Blaugmenting Your Christian Worldview

Systematic Theology Volume One by Geisler

2011-12-05T09:27:00.001-06:00

I've been reading volume one of Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology for at least almost 4 years. Possibly longer. My first mention of it in a post was on April 25, 2008 where I quote an early paragraph. Now it can be purchased in one single, less expensive volume rather than in four volumes. I've never handled the single volume so I have no idea about its weight or font size for reading. Personally, I like having the four separate volumes though I will admit that combined sets are nice for those of us that have books taking up too much space.

Each of his volumes has two main areas of interest. The book covers two main cateogories: Prolegomena and Bibliology. With a M.A. in theology from Wheaton and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola, his background provides for a great mix to produce a very good read. Even his critics inside of Evangelicalism should like this work. Why? Because this book presents a high view of Scripture and a solid defense of it.

I've posted this paragraph from chapter 1 before, but it is an outstanding outline of his prolegomena:

Evangelical theologians believe the Bible is an infallible, absolutely true communication in human language that came from an infinite, personal, and morally perfect God. This belief presupposes that many things are true—most of which are challenged by our current culture. Evangelicalism presupposes that there is a theistic God (the metaphysical precondition—chapter 2) who created the world and can miraculously intervene in it (the supernatural precondition—chapter 3); a God who has revealed Himself in both general and special revelation (the revelational precondition—chapter 4); which revelation is subject to the laws of logic (the rational precondition—chapter 5) and which contains objectively meaningful statements (the semantical precondition—chapter 6) that are true objectively (the epistemological precondition—chapter 7) and true exclusively (the oppositional precondition—chapter 8); which statements can be properly understood in analogous language (the linguistic precondition—chapter 9), the meaning and truth of which can be understood objectively (the hermeneutical precondition—chapter 10), including those elements relating to historical events (the historical precondition—chapter 11); and which revelation can be systematized by a complete and comprehensive theological method (the methodological precondition—chapter 12).

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: Introduction, Bible (16–17). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

It's the most thorough prolegomena I've ever seen in a systematic theology and it is outstanding. Many people study theology (many more don't study it) but how many have first secured for themselves a good philosophical background? Having been reading philosophy now for over a decade, I could be wrong in this assessment, but I don't think you need a philosophical background to understand this book. That paragraph has some works with specific philosophical meaning that could be lost on initial reading. However, Geiser explains each of these sections very well.

His section on Bibliology is divided into three sections: Biblical, historical and theological.

In the Biblical section, Geisler explains origin and inspiration of the Bible. He also talks about the dual nature of the Bible. Much as Jesus is truly man and truly God, so the Bible is a product truly of man and truly of God. Very fascinating chapters. Lastly, in this section he has a chapter on Jesus and the Bible.

In the historical section, Geisler addresses how different people throughout history have view the Bible - both supporters and critics: church fathers, Evangelicals, fundamentalists, deconstructive critics, liberals, et al.

In the theological section he deals with the historicity of both Testaments and canonicity and inerrancy of the Bible. He also includes a summary chapter of all the evidence.

This review could be very long. It could be a multi-part series. Do yourself a favor and get a copy of this book. It's worth every penny. Make this your devotional book for 2012 (and beyond?). It's worth more than all the devotionals on the shelf at your local Christian bookstore combined.

Learn how to think in part one and then in part two learn why our high view of Scripture is justified.

Dr. Geisler, thank you for your work over the last half century. We all owe you.

Atheist Conversion to Christianity

2011-11-30T18:52:00.002-06:00

Here's a great account of an atheist who has converted to Christianity. I'm providing two links:

The first is to a post by this gentleman on Debunking Christianity.

The second is him talking about his becoming a Christian.

Between these two links you can see where he was and where he is today.

The Quotable Geisler (and Feinberg)

2011-11-24T08:32:00.000-06:00

One cannot do systematic theology without the aid of philosophy. The Bible provides the basic data for Christian theology, but theology is not systematic until it is “systematized.” For example, orthodox Christians believe in one God who eternally exists in three persons—the Trinity. Yet this doctrine is the result of several philosophical procedures. First, there is an inductive study of the Scriptures. Second, there is a systematic correlation of all the biblical data that relates to God. This yields, among other things, two premises: (a) There is one God, and (b) there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are God. Third, there is a logical deduction that is drawn from these two premises, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity: there is one God who exists in three persons.

Geisler, N. L., Feinberg, P. D., & Feinberg, P. D. (1980). Introduction to philosophy : A Christian perspective (74–75). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Christians and Halloween: Grace or License?

2011-11-04T16:28:00.000-05:00

I’ve never found a solid footing for a determined position for or against the Christian celebration of/participation in Halloween. For that reason, take what follows as only my current musings, fairly considered yet not a finished product. If you’re inclined to be offended, be also willing to consider having been an offense yourself. We will all give accounts individually for the way we live this life, so at the very least, let’s allow room for differences of opinion.

I want to attack this thing in two sections: the first will be an outright and unapologetic call for Christians to stop engaging in certain behavior(s) typically associated with halloween; the second section will deal more ambiguously with what remains for me a somewhat gray area and where I admit I’ve not formulated a concrete position. In the end, my opinion matters less than the gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe, but insomuch as my opinion has been shaped by Scripture, it is in that proportion, I suppose, I’d beg your indulgence and consideration.

Part One: Just Stop It!

Streams of photos clog the Facebook freeway following another year of Hallow’s Eve Hoopla. I usually enjoy Facebook, in part, for the very ability to share photos with others and to see in pictures what status updates only allude to. What I find disconcerting at this time of year is how many friends and acquaintances I have to block to avoid being bombarded by lewd photos of women in outfits that for some reason get a pass this time of year when at any other time would only be acceptable in the confines of a married couple’s bedroom. I don’t mean to be disproportionately critical of women in this post, but let’s face it - a man in the same get-up would be more likely to induce vomiting than to tempt someone to sin. My plea is this: if you’re a woman of God, be a woman of God all year. Give the world their one night a year to do what we expect the world to do, but do not become a stumbling block to a brother in Christ. I’m not exaggerating when I say that I’ve blocked between ten and twenty “friends” on Facebook for this reason. For anyone reading this and wondering if you might be one of them - you probably are!

I suppose I expect it from the world, but if it ended there, this post would be unnecessary. It seems the Church often mistakes the grace we enjoy in Christ for a license to do whatever we want. This is, of course, an overstatement, but as of late, I wonder how overdone it actually is. I find myself in a quandary attempting to understand the justification for certain behavior that can only be consigned to a large pile of reasons Christ’s atonement was necessary in the first place.

Part Two: Can we Talk about This?

I’ve already mentioned that my position in this section is less than concrete and I’m willing to be convinced of another’s view if it seems to square with Scripture. But let me get straight to it: is it wrong for Christians to dress up as ghouls, goblins and zombies? My immediate answer is...I need more time to answer that question. I am inclined, however, to put very strict limitations on halloween dress for Christians that would probably eliminate the aforementioned season favorites. Perhaps this is just my conservative upbringing more than anything, but I guess I don’t see much humor in dressing like a soulless vampire or axe murderer or any number of other costumes that have become mainstay personalities of this season. My first frank question is this: are any of these things honoring to Christ? Second, could any of them be demonstrated to violate any Christian principles of purity or loveliness? I understand the intention is not offend anyone by wearing such costumes, but if one must dress up (easy for me to say since I never do!), what is wrong with a cartoon character or historical figure? Why are blood and guts the first thing we’re inclined to adorn ourselves with? I submit that this is more likely evidence of an abiding sin nature than an exploration of new grace territory.

This may sound harsh, but for the past few years, I’ve really been troubled by this trend and would like to begin an open dialog. I am willing, as I said, to be convinced that these things are not as big a deal as I’ve made them out to be...and I mean that. But could it be, just as easily, that we’ve extended to the borders of Grace further than the good Lord intended? Shall we sin that grace may abound? With the Apostle Paul, let us say in unified voice “may it never be!” The hard part is now defining those boundaries! Let’s talk...

Three problems with a complaint against new translations

2011-11-02T09:55:00.000-05:00

One counter that I've often heard from those who think the KJV is the only Bible we should use and that we should reject new versions is that since new versions have come along, there has been a large spreading of false doctrine and luke-warmness in the church.

Three problems with this objection:

First, there has been a ton of fruit through churches who use new versions exclusively. John MacArthur uses the NASB, as does Chuck Swindoll and Tony Evans. Plenty of guys use the ESV such as R.C. Sproul and Norman Geisler. William Lane Craig uses the RSV as did Ray Stedman. The NIV was used by James Montgomery Boice and many others. Greg Laurie uses all sorts of new versions such as the NLT. Frankly, some of these men are among the most responsible for keeping the purity of the doctrine of our faith in this generation.

Second, the false claim that new Bible versions have been in existence during the recent period in which false doctrines and a luke warm attitude have increased among the church. The first accusation of luke-warmness was the Laodiceans. The Laodiceans didn't have an NIV or ESV or any other new version. Luke-warmness has existed in all periods of history. Also, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses came to exists in the period of the KJV and the KJV is the only version they'll use other than their doctored Bibles. This choice of theirs isn't because the new versions are watered down. No, the reason is that they can't twist the new versions as easily as they can the KJV. I am not claiming the KJV is bad because of this. I'm simply stating the fact on when these major cults came into existence and which Bible they will use to try to support their spurious doctrines.

Thirdly, if this were true, how come the KJV-only churches aren't all bursting at the seams with thousands upon thousands coming through their doors in repentance? The KJV is a fine translation, it isn't what those who trample on new versions make it out to be either.

Bottom line is to have a high view of Scripture in general and a reasonable understanding of each translation's strengths and weaknesses in particular --- including the KJV.

Now I know those who are overly in love with the KJV will attempt to deny the three points I made. If you don't have some really good information to refute those three pretty obvious points, your attempt to refute them will make your position look even more silly than it already looks. God is using many churches with new versions. The two biggest cults did come into existence while the new versions weren't here and most KJVO type churches aren't that successful. Trying to refute those points will make you look bad. Why not just admit those points? You can then change your view or simply hold your view, but admit you need to improve your case.

Notable Christians Open to Old Earth / Universe

2011-10-25T17:35:00.002-05:00

Here's a link to a list of many very recognizable names of whom you very well might have books in your library that are open to or endorse an old earth / old universe. While I provide the list of names here, the link gives a little more information about them.

Some names you may not be impressed with. Some of them don't impress me. However, many of them do impress me. When they talk, even if I'm inclined to disagree, I at least think that I must give them a listen. Many of them have no footprint in the scientific world. What I mean is that some of them have made their living entirely in the Christian community. They do not write any papers that get scientific peer reviews. So why should they hold to an old universe and old earth? Doesn't this sometimes hurt / hinder their ministry to some churches? In some cases, it really does. The only reason they have to hold to such an idea is that they simply think the facts support the idea.

Some of those names are men like John Ankerberg, Norman Geisler, Greg Koukl, J. P. Moreland, Walter Kaiser, Gleason Archer, Robert Godfrey and Lee Strobel. There are others, but this makes the point. What the scientific community thinks of them really isn't relative to their careers.

I'd also like to remind everyone that just because they are open to an old earth / universe (and some are beyond open, but actually do believe this), this doesn't mean they believe in Darwinian macro-evolution. Too many people are guilty of a straw man fallacy at this point of equating old earth / universe with Darwinism. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales

Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey

Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield

Average Joe Christian and Scholarship

2011-10-24T21:23:00.000-05:00

I am in at least some senses of the phrase, an "average Joe" Christian. I am merely a high school graduate. I have 14 college credits from an unaccredited Christian college. I've attempted local junior college twice and never completed a class - first time when I was 20 due to basically a lack of interest, the second time when I was much older due to the birth of my second son and the inability to give the attention due the subject of class.

With that intro, I'd like to share what I see as a strange relationship between segments of Evangelical Christianity and scholarship. It seems like quite a love/hate relationship.

Christianity wouldn't be nearly as prolific in the English speaking world as it is without scholarship. Ever think about what's involved with producing that English translation you have in your hand or on your coffee table or your bookshelf? It takes scholarship. Lots of it. Most respectable, reliable translations have translation committees including dozens of scholars. These men and women much be proficient in at least one of the Bible's original language (Greek, Hebrew and/or Aramaic) and proficient in English. Not only that, they must be proficient in properly interpreting things in context.

Translating isn't as simple as taking one Greek word and finding the equivalent English word. Like English, many Greek words have multiple meanings and the context determines which definition fits the context. So we can't always say Greek word X means Y in English. The context matters. So all translation also means interpreting is done at the same time. Many times Christians say they don't want the text interpreted for them with a translation like the NIV and so they want a KJV, NKJV, NASB or ESV or some other formal translation. What they fail to realize is even in those translations the translators interpret as they translate. It's a necessary "evil" of the task at hand.

While us English speaking Christians are very dependent on scholarship for our Bibles (whether we realize it or not) there is then often an inconsistency. There is an almost "lone wolf" attitude that the meaning of the text is discovered by "the Holy Spirit and me." There is often an expressed disdain for scholarship -- an anti-scholarship attitude. Consulting the scholars in commentaries is frowned upon. This is utterly incongruent with relying upon translations that come from scholarship. Oh . . . also don't forget your Strong's concordance (another piece put together by a scholar). If I have the Holy Spirit, my Bible and my Strong's then it is often thought that I don't need the scholars.

It can be arrogant depending on the person. It also usually involves misinterpreting one or more passages to come to this conclusion.

Many will point to a passage such as John 14:26 . . .

John 14:26 (ESV)
²⁶But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Is that what this verses is teaching? Is Jesus teaching that it's just the Holy Spirit and me and that I should frown upon scholarly tools and commentaries?

One problem with this idea is that if the Holy Spirit is teaching us all things (John 14:26), then how come we don't agree about everything all of the time?

There are multiple possibilities as to why this is the case. However, I don't want to explore them all in a blog post. Too much time and too much space. I think the simplest answer is the verse is misapplied. We take that verse as our verse. But who was the audience? Was Jesus referring to the entire church or to just the apostles who he was directly addressing? It seems it must be the latter.

Colin Kruse takes it this way in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary series:

This promise is very important for today because it provides assurance from the Lord himself that the first witnesses, whose testimony is preserved in the New Testament, would be instructed by the Spirit regarding the truths that Jesus taught them, even though at the time he taught them they often did not understand.

Kruse, C. G. (2003). Vol. 4: John: An introduction and commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (307). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Edwin Blum agrees . . .

The Spirit, Jesus said, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. This verse is addressed to the apostles. The context limits the “all things” to the interpretation and significance of His person and work. The Spirit worked in their minds, reminding them of His teaching and giving them insight into its meaning (cf. 2:22; 7:39; 20:9).

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Jn 14:25–26). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

So have a balanced approach to Christian scholars. They aren't inerrant. Their writings aren't God-breathed. However, they are a blessing to the church. Pick up their works, read, study, learn and grow.

KJVO and Unfalsifiabilty

2011-08-29T16:32:00.000-05:00

Over the last month I've been talking to a King James Version Only (KJVO) advocate who I have not talked to before. As we've been talking, I started thinking about KJVO and the concept of unfalsifiability. Now you might not find the noun unfalsifiability in your dictionary. In my dictionary, I found the adjective unfalsifiable.

un•fal•si•fi•able \ˌən-ˌfȯl-sə-ˈfī-ə-bəl\ adjective
circa 1934 : not capable of being proved false 〈unfalsifiable hypotheses〉

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Now I think KJVO is falsifiable. However, KJVO advocates make it unfalsifiable in regard to themselves. Nothing is allowed to count against the KJV with them.

The differences between the KJV and modern translations stem from two main causes:

translational differences
textual differences

Translational differences are when the KJV and a modern translation are dealing with the same Greek words, but translate them differently.

Textual differences are when the Greek words are different. This is where the KJVO responses get interesting. Many times newer translations go against the majority of the Greek manuscripts and only go with a few. Why? While at first glance that might not sound like a good idea, the issue becomes clear when you look at the manuscripts. Most of the time when modern versions go with a minority of manuscripts they are going with very ancient manuscripts. So while a reading in the KJV might have the majority of manuscripts, if the newer translations have a handful of manuscripts all dating before 500 A.D. then will often go with those if the majority are later chronologically speaking.

Where this gets interesting is when the KJV goes with the minority of texts. A good place to look at is Colossians 1:14. The KJV has a phrase, through his blood, which newer translations do not include. But at this point, KJVO change the rules. They still go with the KJV.

Well, Joe, could it be here that they have a case similar to what you just mentioned where there may be only a few but they are really early?

That would help their case. But the opposite is true. The few that have this phrase in Colossians 1:14 are much later. Early manuscripts don't have the phrase. So now there are two things against the KJV rendition:

it isn't in the majority of texts
the ones that have it are chronologically late

At this point we begin to see the unfalsifiability of the KJVO position. Why? Because one of their basic arguments is new versions go with the minority while the KJV goes with the majority. However, when that gets flipped and the KJV goes with the minority, then we still go with the KJV.

So a key question for KJVO proponents is:

If the KJV is incorrect at Colossians 1:14, how could it be proven?

The answer is for them that it cannot be proven false. The rules change to always make the KJV correct.

