shadman's Musings

The Intolerance of the Tolerant

2010-01-09T17:15:00.000-08:00

Last week a young Muslim man attempted to blow up an airplane headed to Detroit. He's ben dubbed the 'underwear bomber' because he had half of a very powerful explosive in his underwear. Seems his attempt to add the other compound of the explosive failed and all he got was a burned crotch. Our government agencies, in an attempt to show how well they do they jobs, declared how well the 'anti-terror systems' worked, when in fact it was the mistake of a 23 yr old would-be terrorist, and the quick response of a British businessman that saved over 200 lives. Prior to this incident, our current administration wasn't able to stomach to words that we are 'at war' with an Islamic organization dedicated in the task of killing as many Americans as they can for the last 30 yrs. The man they all hate understood that on Sept 11th, 2001. At the same time, an interesting story concerning Google emerged about its search engine. Until it changes - hopefully soon, if you believe Google - go to Google.com, and in the search box on the screen, type in "Christianity is". Interesting possible search topics, huh? Now try "Hinduism is". OK, now try "Atheism is". Notice the results you get right in the search box? Now, type in "Islam is". Notice any difference? Right, nothing appears at all. Google calls it a 'bug', I call it par for the course - Islam is a protected religion because they kill people for much less infractions.

Recently, I got a chance to sit down and watch Ben Stein's "Expelled!" documentary. Ben is certainly no Michael Moore, but then he would have had to fabricate half of his information to be in his league. We normally think of "science" as the bastion of truth and objectivity. From "science" we get all of the technologies we love to use; electricity and electronics, mechanical contraptions, construction marvels, and many others. But there are a couple of areas in the field of science where truth and objectivity don't seem to have any place. Why? Because there's money involved. You see, you don't get any grants to disprove some of the absolutes in science, like evolution and global warming - oh! sorry, I mean climate change. Some one really smart once said, "Follow the money!", and it is really true in the world of educational grants. You don't get grants to disprove their sacred cows. As Stein showed in his documentary, 'intelligent design' is a dirty word, one that can get you fired. So much for 'freedom of speech'.

I've also had a chance to think a lot about the Army Psychiatrist who, in the name of Allah, gunned down over 40 people, killing 13 of them. And for days and days no one was asking the real questions about his actions. Everyone wanted to relegate this guy to the fringe as a psycho, but the sad fact of the matter is, he is sane, rational and purposeful in all of his actions. We don't like that because it doesn't fit in to our little Pollyanna world views - Christian, secular or otherwise. And why did this guy go on a rampage? It seems that he was feeling 'picked' on because of his religion. His response? Sadly, it was all too typical for one from his religious views. The "religion of peace" has once again shown itself as anything but tolerant. And as usual, no one seems to be seeing that.

You might be asking what these three examples have in common and if you are, its called tolerance. Some of you may be thinking that I'm being a bit intolerant right now in my statements, but I assure you I am the tolerant one. This website documents Islam's religious tradition of tolerance of others who might disagree with their view of what is acceptable. Its what is happening right now, all around our globe. But I WARN you now, you may not want to go to this website; its information and its images will disturb you. It is not for the faint of heart.

There is also the recent revelations in the global warming community about its tactics to promote their agenda to force the world's economies to limit their CO2 emissions. They have purposely fabricated some data and hidden others, to support their agenda. Anyone that disagrees with them and their agenda - even with good reasoned evidence to the contrary - is a 'denier'. They won't even listen to a reasoned arguments that are different than the agenda they are married to.

Its like the questions I asked the History Channel several years ago when they had done yet another hit piece on Christianity, "Would you ever, even think of doing the same to other religions, say like Islam? Or is Christianity just too easy of a target?" Christians are supposed to 'turn the other cheek', so attacking our belief system is 'ok'. You see, the perception is that Christianity is the only intolerant religion or belief system out there, making their attacks a reasoned way to help us become more 'tolerant'. A fanatic shoots an abortion doctor (who legally commits murder every day, but that's a different discussion for a different day) and all of Christianity is indicted as "intolerant". Meanwhile, Islam all over the world, including the USA, kills people every single day, and they are the "religion of peace", the tolerant faith. The death toll of Muslim incited violence is easily well over a 100 to 1 ratio in incidents as compared to Christianity - which is often cited, yet its only Christians that are intolerant. Honestly, it should make you want to know just what the real definition of "tolerance" is. So let's start there. Tolerance is defined as:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with; the capacity to endure continued subjection to something without adverse reaction.

There are of course people all over the world, Christians included, that are intolerant, but it does seem a bit odd that only Christians seem to be saddled with the moniker of intolerant. When a Christian scientist sees proof of intelligent design in the world, there doesn't seem to be a problem of being intolerant of his viewpoint by the so called enlightened secularists. His viewpoint can be ruthlessly refuted and even viciously ridiculed and somehow that's a 'proof' of tolerance. Yet, the secularist can never be questioned when he sees a lack of intelligent design in the world. Any questions to the contrary are ridiculed and the person blackballed from the educational community, making it nearly impossible to find employment. The same seems to be true of all other religious viewpoints with the exception of Christianity. I'm 'narrow-minded and bigoted' to believe that the Bible is God's Word to man and that there is no other way to God except by His Son, Jesus. Yet every other religious tradition believes the exact same thing - that they are right and all others are wrong. To burn the Quran is a sin punishable by death in the Muslim world, so it amazes me that no one in the secular world seems to see this as intolerant. People in the Army are prosecuted for doing something like that. The terrorist detainees routinely destroyed the Quran's we, the taxpayers of the USA, purchased for them in ways you simply would not believe. Yet Army guards are instructed to do anything and everything to protect these books that the detainees destroy and use as weapons.

