on the reader. No, I don’t think it is an accurate analysis to say that The Shack is some kind of thrown together after thought. This book is well written and was written to appeal to a broad audience. This book was written to make money and it is doing that in a very big way. We will visit that point later.

There is much being said about this book. One of the criticisms in that The Shack is somehow promoting modalism or, what is more commonly known as Jesus Only, Jesus Name or Oneness theology. Personally, having read the book, I don’t see this. If anything, the three characters or persons of the Godhead are portrayed extensively as three separate but yet combined entities. These three members of the Godhead are depicted as being highly interactive with each other and functioning in unison but yet, at the same time, having very distinctive characteristics apart from each other. This portrayal promotes the doctrine of a triune God. The book portrays God as a trinity and not as a modalistic God. At one point in the book, we see a scene in the kitchen of the Shack, where the father/mother god, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all in bodily form and having a conversation with each other about what they are cooking.  To portray all three members of the Godhead as being in the same place, at the same time, and all in different and separate forms absolutely does not fit with Jesus Only or Oneness doctrine.  It is the antithesis of Oneness doctrine. I don’t know how someone could draw the conclusion that The Shack is enforcing the modalistic point of view. I have had more than a little exposure to the modalistic viewpoint. Over the years, I have had many “debates” with Jesus Name or Jesus Only or Oneness Pastors and I can tell you, The Shack does not promote the view of this group. Not even close.

In fact, I will say that to draw such a conclusion about The Shack is to throw out a theological “red herring” that diverts the reader from something more serious. What I see as the primary problem with this book is that there appears to be a portrayal of God that seems to imply a sympathetic position concerning gender identity disorder. This book goes well beyond the concept that some people, because of a poor relationship with their natural father, struggle with the idea of God being masculine or “Father”. Such a thesis is very reasonable and it seems that there are many people who do have a problem when it comes to relating to God the Father. This is understandable. But, it doesn’t change who God is and, neither can any person change God into “something they can deal with”. And, this is exactly what the author of The Shack has done.

Not only is God portrayed as having a gender identity disorder but, Mack, the main character in the book also exhibits traits of gender identity disorder. This, I believe is the most serious problem with this book. At one point, on pages 147 – 148, we see Jesus and Mack having a conversation about the characteristics of men as compared to women and we see Jesus actually saying “…the world would be a calmer and gentler place if women ruled”.

And, then there are all the “touchy feely” moments as described between the three members of the Godhead. There are the times that God gives Jesus a kiss on the cheek as He is leaving the room and the moments when the Holy Spirit and Jesus hold each other and make protracted eye contact as if locked in some type of divine emotion for each other. It is all quite feminine to me. God is definitely not portrayed in a masculine way. And, here is a serious problem because the God that is portrayed in The Shack is very different than the God that is portrayed in the Bible. But, then again, The Shack is fiction. But, even though it is fiction, and even though it was not written as a serious theological treatise, it is being promoted extensively by the Christian media.

Next, there is the issue of the “independence” of man. The primary issue between God and man is described as one of man wanting to be independent from God. The book describes the original sin of man, in the Garden of Eden, as being one of seeking independence from God, not one of willful disobedience. Then, in a discussion concerning all of this, we see on page 149 where Jesus says “…My life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being My follower is not trying to ‘be like Jesus’, it (rather) means for your independence to be killed”. Again, remember that this book is a fictional writing.

It seems almost as if, when looking at pages 147- 148 that the book is implying that the world has all the problems that it has, because there are men in the world. In fact, Mack says exactly this on page 147. You can also see some of Mack’s struggle with masculinity on page 93.

It seems like, you could say that the meeting between God and Mack is described in a way that is extremely self-focused. It seems that Mack is describing his meeting with God as if it is all about him (Mack) rather than God. In other words, it’s like “God gets to meet me” rather than “I get to meet God”. There is a big difference. I mean, take a moment here and remember Isaiah chapter 6.