Another example is Luke 17:36. It isn't in newer translations. It's nothing earth shattering. It reads . . .

Luke 17:36 (AV)
³⁶ Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Newer versions don't include it . . . in Luke. They always include it at Matthew 24:40. And once again, it's not in the majority of manuscripts and the ones that do have it are not early. They are later manuscripts.

If the phrase in Colossians 1:14 was not written by Paul and if the verse in Luke 17 was not written by Luke, what would we expect to see in the manuscript evidence? Regardless of whether these were in the majority or not, I would expect that as we go back in time, at some point, we would find a line in the chronological sand where the verse or phrase don't appear anymore. If we go back far enough, a text that is not original, but was added later, would eventually disappear from the record if we go back far enough in time. And that is exactly what we find with these two verses and many, many others.

So, a good question for a KJVO friend would be . . .

What evidence would you allow that would convince you that Luke 17:36 was added rather than omitted?

Nicene Christianity

2011-08-22T12:46:00.000-05:00

The Nicene Creed. If you haven't memorized it, I'd encourage you to. I used to have it memorized when I was in the Roman Catholic church as a child and teenager. I used to recite it at every service. Now I believe it, but I can't recite it like I used to back then. It's not long.

It's where I am at today. I've spent a lot of the last 25 years reading and studying debates inside the church about secondary and tertiary doctrines. I've changed my views on a lot of those issues and I see them over-emphasized too much. I considered myself more of a Nicene Christian or Mere Christian (to borrow from C.S. Lewis). I still like to discuss the other doctrines, but I like teaching all the views for their strengths and weaknesses and not even sharing my view.

THE NICENE CREED
(A.D. 325; revised at Constantinople A.D. 381)

I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father and the Son;4 who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

4 The phrase “and the Son” was added after the Council of Constantinople in 381 but is commonly included in the text of the Nicene Creed as used by Protestant and Roman Catholic churches today. The phrase is not included in the text used by Orthodox churches. (See discussion in chapter 14, pp. 246–47.) The phrase “God of God” was not in the version of 381 but was in the version of 325 and is commonly included today.

Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (1170). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.

A couple short thoughts on the NIV 2011

2011-08-21T20:09:00.000-05:00

So the newest edition of the NIV was released this year. I purchased a copy in March and switched from re-reading the TNIV this year to reading the NIV 2011. Nothing earth shaking here, but I thought I'd post some initial thoughts.

First of all, I like the NIV family of Bibles and I like the new 2011. One thing noticeably different is it backed off quite a bit from the gender sensitivity of the TNIV. It's not eliminated. It doesn't go all the way back to the NIV 1984, but the language is more masculine than the TNIV. I think the entire gender sensitive issue was blown way out of proportion. I generally had no problem with what was in the TNIV or other conservative translations. Sometimes the wording seemed awkward to accommodate the issue. We need to be sensitive to how everyone might understand a passage. We, particularly those of us that are older, cannot take for granted that people will take masculine wording to mean all of humanity or both men and women in a congregation. That being said, a lot of the masculine language in older translations isn't a bias towards males in my opinion. A lot of it was just the convention of how speech was/is used. So do we need to be more sensitive or do we need to educate more on the conventions of language or is it both?

I noticed as I read yesterday a couple improvements in what could be called "junior high" humor.

Jeremiah 48:12 in the TNIV reads . . .

Jeremiah 48:12 (TNIV)

¹²But days are coming,”

declares the Lord,

“when I will send people who pour from jars,

and they will pour her out;

they will empty her jars

and smash her jugs.

Smash her jugs is just not the best word choice for our culture. It's clear what the text means. It's just so subject to junior high humor. The 2011 version reads . . .

Jeremiah 48:12 (NIV)

¹²But days are coming,”

declares the Lord,

“when I will send men who pour from pitchers,

and they will pour her out;

they will empty her pitchers

and smash her jars.

Another improvement was in the next chapter of Jeremiah. Here's the TNIV

Jeremiah 49:32 (TNIV)

³²Their camels will become plunder,

and their large herds will be booty.

I will scatter to the winds those who are in distant places

and will bring disaster on them from every side,”

declares the Lord.

Booty? Seriously? Booty is something you shake or that Captain Jack Sparrow is going after.

The NIV 2011 has . . .

Jeremiah 49:32 (NIV)

³²Their camels will become plunder,

and their large herds will be spoils of war.

I will scatter to the winds those who are in distant places

and will bring disaster on them from every side,”

declares the Lord.

Spoils of war is much better. Booty was also used in Chronicles in the TNIV and was changed to plunder in the 2011.

This year as I read the NIV 2011, I am listening to the TNIV as I read. Those two differences jumped out as major improvements. The vast majority of the differences I've heard haven't seemed as big of a deal.

For those who are exploring the NIV 2011 and are familiar with the TNIV, any differences you noted for better or worse?

1 Timothy 6:20 and the KJV

2011-08-07T17:45:00.001-05:00

I've been having an interesting discussion with a guy who rejects all modern translations and thinks the KJV is perfect. One of his objections to new versions stems from 1 Timothy 6:20 when he stated . . .

you don't have the warning to avoid the oppositions of "SCIENCE"

The KJV reads in 1 Timothy 6:20 . . .

1 Timothy 6:20 (AV)
²⁰ O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

The Greek word for science is γνωσεως from the root γνω̂σις. Transliterated into English it reads gnosis. It's translated 28 other times in the KJV as knowledge, not science. So I asked . . .

Why do you reject modern translations for being consistent and translating it knowledge every time and why does the KJV translate it as knowledge every time but this time?

His response was a fair one to start. He said to look at the context. So I gave him the other 28 references. He said science doesn't work there. Fair enough. But what about 1 Timothy 6:20? Why doesn't knowledge work there? Why is the KJV correct and all others wrong? And what was going on in the scientific community that Paul was warning Timothy about?

His response amazed me. He said . . .

The teaching or idea of evolution, the idea that we came from non-living matter outside of any God-like influence, has been with us forever. I don't have the science journals from 60 AD, and what's more, I don't think you do either. Men of science and those of philosophical expertise have almost always been in disagreement with Genesis and the Bible. ALWAYS! Not just 1859 and after.

Wow! Of course, if you looked at the word gnosis, you probably already see what Paul was warning about. Paul had already began to deal with some gnostic tendencies in Colossians and here it is again. Paul was warning about gnosticism.

I am not anti-KJV. I am pro-Bible. People on the KJVO side often complain about people saying they cannot understand the archaic words. I've always said it isn't the archaic words that bother me, it's the words we still use today that don't mean what we think they mean in the KJV. Science is a great example. Paul wasn't warning about science. He wasn't warning about Darwinian evolution and macro-evolution over time through the mechanism of gradualism. He wasn't warning about philosophical naturalism. He was warning about a group of spiritual elitists known as the gnostics.

This Christian, who chides other Christians for giving up using the KJV because they don't understand the KJV, holds a false view because he uses the KJV. If he used a modern version, he would not have made this gross error in interpretation.

Anonymous commentators

2011-06-15T21:39:00.000-05:00

I received another anonymous comment today. Just an FYI for everyone: I no longer publish anonymous comments: positive or negative. If you'd like me to consider publishing your comment, please leave a name. Thank you kindly.

Matthew 7:1

2011-06-13T17:33:00.001-05:00

I've been wanting to post for a while and like so many of you, there is just so many things to do that it seems I just haven't done any lately. Then something happened today that brought up a good subject.

An anonymous poster didn't like a post of mine and left a negative comment. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone of us that lays out our ideas in public will receive negative feedback. The person didn't like my May 9th post in which I wondered what Rob Bell might say in regard to where Osama Bin Laden is today. As probably everyone knows, the United States Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden and they did it not too long after Rob Bell's book Love Wins was released. While probably everyone knows about Osama Bin Laden, not everyone knows what Rob Bell's book is about. Rob Bell teaches the doctrine known as universalism, i.e. that everyone goes to Heaven.

Now with that in mind, I really have no need to wonder what Rob Bell's ultimate answer is as to where Bin Laden is or at least where he'll spend eternity. Osama Bin Laden will spend eternity in Heaven based on Bell's theology.

Perhaps someone might suggest I've never been a fan of bell and so I might not be being fair about his book. That's entirely possible. However, plenty of people who have been fans of Bell, including friends of mine have agreed that Bell is teaching universalism and they cannot agree with his newest book.

In an Amazon review by a person who has appreciated Bell's work up to this point, this reviewer stated the following . . .

I am also surprised that he keeps saying that he is not a universalist when that is what this book is about. "Love Wins" is a declaration that God's love will melt all hearts eventually, and all will be saved (maybe not right away but given enough time).

So people on all sides of the Rob Bell divide are in agreement that this book teaches universalism. And if everyone goes to Heaven in Bell's theology, then Osama Bin Laden goes to Heaven too.

I'm taking a long time to get to my point and for that I am sorry. So the anonymous commentator said I was judgmental and that needs to be overcome in my life. Ok. I try not to be. Most people don't look at that as a positive attribute. Who am I judgmental about - Osama Bin Laden or Bell? Anonymous didn't tell me.

If it's Bin Laden, we could say that I don't know for sure that he didn't place his trust in Jesus' substitutionary death on Bin Laden's behalf. Maybe he did before the end. Not likely, but possible.

Am I being judgmental in regard to Bell? I'm not judging Bell. But I am judging his teaching. But shouldn't we? Shouldn't we judge people's teachings? Where I think it was interesting is that Anonymous quoted Matthew 7:1 to me.

Judge not, that you be not judged.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mt 7:1). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

This is a favorite of all sorts of people. My first question to Anonymous would be to ask him/her if they are judging me? Surely, that's what happened. They made a judgment that I am judgmental and then told me about it. So Matthew 7:1 can't be used against someone in that fashion because if you or I use it that way, then we violate the verse in practice. We end up doing the very thing we are telling others not to do. So if that's the case, Anonymous, quit judging. Matthew 7:1 says judge not, that you be not judged.

But is the verse really telling us we are never to judge ever under any circumstances? Take a few minutes to do a survey of all the New Testament has to say about judging and see what you think. Take a look at the context of Matthew 7 and see what you think this verse means when it isn't isolated out of its context.

It's May 22 . . . now what?

2011-05-22T10:18:00.004-05:00

I can't fathom that any followers of Harold Camping are readers of my blog. But maybe you've stumbled upon this. So it's the day after May 21. Now what?

Don't give up on the triune God or the Bible. But do give up on Harold Camping. He's been playing games with numbers for decades and that is not how to interpret the Bible. Do you read any other book that way?

If you follow Harold Camping, or any other teacher, that doesn't just read the text, and look at the entire context and take it at that, but instead looks for hidden meanings in any way, such as numbers or equidistant letter sequencing, abandon that teacher. Find a teacher who reads not just a verse but entire paragraphs, chapters and books and interprets them that way in light of how the original audience would have / could have understood it.

There are plenty of good Bible teachers on the radio: John MacArthur, Chuck Smith, J. Vernon McGee, R.C. Sproul, Steve Gregg, Jon Courson, Skip Heitzig, James Montgomery Boice and many others.

I don't agree with everything that any of those guys say. At some points I disagree with each and every one of them. You may occasionally hear something a bit odd from one or two of them, but weird hidden messages isn't their normal method of teaching. Not all of them even teach the end times and the book of Revelation the same way.

If your pastor/teacher focuses almost exclusively on prophecy, then you might want to look somewhere else. Find someone that teaches through the entire Bible. When prophecy is what a portion of Scirpture covers, then great! Study prophecy at that time. The most important part of prophecy was for the people in Jesus day to be able to use prophecy to identify that Jesus was the Christ. Prophecy was never meant for you and I to know the times and the dates.

No one knows the day or the hour. Jesus told us. I don't even think they know the year or the decade or the century, though that is merely my opinion. That being said, many have predicted a year and failed. I've heard people say "in the next 20 years" and fail. It is not for us to know the times and dates. We just know that he will come like a thief in the night, i.e. when we aren't expecting it.

God is real. Jesus is the Christ. The Bible is God's word. All teachers are fallible. Not all teachers are worth listening to. Find a good teacher that teaches from Genesis to Revelation and teaches the text in its context.

Less than 2 days till God's judgment

2011-05-19T19:30:00.000-05:00

That's what Harold Camping claims.

Jesus said no one knows they day or the hour of his coming. Only the Father. So . . . go with Camping or Jesus? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

What would Rob Bell say?

2011-05-09T11:03:00.001-05:00

I think it's interesting that just shortly after Rob Bell's newest book, Love Wins, was released that Osama Bin Laden was taken down by the United States Navy Seals. I can't help but wonder now where Rob Bell thinks Osama Bin Laden will spend eternity.

I won't get a chance to interview Rob, but if someone who does have an opportunity to interview him somehow manages to read this, could you please ask him?

Ken Samples reflects on Obama's statement.

2011-05-03T21:43:00.002-05:00

Click here to hear Ken Samples reflect on Obama's statement, "Today is a good day for America . . . ". Worth listening to. It's about 24 minutes. Very good.

Jesus is the Father?

2011-04-28T21:02:00.001-05:00

I've participated in a couple conversations recently where people have claimed that Jesus is the Father. This is simply false. A great passage to share with those who think that comes from John 8 . . .

¹³The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”¹⁴Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. ¹⁵You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. ¹⁶But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. ¹⁷In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. ¹⁸I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Jn 8:13-18.

This is a debate going on between Jesus and the Pharisees - a common event when Jesus walked the earth. Jesus states that his own testimony is not valid, i.e. by itself. He quotes Deuteronomy to establish that the testimony of two witnesses is true. He then calls upon the Father as a second witness. If Jesus and the Father are the same person, then Jesus attempted to pull a fast one on the Pharisees. Jesus would have been lying. It would be like Clark Kent calling upon Superman to be a second witness. It just doesn't work.

There are many more passages that support the idea that while Jesus is God, Jesus and the Father are not the same person. You see, the Trinity is not a problem, it is the only solution that makes all the biblical texts make sense.

Do I reject the Gospel?

2011-04-24T15:00:00.000-05:00

While everyone is doing talks on the resurrection today, I'm going a different direction. I hate talking about Calvinism generally. Christians on both sides tend to get worked up. I am not a Calvinist. I probably own more books by Calvinists than any other branch of theology. I listen to more Calvinists' podcasts than anything else. However, I am a non-Calvinist.

Whenever I discuss the issue with others, which I try to keep to a minimum, Spurgeon's quote "Calvinism is the gospel" often gets tossed my way. So time for some heavy, serious thinking to see how much people really believe that comment. Here's the paragraph which the quote comes from . . .

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching : Featuring the Best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon and Others. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1996).

Now let me add that I agree with all of that paragraph. However, a lot of what gets included into Calvinism I do not accept. Thus, that paragraph is not a full description of Calvinism as I understand it. So, let me assemble a syllogism and see what you think.

Calvinism is the gospel.
Joe rejects Calvinism.
Therefore, Joe rejects the gospel.

The syllogism is inescapable in its form. So unless we declare one of the premises incorrect, then we'd have to conclude that I reject the gospel. I am curious what you think.

"I don't believe in the rapture. Where's the word rapture in the Bible?"

2011-04-10T16:30:00.000-05:00

Have you ever heard anyone say that before? I recently had a conversation with someone about the rapture. One problem with this term rapture is that it's largely associated with premillennial positions, particularly dispensational premillennielism or the pre-tribulation rapture. If you've read The Left Behind series, then you are familiar with this view more-or-less, for better-or-worse.

As far as I am able to discern, all Christians believe in the rapture. If not, they should because the Bible teaches it.

Well where in the Scripture is the word Rapture then, Joe?

In the English Bible, it's not there. The origin of the word is said to be from Latin. The Latin of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 reads,

deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

The word rapiemur is where it is said that our word rapture comes from. I don't know Latin but evidently if you squeeze that word from Latin into English, rapture is what comes out.

In the English Bibles it will read caught up or taken up or gathered up in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. So every Christian should believe in the rapture. It's just how the details pan out in how we might differ with each other. If you don't like the word rapture, then use the "catching up" or "gathering up" or "taking up." If you don't like those, then use the Greek word ἁρπαγησόμεθα. (that's harpagēsometha in English -- rapture's just easier so why not use that?)

So whether your pre, post or ammillennial, it seems to me we all should believe in the rapture. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 teaches it and it's just simply logical. Some of us are going to be here when Jesus returns, aren't we?

Besides that, it's just poor reasoning to reject the doctrine of the rapture over the absence of the word in our English Bibles. Should we not believe in the Trinity simply because that specific word isn't in the Bible in any language?

Defining Church Part 1

2011-04-09T21:23:00.001-05:00

I was at church.

I'm going to church.

Church is at 10:00.

The church burned down last night.

Church was awesome!!!

We often hear these phrases. I see tons of these as Facebook statuses on Sundays (except for the church burning down . . . I've never seen that). When you think of the word church, what do you think of? Obviously people often think of buildings and worship services when using the word church. In fact, it seems to me that is what people think of most of the time.

I'm about to do something demanding of you if you'll take up the challenge. I'm going to post every verse reference in the NASB that uses the word church. Now I don't have Blaugmenting set up where you can place your cursor over the verse and see it. I don't know how to do that. So, you'll have to get your Bible out and look these up if you're willing. The word church occurs 112 times in 109 verses in the NASB.