Tolerance has degenerated to the level of a weapon to be welded against anyone that we disagree with. Intolerant is a label to be feared. Not surprisingly, it is usually used by the social and scientific elite, who are usually the most intolerant amongst us. Please understand, I'm not arguing for intolerance to spread, it already has. I am arguing for more tolerance from the one's who consider themselves to be the most 'tolerant'. The secularist has no reason and no motivation to practice it. They have no standard to live by, except for whatever they seem to think is the best standard they can find. Other religious traditions are really not much better, they practice it very unevenly, but some better than others. But it is the Christian that has every reason and all of the motivation to do so, but sadly they are just as uneven in their practice.

Christians are supposed to be people that are to be imitators of Christ. I don't really expect non-Christians, like Muslims, to be tolerant, which they are not. Neither do I expect it from the secularist. But the Christian simply doesn't have a choice. That doesn't mean they are to be blind to the truth and hypocritical reality around them. And it doesn't mean them should be silent either. But it is not our ability to organize against the world, or boycott organizations or TV programs that will affect the world. It will be our ability to imitate Jesus that will affect the world around us. Years ago, there was a 'WWJD?' campaign that asked a simple question - what would Jesus do? It has been copied and mocked, but the question was still a good one that is just as relevant today as it was 2000 yrs ago. Would Jesus turn to politics to solve the world's inequalities? Would he protest? Would he spew hatred towards others? Wouldn't he answer the Pharisee's one way, and the masses another? Do we know who the Pharisees are?

When Jesus talked about 'turning the other cheek', it wasn't about being the door mat for the world. No, it was about showing the world that we were willing to be wronged to show the world what was right. When Christians were killed by the Romans for their faith, what we forget is that they refused to deny Christ as Lord and God. The Romans were intolerant of their religious views, the Christians willingly gave up their lives to show that faith in Jesus was more important than their current life on this earth, more important than the intolerant world around them. It was a statement that spoke much louder than their words could have ever done. Remember, they will know we are Christians by our love.

It is not wrong to point out to the world its lack of tolerance, just don't be intolerant when you do it!

Who is Your God?

2008-12-31T09:00:00.001-08:00

So here we are ending 2008, ready to start a new year, with a new president, an economy in recession and a nation that seems 'hell-bent' on continuing to throw away the very faith and values that created her and inspired a governmental structure unlike any other on the face of this planet. No, I'm not getting political or disregarding the 'too many to count' horrible things that have been done in the 'name of Christ' as so many like to point out. We all know these things to be true and are reminded of them continually by people whose motives most likely are suspect. So I'm not trying to put lemon juice on a paper cut, but I do think there's a hidden truth that seems to get overlooked by too many Christians feed up and tired of being brow-beaten with the actions of people that none of us knew, and wouldn't have been able to control had we been alive during their times, or present during their sinful actions.

Trying to 'fix' that perception we spend our time trying to change it, but only make it worse. Too many liberal Christians are consumed by the social aspects of the faith (anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-establishment), and too many conservative Christians are way too concerned by the legal aspects of the faith - the rights and the wrongs of everyone's actions. Sadducees and Pharisees, respectively. I would love to say a lot more about these two opposing and all too often counter-productive perspectives, but I don't want to side tract the point I'm wanting to make in this blog.

Just as I believe it to be wrong to be a hyphenated American (Jewish-American, African-American, Italian-American, etc), I believe its wrong to be a hyphenated Christian (liberal, conservative, black, white, etc). Extolling our 'diversity' does not unite us. Celebrating how we are different only makes it harder for us to work together. Instead of seeing the areas where the other side is right, all we do is focus on the other's wrong - the log in our brother's eye. These labels only serve to divide us, and anything that divides us should be rejected - by both sides! As Christians we are called to be Christ followers, not people followers, or cause followers, or racial or gender followers. Is it any wonder we have no clue how to be followers of Christ?

Whether on the left or the right - a Sadducee and a Pharisee, we are all wrapped up in the things that we should be doing. Well, then what is our calling? Anyone? We only have one:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20 NAS95)

The Great Commission, right? So how do we make disciples if we don't know how to be one ourselves? That is a problem that Christians have been dealing with for 2000 yrs. If you make a disciple, what exactly does that involve? Conversion? Yes, but if you stop there you are not doing what we are called to be doing. (btw - the opposite - only concerned with Christian growth but not sharing your faith is just as wrong.) The rest of it is to help that person to become a 'lover of God' that can make other disciples as well, but for us to do that we must be able to be seen 'living' the Christian life first, and that is where we fail miserably. Why? Because too many of us don't have a clue how to do that ourselves, so how on earth can we help others! We hear all of the Christian cliches, like 'read your Bible and pray everyday', but to read through the Bible takes, like, a whole year, right? I can't wait that long! And praying - what am I supposed to say to God, He already knows everything, right? So, where do I run for help? I first try the church and friends that tell me the same thing I already know but am unwilling to do, because I'm just too impatient to do that. Some one tells me about a great book and how much it helped them, and off I run to the local Christian book store, finding a treasure trove of books on every sort of issue and malady imaginable.

Now understand, I don't blame people for looking for help on how to 'walk the walk', especially when too many churches don't even try to provide good discipleship for new believers. We all want to know HOW to live the Christian life, but our problem is that our motive is really impure - we want it yesterday, we don't want to work for it, or to have to contend for the faith. What we're looking for is the 'quick fix' to get our 'sanctification' (the theological term for our growing and maturing in Christ) the fastest way possible. None of us really want to learn anything the hard way. But the fact is, just because something worked for someone else, doesn't mean that it it will work for you. That's the dirty little secret of the 'Christian living' book empire.

What we're really looking for is a 'formula'. A formula is so much easier to deal with isn't it? I mean, all I have to do is implement the formula, follow the steps, the guidelines and I'm there, right? But have you ever stopped to consider what a formula really is? Isn't it just a form of legalism? I have to follow the rules laid out by the formula, no deviations allowed or the formula fails, right? So what do I do when the formula doesn't work for me? Well, that's easy - I head off to the local Christian bookstore again and find a new formula, right? Unfortunately, we think its much easier to just try to emulate someone else's life experiences by following what they did in their life and making the assumption that it is just as applicable to our own. This is the fatal flaw in all of the 'self-help' Christian living books sold world-wide. And book publishers promote that flaw and we buy into it, lock, stock and barrel.