Again, The Shack is a fictional writing. But, fiction or not, an author will write from his or her life’s frame of reference. And, this leads me to believe that there is a whole lot of vicarious expression going on in this book. Not only through the character of Mack, but also through God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and I might add, there appears to be some vicarious expression going on with the character of Mack’s young daughter who is raped and murdered.

The other area of serious concern I see in this book is one of portraying Jesus as being against organized religion. One page 179 we see Jesus talking with Mack about religion and institutions. Then, we see Jesus inform Mack that He is against organized religious institutions. This is gravely serious. This implies that all Christians should abandon their organized churches and denominations and simply float around in some dreamy way without rhyme or reason and just “exist” and whatever will be will be.

The author of The Shack may have had his experiences with organized religion but, that doesn’t give him the authority to portray God as being against organized religion. In fact, if one reads the Bible, it can clearly be seen that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all supported, promoted and endorsed organized religion. It is heresy to say otherwise. If we don’t organize as Christians, then we will simply wander around aimlessly without focus, without direction and without vision or purpose. This is one of the most serious faults I find with The Shack and I think it is inexcusable for the author to have portrayed God as being against religious organization. But, then again, the book is fiction, right.

Some final thoughts on The Shack. Why is the family cat named “Judas”? Why is the word sin, and concept of sin, substituted with the word “sickness”. Why is the Holy Spirit portrayed as saying that it is OK to view the stories in the Bible as “myths or tales”? It appears that on page 182, the door is opened for Ecumenicalism.

One more thought before I close. I cannot help but address this issue. This book entitled The Shack is being portrayed as having been written almost on a whim, as having been written as an afterthought, as being thrown together on the spur of the moment. I think not. The book I read is not thrown together. It is masterfully written as far as writing skills and writing mechanics go. I think it is false humility to say that it’s just a momentary product of a momentary thought. It is not. And, it has generated a ton of money. This paperback copy sells for $14.99. This book has now sold over 2,000,000 copies. So, let’s see $14.99 x 2,000,000 = $29,980,000. My friend, this is not casual stuff. And, I can guarantee you this book will have a sequel. With that kind of money involved, are you kidding!

In closing, I will say that the real dangers of The Shack are found in the theological subtleties. And, these subtleties are significant. It seems that, in the book, you get the sense that God is portrayed as having to deal with Mack rather than Mack having to deal with God. It seems to be “all about Mack” and that the universe evolves around Mack. God is stripped of any and all sovereignty and majesty. God is portrayed as quite common. Granted, Jesus did come the first time in very lowly estate, born in a manger, a carpenter, lived a humble life and was crucified. But, that was then. If you read the Book of Revelation, we see a very different Jesus. Granted, Jesus does relate to us as a man and He is very human, but, He is at the same time God. It is OK, I believe, to think of Jesus in human terms and relate to Him as a man, but, at the same time, one cannot set aside Jesus as described in the Book of Revelation. And, it is this Jesus who will return.

Publish Date: January 10, 2009

read comments (0)

I have noticed a recent trend in television news interviews. It particularly deals with interviews of leading Christian figures as seen on some of the major news outlets. And, not only interviews with leading Christian ministers but, also leading politicians who claim to be Christian. There is a trend among some of our media elite to question the validity of the Bible. They ask the question “Do you believe that the stories as written in the Bible are literal and true? In other words, do you believe that the stories we read about in the Bible really happened?”.

The above question requires a yes or no answer. And, some of the answers that we hear people giving are surprising and, to say the least, disappointing. As a Christian, you must be able to say “yes” the stories in the Bible are true. If you are going to say “no”, then what is your frame of reference for giving such an answer? By what authority can anyone say that the Bible is not legitimate in regards to historical record? This is most important because whatever answer a person gives at this point will direct us to a source, or a body of knowledge, or a belief system that has greater authority than the Bible. To put it in street vernacular, if a person is going to say that the stories in the Bible are not true then, that person is claiming to have a source of knowledge greater than the Bible. What is it?