Most of the time it is the Greek word ekklesia. Ekklesia is translated 114 times in the NASB. It is translated as church or churches 109 times. It is translated as congregation twice (both referring to God's people in the Old Testament. It is translated as assembly three times where it refers to a gathering that was not the saints.

Buildings and worship services are not how that word is used in the New Testament. It's easy to determine this. Simply substitute the words building or worship service in place of the word church and you will see that the meaning is nonsense.

So what's my point? My point is to ask you to think and speak more biblically. You don't have to go through all 109 verses. But take a handful and look them up. Try the substitute test. Substitute the words building and/or worship service in place of church. It doesn't work. There might be a handful of times where it appears to work. That being said, even if one of those works in English, that is not how the Greek word was used. Now the real challenge is to try to change how you think and speak now to think and speak biblically.

So what does church mean? We'll look at that next time. You'll probably have it figured out after looking at some of these verses.

Matthew 16:18
Matthew 18:17
Acts 5:11
Acts 8:1
Acts 8:3
Acts 9:31
Acts 11:22
Acts 11:26
Acts 12:1
Acts 12:5
Acts 13:1
Acts 14:23
Acts 14:27
Acts 15:3
Acts 15:4
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:41
Acts 16:5
Acts 18:22
Acts 20:17
Acts 20:28
Romans 16:1
Romans 16:4
Romans 16:5
Romans 16:16
Romans 16:23
1 Corinthians 1:2
1 Corinthians 4:17
1 Corinthians 5:12
1 Corinthians 6:4
1 Corinthians 7:17
1 Corinthians 10:32
1 Corinthians 11:16
1 Corinthians 11:18
1 Corinthians 11:22
1 Corinthians 12:28
1 Corinthians 14:4
1 Corinthians 14:5
1 Corinthians 14:12
1 Corinthians 14:19
1 Corinthians 14:23
1 Corinthians 14:28
1 Corinthians 14:33
1 Corinthians 14:34
1 Corinthians 14:35
1 Corinthians 15:9
1 Corinthians 16:1
1 Corinthians 16:19
2 Corinthians 1:1
2 Corinthians 8:1
2 Corinthians 8:18
2 Corinthians 8:19
2 Corinthians 8:23
2 Corinthians 8:24
2 Corinthians 11:8
2 Corinthians 11:28
2 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 1:2
Galatians 1:13
Galatians 1:22
Ephesians 1:22
Ephesians 3:10
Ephesians 3:21
Ephesians 5:23
Ephesians 5:24
Ephesians 5:25
Ephesians 5:27
Ephesians 5:29
Ephesians 5:32
Philippians 3:6
Philippians 4:15
Colossians 1:18
Colossians 1:24
Colossians 1:25
Colossians 4:15
Colossians 4:16
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 2:14
2 Thessalonians 1:1
2 Thessalonians 1:4
1 Timothy 3:5
1 Timothy 3:7
1 Timothy 3:15
1 Timothy 5:16
Philemon 2
Hebrews 12:23
James 5:14
3 John 6
3 John 9
3 John 10
Revelation 1:4
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:20
Revelation 2:1
Revelation 2:7
Revelation 2:8
Revelation 2:11
Revelation 2:12
Revelation 2:17
Revelation 2:18
Revelation 2:23
Revelation 2:29
Revelation 3:1
Revelation 3:6
Revelation 3:7
Revelation 3:13
Revelation 3:14
Revelation 3:22
Revelation 22:16

Posts I'm working on

2011-04-09T15:18:00.000-05:00

Hey all, I'm working a few different ideas for posts. Topics include:

Rob Bell's new book Love Wins and questions that follow from that such as, Is Gandhi really in Hell?
Is Christianity only true for me because of where I was born? What about other people born in different places where another religion is the dominant religion of a nation? What if I had been born there? Does this prove all religions to be false?
Can it be the opposite of the above? Is it possible that instead of all religions being false, is it possible that all religions are true?
Is May 21, 2011 going to be the end? (It's so close I could just say we'll talk about it on May 22) Is December 21, 2012 going to be the end?

If there are other topics you'd like me to address or questions you have about what certain Bible passages mean or how they apply to us today, please feel free to send me an email or a message on Facebook.

It's been a year?

2011-04-05T18:44:00.000-05:00

Almost exactly one year ago I posted about a merging of ministries between myself and a local young man from the Braidwood area. I can't believe it's been a year already. Anyway, I recently made the adjustment to Blaugmenting to allow my friend, Jeff Whittum, to write and post at Blaugmenting. We've traveled some similar paths, yet have traveled some roads that the other hasn't traveled. I'm very pleased to share writing space with Jeff here at Blaugmenting.

The previous article about David Berlinski was Jeff''s first post at Blaugmenting. So when you read articles from now on, don't respond right away with, "Joe, that was a good post." Scroll to the bottom and see who wrote it because you'll like what Jeff writes too.

A Review of David Berlinski’s Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

2011-04-05T14:59:00.001-05:00

Alright, I finished this book a couple weeks ago and don’t even have it in hand to review it as it is currently on loan to a friend. So I probably shouldn't attempt a full-on review of it, but I would like to say a few things about the book to hopefully entice others to pick it up and read it.

First, a little bit about the author: David Berlinski was born in 1942 (in the U.S.) to German-born refugees. He received his PhD. in philosophy from Princeton University and has since held teaching positions at Columbia, Rutgers and Stanford. He is currently a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute - the leading think-tank of the Intelligent Design movement. And this is where things get interesting - most fellows at the Discovery Institute are committed theists. Berlinski is not. He was raised in a Jewish home and trained in that system of belief. He no longer holds to that faith and now describes himself as a “Secular Jew.”

A known ciritic of Darwinian Evolution, David Berlinski has been criticized by many of his academic peers for not toeing the line, so to speak. Having no intellectual residence with the atheist wing of the science department, and yet not embracing the main tenet of his fellows at Discovery (namely, a particulary Detiy), Berlinski is, to my mind, quintessentially objective, so much as anyone can be objective, in this field. To sum it all up, he seems to have no irons in the fire and no axe to grind.

So what of his new(ish) book, The Devil’s Delusion??? Well, the book is not specifically an attack on Darwinism, or even a direct assault on atheism (keep in mind he himself is an agnostic). The main contention of his book seems rather what the subtitle suggests - that scientific inquiry while posited as in some way underlying a conclusion of atheism, is not warranted. Really this book is a response to a movement, rather than a system of thought. It’s almost religious in nature...and that’s the irony. Those with whom Berlinski is contending (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) would no doubt claim to be the most irreligious men on the planet. But their passion for religious denial is simply none other than...well...religious.

Writing in a constant stream of quotable quotes, I’ve quipped to others that this book is one of those which, if you were prone to underlining or highlighting, you’d be better off finding a vat of highlighter ink and dipping the whole book in - it’s really THAT good. At times the language gets pretty technical, and, to be honest, I would have had to take much longer to read it if I were to understand everything in it. But the basic concepts were understandable and that is what systems of thinking are built on - basic foundations that give rise to eventual conclusions. What I most liked about Berlinski’s style was that he was clearly a logical thinker. But often a logical thinker is not always a very articulate person and hence, while they may be thinking and speaking the truth, are unable to be very convincing when relaying that truth to someone else. Berlinski has achieved both ends. He thinks with air-tight logic that just seems to flow effortlessly into articulate prose. On page after page, he dismantles the scientific pretensions that are supposed to under-gird the new atheist movement and show the men that espouse those pretensions for what they are - grumpy men with a bone to pick.

If for no other reason than objectivity, I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone - Christians, non-Christians, Atheists, Agnostics. If our fundamental pursuit is truth (and really is truth, not just evidence-picking to promote our presuppositions) then what better type of author than one who stands firmly in the middle ground - unconvinced by either side of the debate? I’ve told people before that I believe David Berlinski is the man the new atheist movement wishes did not exist. It’s easy to pick on a devout Jew or Christian and say “you’re spiritual goggles don’t allow you to see clearly.” But when the man is wearing no goggles at all, that mode of attack is not left open to them. So, I say again, if for no other reason than to gain a mediating view of these issues, please read the book. I’m sure you’ll be stretched, challenged, impressed and enriched from having done so.

New Versions are Vatican Versions?

2011-04-02T19:24:00.000-05:00

Well, I spent two hours today watching a video series on Youtube entitled New Versions are Vatican Versions. Now I have no doubt that Greg Miller loves Jesus. I'm sure he has a great heart. I'm sure he's trying to protect the integrity of the Word of God. I think that's how most King James Version only advocates are. They are my brothers. They are my sisters (though many of them probably wouldn't appreciate translating ἀδελφός as "brothers and sisters").

But I got a kick out of a section of part 3 of his videos on this. He pointed out that Mark in the KJV has 678 verses. Then he pointed out that the new versions reject the last 12 verses of Mark thus they have 666 verses in Mark.

A couple problems . . . the verse divisions, unless a person views them as inspired by God, are an accidental coincidence. So there is no real evidence that this is some stamp from God on the KJV or stamp of the devil on new versions.

The second problem, which I get a kick out of, is that he pointed out in part two that Mark 11:26 is not present in new versions. He didn't account for that verse in his math.

666 - 1 = 665.

Well . . . there goes that theory.

Promises We Can't Claim; Promises We Can

2011-03-01T08:16:00.001-06:00

Click here

Why Good Philosophy Must Exist

2011-02-20T00:00:00.000-06:00

To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (New York: Macmillan, 1949), p. 50.

Norman Geisler / Paul Feinberg quote worth thinking about

2011-02-19T00:00:00.002-06:00

Without a thorough knowledge of philosophy the Christian is at the mercy of the non-Christian in the intellectual arena.

Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy : A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1980), 73.

Redemption

2011-02-18T07:44:00.007-06:00

redemption: Christ’s saving work viewed as an act of “buying back” sinners out of their bondage to sin and to Satan through the payment of a ransom (though the analogy should not be pressed to specify anyone to whom a ransom was paid).

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1253.

I keep picking "tion" words because they are not all synonyms for salvation. Each shun word has a different angle poured into the word. So while words like justification and redemption both refer to salvation, they have different word pictures attached to them. Justification is judicial in its word picture. Redemption has the word picture of a slave being purchased. Read Hosea for a great word picture of redemption where Hosea purchases Gomer.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Ro 3:22-24.

Go back and read my post for justification and then with the definitions for justification and redemption in your mind see how much fuller Romans 3:24 becomes to you than it ever has before.

With justification we picture a judge slamming the gavel down declaring the charged person as being "not guilty." With redemption, we are slaves that have been purchased from our former master, sin.

Tithing, it's not for you and me Part 5

2011-02-17T00:00:00.000-06:00

Back to visiting the tithing subject a little bit. I've heard a few pastors that I like preach on this subject lately . . . men that teach that Christians should tithe. One of my favorite pastors to listen to over the years has been Jon Courson. I quoted him earlier in this series. Here's the argument . . .

To those who protest that the concept of tithing being prescribed in the law is no longer relevant to those who live under grace, I point out the following: Tithing is seen prior to the law when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20).

Jon Courson, Jon Courson's Application Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 380.

You'll recall that in my first post I listed every New Testament reference to the tithe. Only three books even mention it: Matthew, Luke & Hebrews and none of them command it. I claim that it is an Old Testament teaching, part of the Law. Jon claims that my point isn't sound because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek and this was prior to the Law. The first problem with this argument is that Jon must be using the word law in a very narrow sense. The word law is often used of the first five books of the Bible, also called the Pentateuch or the Torah. If that were the case, then Abraham's account is included. Another way the term law is sometimes used is of the entire Old Testament in which case Abraham's account is again included.

Check out what scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix write . . .

Although the term Law was often reserved for the first five books of the Hebrew canon as a shortened form of the expression "the law of Moses," it was sometimes used to refer to the Old Testament as a whole.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1968, 1986) p. 80.

They go on to give several examples such as Matthew 5:18 or Jesus quoting Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 and Jesus referring to that Psalm as law. The term the law, as Geisler and Nix pointed out, often refers to the entire first five books of the Bible which would include the account of Abraham tithing to Melchizedek.

Courson's counter only works if we restrict Law very narrowly.

So problem one is Courson and others who use the argument can be guilty of equivocating on the term. When Christian pastors and teachers say we are not under the law, and thus not under the tithe, they are using the term in a much broader sense.

The second problem with Courson's argument . . . let's grant the narrow definition and let's say that Abraham tithed before the law. It still doesn't work because of a similar Old Testament practice. Circumcision was practiced first by Abraham before the law. If the tithe is valid because Abraham practiced it before the law, then by the same logic circumcision is still valid because Abraham practiced it before the law. Now I don't hear any pastors teaching circumcision is for today.

How might that be countered? Pastors might say the New Testament is clear about circumcision. Yes, it is. However, I believe the New Testament was using circumcision as a pattern for how we relate to the Old Testament. If Paul's letter to the Galatians was just about not being circumcised, then that letter has no practical input to our walks today. That entire book demonstrates our relationship, or lack thereof now, to the law. And tithing is part of that old relationship.

Again, I refer you to the letter sent by the Gentile churches in Acts 15. They laid very little on the Gentile churches. So why do Gentile pastors want to add more?

Whatever you give, however much you give, give cheerfully.

Doctrines that Divide, Part 5

2011-02-16T04:45:00.003-06:00

Rule # 5

Claiming to have “Christ-centered” theology. This is much like claiming “I just follow the Word of God.” It’s a back-handed ad hominem. Don’t we all claim to have Christ-centered theology? This is another good way to shut dialogue down.

This is one that I find more common in the Calvinism v. non-Calvinism discussions. My response is that I want "truth-centered" theology and that by being truth-centered, it is necessarily Christ-centered.

For example, two branches of systematic theology are anthropology (study of man) and demonology (study of demons). These by nature are not "Christ-centered." We must be truth-centered on these. What does the Bible teach us about humanity? What does the Bible teach us about demons? I see the same idea towards soteriology (study of salvation). If God truly teaches five-point Calvinism, i.e. if that is the truth, then let's follow it. However, if the truth is that of some non-Calvinistic perspective, even if in the Calvinist's mind it somehow diminishes the glory of God (but if God created the world that way, then it cannot diminish God's glory), then that is still more Christ-centered as it is in accord with reality.

I want to be careful in how I package my truth claims. I am fallible and I don't want to stack the deck with how I use language. We need to have an attitude that puts our views on the examination table in every discussion.

Doctrines that Divide, Part 4

2011-02-15T04:43:00.002-06:00

Rule # 4

Claiming that “I just follow the Word of God”. Isn’t that what we all are trying to do? No Calvinist is going to say they put Calvin over the Bible. No non-Calvinist is going to claim they put any teacher over the Bible. This kind of a comment is a useless jab that adds heat and not light to the discussion. If you want to ruin a discussion, be sure to make a claim like that.

I hear these kind of comments in eschatological (last things) discussions also. As I've pointed out in the past, Hank Hanegraaff calls his partial preterism view "exegetical eschatology." Wouldn't all theologians claim this about their view? Whether they be mid, post or pre-tribulational or pre, post, or amillennial? Hank calling his view "exegetical eschatology" does nothing to further his point and his a sort of slap at the other views.

Inerrancy

2011-02-13T00:00:00.000-06:00

[T]he inspiration of Scripture is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit who, through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors, invested the very words of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach (including history and science) and is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for the faith and practice of all believers.

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), 498.

Doctrines that Divide, Part 3

2011-02-12T19:37:00.003-06:00

I've decided to change the title of this series from Calvinism v. non-Calvinism to Doctrines that Divide. While I started it because I've been interacting with Calvinists in a few different discussions, the ideas I'm sharing are things that help me with any issue that different Christians have varying opinions about whether it is the Calvinism discussion or eschatology or baptism or the Lord's Supper or the age of the earth/universe or church government or spiritual gifts and on the list goes.

3) When reading the opposing view, I don’t want to read it just to refute it. I need to read it to determine if they have truth and if they make a good case against something in my own view. Using a baseball analogy, if the other side throws a strike, call it a strike. If my own view throws a ball, call it a ball. It’s easy to do the reverse. It’s easy to call everything our own view throws out there a strike and it’s easy to call everything the opposing view throws out there a ball. Be as objective as possible. We all are fallible. I could be wrong. So can you. If I am wrong, do I want to cling to my error? Certainly not! If your view is not correct, you don't want to continue to hold on to a false view, do you?

Calvinism v. non-Calvinism Part 2

2011-02-11T08:21:00.006-06:00

My second rule for my dealings with Calvinism v. non-Calvinism . . .

2) Spend equal time, if not more, reading the opposing view rather than my own.

There are a couple reasons for this.

I am more likely to read books I agree with. I need to balance that.
I won't grow as much if I read a book which I already agree with. The author of an opposing view has a greater chance of challenging me.
A book authored by someone I agree with is not as likely to show the weaknesses of my view as a book written by an author who opposes my view.
I need to represent the opposing view fairly and make sure I truly understand their position. The best way to do that is read books written by people who hold the position rather than those written by those who hold my position.
Try to find out who the best authors of the opposing views are on the opposing view.

In regard to points 3 & 4, an author from my own view may do a fair job of presenting the weaknesses of my position and may do a fair job presenting the opposing view. This type of author however, isn't usually easy to find. Even if you find such an author, I'd still recommend reading good authors from the opposing views.