So, why do we do that? Because down deep inside, we really don't want to do the hard work required to grow in Christ. The people that wrote their books did the hard work required, and we snap it up because we want to take the 'path of least resistance', the easy way out. We just want to apply the book's concepts to our life and magically everything in our life becomes ordered. But it doesn't work that way, does it? We run from book to book, from guru to guru looking for the rules that will finally bring that needed order to our chaos. We want 'legalism' because its easier to handle than meeting with a Holy and loving God who wants to help us deal with the trash in our lives. He shines a bright light on it, and we want it left in the dark.

You see, our growth in Christ - our sanctification - is a slow and life-long process, and the longer you delay the start, the longer you will be in that frustrated spot of wondering why everyone else is growing and you are not. Please, do NOT go buy the latest self-help book; you're wasting your time and your money. Instead, make time for Christ. Sit down with Him, get to know Him, talk to Him and then listen to what He says. The book of Psalms is a great example of doing just that. We will hear His voice when we know how He speaks, and we will know how He speaks by reading His Word (Rom 10:17). And if you are reading it so you can judge some one else - you know, reading the Word to solve everyone else's problems, then you are not really reading the Word at all. Read it for YOU. You cannot control the actions or behaviors of others, so stop trying. Worry about yourself. Make time for God in your life, read your Bible everyday, not because you HAVE to, but because you want to, because you want to learn how to hear His voice and learn about who He is and what He wants for your life. As I've said in previous blogs, all we know about Jesus is contained in Scripture. If you want to find out who God is, then look where He's contained - in the Bible. The Holy Spirit resides inside of you, He will enlighten you, if you will take the time to listen. Don't look in the so-called Gnostic gospels, don't try to find Him in other people's books, go to the source! If you are looking for a formula to apply in your life, don't bother dropping your cash, it most likely won't work and you're out $10.

What you long for is to have a relationship with the eternal Creator of the universe; no one wants religion. God hates religion. I've repeated this before, and I'll repeat it again, "Religion is man's way of making himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God's way of making man acceptable to Himself." You don't have to do anything to earn God's favor. Its not about following steps, its not about following rules, its not about being moral or ethical, its not about passing laws - its not about what you do for Christ. Its about sitting down with Him and getting to know Him, and understanding what He wants for your life and then letting Him guide you and your actions. Stop thinking about everyone else's problems; stop trying to 'fix' them. When you aren't right yourself, you certainly can't fix anyone else. Start realizing that Jesus wants to meet with you right now! If you are willing to put in the time, you will become the person He created you to be. At that point, there still aren't any rules to follow, you just do the right things because you love Him and you want to please Him. You know, the law of Christ written on your heart? I don't have to practice not murdering, I don't want to because I want to please Him, not myself. I don't have to practice not coveting other people's things, my desire is to be like Christ and focusing on the material things of this world doesn't get me there.

I'm going to offend some of you, but you need to hear this - you don't have any rights anymore, you were bought and paid for, some one owns you (1 Cor 7:23). You are either going to belong to satan or belong to Christ - those are your only two choices. Its not about what you want anymore; its not about you. That is why we fail at the Christian walk; we're too concerned about our rights, how others have wronged us, social injustices, society's lack of morality, whatever. If you are wrapped up in these other things, then quite frankly, you haven't been broken yet, you haven't come to the end of yourself, you're still too selfish to follow Christ the way He has called you to; you are still too wrapped up in you. And while that is still going on, we are either living in the past - the person I could have been, or you're a religious Pharisee - following our man-made laws and judging others by our personal 'godly' standards. Isn't that what Mack was doing in the book, The Shack? He had run down every avenue, every path, and at the end of all of that running he was no closer to God. He was ready to chuck the 'faith' and live only for himself, which he was really already doing.

I want to challenge you. Where is the first place you run when you are feeling down, despondent, angry, discontent? Is it the same place you run when you are happy, when you're content? Most likely not, because we have a bad habit of only running to Jesus when we're in trouble. That actually exposes our heart - If I'm really in love with the God of the universe then I'm thankful in all things. Like David, I take my troubles to Him, but thank Him for always being with me in the midst of my trials. If you don't do that, then at least do what Jacob and Mack did - duke it out with Him. That's part of the process of completely surrendering to His will and abandoning your own. That is the secret to the abundant life: complete surrender to Christ, laying down your 'rights' as well as your wrongs. If you want to walk in Christ and be called a friend of God, then get serious about your Christian walk. Quit running from the only thing that works. Practice the presence of God. Pretend He is right next to you - would you say that? Would you do that? If you want counsel on what to do, ask. But whatever you do, figure out if you really want to be owned by the Creator, and if you really don't, then quit pretending and quit ruining the 'name of Christ' for the rest of us that do. We all have do that enough, and don't need your help ....

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. (Php 3:7-12 NAS95)

Relationship not religion ...

2008-12-19T09:06:00.000-08:00

Wow! It has been a really long time since my last blog. I have chosen to back out of a business venture because I just don't have time anymore; actually, I never had the time in the first place. It was an interesting little adventure and I'm glad I did it, but with a full-time job and all of my responsibilities at church, it was completely unrealistic to get involved with. As my partner said, "What we do for the Lord is much more important than what we do in the business world." He is of course correct.

Every church has a slogan, ours is, "Relationship not religion". But slogans are not always easy to live up to, so the question we should all be asking, which I am, is, "does that slogan match what we really are?" A lot of the time its what we really want to be, but not always what we really are. And with all of the transitions going on at my church and after reading a short book, I starting thinking about this and its relationship to my topic, the Trinity.