A brief note here before we move on. Why is it when someone who claims to be a Christian and that person is interviewed on national TV that we see their Christianity challenged. Why is it that we hear questions concerning the validity of that person’s religious belief system? Why do we not hear the same challenge to those of other religions? It is a clear and glaring double-standard. I mean, have your ever heard one of our great TV reporters, when interviewing a Muslim, ask that person if he or she believes that the stories in the Koran are true? Or, have you ever heard a TV news reporter, when interviewing a Hindu, ask that person if he or she believes that the writings of the Mahabharata or Bhagavad Gita are true? Even recently, we saw where reporter Cynthia McFadden conducted an interview with outgoing President Bush during which the authority of the Bible was discussed. So, why is such a question asked about the Bible and its validity? Just a thought.

One more note concerning TV interviews before we move on. Have you seen the earpiece that is often worn by the TV newsperson when interviewing? It is usually attached to the back of the person’s shirt collar and then is wired around, behind the ear so as to be as little noticed as possible. Well, when you see that, the interviewer is receiving communication from others who are sitting off in a room somewhere else in the studio. This can be, and is often more than one person. This is important in understanding how a national news interview is conducted. Have you ever wondered how a TV news interviewer can be so astute, so quick in their thinking, so abstract in their thoughts, so able to juggle the many variables and factors of the interview and ask such exact questions at the most precise time possible? They appear so confident as they often ask such questions with an insouciant and condescending smile. Indeed, the interviewers often come across as a super-genius in their ability to think and formulate their questions. How can the interviewer appear to be so brilliant as to ask the perfect question at the perfect time. There is a reason for this. If they have the earpiece in, then, in fact they are getting some of these great questions from others who are sitting in the production room off to the side. So, in essence, the interviewee is not being interviewed by just one person, but by others and they could be “experts” in the field of study of the subject being discussed. If you are having trouble with this reality then, ask yourself how many times have you heard a news reporter say “I’ve got to go, my producer is telling me it’s time for a commercial break”.

So, the question is “Do you believe the stories in the Bible are true?”. If someone is going to question the validity of the stories in the Bible then that person has a major problem on their hands. For you see, to challenge the validity of the stories in the Bible is to also challenge the validity of the words of Jesus Himself. You may ask how so? It is so because we see where Jesus many times in scripture quoted and made reference to the stories in the Old Testament. Therefore, if a person is going to say that the stories in the Bible are not true, then, you are also saying that the words of Jesus are not true. That’s right. A person who challenges the validity of the Bible is also challenging the validity of the words of Jesus. In essence, anyone who challenges the validity of the stories in the Bible is also calling Jesus a liar.

One of the Bible stories that often comes up is the story of Jonah and the whale. The experts try their best to debunk this story with all of their high-minded analysis. They give their natural analyses of their natural mind as they try to explain why the story simply cannot be true. But, in their analysis, as always, they leave out the supernatural and creative quality of God. Look, if God can create a whale and a man, and create the very sea that the whale lives in, then of course God is able to change the natural conduct of the whale and the natural process of the whale’s digestive system to accommodate Jonah for a few days to get Jonah’s attention. So, you see, to question the validity of the story is to question the greatness of God Himself. Is any man, and his feeble analysis, greater than God?

Next, we see in the New Testament, in Matthew 12:40 where Jesus makes the statement “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth”. Jesus is talking about His mission to save mankind. Jesus is making reference to His sacrificial death and uses the Old Testament story of Jonah spending three days and nights in the whale as an analogy of what He Himself is about to endure. Now, at this point, to say that the story of Jonah is not a true story would be not only challenging the authority of scripture but also calling Jesus a liar. Not only would you be calling Jesus a liar, but you would be calling Him a liar as He was talking about His sacrifice for the sins of mankind. This is extremely serious.
Read the rest of this entry »

read comments (0)