Another thing you may have noticed is that these ideas can apply to other issues than just Calvinism v. non-Calvinism. You can apply it to anything really. A good example would be that I've spent most of my years as an Evangelical in Dispensational Premillenial churches, i.e. they teach a seven year tribulation with a pre-tribulational rapture. How many believers of the pre-tribulational rapture actually spend quality time reading the best authors of differing viewpoints nevertheless any authors of the opposing viewpoints? Too often we hear about the opposing view(s) from our favorite pastor. Well, if that's all you've done, you haven't given the other view a fair chance. Frankly, you aren't giving your own view a "fair" chance either in listening to only those who preach it being the ones who hold it.

In regard to point 5, read the best authors of differing views. I commented a couple years ago about Hank Hanegraaff's book The Apocalypse Code. Hank's book makes a hard stance against Dispensational Premillennialism. That being said, Hank's primary target is Tim LaHaye. After that it's John Hagee, Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith for some other examples. I think he should interact more with men like Norman Geisler and John MacArthur. By picking men like LaHaye and Hagee rather than Geisler and MacArthur, Hank's presentation seems more like Kramer dominating the dojo.

Calvinism v. non-Calvinism

2011-02-10T08:52:00.006-06:00

I really don't enjoy this subject. However, I've run into it in multiple locations lately and it is worth addressing on Blaugmenting. I'm not going to attempt to solve the problem. This debate has been raging for centuries. The best minds haven't put the problem to rest, how can I think that I should pull it off? I won't. It will continue to rage.

That being said, I think we can make the discussion better by keeping some basic things in mind:

1) Both sides, Calvinists and non-Calvinists believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone by Jesus' death, burial and resurrection alone.

Fox News Blunder

2011-02-07T00:00:00.001-06:00

Check out this article from Fox Nation. The first sentence reads . . .

President Obama misquoted a familiar Bible verse during a faith-based address at the National Prayer Breakfast.

You can go ahead and read the whole article -- please do. I did not quote that out of context. The problem here is Fox is incorrect. They go on to claim that Obama misquoted Isaiah 40:31. They make the conclusion by quoting the King James Version. Obama wasn't quoting the KJV. Obama appears to have blended several versions into a paraphrase.[1] Besides that, it's not as though these different translations change the content. They say the same thing in Isaiah 40:31 with minor wording variations. See my chart below. We would expect this minor variation from translations in which one is from 1611 and the others are from the late 20th century. Fox should retract this and apologize.

I am not an Obama fan. The stance that Fox news takes on many, if not most, issues is the same stance I take. That being said, we cannot do whatever it takes to sway people to our point of view no matter what side of the fence you are on any issue. The means to an end do matter.

If you are a conservative, and if you are a fan in particular of Fox, do not come up with some bogus defense of what happened here. If a non-conservative friend of yours challenges you on this, be honest and say that Fox messed up unless you want to mess up your credibility with your friend(s).

I expect this kind of reporting from an uneducated blogger. I expect better from any professional news outlet no matter how conservative or liberal their politics are.

[1] The source I read claimed Obama quoted the NIV. According to Fox, Obama said, "Those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint." Near the beginning of the verse both Obama and the King James Version use the word wait while the NIV uses hope and the NLT uses trust. If the Fox quote is accurate, Obama omits the part about the renewing of strength. The NLT states they will soar high on wings like eagles. Neither Obama nor the NIV use the word high. Obama inserts the conjunction and between each of the main clauses which neither the KJV, NIV nor NLT does. The NIV ends the verse and not be faint whereas Obama ended the verse and not faint (note the absence of the word be) which is how the NLT renders it. Bottom line is that Obama did some sort of blended paraphrase of the KJV, the NIV, and the NLT and he did not do any gross injustice to any of them.

Glorification

2011-02-06T00:00:00.000-06:00

Glorification The final step in the process of salvation; it involves the completion of sanctification and the removal of spiritual defects.

Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 76.

glorification: The final step in the application of redemption. It will happen when Christ returns and raises from the dead the bodies of all believers for all time who have died, and reunites them with their souls, and changes the bodies of all believers who remain alive, thereby giving all believers at the same time perfect resurrection bodies like his own.

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1242.

³⁰ And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 8:30.

Start of the study -- Tonight!!!

2011-02-05T00:00:00.002-06:00

Our new home Bible study starts tonight. As I have previously posted, the format is very diverse. The first Saturdays of each month will be debate nights. We will listen to debates between leading Christian philosophers and/or theologians and atheists or adherents of other religions or cults or even between two Christians on an "in-house" debate. These first Saturdays will be long in duration as if you went to the event yourself.

We will meet at 7:00 pm. Tonight we will listen to Dr. William Lane Craig debate philosopher Keith Parsons. If 100 people show up, we'll listen (though I don't know where'd I'd put 100 people). If only one person shows up, we will listen. If no one shows up, I'll enjoy listening to it again. So come on over and hang out and learn. You don't have to bring anything but yourself.

If you want to come but don't know how to get here, then call me, text, me or facebook me if you need directions.

Tithing, it's not for you and me Part 4

2011-02-04T11:08:00.002-06:00

Why do churches teach the tithe is for today? My personal opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that one reason may very well be to support the machine we've built. It may not even be a deliberate, premeditated motive. I know tithing is not preached because of good, solid New Testament exposition. True expository teaching of the New Testament would eliminate the tithe from all our churches. We have large churches with large buildings that must have the mortgages paid and the utilities paid. We have full time staff instead of lay ministers who make tents for a living. Meanwhile our neighbors all over the country are getting their homes foreclosed on them in the last few years.

It's not wrong to own a building. It's not wrong to be a paid minister. And I'm not wanting to put anyone out of a job that makes a living via the ministry. For many, that is what they have done all their life. I'm just asking if there is a better way looking toward the future. Would the church meet the needs of our communities better if we had more lay ministry? Would the church meet the needs of our communities and the world better if we had more house churches? That's all there was in the New Testament - house churches. I am not saying we must do everything the way it was done in the New Testament. That being said, I think it is a good idea to ask questions like these.

We need the seminarians. We need the scholars who can read the Greek and Hebrew. I see them as sort of our apostles of today. But remember, the original apostles were laymen. It wasn't scholars that mostly turned the world upside down. They were fishermen. They were tax collectors. They were tent makers. How many Pharisees did Jesus pick? How many of the Sanhedrin? He picked only one -- Paul. Oh Jesus did pick others for salvation, but they weren't leaders in the movement. Other than Paul, the leaders were laymen who spent time with Jesus (Acts 4:13). And even then, Paul still worked with his hands to support the work.

What if every single dollar in the USA for the last year that had been spent renting spaces and paying for church building mortgages and utility bills had been used to pay for people's food and mortgages and car repairs? Who do we blame this current economic crisis on? Democrats? Republicans? Or should we spend some time looking at the church? Do we need a building at the corner of Elm & 1st for people to know about the church? Not at all. We need people who make a difference in their community. We need Christians who live on Monday the same way they live on Sunday morning.

God has blessed me. I think it is time for me to give my money to people who really need it and to para-church organizations that equip me rather than to churches that in many cases I don't think are doing what needs to be done in the first place. I think the church would make more of a difference if instead of preaching 10%, we had people giving 5% directly to those who really need it. And they might not stop at 5%. They might not stop at 10%. Who knows? But every one could give whatever they wanted and they could give it cheerfully. No pressure to maintain the machine. And God would like all the cheerful giving.

I used to want to be in full time ministry. In my life, I have made a complete 180 degree turn. I still want to do ministry. I do it now and I will never stop. A Bible study at my house -- no minister to pay. I have a job. Also, no building to maintain. It's my house and my wife and I maintain it (meaning she maintains it mostly while I supply the funds). Come to the study. Give your money to someone who needs help because I don't need your money, but someone else who's "down on their luck" does need it.

Tithing, it's not for you and me Part 3

2011-01-31T03:30:00.000-06:00

Another question is

Give to what?

When we look at 2 Corinthians where Paul talks about cheerful giving, what was it giving to? Take some time and look at New Testament giving. Read entire chapters. It was taking care of poor Christians in dire circumstances. It was not about paying for church buildings. There weren't any church buildings. It was not spent on rent for the church building because they met in houses. How much money do we lose each year to lenders who rent our churches space and to lending agencies who provide mortgages? Would the church be better known if it didn't have a building but helped the homeless or the family out of work to make a mortgage payment on their house or the single mom who can't afford her car repairs to keep her car running so she can get to work? Would people begin to see it more as a movement from Jesus rather than another group trying to pick their pocket?

Tithing, it's not for you and me Part 2

2011-01-30T00:00:00.006-06:00

Many pastors teach tithing to the church today. However, as we saw the first post, it's barely ever talked about in the New Testament. It is never talked about in Gentile epistles. It is only talked about in Matthew, Luke & Hebrews.

Many pastors, even ones who teach tithing, talk about cheerful giving based on 2 Corinthians 9:7. I think that it is true that God wants cheerful givers. They have that part correct in their teaching. However, tithing doesn't make most people cheerful. It makes the poor feel condemned and it makes the rich feel self-righteous. Let me repeat that. Tithing makes the poor feel condemned and it makes the rich feel self-righteous. Now that is more of a proverb or a generality than a universal law. Some rich folks get it. They get that they are sinful and that giving doesn't make them righteous. And they know that 10% isn't really a sacrifice for them and so they do give more. Some poor folks get it. They may even give 10% cheerfully. But how few really do get that? How many more feel condemnation? You saw it in the Luke 18 portion from part 1 of this series. The Pharisee was tithing. And he was proud of it. If we taught New Testament giving, the poor who don't have a spiritual gift of giving, instead of feeling condemned for not giving 10%, would become cheerful because they gave 5% or 2% or 1% or even less than that to something they believed was worth giving to. And God would be delighted in that cheerful giving.

If someone has a family and is pulling in $30,000, it can be very hard to be cheerful about giving $3000. It would be a burden. It can actually push them away from Jesus. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, a person making $300,000 can easily give away the other person's entire salary of $30,000 and still live very well. In fact, they may barely feel it. Not much sacrifice at all.

Whatever you can give cheerfully, give that and let our Father be delighted.

Next Saturday, February 5th

2011-01-29T14:22:00.001-06:00

Next Saturday, February 5th, we are starting a Saturday night Bible study at our home. It will not be typical. It will not be a normal, average Bible study. It will be more intense in content than anything you've likely been to. It is because of that, that you need to come.

So come on out Saturday. I've posted the format but will do so again now. Each Saturday of the month will focus on a different thing.

First Saturdays of each month: debate night. We will listen to a debate between an Evangelical scholar and an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Morman or a Roman Catholic or maybe even another Evangelical scholar on an "in-house" disagreement.

Second Saturdays of each month: Ambassador Basic Curriculum. We will listen to Greg Koukl's ABC's (Ambassador Basic Curriculum). Here is a link to the contents. But believe me, those titles don't do justice to how good this material is. If you look at a title of a message and think to yourself, "I've heard about that. I don't need this," then you are making a mistake. Greg is the best at teaching how to communicate our message to those outside (and sometimes inside) the church. It's 15 parts. So what do we do after the 15th month? We start over. I don't think we can hear this stuff enough until we have it down perfectly. People can join anytime in the 15 part series. They don't have to be here at the beginning.

Third Saturdays of each month: Bible study. I'll often be teaching these. Possibly an entire Bible book in a week so we can see the big picture of a book. All the little parts much contribute to the big picture. So often I think we misinterpret things because we aren't looking at the big picture. Another possibly is to break a book up into chunks where we teach at least a chapter per week. Sometimes I might use an audio or video to teach a book if I'm really impressed with something I hear or see.

Fourth Saturdays of each month: video week. We'll watch videos on cults or creation or even a secular movie and talk about the messages broadcast in the movie - for better or worse, and how it is impacting or could impact our culture.

With this format, one need not be here every week. So you don't have to worry about every Saturday being tied up if you want to do other stuff. Come every 2nd Saturday or every 3rd, or the 1st and 3rd. Or come to all if you'd like - whatever suits your schedule.

Tithing, it's not for you and me Part 1

2011-01-27T23:35:00.003-06:00

There are a lot of pastors who teach that Christians should tithe and/or that Christians should at least tithe and then give offerings beyond a tithe. A lot of pastors that I enjoy listening to teach the tithe for the church today. Unfortunately, it appears that they haven't read their Bible very carefully. I'm not saying that arrogantly. I'm just stating it as a matter of fact.

We are the New Testament church. Do you realize how little the tithe is spoken of in the New Testament? It's only mentioned in three books: Matthew, Luke and Hebrews. It's never mentioned once in any epistles to Gentiles. And even when it's mentioned in Hebrews, it's not brought up to encourage them to do it. Hebrews is a book written to Hebrew Christians basically encouraging them not to be Hebrews anymore, but to be Christians. The tithe is only mentioned tangentially in Hebrews as the writer explains that the Levitical priesthood has been superseded.

Let's look at the times the tithe is mentioned in the New Testament. Let's first look at the gospel accounts:

²³“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ²⁴You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Mt 23:23-24.

That certainly isn't a passage telling the church that we should continue the Old Testament practice of tithing. The next gospel passage is Luke 11:42. It's the exact same thing as Matthew just mentioned. Then we find it in Luke 18:12. You know the account. Here it is with some context.

⁹To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: ¹⁰“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. ¹²I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

¹³“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

¹⁴“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Lk 18:9-14.

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, ²and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” ³Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

⁴Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! ⁵Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their kindred—even though their kindred are descended from Abraham. ⁶This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. ⁷And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. ⁸In the one case, the tenth is collected by those who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. ⁹One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, ¹⁰because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Heb 7:1-10.

This is all just the author of Hebrews recounting where Abraham and Melchizedek meant and then using the tithe to explain Melchizedek's superior priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. Nothing in here is the author telling New Testament Christians to tithe. I'd encourage you to go read Hebrews 7 and 8 for more context to see the point the author is making.

And there you have it - the entire New Testament commentary on the tithe. I will comment more in part 2.

Quotable Tony Evans

2011-01-27T00:00:00.000-06:00

I heard Tony Evans make this great statement about the "prosperity gospel."

"Any theology that works for Christians in America that doesn't work for Christians in China is heresy."

From his message The Abuse of Stewardship.

Sanctification

2011-01-26T00:00:00.000-06:00

Sanctification The divine act of making the believer actually holy—that is, bringing the person’s moral condition into conformity with the legal status established in justification.

Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 175.

sanctification: A progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and more like Christ in our actual lives.

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1253.

¹⁵ What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! ¹⁶ Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? ¹⁷ But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, ¹⁸ and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. ¹⁹ I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

²⁰ For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. ²¹ But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. ²² But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. ²³ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 6:15-23.

4 Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. ² For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. ³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; ⁴ that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, ⁵ not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; ⁶ that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. ⁷ For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. ⁸ Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Th 4:1-8.

Why teens, young adults are leaving American churches

2011-01-25T00:00:00.004-06:00

Click on this link to read this article that you need to read.

Six Megathemes Emerge from 2010

2011-01-24T00:00:00.000-06:00

This link is to an article by Barna that you should read.

Just the Two of Us

2011-01-23T00:00:00.002-06:00

I first met her in high school. She was older than I was and exciting. She’d been around. My parents warned me to have nothing to do with her. They claimed that no good could come from our relationship.

But I kept meeting her on the sly. She was so sophisticated and worldly. It made me feel grown up just being with her. It was fun to take her to a party in those days. She was almost always the center of attention.

We began seeing more of each other after I started college. When I got a place of my own, she was a frequent guest. It wasn’t long before she moved in with me. It may have been common law, but it was heartbreaking for my parents. I kept reminding myself I wasn’t a kid anymore. Besides, it was legal.

We lived together right through college and into my early days in business. I seldom went anywhere without her, but I wasn’t blind. I knew she was unfaithful to me. What’s worse, I didn’t care. As long as she was there for me when I needed her (and she always was), it didn’t matter.

The longer we lived together, the more attached I became to her. But it wasn’t mutual. She began to delight in making me look foolish in front of my friends. But I still couldn’t give her up.

It became a love/hate relationship. I figured out that her glamour was nothing more than a cheap mask to hide her spite and cynicism behind. I could no longer see her beauty after I came to know her true character.

But old habits are hard to break. We had invested many years in each other. Even though my relationship with her made me lose a little respect for myself, she had become the center of my life. We didn’t go anywhere. We didn’t do anything. We didn’t have friends over. It was just the two of us. I became deeply depressed and knew that she was largely responsible for my misery. I finally told her I was leaving her for good. It took a lot of guts, but I left.

I still see her around. She’s still as beautiful as when we first met. I miss her now and then. I’m not boasting when I say she’d take me back in a minute. But by the grace of God, I will never take up with her again.

If you see her, just give her my regards. I don’t hate her. I just loved her too much.

Chances are you know her family. The name’s Alcohol.

Robert J. Morgan, Nelson's Complete Book of Stories, Illustrations, and Quotes, electronic ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 8.

To all my young friends, stay away from drugs and alcohol. Nothing good can come from those relationships. If you haven't stayed away, quit now. If you find you can't quit, but want to, come talk to me. I'm always hear for you no matter what you have gotten yourself into.