There was also the aspect that the subject I'm still on – the Trinity – is overwhelmingly huge! Some of the material I had read and still have to read was and still is daunting. The very worst part about this is that I really had not idea where to go from where I was – too many possible directions. So, as I made the decision to drop out of the business venture, the father of my daughter's boyfriend gave me a book to read called The Shack, by Wm Paul Young. Now all of you that just took a collective breath and are still holding it, please, go ahead and let it out. I'm not on the 'dark-side'. Although I liked the book quite a lot, there were a number of theological errors in the book. But that being said, too much is being made of some of the supposed errors - some of the criticism is out of context for a fictional, allegorical story; things like the Father being portrayed as a large black woman or the the Father and the Holy Spirit being visible or having a physical form. These might be legitimate issues if and only if the author was attempting to persuade you that he had had a visitation, or a secret knowledge of how God manifests Himself, but that is simply not the case. This is an allegorical story, a fictional novel whose purpose seems to be to help us realize how we can relate to God. Is there an irreverent element to this story? Some might answer that questions, "Absolutely!", but maybe we need our structured little “Christian” world turned upside down from time to time.

What struck me as I read and thought about this book was the relationship with God that was being described. The character in the book, Mack, is transported - if you will - to a place where he can interact with the person's of the Trinity. Because they are personified, Mack can easily walk and talk with them about both his deeply troubled youth and the death of one of his children - the source of the Great Sadness that grips his entire being. The rest of the book is the three person's of God helping Mack come to terms with his tacit rejection of God and the anger and despair that consumes him. All of the book's criticism is based on how it represents God, from the names for the Father and the Holy Spirit to the things they say to Mack along his weekend journey at the shack. I will leave you to make your own determination as to the validity of the criticisms, they are not the subject of this blog. I would like to deal strictly with the question that rose in my heart as I read the book; what is MY relationship with God? How am I expressing it? And finally, is that expression correct, or is it 'religious'? For me, that is a real important question; remember the church slogan above?

So let's start where we should always start, with Scripture;

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" (Gen 3:8-9 NAS95)

A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:32-35 NAS95)

This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. (John 15:13-15 NAS95)

We talk about Jesus being our "friend" or "brother" and several other familiar terms, some that are, quite frankly, difficult for us to comprehend let alone accept. Many of us have been Christians all our lives, or have become Christians and have learned what to expect as our "approved" behavior, which we turn around and impose on others. Anything that has the slightest hint of irreverence, as we've come to understand it, is abhorrent to us. Yet our biblical examples are of a relationship that we don't really practice, but is actually represented in this book. Still I sense that this is in a way offensive to our sensibilities, and judging from some of the criticism of the book I found, I think I'm right about that. Forget about some of the theological problem areas of this book, that is not my focus. Please understand that I'm not excusing, condoning or ignoring the problem areas in this book. My focus is on our relationship with God, which the book makes as a center piece to the story's presentation, and my central question - what is that really supposed to be? What does it look like? Are we really supposed to walk around praying and talking to God in King James English? That answer should be obvious.

In Gen 3, we see that God regularly walked and talked with Adam in the garden. That is the only conclusion we can come to since God seems to be surprised not to find Adam there. Imagine if you will, that type of relationship. Don't you wonder what they talked about? How often they did this? Or how long their walks were? Next we see Mark 3 and Jesus clearly calls believers His brothers and sisters. Remember, He's still God, yet we are His family, warts and all. Isn't there an inherent love in families? No matter what our earthly brothers and sisters do, we still love them, even when we dislike what they do. And finally, in John 15, we are no longer slaves, but friends, friends of God with the inside scoop on what's going on. These three passages speak volumes, without hardly saying anything at all! All of those unspoken things that we just know.

Please understand, I'm not trying to make these few Scriptures say more than they really are, but my sincere belief is that we make too little of them to begin with. What are the examples of relationships with Jesus in the Bible? Aren't they of familiarity - Jesus with His disciples and His disciples with Him? Isn't it one similar to how we would relate with a good friend? Your wife or husband? Now, think carefully, is that the type of relationship you have with Christ? Is it really? Don't focus on whether Jesus would wear a tool belt, or whether the Father would appear as a 'large black woman'. To me, the absurdity of the hyperbole the author uses is self evident. Remember its an allegorical representation. If God was going to confront a clansman, I can't see a reason why he wouldn't choose a form that would turn that person's world completely upside down. God would use the very opposite of what they would be expecting, as He often did with the Pharisees. Remember what happened to Peter when God confronted him about his sudden Jewishness around his Jewish and Gentile 'brothers'? God presented Peter unclean animals and told him, "Kill and eat!" Peter was repulsed at the thought, and needed this shock treatment three times for the light bulb to turn ON! And before we get to 'high and mighty', I'll bet we'd need more than three treatments for our wake up call.

I want us to see the Jesus of Scripture, so let's look at John 11 and the raising of Lazarus. Verse 3 says,

So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick."

Interesting statement isn't it, the one that Jesus loves is sick. This expresses an intimate friendship with another human being. Don't you think that Lazarus felt the same way about Jesus? This same statement is made about John later in the book. Moving on to verse 11,

This He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep."

And here, once again, Jesus calls Lazarus His friend, but not just "His" friend, Lazarus was friends with all of the disciples as well. Jesus is showing us a relational aspect of who He is, and how we are supposed to be ... with Him, as well as with others. We know we're supposed to be relational with each other, but what about our relationship with the Almighty God as Father Son and Holy Spirit? If we can't get it right with Him, can we really get it right with each other? Do we really understand what it means to be in relationship with each other? Let's continue in verses 33-36:

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, and said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, "See how He loved him!"

Here Jesus is moved to tears about a friend that He already knew was dead when He arrived, and already knew that He was going to raise from the dead. Yet seeing his friend's tomb causes Jesus to openly weep. Now go back and re-read the whole passage. Don't you see His close interaction with His disciples, and Mary and Martha? It would even appear that both Martha and Mary understood just who Jesus was. Is that how we relate to Jesus?

If we take a look at John 21:1-18 we see the story of Jesus restoring Peter after his denials of Christ before the crucifixion. They had breakfast together, is that the Jesus you know? How did Jesus relate to His disciples? When Peter understood that Jesus was God - did it change how he related to God, how he talked to God? What about Adam before the fall? He "walked with God in the cool of the day" (Gen 3:8-9) - isn't that how God wanted to relate to us all along? And that is one of the central points of The Shack.