Better to Read English Than Greek or Hebrew

2011-01-22T00:00:00.000-06:00

I read this yesterday through a link of a Facebook "friend" (someone I have never met). Click this link and read. I agree completely.

If you can go on and learn Greek and/or Hebrew and make it useful, then do so. However, we can do plenty in English if we simply learn how to read and interpret English and work with the many fine translations we have. I wonder how many great Christian leaders of today and of the past didn't have much proficiency in Greek or Hebrew but simply knew how to properly read a book?

A good book apparently out of print

2011-01-21T08:59:00.003-06:00

I was surfing the net this morning and for whatever reason I searched on an apologetics book that I own entitled Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) by Dr. Norman Geisler. I remember when this was released back in 1999, Dr. Geisler was a guest on the Bible Answer Man show with Hank Hanegraaff. Hank called it Dr. Geisler's magnum opus and it was one of CRI's special offers for quite a while.

If you want it, grab it now because I looked at Christianbook.com and they don't offer it anymore. Amazon doesn't offer it directly either. They have some sellers offering it new for $54+ or used for $22+.

Actually, the best way to get it might be in electronic form as it still is offered as part of a electronic library at this link.

For a sample of the content, here is part of an article from BECA in which Geisler deals with the claim that there are errors in the Bible.

The argument for an errorless (inerrant) Bible can be put in this logical form:

God cannot err.

The Bible is the Word of God.

Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

God Cannot Err. Logically, the argument is valid. So, if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. If the theistic God exists (see God, Evidence for; Theism), then the first premise is true. For an infinitely perfect, all-knowing God cannot make a mistake. The Scriptures testify to this, declaring emphatically that “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18). Paul speaks of the “God who does not lie” (Titus 1:2). He is a God who, even if we are faithless, “remains faithful; he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). God is truth (John 14:6), and so is his word. Jesus said to the Father, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). The psalmist exclaimed, “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Ps. 119:160).

The Bible Is the Word of God. Jesus, who is the Son of God (see Christ, Deity of) referred to the Old Testament as the “Word of God” which “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He said, “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). Paul added, “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). It came “out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Although human authors recorded the messages, “prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20).

Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day, “You nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13). Jesus turned their attention to the written Word of God by affirming over and over again, “It is written” (for example, Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). This phrase occurs more than ninety times in the New Testament, a strong indication of divine authority. Stressing the unfailing nature of God’s truth, the apostle Paul referred to the Scriptures as “the word of God” (Rom. 9:6). The writer of Hebrews declared that “the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

Therefore, the Bible Cannot Err. If God cannot err and if the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible cannot err (see Bible, Evidence for). God has spoken, and he has not stuttered. The God of truth has given us the Word of truth, and it does not contain any untruth. The Bible is the unerring Word of God. This is not to say that there are not difficulties in our Bibles. There are, or such books as this would be unneeded. But God’s people can approach difficult texts with confidence, knowing that they are not actual errors; God did not err.

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 74.

Some further thoughts about legalism

2011-01-20T00:00:00.000-06:00

Last week I talked about asking hard questions and talked about asking ourselves the question of whether or not I am or you are legalistic. As I said, I don't know anyone that claims they are legalistic. We all think that "I am not legalistic." Yet the New Testament has a lot of focus on this. Surely, it must be a bigger problem than you and I would like to think or else the NT wouldn't spend so much time devoted to it.

So often instead of being gracious like Jesus, we can be legalistic like the Pharisees. What are we legalistic about today? In the days of the apostles, issues were about eating meat that had been offered to idols and circumcision. If that was all that legalism was about, then it really wouldn't be possible for too many of us today to be legalistic. It would all be wasted words from God. I'm not worried about the meat at my local grocery store having been offered to idols. Circumcision isn't a topic of discussion these days.

So what can we be legalistic about? All sorts of things:

music people listen to
television/movies people watch
books people read
consumption of alcohol
Bible translations

and on and on and on the list could go. Look at the letter in Acts 15 when the church leaders in Jerusalem wrote to the Gentile believers:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Ac 15:23-29.

That's awfully simple, isn't it? We sure do make it much too complicated, don't we?

"I don't have to get anything out of it?!"

2011-01-19T00:00:00.000-06:00

Anyone who has known me for just a little bit, or who has read this blog for just a little while realizes that I emphasize reading the Bible daily. You can read a lot or just a little. One of the things I try to do is tear down "road blocks" that keep people from reading.

I've also talked about Christians adding rules to the Christian life and walk that aren't in the Bible.

Well, combine those two ideas above and I recently heard something that I never thought of being a road block for anyone, but perhaps it is for more people than I ever thought. One person said to me as they are reading through the Word with one of the tougher reading plans that they had never thought of just reading and not worrying if they got anything from it for the day.

Is reading the Bible intimidating to you due to the fact that you've heard pastors give messages in which they attempt to inspire you but in the process they inadvertently added a burden that you should expect something amazing to happen every single time? Have you been taught to expect that while reading the Bible you should have some sort of experience like the Bobby Brady fireworks when he gets kissed by Melissa Sue Anderson?

There is nothing to worry about if you read and don't walk away with some amazing new thought or a tingling feeling. You can just read. Putting God's words in your mind is all that you need to have happen. God can do something with those words today, or perhaps some other day. That's how it often works with me. I read one day. The inspiration comes some other day or week or month or year or decade.

Justification

2011-01-18T00:00:00.002-06:00

Terminology Tuesdays:

Justification In the doctrine of salvation, the declaration that the human has been restored to a state of righteousness in God’s sight.

Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 109.

^{justification: An instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight.}
^{Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1246.}

²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Ro 3:23-24.

¹⁶know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Ga 2:16.

Three Ways Christians Must Change

2011-01-17T00:00:00.002-06:00

This link is to a post adapted from a talk by Dr. J.P. Moreland. If you have ever read Lee Strobel's Case books, then you've heard of Dr. Moreland.

Intense Studies - 4th Saturday of the month

2011-01-16T00:01:00.001-06:00

Fourth Saturday of each month: Movie Night

We may watch videos on Intelligent Design or dealing with cults. We may even watch actual Hollywood movies and talk about what the worldview is and other ways the movie either influences society or reflects society.

Again, if you are interested, but don't know where we live, contact us. All of these Saturday events will have a gathering time of 7:00 pm.

Jesus & the Word of God

2011-01-15T11:54:00.003-06:00

This is a link to a good message by R.C. Sproul. I don't know if that link will be good for long. So listen to it sooner rather than later. Takes about half an hour.

Some friends and I have been talking on Facebook over the last couple of days about Sproul and related Calvinistic thoughts and issues. I don't agree with Calvinism, but Sproul is one of the best when it comes to addressing essentials of the Christian world view.

What does this verse mean to you?

2011-01-15T00:00:00.001-06:00

Great paper at this link by Dr. Richard G. Howe from Southern Evangelical Seminary. 29 pages. Save the link. You don't have to read it all in one sitting. But you do need to read it.

Intense Studies - 3rd Saturdays of the month

2011-01-14T09:20:00.000-06:00

Third Saturday of each month: Bible Study

We'll either cover an entire book of the Bible in a week or maybe go a chapter at a time through a small book or several chapters at a time through a large book.

This will begin on February 19th. Again, contact me for information on how to get to our home if you don't know already.

What will we do? Possibly Galatians. Possibly Hebrews. Who knows? It will be good.

Ask Yourself Tough Questions

2011-01-13T00:00:00.006-06:00

I had a big talk from my heart this week with the Tuesday night group that meets at my house. One of the things I emphasized with them was to not be afraid to ask themselves tough questions. This is something that I've learned to do in the last decade.

There is nothing to fear from tough questions. Let me give an example:

"Am I legalistic or being legalistic about something(s)?"

Have you ever run into a Christian that claims they are legalistic? You know, I never have - not once. I am never legalistic (at least that is what I think) but I can always point to someone or some church that is.

You know what I also tend to see myself and many, if not most, others do? If the question is presented, or the point is suggested, that we are legalistic, then we quickly dismiss it.

"No, I'm definitely not legalistic."

Why are we so quick to dismiss the idea? Probably because of pride. I don't want to admit that I'm legalistic about anything.

"The Independent Baptists down the street, now they are legalistic. Me? No, I'm not. They only allow the King James and their women must wear skirts."

I've heard it said that most people in prisons don't think they're that bad. They can always point to someone else who is worse. Now, I've never done prison ministry and I've not interacted with prison inmates, but that's the pattern I see with myself. Are you prone to be like that? Do you claim instantly that you are not legalistic because you can point to others who are?

Here's my key question for today --

What do you have to lose by facing the tough questions?

Don't quickly dismiss the questions. Take the time to ponder them.

What if I am not legalistic? Then I have no reason to fear pondering the question. I can examine it and conclude, "you know what -- I honestly don't think I struggle with this."

But what if I am legalistic? Then don't I need to ponder that question? How can I ever escape it if I never face the possibility head on that I might be legalistic?

Here's another question to think about. If legalism is only a problem with a few extreme fundamentalist churches, then why did God address it so much in the New Testament? I think he addressed it so much because I think that most of us struggle with it more than we think we do or are willing to admit. I can easily say I'm not legalistic because I don't add works to salvation. A lot of Christians have that simple of a definition. But legalism isn't only about justification, we can also be legalistic about our sanctification.

And that's where I think most Christians can fall into the trap of legalism. That's what the book of Galatians deals with: not justification legalism, but sanctification legalism.

So face the questions head on. Don't quickly dismiss them. You can only harm yourself in doing so.

Second Saturday of each month beginning February 12th

2011-01-12T00:00:00.002-06:00

Intense Studies for the Second Saturday of each month: Ambassador Basic Curriculum.

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has a great package for equipping Christians to be ambassadors. I know of nothing like it. It's 15 sessions so it will take 15 months. What happens after that? We begin again. The thought being that people can join anytime and never miss a thing. If you join five sessions into it, we'll come back around and much of the material is stand alone. We'll learn how to discuss our faith with people with more light and less heat, how to really discover God's will for our lives, how to discuss abortion without using the Bible, relativism, how to properly interpret the Bible (even if you think you know how to interpret the Bible, you may be surprised about how poorly even Christians from verse-by-verse type churches abuse the text). If you can attend only one Saturday, the second of each month would be the one I recommend.

Again, these studies will be held at our house. Feel free to contact me for information if you need to know how to get here.

As you read this year . . .

2011-01-11T00:00:00.001-06:00

I converted from Roman Catholicism back in 1986. Many times I've mentioned the Bible reading plan that I was given back then. I still use it. My friend Jeff is using the same plan this year. My wife is reading it with me. It's a great plan. Thanks to the hand hold it provides and the direction it gives, in the 10 years that have elapsed in the 21st century I have already the Old Testament 10 times and the New Testament 20 times. No, I am not bragging. It's by the grace of God that I get through it every year. That same grace can get you through that plan or some other plan too.

As always, I encourage you to come along. The link provided above makes the first day whatever day it is that you start. It keeps track for you. If you miss a day, don't worry about it, it will pick up where you left off. If it takes you more than a year, who cares? I simply would encourage you to get in the Word and get the Word into you every single day.

That being said, I'd like to give a note of caution. Sometimes Evangelicals seem to treat the Bible like a member of the Trinity. We either eliminate a member or we turn it into a "Quadrinity" of Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Holy Bible.

Don't rush over that too quickly thinking, "not me." We are often told to stop and smell the roses. Well, in the same fashion, stop and meditate on the question, "do I elevate the Bible in a way it shouldn't be elevated?"

Oh, don't mistake me. I believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. Very much so. As Evangelicals, I think we often identify ourselves with certain characters in the Bible but often miss who really represents us. Unfortunately, I'm seeing that we often are lined up with one of the Jewish sects of Jesus' day. We don't want to entertain that thought. They're the bad guys.

Look at what Jesus said the Jewish leaders about their view of Scripture and their misunderstanding of its place . . .

³⁹You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you possess eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, ⁴⁰yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), Jn 5:39-40.

I think that too often Evangelicals are like the Pharisees in many ways. We add rules to ourselves and other Christians that don't really have a basis in Scripture. I also think that too often Evangelicals are like the Essenes and we pull ourselves way too far outside of, or away from, the culture. Evangelicalism doesn't impact the culture, rather it becomes a weird sub-culture of its own.

At least I find that I have often been like one of these two groups.

You would never do that though, right? Don't dismiss the thought too quickly. One the one hand, if you really aren't adding any rules, and if you really aren't withdrawn from the culture but are engaging it, then you have no reason to fear entertaining the question of whether you resemble the Pharisees or the Essenes. On the other hand, if you or I are a bit like the Pharisees and/or the Essenes, shouldn't we want to discover that and remove those characteristics from our lifestyle?

Intense Studies Beginning February 5th -- 1st Saturdays of the month

2011-01-10T00:00:00.002-06:00

I've been teaching teens on Tuesday nights for over four years. In October, I attempted to open up Saturday nights for all ages. However, I decided that's a terrible time of year to try to start something new. So now that the holidays are over, I plan on starting them up the first Saturday of February. Beginning February 5th, the Saturday night studies will begin.

There will be different formats. So a person need not be there every Saturday, just once a month: either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Saturday of the month. Of course, people are welcome to come every Saturday. However, by doing different formats on different Saturdays of the month, it allows for people to come to a challenging evening and not need to sacrifice every Saturday without missing something. I will take four posts to lay out the plans.

First Saturday of each month: Debate Night.

We will listen to (occasionally watch) a debate between an Evangelical and an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Roman Catholic, or what have you. We may even listen to Evangelicals of opposing views debate each other about an "in-house" debate.

These will be high level debates between Christian philosophers and/or theologians and leading candidates of opposing views. These will often be long. If you went to these debates in person, they often go for 2+ hours. It will be the same here. However, these nights will be well worth your time. We'll hear great Christians leaders debate men like Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (author of God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), and Bart Ehrman (author of Misquoting Jesus) and many others.

So come on out February 5th to our house and listen to and discuss a great debate and have a good time hanging out.

Humble Hermeneutics

2011-01-09T14:27:00.003-06:00

Remember Paul's Damascus encounter with Jesus (Acts 26)? He was fighting the very one he thought he was serving. Reality was the opposite of what Paul thought it was. And the plot twist here is that even with God at the foundation of our worldview, our finitude and inability to understand reality knows no bounds (Job 38-41). Thus, even Christians should have a humbled hermeneutic or a chastened rationality in their own interpretations of the Bible and reality. It is good to question our views of reality because we have so often been wrong.

Brian Godawa, Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2nd edition, 2009), 144.

Beware of philosophy . . . so should I stay away?

2010-12-23T10:20:00.005-06:00

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Col 2:8.

I actually posted about this twice in 2007. The thought is very relevant though and so it's a good idea to repost this line of thought since it's been over three years.

Sometimes Christians take this verse to mean that we should stay away from philosophy and the philosophers. A lot of English versions begin with the phrase see to it. The KJV and NKJV begin the verse with the word beware. Same message either way. However, a little playing with the word beware makes it clear that the idea that Christians should stay away from philosophy and the philosophers it more likely the opposite of what Paul meant. Check out what Christian philosopher Dr. Norman L. Geisler writes in regard to this . . .

Paul himself was well trained in the philosophies of his day, even quoting them from time to time (cf. Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). Paul successfully “reasoned” with the philosophers on Mars Hill, even winning some to Christ (Acts 17:17, 34). Elsewhere he said a bishop should be able “to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9) and that he was “appointed for defense of the Gospel” (Phil. 1:17). Peter exhorted believers to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, Jesus said the great command is to love the Lord “with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37).

Finally, God places no premium on ignorance. In fact, He knows we cannot “beware of philosophy” unless we are aware of it. No one would go to a doctor who did not study sickness. But, herein lies the danger. The Christian should approach the false philosophies of the world the way a medical researcher approaches the AIDS virus. The scientist should study them objectively and carefully to find out what is wrong with them, but not subjectively and personally so that he or she catches the “disease.”

Norman L. Geisler and Thomas A. Howe, When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992), 487.

What a great point -- we cannot beware of philosophy if we are not aware of it. It's interesting to listen to Dr. Geisler talk about "platonic hang-overs" in some Christian songs and other such commentary. How can we beware of platonic thought if we are unaware of platonic thought? We could succumb to it unknowingly.

Another Christian philosopher said to his class of students that they were more influenced by Immanuel Kant than by Jesus Christ. We can't beware of Kant if we are unaware of Kant and his thoughts. Since he knew both the Scriptures and the writings of Kant, he could say this with authority.

I'm not saying every Christian can and should do this. However, we need some more of it. We need to take the philosophers out of the ivory towers and take them to the local Bible studies. If we don't, they will influence you and me when we don't think they are. We may think we're being biblical students when perhaps we're students of Plotinus instead.

Not only can the philosophers be influencing you and me without our awareness, they can be influencing our kids without us even knowing it because we stay away from the philosophers. That brings up an important question? Are we being influenced? Are our teens being influenced by things because of their unawareness of them?

Proverbs 18:17

2010-12-21T09:24:00.004-06:00

The one who states his case first seems right,

until the other comes and examines him.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Pr 18:17.

Do I read from, listen to, hang out only with those that agree with me? If I do check out other perspectives, is it only so I can find out where it is wrong instead of looking first for what I can learn from them?

As a Christian, in the earlier days of my walk, I did it all wrong. That in and of itself is odd because I became an Evangelical Christian by listening to those outside my circle. Unfortunately, I see many Christians do the wrong things today in regard to this. I guess it will always be that way to some extent. The worst case is a Christian who reads from, listens to, and hangs out with only the Christians who have the exact same Christian perspective as he/she does. For example, a person who has a young earth perspective in regard to the age of the universe and only hears from other young earth Christians. The same could be said of a Christian who hears from only the ancient earth/universe perspective. The same can happen with Bible translations, gifts of the Holy Spirit, et al.

What about the Christian who doesn't listen to non-Christian perspectives? That's a second problem. If we don't hear from non-Christian perspectives, then we most likely will not know where our arguments are weak. We also may be in ignorant bliss about ways we make our message, and Jesus, obnoxious.

Have you ever noticed how much Jesus was loved by the non-religious? He was at the parties. He hung with the tax collectors and the harlots. He hung with the riff-raff. The amazing thing . . . they apparently enjoyed having him around. I guess it's not that amazing.

Do you get invited to non-Christian parties and hang-outs? Over the years, I haven't. I can see two potential causes of this difference between Jesus and myself and there may well be more. The first is that I pulled myself out of the circles. I hung with those who were like me - as like me in as many ways as possible. The second is that perhaps I was dissimilar to Jesus in enough ways that people just didn't (or still don't) want to be around me. I think part of it is the simple fact that I am an introvert by nature. I like being alone. I need to be alone at times. I need solitude to decompress. However, I can't put it all on my introverted tendencies. I can't put it all on others and say there is something wrong with them.

No,unfortunately while reading the Scriptures, as I study them, I now think I have often been more like a Pharisee than Jesus. Was I lost? No, I have been saved this entire time. In fact, I see in the religious factions of Jesus' day, tendencies that I, and/or other Christians, can often lean towards. It's often very easy to act like one of the sects of Jesus' day rather than be like Jesus himself.

So these are difficult questions to ask, but you need to ask them of yourself. You must ask them of yourself. What questions? Some of what I had above:

Do I get invited to non-Christian events?
Do I resemble a Pharisee (or a Sadducee or Essene or other) more than Jesus?
Do I read from, listen to and hang out with only those who have the same perspective I do?
If I do check out other perspectives, is it only so I can find out where it is wrong instead of looking first for what I can learn from them?

Most of my growth happens not when I read books or listen to speeches/sermons or hang out with those that already agree with me. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it hinders me more than it helps me to hang around those that agree with me exclusively. Growth is happening when I check out the other sides and bounce those ideas around with a few trusted individuals that do hold to what I hold (or previously held). I need to do both. I need to read from, listen to, hang out with those that disagree with me and I need to keep in contact with those from my perspective.

Stephen Hawking Says God Did Not Create the Universe: What Do You Think?

2010-09-03T14:36:00.001-05:00

We need to be very careful in how we respond to things like this, particularly as Christians. One thing we must not do is make personal attacks on Stephen Hawking. To do so is not logical and I believe is a sinful response also.

What we must do is allow all ideas to be tested and follow what survives the tests. If the claims of Christianity pass the tests, then we should be Christians. If ideas exclusive to Christianity pass the tests, such as what Hawking is claiming, then we should follow those. We should always follow the truth and not be afraid to allow our ideas to be tested.

I read the following at http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11542128 . . .

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," writes Hawking. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists why we exist.”

Let’s critique Hawking’s statement rather than critique Hawking, the man. Assuming the quote is taken in context, Hawking claims “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” In order for something to be created, it must not exist. In order to create, something must exist to do the creating. Therefore, for the universe to create itself, the universe must both exist and not exist at the same time. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, a basic foundational concept. So it is safe to dismiss the idea from Hawking.

lunch with a friend

2010-07-30T21:07:00.005-05:00

I recently had lunch with a facebook friend who I had only met once before twenty years ago. He's been walking with Jesus for over 50 years. I've been walking with Jesus for 24 years now. One of the things we talked about is specific people who we've watched and/or known personally over the years who walked with Jesus and no longer believe . . . people he used to guide and direct and people that helped me along from a distance in my early days of my walk.

As I ponder the last 24 years, I've seen all sorts of walks. I've seen many short walks that didn't last. I've seen some that were long, strong walks that included stints of being a pastor and that now no longer walk. I've seen some come and go and come again, but aren't the same as they once used to be and not in a good way. I've seen others that never stopped walking and have been going as long as I or longer.

When people would backslide in their walk with Jesus or just walk away entirely, my reaction was different than it is today. I used to become disappointed in the person. Often I would doubt their salvation.

I don't think disappointed is the proper word anymore to describe my thoughts and feelings anymore. Saddened would be more accurate. Why the change? In my Webster's dictionary, disappointed is listed as a transitive verb defined as to fail to meet the expectation or hope of.

In 24 years of walking with God, I have become more amazed by the Trinity. My God is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love & faithfulness. He maintains love to thousands. He forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin. In those 24 years, I have also seen a lot of Christians backslide or walk away completely. My view of humanity has diminished.

The result is that my bar of expectation has been lowered significantly. With disappointment being defined as a failure to meet the expectation or hope of, and the fact that my bar has lowered over the years in regard to expectation, I'm not disappointed so much these days. When people fail, I'm not surprised. Frankly, I expect it. Now instead of being disappointed, I'm saddened. I'm saddened at the loss in their life, at least for now, while they aren't enjoying as close of a walk with the LORD as they've had in the past. I have a hope that this time isn't permanent. It may be, but I hope not. I know God wants them to walk with him and that God can turn anything around for good and I wait in hopeful anticipation that I will see the day where he does that in different people's lives when he brings them back.

I mentioned earlier that I also used to doubt their salvation. Today, I might wonder if they're truly saved. I might question it. Now Webster's has those words as synonyms for doubt, but in my mind they aren't as strong. Perhaps there are better words.

Why that change? Again, part of it is my growth in my understanding of the depth of God's character. Some would use God's character as an excuse for universalism. What is universalism? Universalism is

The doctrine that all people will ultimately be saved.

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1256.

Scripture is absolutely clear that this is not the case. People might build a good argument for universalism. They might have valid logic for it. However, while the logic might be valid, it isn't sound. A premise must be faulty. To use the Bible to support the idea one must be particular about what passages they use to build the view and we are required to use the entirety of the Bible (in proper context) to build our theology.

So while universalism is not a biblical option, I do think God is looking out more for the opportunity to allow people to be with him for eternity than to be without him for eternity. I think that the "line in the sand" isn't where I would have thought in my past thoughts. I've learned that where sin abounds, grace super-abounds. So in the past where I would be pretty sure that someone wasn't saved, now I just simply wonder but without the strong doubt I used to have. I don't know the condition of any soul for sure. Only God knows. Even those who appear to be walking with him, it may just be appearance. And those that don't appear to have a walk with him, just might. I am not the Christ. I am not the judge. I suspect that is grace his covering a lot more than my fickleness allowed for.

Once again, I hope and pray to see the LORD bring them back around.

What all of this has done is allow me to love more. In the past I'd be more prone towards having an attitude towards someone. Now I worry about them. I pray for them. I love them. Hopefully, this allows me to be more available to be an instrument that God can use to bring the wandering sheep home. I'm sure I would not have been as usable in the past for that.

Same old doesn't get old

2010-06-29T09:22:00.003-05:00

It's been 13 days since my last post. Today I'm posting about the same thing I did then. Today, Pastor Bob did a nice three minute podcast about temptation. This is good for everyone, but I think particularly about young people since they are who I work with. And when I think of temptation, I think even more particularly about young men in their teens and early twenties. Got three minutes? Check it out.

Need a Simple Devotional?

2010-06-16T21:03:00.006-05:00

Since I got saved at the age of 15 in 1986 after listening to Stryper albums, it didn't take long before I got my hands on the debut of Barren Cross, Rock For the King. And with that LP, I got my first introduction to the name Pastor Bob Beeman.

Pastor Bob started a church for heavy metal people that were getting saved and were having difficulty getting accepted into mainstream churches. At least I think that's the general idea. He started a group of churches named Sanctuary International. In the 80's and 90's there were multiple Sanctuaries in Southern California. Bob and Sanctuary moved to Nashville several years ago and I don't even know if there is more than one Sanctuary anymore.

Despite Bob's wild looks (long hair and a number of tatoos), he is a very down-to-earth sensible, theologically balanced pastor as far as I've been able to tell. He has a daily audio devotional that I listen to everyday. It's entitled Three Minute Sanctuary. As you can tell from the title, it doesn't take up much of your day. And since it's audio, no reading is required.

If you are an iTunes user, you can subscribe there. That is what I do and part of my 45-50 minutes ride to work usually includes listening to Bob's daily three minute thoughts. However, if you aren't an iTunes person, you obviously have a computer if you're reading this. You can listen to Bob at this link.

If you enjoy that, Bob has several podcasts available that are excellent. I have enjoyed every series of podcasts he has done.

Back to memory verses

2010-06-15T21:49:00.003-05:00

Keeping in mind the study that my buddy Jeff and I teach each Tuesday for teens, I thought it would be could to get back into the habit of posting memory verses. I've posted these in the past. But they might be fresh for you to memorize. If you have memorized them, then perhaps they will be a good review. Hopefully I'll be posting two per week.

The first verses have to do with assurance of salvation and they come from 1 John 5:11-12 . . .

¹¹And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹²Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (1 Jn 5:11-12). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Book Review: already gone

2010-04-30T13:05:00.009-05:00

I recently read already gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it by Ken Ham & Britt Beemer. One thing I think I need to do is either do these reviews right away (I read this the first week of April) or take more notes in order that I can go into more detail.
Let me point out at the beginning of this that I am not a fan of Ken Ham. Being honest . . . he drives me nuts. I just want you to know that upfront.
From the back of the book . . .

If you look around in your church today, two-thirds of the young people who are sitting among us have already left in their hearts; soon they will be gone for good.

The fact that the church is losing a ton of its youth is pretty well known. Numbers vary from report to report, but they are high. In this book Ken and Britt reveal (from the back again) . . .

The views of 1,000 twenty-somethings, solidly raised in the church but no longer attending - and their reasons why.

One interesting thing is the thousand aren't random across a spectrum of twenty-somethings including atheists and/or agnostics and/or people raised in liberal churches. These thousand came from conservative churches.
I appreciate Ken Ham's concern for the youth. Youth are who I have a burden for myself so I appreciate that focus of this book. Another good point that Ken stresses is the need for apologetics. On page 93, Ken quotes two passages that I think are the solution to the problem. He quotes 1 Peter 3:15 as he stresses the need for apologetics and he also quotes 2 Timothy 4:2-4. Paul tells Timothy in that passage to preach the word. Ken stresses hard that there is a lack of teaching the Bible. Ken writes on page 123, ". . . I firmly believe that one of the reasons people aren't living by the word is that they aren't being taught the word." I agree with him about this problem. Many churches teach from the Bible, but they don't teach the Bible. What do I mean? They preach topical series and use individual verses as launching pads instead of teaching through the text verse-by-verse in context, teaching through entire books so that Christians understand what a book teaches and how that book applies to their lives. I risk really sidetracking on a soapbox of mine, so let's stop there.

So Ken has some great emphases in this book. He points out a serious problem. He points out good solutions. He makes one serious flaw in my viewpoint. He absolutely mistakes the cause of so many youth departing. Ken blames it on the church teaching "millions of years." This is Ken's soapbox. It's a terrible one. Why? Because it's not one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith and many of the greatest defenders of the faith believe in millions of years (billions to be more accurate).
Ken writes on pp 73-74 . . .

The problem we are studying, of course, is that 60 percent of the students who grow up in the Church have lost that connection . . . What happened? How did we get here? I believe it all started when the Church gave us "millions of reasons" to doubt the Bible. The book of Genesis gives us a clear account of the creation of the universe, of the world, and of everything that lives, including humanity. A simple literal interpretation of these passages makes it clear that this creation took place in six days, with God resting on the seventh, just a few thousand years ago.

I listen to all of Ken's podcasts. He blames nearly everything that's wrong in this world on this very point.

Ken hired Britt Beemer and his company to do a statistical study to get the information for this book. Unfortunately, it appears Ken didn't pay attention to the information. We're these kids taught "millions of years" in their youth at church? Largely not.

Ken tells us about these 1,000 people on page 45 . . .

Of those who attended Sunday school, over 9 in 10 said that their Sunday school classes taught them that the Bible was true and accurate.

Only 1 in 10 said their pastor/Sunday school teacher taught that Christians could believe in Darwinian evolution.

One in 4 said their pastors and Sunday school teachers taught that Christians could believe in an earth that is millions or billions of years old.

Over 4 in 5 said their pastor or Sunday school teacher taught that God created the earth in six 24-hour days.

Only 1 in 16 said their pastors or Sunday school teachers taught that the Book of Genesis was a myth or legend and not real history.

All 1,000 of these people are not "attending church" today. But when you look at those stats, it appears most of them were not taught "millions of years." So how can the church teaching millions of years be the cause of their departure? It can't because most of them weren't taught it in church!

I think the cause of their departure may not be "millions of years" but "thousands of years." Now that doesn't speak for everyone because the stats do show some were taught an old earth/universe view. However, it does speak for most of them as we look at those stats. More than 4 of 5 were taught literal six 24-hour days. The heaviest stat in Ken's favor is that 1 of 4 pastors taught Christians could believe in millions/billions of years. But even that only has 250 of 1,000 being taught old earth/universe.

As Christians, we should be well-informed in as many ways as possible. My personal opinion is that the view of a young-earth/universe has been brutally assaulted by a gang of facts. However, while that has happened, the evidence for Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian evolution has been also brutally assaulted. Old-earth/universe does not automatically make macro-evolution true (macro-evolution is the idea that one species becomes another). I think this is where Ken makes mistakes. Ken regular makes category mistakes by automatically throwing macro-evolution in with an old earth/universe. This can, and often does, result in "straw man" representations of old-earth Christians.

So how do I propose that kids taught young-earth creationism are in danger of falling away? First of all, if students aren't taught firmly that this is an area of debate in Christianity, but rather are taught with hardcore dogmatism that the earth is young, and if the scientific evidence becomes too convincing for them against the young-earth view, then they may have the misunderstanding that they have no other Christian camp to go to. Thus, they may jettison the whole Christian worldview. Secondly, teach a proper understanding that the Bible is sixty-six books, not one book. If a young adult sees the Bible as one book and struggles for a period in understanding one book, they can't throw out the other sixty-five automatically. Remember, we couldn't always purchase a leather-bound codex with all sixty-six books in it. They were all individual documents created at individual times. Thirdly, teach proper apologetics and good linear thinking in how we come to conclusions. I can't find the page, but Ken states somewhere in the book (and often in podcasts and public speaking events) that we believe in the resurrection because the Bible is the word of God and the Bible claims Jesus was resurrected. He'll do it in a question and answer type format. He'll ask, "Why do we believe in the resurrection? Because the Bible says so." I do not think that is the proper way to teach resurrection and creation apologetics. Oh, I absolutely believe the Bible is the word of God, but we don't have to posit that to prove the resurrection. The only place we must get to is proving that the gospel accounts and/or Paul's epistles are historically reliable. If Matthew states that Jesus said X, then Jesus said X. If Mark says Jesus did Y, the Jesus did Y. Proving the divine authorship and inerrancy of these books is further down the line in our argumentation in good apologetics.

By teaching teens in a way that they take the whole Bible as one book and getting them into a mindset that we believe X because the Bible says X, once they begin to have a doubt about one point they begin to doubt the entire Bible. Once they don't believe one doctrine, they toss the whole worldview.
By teaching teens:

the difference between essential Christianity and non-essential Christianity (and we can't give this lip service . . . we can't say something is not an essential and treat it as essential after that, and this is what Ken does)
about ways in which Christians disagree and why different Christians hold those views and respecting Christians who hold a differing viewpoint than we do
how the Bible came to be book-by-book, how it was inspired and written down and then how it was transmitted through the centuries to today

we can equip them so that they don't fall away from the faith if a non-essential point is challenged. The age of the earth/universe is a debatable point inside the pale of orthodox Christianity. Let's not confuse this issue with an issue such as who God is or how one is saved or any essential doctrine.

A Recent Merger

2010-04-11T19:50:00.004-05:00

I and another local apologist have recently merged ministries. Anyone who follows Blaugmenting through Facebook probably has recognized this already.

Another apologist who lives less than 20 miles away from me has a ministry he started called Full-proof Ministries. His name is Jeff Whittum. In some ways Jeff and I are very much alike. In some ways we are quite different. Some differences are that Jeff is twelve years younger than I. I got saved when Jeff was 3 years old. I got into apologetics when Jeff was 5-6 years old. Jeff was raised in an Evangelical home his entire life. So Jeff committed his life to Jesus and His completed work at a much younger age than I. However, I got a little more serious at an age younger than Jeff. I got serious about my faith when I was fifteen (when I got saved). Jeff got really serious at age twenty-two or so. However, Jeff is making up for lost time very quickly. My apologies to Jeff if I have misstated his history and I'll make any corrections needed.