The depiction of Mack's relationship with the triune God embarrassed me about my own relationship, especially in light of the fact of my church's slogan. I had to ask myself if my actions showed that I actually believed it. Is my relationship with Jesus like my relationship with my good friend Bob or my wife? I can talk about anything with either one of them; but can I do that with Jesus? And more, do I relate to Him like I relate to Bob? Think about your prayers; if you inserted the name of your best friend - like Bob - would that prayer conversation sound silly? For most of us, I fear the answer is yes. And if it does, then maybe you should change the way to talk to God. Really, it doesn't have to sound religious. He's there with you, having a morning cup of joe, or driving to work, or watching television, and even when you're sleeping. If we are believers, then we can't help but take Him everywhere we go because the Holy Spirit resides IN us, continually. If we are believers, He never leaves us, ever. Does that scare you or excite you?

Yes, there are plenty of places where people fell on their faces before both God and Jesus in reverence and awe, but that doesn't negate the times they walked and talked with Him, as friends do, sharing life, troubles and pain. If we are believers, then Jesus calls us His friends too and calls us to a relationship, where we share life, not just our laundry list of prayers.

This is not an indictment of anyone; its a challenge for us all.

Jesus in Isa 48:16

2007-10-27T13:11:00.001-07:00

This is a comment I posted on a Jehovah's Witness' Yahoo 360 blog some time back, in response to a posting he still currently has on his site questioning the Trinity. I was turned onto this site by a friend who asked me what I thought of his post. I felt and still feel that he asked some really good questions and I really, truly felt, and still do, that he needed to enter into a discussion about the questions he asked, since he obviously does not understand Christian teachings. Its doubtful that he understands his own JW teaching either since it didn't take me long to discover that his questions came directly from one of his JW pamphlets, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?”, but I was hoping that he really wanted to discuss the topics he raised. Sorry, that was just a little sarcastic because JW's usually don't discuss or debate anything, and he was certainly no exception since all he did was delete my comments. Most unfortunate, but not unexpected. Why post questions or beliefs if you are not ready to hear some one disagree with you. Honestly, people that disagree with you make you think, and that's a good thing. Oh well. But I wanted to post this once I got into the Trinity. This is a little out of order concerning a systematic theological presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I hope you will find some value in the post.

~~~~~~~~~~~

The Trinity is such an interesting topic. It is misunderstood by nearly everyone. Sadly, too many Christians have no clue how to explain it, being easily confused by those that understand it even less, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. Too often people begin at the wrong starting point, giving themselves no hope of arriving at the truth. An example is that some people reject the Trinity simply because the word, “trinity” is not in the New or Old Testaments. But neither are the words omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence or immutable, yet there is little disagreement that God is all knowing, or that He is all powerful, or present everywhere all of the time, or never changes. So the word not being in the OT or NT is a proverbial “straw-man.”

To be able to understand the Trinity, one must understand God's attributes, only then can we begin to see His great plan for mankind. Starting in the middle means that we have to redefine words and their meanings just to make our points understandable. That is where I started when I started blogging, but I got sidetracked into Islam and now feel compelled to start a series on the Trinity, and so I haven't really completed His glorious attributes. Unfortunately, not knowing much about them will be a bit of a handicap here, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We will also have to deal with Jesus' subordination to the Father; it always comes up in the discussion, and frankly no Christian should be afraid of this topic either. But all in good time; we've got some ground to cover before we're ready to discuss that topic.

Also, let me state that this will be a series of posts because one cannot have a quick one liner answer to what the Trinity is, and properly make its defense. So, this will be the first part of my answer. I don't profess to be a theologian or a scholar, but I read and study continually. Likewise I don't profess to be an expert on non-Christian belief systems, but I'm not afraid to engage people when they knock on my door, or approach me in an airport, or on-line.

So, let's get started. By the way, I read the New American Standard Bible, so my quotes will be from that version. So, let's just let the real cat out the bag; what we really want to deal with is John 1:1-3, right?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3)

Now, before we dive into this verse - which will not be this blog, let' define exactly what the Trinity is, OK? I'll use my working definition from James White,

Within the One being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (from The Forgotten Trinity)

So, what exactly does this mean? Let's start with De 6:4:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Any definition of the Trinity must start with the fact that God is ONE being. First and foremost, Trinitarians are Monotheistic (James 2:19; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Ti 2:5-6), they are not tri-theistic or polytheistic (three Gods), nor Modalistic (one God who manifests Himself in three modes of existence), nor do they accept Arianism (the Son being subordinated to the Father).

The second tenet of the Trinity is that there are three who are God. There are three distinct persons within the divine essence. All three persons exist at the same time. (Is 48:16; 61:1-2; Mt 3:16-17) This is where we're going to spend the bulk of our time. Because its were the real questions are, and the real confusion.

The third tenet of the Trinity is that Scripture joins the three together in unity and equality (Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 13:14; John 5:21-23; Mt 12:31, Rom 8:39). This can be seen in nearly ever book of the NT, and I'll give plenty of examples. But not before we deal with point two.

So, let me make clear what I am NOT saying. Unlike some people that think mankind can attain god-hood, or others that, once pressed, will admit that Jesus is a “lesser” god, Trinitarians believe that God is one being who exists as three persons. We do not believe that God changes into the Son some times, and into the Holy Spirit at other times. God the Father always exists and has always existed, the same is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father; He willingly subordinated Himself to the Father while on earth, which is something totally different altogether. Jesus was never an angel; angels are created beings and cannot change there state. Each – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – have an eternal role, which was fulfilled and brought to consummation in the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus.

As we all know, the real question is not about the Father, its about the role of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But once the point is made about who Christ is, its not that hard to see the role of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. So, the question is really boiled down to, “Who and what is Jesus?” So that's where we'll start. By the way, Athenaeus covered all of this in the 4th century when he stood against the Arian heresy, which took another 50 to 75 yrs to be worked out into the church (it was actually longer than that). He left us a record of this struggle, On the Incarnation. Its worth the read, if you have the time. And he didn't even use John 1:1 to defend the deity of Christ!

I want to start our discussion with Isa 48:16, because there is something quite unique for us to see here.

“Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (Isa 48:16)

This is a most interesting verse, because, first, its in the OT, and second, it talks about all three person's of the Godhead in one verse. Now I know what you will say, “But this is all about King Cyrus, not Jesus!” Yes, that is true, but as with other passages in the OT its not only about King Cyrus, as you will see as we go through this passage. Some will focus on the supposed subordination aspect seen at the end of this verse, and will miss the third important aspect about this verse. And what is that? It's that this is Jesus speaking in the OT. Now for the real trip: go back to Isa 45:18. Now read the whole section in context up to and including Isa 48:16. What makes this narrative so unique is that this is one long quote of Jesus. I know your first reaction will be, “No way!” Yes, way! One long quote of Jesus. Honestly, I had never seen this before just the other day. So, how can you tell this is true? Everything is first person from Isa 45:18 to 48:16. Its really quite remarkable.

So what is said in this passage? Well, let's just see.

The last sentence of Isa 45:18 says: “I am the LORD, and there is none else.” The word “Lord” is the word, Jehovah, or more appropriately, “Yahweh.” Jesus states, “I am Jehovah or Yahweh, and there is no other.”

Now let's start reading from 45:18. Let's pause at 45:21-23:

"Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

The end of verse 21 says “Is it not I, the LORD (Yahweh)? And there is no other God (Elohiym) besides Me, A righteous God (Elohiym) and a Savior; There is none except Me.” At some point we'll need to deal with just what it means to be a Savior, but we'll save that for a future discussion. Right now what we see is Jesus once again stating that He is the one and only Yahweh/Jehovah, and there is no other. And in verse 22, He repeats it again, “For I am God, and there is no other”. And at the end of verse 23 we see another direct reference to who is speaking with a familiar passage that we here Him saying in the NT, “That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” (See Rom 14:11; Php 2:10)

Let continue reading and pause at Isa 46:9-10.

Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’

This is Jesus saying once again saying, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.” Not only that – as if that's not enough – Jesus is talking about establishing His purposes, and accomplishing His will. Isn't that cool! What's more, isn't that a bit surprising? Did you expect to see Jesus speaking in the OT like this? If you didn't expect it, you should have, because there is nothing new in the New Testament. The same God of the OT is in the NT. Let's continue reading, and pause again at 46:13.

I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off; And My salvation will not delay. And I will grant salvation in Zion, And My glory for Israel.

Here we see that Jesus is bringing His righteousness, and His salvation, and His glory. But I thought only God brought salvation; only He could save? Yes, that's exactly right – only God can save mankind, because Jesus is – go ahead, finish it – Jesus is God. Let's continue reading and pause again at 48:9.

For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off.

Again, it is Jesus that is talking about His name, His wrath to come, and the restraining of His wrath. Because He doesn't anyone to miss out on Salvation. Let's continue reading, pausing again at 48:12-13.

Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.

Jesus calls Himself the first and the last, much like He does in Revelations (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13; you might also check out 1 Cor 15:45). He says that it is He that called Israel, and He says that He is the one that founded the earth and spread out the heavens; in other words, creator of all (Col 1:16). As we have read this together, there is little doubt about who is speaking, and what He has said and implied. Jesus has said that He is God, and there is none like Him. There is little doubt as to who is being referenced in this passage. Some will fight its obvious meaning, but it clearly states that Jesus is God Almighty, “Elohiym”.

Now I would think that a Jehovah's Witness would be ready to pounce right now, so let's go there to answer the question, OK? You see, a JW would not disagree that Jesus created the heavens and the earth. They have gone through great lengths to add the word “other”into Colossians 1:15-18, like 4 times, making Him creator of all “other” things. But how would they be able to escape the clear passage above that Jesus is calling Himself “Elohiym” God? He does the same thing in the NT, but we're not there yet. What I would like to ask a JW is, taking the above passages in context, what do you now do with Isa 44:24:

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,

If Jesus is the creator of the heavens and the earth, then He would be speaking above as well, right? In Isa 46:13, it is Jesus that brings salvation, right? Which means He is the “redeemer” here, right? I would also ask, “Who is speaking in Isa 48:17-19?”

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to My commandments! Then your well-being would have been like a river, And your righteousness like the waves of the sea. Your descendants would have been like the sand, And your offspring like its grains; Their name would never be cut off or destroyed from My presence."

So, what we've seen in this passage is Jesus calling Himself God, and God alone. One time, you might be able to explain it away, but 5 times?! There's a much deeper meaning here, and there is no way to explain ita way as an anomaly, or reading something into a passage. No, Jesus is Jehovah or Yahweh, that is clear from this passage. But there is more and we can examine that next time.

Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, we are nowhere close to proving it with the exception that we have shown pretty conclusively that Jesus is presented as God in the OT, and not “a god”, but the God. As I said in the beginning, to understand the Trinity, we must understand who and what Jesus is. Only with this as a backdrop can we hope to understand what and who He really is. And that will help us understand if the Trinity is or is not true.

~~~~~~~~~~

So that was my response to a JW's blog post. As I said, instead of a reply, a debate, or disagreement, I was summarily deleted, but not unexpectedly. Why discuss anything with some one with a brain when you're only interested in cherry picking the uneducated people of the world? And that is the sad facts about today's JW's. They never want to talk to knowledgeable Christians (throwing pearls to the swines, don't you know), and that really isn't very unexpected either. No one likes to be told that their wrong, and that is the risk that you run when you discuss your beliefs with others. Its the risk that I willingly embrace with my posts. I purposely step a little too close to the lines sometimes because I want people to think; I want people to know what they believe and why they believe it – even a JW, because they don't think at all. Too many Christians fear JW's, but all they are is better trained, because that's all they do. Part of their salvation is tied to how many hours they spend knocking on doors. All they know is what they're told in their little booklets, and what and how they are told to respond in their weekly or monthly 'roll-play' training sessions. Very few JW's ever attend college, and the ones that have are usually converts after the fact. So who exactly are we afraid of, and why? College educated Christians afraid of JW's! Simply amazing. (Now I don't mean to promote the idea that college is the end all; it isn't. My only point is the irony that educated people are scared to death to confront uneducated people.) We Christians have all kinds of 'worldly' education, but we spend almost no time training ourselves in in the knowledge of the word of God. Why is that? Why is knowing the word of God so uninteresting to us?