Jeff has started coming to my Tuesday night study for teens which is wonderful. He and I both are shift workers. Hopefully, on Tuesday nights when I work, he'll be able to keep it going sometimes. This is great for the teens because sometimes we run into little snags where I miss 2 or 3 weeks due to work. Jeff will be able to minimize that lost time.

One way we are both alike is a common Textus-Receptus/King James background. Both of us were in that category and have studied the issue objectively and moved away from that position. I use the TNIV primary while Jeff uses the ESV primarily. The more important point that I think we both agree about is that people need to be in the Word every day regardless of what translation they have or like.

I have started writing articles on the Full-proof page. If you read here, you aren't missing anything from me. However, Jeff writes over there and we don't have him set up at Blaugmenting. I'd like to get him set up here too. We'll get there.

Anyway, when two people are trying to do the same thing, more or less, it makes sense to join forces when they are geographically close and so that is what we are attempting to do.

What identifies us as His

2010-04-08T00:02:00.002-05:00

I installed a Bible verse application to my Facebook account a few days ago. The second day of having it, the verse for the day was 1 John 3:16. I think we should look at that verse and some context on both sides of it. So here we go . . .

¹¹For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. ¹²Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. ¹³Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. ¹⁴We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. ¹⁵Anyone who hates a fellow believer is a murderer, and you know that no murderers have eternal life in them.

¹⁶This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for one another. ¹⁷If any one of you has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in you? ¹⁸Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (1 Jn 3:11-18). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

John really zeros in on the place of love in the life of the Christian. He records more uses of the word by Jesus than any of the other gospels. Without breaking down which specific Greek word is used for love, here is a breakdown of the English word "love" and how often it appears in the New American Standard Bible in each gospel:

13 times in Matthew
5 times in Mark
15 times in Luke
57 times in John

One very interesting passage in John is John 13:34-35 . . .

³⁴“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ³⁵By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (Jn 13:34-35). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

I find that people who have a heavy interest in theology and apologetics can sometimes be lacking in love. Jesus informs us that it is the love we have for one another that proves that we are his disciples. If you were to ask me how people will know who his disciples are I would be more prone to spit out my B.A.S.I.C.S. acronym. But that's not what Jesus says and that's not what John tells us.

Jesus and John aren't alone (as if they weren't enough). Paul chimes in . . .

²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (1 Co 13:2). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

If I have all knowledge, but do not have love, I am nothing. Ouch! Yet John doesn't claim that doctrine doesn't matter. Indeed, he wrote . . .

⁹Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. ¹⁰If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (2 Jn 9-10). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Paul also writes much about the need for sound doctrine, particular in the letters to Timothy and Titus. However, sound doctrine is not the evidence Jesus suggests for people to recognize who are His.

You know what I find even more interesting? It's that it seems to me most people get unloving in doctrinal discussions when it's about the non-B.A.S.I.C.S. Let me repost the list from my very old B.A.S.I.C.S post . . .

Are sign gifts for today?
Is the millennium pre, post, or a?
Is the rapture pre-trib, post, mid, partial or pre-wrath?
Calvinism or Arminianism or something else?
Is the description of Hell literal, allegorical, or are the lost annihilated?
Are we eternally secure or can we lose our salvation?
Is the earth/universe young (6,000 - 10,000 year old) or old (13.7 billion years give-or-take)?
Should we immerse or sprinkle in baptism?
Should we baptize infants or not baptize them?
Which is the correct way to interpret the book of Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, or futurist?

Have you noticed the same thing? How much mudslinging do Christians do when another Christian disagrees about their view of the end times? Or how about the whole Calvinism or Arminianism debate?

Why is it that Christians seem the most unloving when discussing these doctrines in which there is room for debate? I don't know why it is that way other than the fact that there must be a devil.

So what are we to do? Examine your own life. You know, Facebook is really popular. And I see a lot of "internet rage". How do you represent Jesus on things such as Facebook? Try to imagine if you weren't a Christian and look at your posts from a third person perspective. Would you want to become a Christian from looking at your own posts on Facebook or would you turn yourself off?

What we must not do is to fake being a loving person. If you think of how you conduct yourself in person and/or what kind of posts you do on Facebook or myspace or any other electronic social network, and in being honest with yourself determine that you are lacking in love, don't fake it. People aren't dumb and they'll spot the fake attitude.

Confess it to God. Tell him that you are sorry and ask him to change the way you carry yourself. You can't save yourself. Neither can you sanctify yourself or make yourself holy. This is a work that only God can do. If this describes you, spend some time with God and make a u-turn and start to place character and conduct above your doctrine in order of priority.

Book Review: Thinking About God

2010-04-06T16:12:00.003-05:00

I recently finished reading a wonderful book entitled Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy by Greg Ganssle. If one wants to be good at theology and apologetics, it really is helpful to equip oneself in philosophy. I once heard Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the Bible Answer Man radio program, state that his most effective employees at the Christian Research Institute were those who were trained in philosophy. Jeff Whittum and I are both currently reading Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology Volume 1. I have no doubt that one of the things that makes Dr. Geisler's theology book so much better than so many others I've read is not only his theological training, but his extensive philosophical training and study.

For those with no background in philosophy, there may be no better place to start than Dr. Ganssle's book. First of all, it's short. The last page of the index is page 187. It's not tiny print either. It isn't large print, but it isn't tiny.

Secondly, those pages are divided into 27 chapters. This means that if we divide 187 pages by 27 chapters, we end up with really short chapters. The longest chapter is 11 pages. Many are only 3 or 4 pages long. This is nice for the fact that many people are intimidated by philosophy. I don't think people need to be intimidated by it and Ganssle's book is the place for any and all who are (and even those who aren't). The chapters are bite sized and if you knock out one a day, then in a month you'll have finished this small, but effective intro to philosophy.

Thirdly, Ganssle is very conversational in his style. He writes as if he's sitting in your living room having a conversation with a friend. In all three of these ways, his intro to philosophy is easier than any other I own.

You won't learn too many of the $50 big words of philosophy in this book. You won't learn a history of philosophy. You won't learn many of the names and dates of people or the fancy names assigned to their concepts. What do you expect in 187 pages? But Greg teaches you and me how to think.

His book divides into four parts:

Introduction
Reasons to believe in God
God and evil
What is God like?

In the introduction he spends 6 chapters on things like what philosophy is, what faith is and deals with the issue of whether or not we can be neutral in dealing with topics like God.

In the section of Reasons to believe in God he spends 10 chapters going over three of the most commonly used and accepted arguments for God:

cosmological argument
teleological argument
moral argument

Though again, he doesn't use the big words I just used.

He spends six chapters in part three (God and evil) going over . . . well, God and evil. Here he explores issues such as freedom and determinism.

In part four (What is God like?) He goes over some basic theology of a theistic god such as omnipotence and omniscience.

There's no glossary. There really doesn't need to be.

Great read. I recommend it highly. I might read it again soon just to see if I can pick up another nugget or two or just to let his style permeate mine a little more.

Why didn't Jesus appear to unbelievers?

2010-03-24T23:26:00.006-05:00

This is a question you might get asked by a skeptic. It came up in a debate that the Tuesday night students and I were watching. A couple things come to my mind:

1) Jesus did appear to unbelievers. Do you remember when the apostles first told Thomas what had happened? He was hardly believing.

²⁴Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. ²⁵So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (Jn 20:24-25). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

The response to this is usually that Thomas was one of his immediate/intimate followers. I don't buy that as an excuse for the fact that Thomas was pretty adamant against the claim of the other ten remaining apostles. But even if we grant that, we have Jesus' brother James and the Pharisee Saul who came to be known as Paul. So there are three unbelievers that Jesus appeared to.

What I find interesting is how many Bible commentators and scholars who I respect miss this point and state that Jesus never appeared to any unbelievers, but only to those who believed. They haven't thought this through.

2) Think about what this request is really asking for. What the skeptic is asking for is for an unbeliever who saw Jesus but didn't convert. There is no such person. Can you imagine it? "Yep, I saw the resurrected Jesus and I don't believe him." It really isn't a reasonable request.

How to Read Hebrews 11

2010-03-05T08:11:00.004-06:00

We're all familiar with Hebrews 11:1 in one translation or another. It rolls off my tongue in KJV or NKJV because of the first decade of my walk with Jesus in which I spent 8 years in those two translations. Now I use the TNIV and ESV primarily. So let's use the TNIV.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (Heb 11:1). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

I'm a mathematically inclined person. When I see the word "is", I translate that in my mind to "=". So whatever is on one side of "is" equals, or is the same thing as, what is on the other side of "is". Now with that in mind, think of how many times the author of Hebrews uses the word faith in Hebrews 11 (over twenty). So if you really want to grasp Hebrews 11, every time the word faith is used replace it with the phrase being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

So, with apologies to the International Bible Society & Zondervan, let's proceed (and of course you can do this with any translation you'd like) . . .

11 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. ²This is what the ancients were commended for.

³By [being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see] we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

⁴By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

⁵By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶And without [being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see] it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

⁷By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.

⁸By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. ⁹By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. ¹⁰For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. ¹¹And by [being sure of what she hoped for and certain of what she did not see] even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. ¹²And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

¹³All these people were still living by [being sure of what they hoped for and certain of what they did not see] when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. ¹⁴People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. ¹⁵If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

¹⁷By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, ¹⁸even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” ¹⁹Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

²⁰By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.

²¹By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

²²By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.

²³By [being sure of what they hoped for and certain of what they did not see] Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.

²⁴By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. ²⁵He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. ²⁶He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. ²⁷By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. ²⁸By [being sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see] he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.

²⁹By [being sure of what they hoped for and certain of what they did not see] the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

³⁰By [being sure of what they hoped for and certain of what they did not see] the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.

³¹By [being sure of what she hoped for and certain of what she did not see] the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

³²And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, ³³who through [being sure of what they hoped for and certain of what they did not see] conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, ³⁴quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. ³⁵Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. ³⁶Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. ³⁷They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— ³⁸the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

³⁹These were all commended for their [being sure of what they hoped for and certain of what they did not see], yet none of them received what had been promised. ⁴⁰God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (Heb 11:1-40). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. (with apologies)

Instead of Astrology . . .

2010-02-19T16:22:00.004-06:00

I updated my facebook status a few days ago. I noticed that some of my teen-aged facebook friends were posting astrological updates. The Bible doesn't say a lot about astrology, but evidently the Babylonians were into it because God told them he was coming against them and that their astrologers wouldn't be able to help. I like the readability of The Living Bible in this passage from Isaiah 47 . . .

¹³You have advisors by the ton—your astrologers and stargazers, who try to tell you what the future holds. ¹⁴But they are as useless as dried grass burning in the fire. They cannot even deliver themselves! You’ll get no help from them at all. Theirs is no fire to sit beside to make you warm!

Taylor, K. N. (1997, c1971). The living Bible, paraphrased. "A compilation of the Scripture paraphrases previously published ... under the following titles: Living letters, 1962; Living prophecies, 1965; Living Gospels, 1966; Living Psalms and Proverbs, 1967; Living lessons of life and love, 1968; Living books of Moses, 1969; Living history of Israel, 1970." (Is 47:13). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

Now while that passage is written to the Babylonians, it expresses God's opinion of astrology and thus we can take this passage to heart for ourselves about this subject. Astrology really is a waste of time. As the Living Bible says, you'll get no help from them at all.

May I recommend a different morning practice? Read a Psalm. Why waste time on the words of some human who has no divine inspiration when you can read a Psalm inspired by the God who made you?

Does proof negate faith?

2010-02-12T16:59:00.003-06:00

A common idea among many Christian believers and also many non-believers is that faith doesn't mix with reason or that faith doesn't mix with proof. I think it's fair to say that the apostles of Jesus had faith, isn't it? But they also had seen proof. Check out Acts 1:3 (bolding by me) . . .

To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 1:3). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

So since this verse clearly indicates Jesus proved his resurrection to his followers by many convincing proofs, we either must conclude that they had no faith, or is it something else? Is it perhaps the word faith that we so often misunderstand?

An Example of Why I Struggle With Answers In Genesis

2010-01-06T12:06:00.004-06:00

I listen to and read a lot of apologetic material. When it comes to issues in which Christians come down on different sides of the fence, I try to listen to multiple points of view. So in studying creation issues, I listen to and read books from what are commonly known as young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists.

That being the case, I subscribe to several podcasts that are delivered by the ministry run by Ken Ham known as Answers In Genesis to listen to a young-earth perspective. He has a daily podcast that is a short, 90 second podcast with an obviously short answer to an issue. One that I listened to today is title A Colorful Rainbow, But What's the Message?

Obviously he was talking about Noah's flood. Now respectable Christians are divided over the extent of the flood. Some believe it was global, some believe it was local. Generally speaking (not always), old-earth creationists lean towards a local flood while young-earth creationists lean towards a global flood.

Where I really had a problem with Ken Ham's commentary was at the point where he posed a question . . . Why is it that so many Christians want to insist that it was a local event? His answer . . . They want to accomodate the evolutionary belief in millions of years for the fossil record.

This is a horrible strawman fallacy by Ham. I don't listen to a single old-earth creationist that teaches macro-evolution and buys into the supposed fossil record for macro-evolution. Why does Ham make a statement like that? I don't know. However, this is one example of many from him that cause me to have a difficult time listening to him. I can listen to him as he asserts his reasons for holding to a young-earth position, but as a Christian, I think it's a shame that he didn't accurately represent those Christians who have an opposing view to his.

The Gospel According to Snoopy

2009-12-24T07:42:00.000-06:00

This past weekend my wife, a teenage friend and I participated in a two day seminar presented by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace entitled The Gospel According to Snoopy. It was a great event and I would encourage you to put together the funds to bring Dr. Wallace to your church to do this event if you are a person that has the influence in your church to do so. One important point though is that it is an interactive event in which you will need at least 50 people for this event to work. If you cannot get that many together, then it would be best to find out where Dr. Wallace will be presenting this and traveling to participate.

So what is this event about? Dr. Wallace is a scholar whose expertise is in textual criticism. Dan is/was the New Testament senior editor for the NET Bible. He was also a consultant for the TNIV, ESV and NKJV. A book of his that I owned prior to this event is Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

There are two types of textual criticism: higher and lower. Higher textual criticism deals with the questions of who wrote a book of the Bible, where they wrote, and why they wrote. Lower textual criticism deals with the question of what they wrote.

We often only hear negative comments about textual criticism and it is usually, if not always, about liberal higher critics. You might recognize this as JPED theory of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). However, higher and lower criticism are required fields of work and as Evangelicals we must engage these fields.

Dan's seminar is about lower textual criticism, i.e. how scholars determine what the text originally said. For example, in John 5 of the KJV and NKJV there is a verse 4 which talks about an angel that came and stirred up the waters and people would jump in to be healed. Most modern versions have this as a footnote or don't have it at all. Why? The answer is that some Greek manuscripts (a manuscript is a copy that is written by hand) include this verse while others do not. Dan's Snoopy seminar teaches you how scholars conclude what to include and what not to include and he does it by having it be an interactive seminar in which you get to be a lower textual critic. He starts by getting 22 volunteer scribes. Dan has an original verse from an ancient text. He has three of the scribes make a copy from the original. Then he tosses the original because just as we don't have John's original gospel or Paul's original letters, et al, so the group much re-construct the original verse without having the original.

Dan utilizes the 22 scribes to have copies as far as 5 "generations" away from his original verse. When we in our seminar finished we were within one word of the original which Dan showed us at the end. In the end, we added one word to his verse and that word didn't change the meaning of the verse.

Here's another good piece of info: the manuscript differences we had to filter out were much more substantive than what scholars have to deal with in regard to the Bible. According to Dan 90% or so of the manuscript differences are spelling differences. He informed us that back in the days scribes were copying, they didn't have Webster's dictionary to go to in order to make sure they spelled each word correctly. People spelled phonetically in those days and so not everything got spelled the same way. After spelling, the next major difference were synonyms. Again, no impact on the text.

I would encourage you to try to get this seminar at your church. This seminar greatly impacted my wife. This has been a hobby-horse of mine. Most of my posts about King James Version Onlyism have to due with lower criticism. I've been studying this subject for about 15 years. But I read books and enjoy reading books on it. Not everyone does. The interactive seminar impacted my wife in a way similar to how I was impacted 15 years ago when I first heard a scholar discuss this issue in detail. And it can impact many in your church and increase their confidence in the text that we have. The Bible that you and I carry is extremely reliable. Is it perfect? No. Scholars don't know every single word that the apostles wrote. There are some points at which they aren't 100% sure of what was written. But we have no verses that there's any doubt about in which there is substantive change. The only doctrine that might be affected would matter to snake handling churches. Not too many of us are into that.

Dan sold autographed copies of his book Reinventing Jesus which he co-authored with two other men. Go to that link and buy a copy. As I pasted that link, it was being offered at 60% off retail price. I also stopped at home between sessions and grabbed my Greek Grammar and asked Dan to sign that too. Not only did he sign it, he personalized it, which was nice considering I didn't request that.

If you don't have the opportunity to see this seminar, I can recommend a DVD which covers a lot of the detail. Dr. Wallace was a guest on the John Ankerberg show. It's called The Battle to Discredit the Bible. I own this DVD and much that Dan said is in that DVD. I've shown this DVD to my group of teens on Tuesdays. The main difference is the DVD isn't interactive the way the Snoopy Seminar was. Great stuff. Talk to your pastor, contact Dan and have him come out to your church. And remember to make sure you have at least 50 people coming.