Christians, WE HAVE THE WORD OF GOD ALMIGHTY ON OUR SIDE! Either you believe that, or you don't. And if you don't, then why on earth are you a Christian? Are you just looking for 'fire insurance'? Go talk to State Farm or All State instead ...

Baptism: Salvation or Symbolism

2007-09-30T16:00:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine asked me a question about baptism a week or so ago. He has sat under the teaching that baptism is required for salvation as well as the teaching that baptism is ceremonial in nature. His question is one that has been around for a long time, and in some respects the questions is nearly as old as the church is. Is salvation really that simple: repent and believe? Or are there things I must do as well? Is baptism a work or a sacrament, a rite of observance that must be performed to seal the repentance and belief? It also reminded me of something I had recently taught in my little weekly Bible study, but we'll get to that in a few minutes.

There are in fact three views on baptism: The first is that baptism is a means of salvation. This is normally called the Roman Catholic view, but I'm more familiar with it as a view held by the churches of Christ, usually the Boston and Indiana versions. The second view is that baptism is a sign and a seal of the new Covenant God made with the Gentiles. This is the Reformed and Presbyterian view. And the third view is that baptism is an outward sign of an inward work. Now, which of these views is the correct one? The answer is: number 3. Now I will not attempt to explain all three views because my already too long blog will be three or four times as long as my all to often normally long blogs I usually write. But I will justify why I believe that # 3 is the correct answer to the question. (please understand that I am being quite general and incomplete in describing these three views. For instance, I am not attempting to equate the Catholic and the Boston CoC views, they are in fact significantly different from one another, although they both believe that baptism saves you. I view BCoC as a cult, but I do not consider Catholicism a cult.)

The first two views almost always involve infant baptism and I just do not accept that belief. But that is not the subject of this blog, so I will let that “sleeping dog lie.” And I already know that some will write that “... that is the key – you can't omit that!” Please feel free to correct me, but I have never found the reasons and justifications for infant baptism to be compelling, especially when one considers the relative confusion as to when baptism should occur in the early church, as well as Scriptures absolute silence on the matter. Constantine was baptized on his death bed because it was customary during his time to believe that if some one sinned after baptism that they had in essence crucified Christ all over again, and in essence had committed the unforgivable sin. The church settled on infant baptism, but not, as I understand it, because it was 'historical', although it did become church tradition. I also have a problem with calling things 'sacraments'. I know that word meant something else when it was first coined, but it became something that “only the church should do” and the “proper” church official at that, otherwise the act – whatever it was – was not official or worse, the act was heretical. 1 Pet 2:9 makes it quite clear that we are all priest unto God (i.e., the priesthood of all believers) and is why God ripped the four inch thick veil that separated the holy place and the holy of holies from top to bottom between, thus eliminating the physical and spiritual barrier that separated God and man (but then that was always His plan, Ex 19:6) . But these are all subjects for another blog....

To me, the question is easily answered when one looks at the cross. Jesus told one of the two thieves that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. The thief was never baptized. Now the 'you have to be baptized to be saved' crowd will tell you that 'well, that is because it was Jesus, and it was before His resurrection', but that's a technicality, and not very convincing.

If you want a good parallel of what baptism should be for us, let's take a little stroll down 'memory lane' and take a look at circumcision and its references in the OT and NT. Circumcision, you say? Yes, I do. It was not what you think it was. Believe it or not, I just taught on this very subject a month back in the home Bible Study I host. This probably won't come as much of a surprise, but I've been teaching every Wednesday night for the last 1 1/2 years on Colossians - we're on Col 2:14. Now, in my defense, we have a lot of 'sidebar' discussions which don't always relate to the subject of Colossians, but we are also going through it slowly because my purpose is to disciple this little group of believers. And there is no better book in the NT to do that (other than the Gospel of John), IMHO.

So, my view is somewhat of a consolidation of part of what is taught in view number two with view number three, but not all of two, since I have stated I do not believe in infant baptism. I would like to present part of my Colossians Bible study notes for chapter 2, verses 11 and 12. As you read this please understand that I 'stand on the shoulders' of the great men in church history. Men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Gill, Albert Barnes, John MacAurthur, Matthew Poole, and many, many others. They are the ones that did the hard work of exegesis; I merely compiled their great works into something readable for today. My notes below, although containing some original material, are mostly a collection, condensation and organization of the material found in the ten commentaries that I use to create my Colossians Bible study, most of which are readily available in the Online Bible program. I use, and John MacAurthur's commentary on Colossians. Also my notes are in an outline format, so I hope you will be able to follow along.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete Salvation

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

There are two opposite tendencies ever at work in human nature to corrupt religion. One is of the intellect; the other of the senses. The one is the temptation of the cultured few; the other, that of the vulgar many. The one turns religion into theological speculation; the other, into a theatrical spectacle. But, opposite as these tendencies usually are, they were united in that strange chaos of erroneous opinion and practice which Paul had to front at Colossae. From right and from left he was assailed, and his batteries had to face both ways. Here he is mainly engaged with the error which insisted on imposing circumcision on these Gentile converts. (Expositor's Bible Commentary, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005)

This seems to be a fitting way to put into context some of the verses we are about to cover.