What I'm Up To & Quesitons For Blaugmenting

2009-12-20T18:01:00.003-06:00

This weekend I spent time participating in a two-day seminar with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. The seminar is called The Gospel According to Snoopy. I am writing a post about that which should be available in a couple days. Other than that, I'm trying to get some reading done, particularly finish off volume 1 of Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology. I'm getting close. The only problem I see is that Geisler's theology book is so rich and has so much good information, once I finish volume four, I think I'm going to need to start all over again with volume one and re-read it all over again.

Also, although the readership for Blaugmenting is small, I'd like to state clearly that I'm always open to answering questions of apologetic or expositional nature here. Feel free to send questions you'd like answered on Blaugmenting to trustgzus@sbcglobal.net.

Additions to my Widget

2009-12-04T23:59:00.002-06:00

If you've browsed my blog, you may have noticed a "widget" on the right side that lists what I'm reading. I modified it today. Removed one book, added several.

I'm almost done with Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology volume 1.

New book I added include:

Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler
The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross
Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 1 (I thought after being a Christian for 23+ years that I was due to read the Church Fathers)
Reckless Faith by John MacArthur

Wrapping up with Eugene Peterson's The Message

2009-12-04T11:30:00.003-06:00

2009 is coming quickly to a close. That being the case, it is about time I provide some comments on the Bible version/translation/paraphrase or whatever it is I've read for this year. This year I chose to read The Message by Eugene Peterson. I'm currently reading a second time through the New Testament. The only parts I haven't read yet are Psalms 119 & 117.

Interaction I've had with others and commentary I've listened to or read from others is mixed. I've heard a lot of negative criticism of The Message in the circles I'm from. Amazon has quite a spread, largely positive. However, I don't find Amazon counts helpful. Many reviews don't give enough detail. That being said, here is the spread from Amazon as I type this post of mine:

seventy-four 5 star reviews
fifteen 4 star
five 3 star
three 2 star
twenty-one 1 star

Along with the fact that some reviewers at Amazon don't give enough detail, another problem with Amazon reviews and counts is that they can be misleading due to the fact that some people just don't understand the system. Any book that has many reviews, such as this, inevitably have people that think 1-star is awesome.

A common criticism that I read is that The Message isn't a translation. People who make this criticism are making one of two mistakes: either they don't understand translation or they fail to understand what Peterson was trying to do. Many who give this criticism think that translating is taking one word from Greek and/or Hebrew and putting one equivalent word in English. They take the phrase word-for-word in a wooden literal sense and that's their view. Because of this misunderstanding, I don't even use the phrase word-for-word anymore. I used to understand translation this way.

The fact is that if that is how one understands translation, and if that is their requirement, then English has no true translation of the Bible. Even versions such as the New American Standard and King James aren't word-for-word throughout the whole thing cover to cover. The closest thing to that is an interlinear. Try an interlinear cover to cover using the word order of the Greek and Hebrew.

I've learned from people who are bi-lingual or multi-lingual that translation doesn't work that way. I know only English really. I'm lightly equipped with Koine Greek - not in any way that would impress a student who has completed one semester.

Let me paste a paragraph from my blog post How to Choose a Translation . . . to illustrate the point.

For example, in Spanish people evidently say ¿Cómo se les llama? If we "translate" that word-for-word it would be how yourself call? But we don't say that in English. A proper translation in English would be what is your name? Yet, so many don't treat the Bible that way. In Matthew 1:18 we read ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα. If this were translated literally it would be having in belly. The King James says with child. The NASB reads to be with child. Guess what, gang? That is dynamic or functional equivalence in the KJV and NASB. None of those words in the KJV or the NASB are in the Greek. True translating asks how do people say that in this language?

So, let's make no mistake about it, no English version is a translation the way folks using this argument would have us think. The last sentence in that paragraph sums up what Peterson really did to the nth degree . . . how do people say that in this language?

Peterson was not trying to make a formal translation. So let's not judge it for what he isn't trying to do. I don't complain that my microwave oven doesn't do a good job cutting wood because I didn't buy my microwave oven to cut wood. My microwave oven wasn't designed to cut wood.

I've pasted this paragraph from Peterson before, but let me paste it again so we can understand his goal.

The Message is a reading Bible. It is not intended to replace the excellent study Bibles that are available. My intent here (as it was earlier in my congregation and community) is simply to get people reading it who don’t know that the Bible is read-able at all, at least by them, and to get people who long ago lost interest in the Bible to read it again. But I haven’t tried to make it easy—there is much in the Bible that is hard to understand. So at some point along the way, soon or late, it will be important to get a standard study Bible to facilitate further study. Meanwhile, read in order to live, praying as you read, “God, let it be with me just as you say.”

Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message : The Bible in contemporary language. Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress.

With that information from Peterson, we need to do two things with that information:

evaluate if that is indeed what he accomplished
evaluate if that is a valid approach to bringing the writings into English

I am out of time for the moment. I will post more on this. However, let me say that on the one hand I see no need to vilify Peterson's work completely. On the other hand, I see no reason why we must make a broad sweep the other direction and say we like how he handled every verse or passage. Reality is probably in the middle (as it so often is) and I think that's where I stand on The Message. I hope you are blessed as I discuss this in the coming posts.

The Manhattan Declaration?

2009-11-25T22:22:00.003-06:00

There is a new website for a document called The Manhattan Declaration. My first awareness of this was when Norman Geisler posted on Facebook that he signed it and that all of his friends on Facebook should read it and sign it too.

That draws my attention. Few have the influence to persuade me to do something as much as Dr. Geisler does.

My friend, Brian Bill (pastor of Pontiac Bible Church) posted a link to an article by a friend that's very influential to him. It's a post entitled Why I signed "The Manhattan Declaration" by Ray Pritchard. In that post, Pritchard provides the following reasoning . . .

I signed it because it represents a united front of Christians from many different backgrounds. I think it’s a positive thing when Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Christians can unite around issues of common concern. And I signed it because the declaration is well-written, thoughtful, carefully stated and yet bold in what it says.

Pritchard then posts two paragraphs from it and concludes by writing . . .

That will put some steel into your soul. God bless those who had the courage to write the Manhattan Declaration. May the Lord use it to give us new resolve to do God’s will in these days of growing moral confusion.

I don't find Pritchard's reasoning convincing at all to cause me to sign it. Albert Mohler wrote a piece by the same title. I think his is a little more compelling.

I read the declaration myself. I agree with it. My question is . . . so what? Don't misunderstand me. The issues are important. I'm very opinionated on what the declaration addresses. I have reasoned responses I give for those stances. I agree that we should stand with Catholics and Orthodox Christians on social issues that we share in common. Heck, I'm willing to stand with Mormons, JW's or even atheists on common moral stances in regard to social issues.

But what will signing The Manhattan Declaration do? I already have the attitude that it promotes. Am I just being a party pooper here? I don't think it gives enough "umph" in it to persuade those who disagree with the positions stated in it. Should I sign it because I agree with it and it's there?

I get e-mail chain letters that I agree with except for the ending that threatens me that if I don't send it on then somehow I'm a weak Christian. To me the declaration seems like a more formal e-mail chain letter.

I think we can still overturn Roe v. Wade. I think we can prevent same-sex marriage from being sanctioned in our country. I don't see what this does to accomplish those goals. I'm sticking to these principles whether I sign it or not. The best thing that I know that I can do with the Christian teens in my study and the Christians I work with is teach them how to think. If I know the reasoning behind my stances, that will make my footing and theirs more solid than the fact that they or I sign a document.

Dr. Geisler (or anyone), what am I missing?

How to Study a Book of the Bible

2009-11-18T13:34:00.009-06:00

On Tuesday night we started a new study for our teen night at Lincoln Street Fellowship. Our new study is through the epistle of James. The text we are working through for the study is Warren Wiersbe's commentary, Be Mature.

I'd like to share with you what I've encouraged the teens to do. First, I encouraged them to read the entire book every day for a month. I was taught this idea by John MacArthur. John has written this in many of his books. Here is one example . . .

The Bible has a flow and a context, especially the letters from Paul, James, and others. When somebody writes you a letter, you don’t stop to read a nice line, then jump two pages to find another good thought. You read it through, to understand the flow of thought.

So, sit down and read 1 John through. Are you through? Hardly. The next day read 1 John through in one sitting again. On the third day, do it again and so on for thirty days. Do you know what happens at the end of thirty days? You know what is in 1 John. Nobody can trip you up. Where does it talk about forgiveness of sins? 1 John 1:7–9. Where does John talk about how and why God is love? 1 John 4:7–21. For warnings about loving the world too much, see 1 John 2:15–17. For the promise of eternal life, see 1 John 5:11, 12.

Those are just a few obvious samples. You’ll be able to see 1 John in your mind’s eye—the location of every verse, where every line fits. Best of all, you will have the flow of the book and understand its basic message. Then go on to another short book and do the same thing for thirty days. Always read the book through in one sitting, every day, for thirty days. At the end of thirty days, you’ll have another New Testament book in your heart and mind as never before.

MacArthur, J. (2003). Unleashing god's word in your life (98). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

That book was released in 2003, but I've been doing this since I was a teen, so obviously MacArthur has said this in many places as I've been doing this for over twenty years. I picked this up from his book How to Study the Bible.

As I've stated in my Bible reading tips, I encourage using a pointer as one reads, such as a simple #2 pencil. Also play an audio Bible as you read along, then either speak it out loud or at least mouth the words. This gets many senses in: your eyes, ears, hands and mouth. This really gets me engaged, avoid distractions and absorb the material.

I also gave each student a disc with lots of material, i.e. sermons and teachings by multiple pastors. Most of it is downloadable for free off the internet, so I'm not concerned about giving away material illegally. Most of this the students could have retrieved for themselves.

Each disc included:

a single message from Ray Stedman (message 0260 if you want to listen to it)
a single message from Sandy Adams (this is available for free through iTunes -- just go to the iTunes store and type in "bible scan" into the search box and you'll get this podcast -- I paid $20 several years ago to own what is now free -- it was still money well spent)
a two-part teaching by Chuck Smith (scroll down to James for the two messages)
8 messages by Jon Courson (you can listen for free, but it costs to own -- sorry Jon, I'll buy these for the students if that's what you require)
J. Vernon McGee's teaching through the book

Now while I gave these things for free to the students, I purchased all of these from the various pastors (except for Stedman . . . I'm not aware of where I can purchase his messages so his are all downloaded). Most of this stuff isn't that expensive. So if you want download some samples but if you like their teachings, please support them by purchasing a set.

J. Vernon McGee's entire audio commentary is only $35. That covers the entire Bible. Chuck Smith's is only $33.99. Jon Courson's entire teaching through the Bible is the most expensive at $100, however, that's 15 years of teaching from him. That's hundreds of messages for dirt cheap when you divide the total number of messages by $100.

I'm not requiring the students listen to any of these. Nor am I requiring them to read James every day for thirty days, although I'm highly encouraging that. The sermons are there for them (or their parents) to dig into James to the degree they feel inclined. Obviously, the more they dig-in to it, the greater benefit they will receive.

I also included two audio Bible versions of the epistle of James for the students to listen to. One is in the primary translation we use for our study and the other is in an easier to understand translation. I included these to encourage and assist them in reading through James for thirty days.

Lastly, I included two Bible reading plans. One is the plan used by Shoal Creek Community Church. The other is the Discipleship Journal reading plan. I encouraged the students, if they can, to use the Shoal Creek plan. That's what I've used for 24 years. However, it is unforgiving. You get one day off every four years (February 29th). So if you fall behind, you get backed up quickly. I talk about how to deal with that in my post on Bible reading tips. That being said, it's the most rewarding. It gets you through the Old Testament once and the New twice each year. So if a student in my group is 15 and starts doing this in January, at 20 years of age he/she will have read the OT five times and the NT ten times. That will do more for their walk than any Bible study they can do with me (or with anyone else) during that time.

The Discipleship Journal (DJ) plan I gave them because ultimately my goal for the teens (and adults involved with Lincoln Street) is to read their Bible every day. The DJ plan can be modified. You can get through the Bible in a year (and that includes missing 65 days in the year). You can cut it in half and read the Bible in two years (even while missing 130 days). Least of all, since it has boxes to check off next to each reading, I encouraged the students to read at least a box a day. Often this is just two paragraphs that takes 5 minutes if you read slowly. Reading a box a day would take 1200 days to read the Bible which is three years and 105 days (or just under 3-1/3 years). Still pretty good because in ten years a person will read the Bible three-plus times.

I'm looking forward to seeing Jesus impact the lives of the students and adults (including myself) as we study the epistle of James together.

Pastor Removal From Television!

2009-11-06T09:19:00.003-06:00

Have you ever gotten an email like this . . .
SUBJECT: No more Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Eddie Long, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, or Charles Stanley ??? PASTOR REMOVAL FROM TELEVISION Please, if you don't wish to participate, return this email to whoever sent it to you so they can at least keep this email going, or forward it to some one you know who will wish to participate. Dr. Dobson is going on CNBC to urge every Christian to get involved. I hope you will sign and forward to all your family and friends. An organization has been granted a Federal Hearing on the same subject by the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC) in Washington , D.C. Their petition, Number 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading of the gospel of our Lord and Savior on the airwaves of America . They have 287,000 signatures to back their stand! If this attempt is successful, all Sunday worship services being broadcast on the radio or by television will be stopped. This group is also campa igning to remove all Christmas programs and Christmas carols from public schools! You as a Christian can help! We are praying for at least 1 million signatures. This would defeat their effort and show that there are many Christians alive, well and concerned about our country. As Ch ristians, we must unite on this. Please don't take this lightly. We ignored one lady once and lost prayer in our schools and in offices across the nation. Please stand up for your religious freedom and let your voice be heard. Together we can make a difference in our country while creating an opportunity for the lost to know the Lord. CLEAN UP THE MESSAGE, and forward this to everyone you think should read this. Now, please sign your name at the bottom (you can only add your name after you have pressed 'Forward'). If hitting the Forward button does not work for you, then cut and paste this message into a new email letter. Don't delete any other names, just go to the next number and type your name. Please do not sign jointly, such as Mr. & Mrs., each person should sign his/her own name. Please defeat this organization and keep the right of our freedom of religion. When you get to 1000 please e-mail back to: XXXX XXXXXXI've gotten many over the years. If you clicked on the link in the first line of this post, then you saw that I copied this from urbanlegends.com. I copied it from there simply because I don't keep these emails that attempt to drive Christians into baseless fear.

If you go to that link, you can scroll down and see another very popular email from years past which announced the attempt to cancel the television show Touched by an Angel. I assume we don't get this email anymore for the obvious reason that Touched by an Angel is no longer a current running show.

So why do these internet chain letters continue? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Why You Need to Live for Jesus in Your Current Situation

2009-11-04T22:57:00.002-06:00

I love Jon Courson. I could not teach everything he teaches from the Bible. Sometimes he does some play-on-words to teach things from a text which the text doesn't teach (of course, what he teaches, I agree with -- I just couldn't justify using some texts the way he does).

Check out this commentary he made while going through the book of Numbers. This is why it's important for people like me to work for the electric company and why it's important for other to work for fast-food chains, et al.

Numbers 35:1 (b)–5

… saying, Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them. And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about. And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.

Serving as ministers in the tabernacle, the tribe of Levi was not given any portion of the Promised Land. Instead, the Levites were to be scattered throughout the entire country. The rest of the tribes were told to give certain cities to the Levites as places in which they could dwell. As we shall see, these cities would number forty-eight.

If the Levites were only in one tribal region, people who weren’t close to them wouldn’t get the proper ministry. So they were scattered throughout the entire country. And that’s what the Lord does with us. The Lord has snuck His servants into the most amazing places. He sneaks Christian teachers into high schools to be subversive, secret agents, Levites, reflections of Jesus Christ. He sneaks Christian salesmen, secretaries, and accountants into the workplace to be examples of what it means to be a believer. He sneaks Christian doctors into hospital rooms as ministers of the gospel.

This is such a key. Each of us who is serious about Jesus is in ministry. We are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). And He’s stationed you in that work place, that neighborhood, that family to be a servant of His. It’s a great day indeed when a believer looks at his work as his ministry and says, “I’m surrounded by people professional pastors would never have an opportunity to reach. I’m here on campus, at the store, in the neighborhood not just to work for a paycheck or to raise my family, but to be a minister. So I’m going to keep my eyes open and my antennae up in order to determine the part I am to play in this place for God’s glory.”

Courson, J. (2005). Jon Courson's application commentary : Volume one : Genesis-Job (532). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Devotions and Devotionals - Part 4

2009-08-23T04:31:00.004-05:00

There's one other idea I'd like to impart to you about devotions and devotionals. Why not use something other than a "devotional"? Who says it has to be from that category of book?

Grab a commentary and read from one header to the next. Or if that's too long, read a couple paragraphs. You can work through a couple Warren Wiersbe commentaries a year this way.

Or grab a systematic theology. I've been plugging away for probably a couple years now on Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology Volume 1. It is so rich and I am so strengthened by reading it. Geisler is uniquely gifted.

Theology books and commentaries make great devotionals. Try it. I think you'll like it.