‘and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;’ (2:11) –
‘and in Him you were also circumcised’ –
- Define: ‘circumcise’ – The Greek word, peritemno { per-ee-tem’-no } literally means to cut around. Circumcision was a religious covenant rite performed on every male child on their eighth day of life where the priest would remove the foreskin from the male's penis.
- Circumcision was an ordinance that symbolized that all sin was being cut off or renounced, and that he who was circumcised was to be devoted to God and to a life of holiness.
- Throughout Israel's history there had been two views on circumcision. One view stated that circumcision was enough to put a man right with God. It didn't matter whether he was good or bad; all that mattered was that he was an Israelite and that he had been circumcised. The other view was supported by the great spiritual leaders and prophets of Israel. As Barclay put it, “They insisted that circumcision was only the outward mark of a man who was inwardly dedicated to God. They used the very word in an adventurous [symbolic] sense. They talked of uncircumcised lips (Ex 6:30), of a heart which was circumcised or uncircumcised (Lev 26:41; Deut 6:10; Eze 44:7, 9; Deut 30:6; Jer 9:26; Act 7:51); of the uncircumcised ear (Jer 6:10). To them being circumcised did not mean having a certain operation carried out on a man’s flesh but having a change effected in his life. Circumcision was, indeed, the badge of a person dedicated to God; but the dedication lay not in the cutting of the flesh but in the excision from his life of everything which was against the will of God.” (William Barclay’s Daily Bible Study on Colossians, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.) John MacArthur put it this way:
  - ... The cutting away of the male foreskin on the reproductive organ was a graphic way to demonstrate that man needed cleansing at the deepest level of his being. No other part of the human anatomy so demonstrates that depth of sin, inasmuch as that is the part of man that produces life – and all that he produces is sinful. That is the biblical view. From the beginning, circumcision was used symbolically to illustrate the desperate need man had for cleansing of the heart. In Duet 10:16 Moses commanded the people of Israel, saying “Circumcise then your heart, and stiffen your neck no more.” Duet 30:6 adds, “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.” The Lord commanded the Israelites of Jeremiah's time to circumcise themselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of their hearts (Jer 4:4; cf. 9:26). God was always concerned with the heart, not with the physical rite. (John MacAurthur, The MacAurthur New Testament Commentary: Colossians & Philemon, (Moody Bible Institute: ©1992) p. 107.) (emphasis added)
- Because of this as well as what was said throughout the NT, it is the second view which Christians understand as what was intended by God from the beginning. Circumcision was a physical act to symbolize the covenant God had made with Abraham and his descendants, but it was never intended to be merely a ceremonial act of obedience. In Duet 10:16, God tells Israel that they need to circumcise their hearts, in which His intention was for them to start manifesting the spiritual qualities of commitment and obedience to His will in their lives. And this was repeated in Jer 4:4 because of Israel's evil deeds. However, it would seem that the vast majority of Jews saw the first view as what God intended.
- It should also be noted as is stated in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary that,
  - When Greek paganism threatened to swamp Judaism some two centuries before Christ was born, circumcision became a distinctive indication of Jewish fidelity to the covenant. Thus John the Baptist was circumcised (Luke 1:59), as were both Jesus (Luke 2:21) and Saul of Tarsus (Php 3:5), on the eighth day of life, making them accredited members of the covenant people. But Jesus was already casting doubt on the preeminence of the rite when he stated that his healings made people completely whole (John 7:22-23). Stephen reinforced this by accusing contemporary Judaism of the very tendencies that Jeremiah had condemned (Acts 7:51). Although in the period of the primitive church the believers maintained Jewish religious traditions, problems began to arise when the gospel was preached among Gentiles. Christians who had come from a Jewish background felt that Gentiles should become Jews through circumcision before being able to experience Christ’s saving work.
  - This attitude rested partly upon the contemporary notion that circumcision was a necessary part of salvation, as well as being its effective guarantee. Others repudiated this view of salvation by works, particularly when uncircumcised Gentiles received God’s outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). They saw that the prophecies of Ezekiel, in which the Lord promised a clean heart and an indwelling of his Holy Spirit (36:25-27), and the dramatic proclamation of Joel that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (2:28; cf. Acts 2:17), were now being fulfilled. The spiritual significance of circumcision had been achieved by divine grace without the performance of the physical rite, thus making the latter obsolete. (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.)
- So concerning this portion of the verse, it would seem that there was a Jewish bent to the false teachers, a teaching that seemed to demand that Gentile Christians be circumcised to be considered God's people (Gen 17:10). Paul reminds the Colossians that circumcision was not about what was done to the physical body but about what was done to the believer's heart. It was not about cutting off a piece of flesh, but about the putting off the body of sin.
- For the Christian, circumcision was not intended to be a mere outward ceremony, but to symbolize the believer's renunciation of the flesh with its corrupt tendencies. It was a putting off of every part of mankind's human nature that was in opposition to God. Believers were to be spiritually separated from an unclean world by being completely dedicated to God. Anyone can perform a ritual like circumcision, but a ritual does not change you. Only God can cut away those things that keep us from being obedient children of Him. (De 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:29; Php 3:3)
‘with a circumcision made without hands’ –
- And here, Paul drives home one of the central themes of Scripture, that circumcision is not about a ceremonial rite, but about a spiritual truth. It was not a transaction in the flesh, but one in the spirit because human involvement is not required for it to take place. It was not the removal of some ceremonial impurity of the body, but the spiritual cleansing of the human heart from sin. A ceremony does not bring salvation. Circumcision was to be done in the heart by the cutting off or renouncing of all sin. It was something that Christ did by His actions, not something that mankind can do by their actions. The circumcision that God intended from the beginning was supposed to be a spiritual act, done by the Holy Spirit to affect a change in the human heart. (Duet 30:6)
- A man may be physically circumcised and be spiritually uncircumcised because there is no understanding or renunciation of the sin in his life. Spiritual “heart” circumcision cannot occur until he comes to a true understanding of his own sin and how much that sin hurts God. This does not mean that everyone else sees his sins, but that the sinner sees his sin for what it is. As John Gill put it, “when the callousness and hardness of his heart is taken off and removed, and the iniquity of it is laid open, the plague and corruption in it discerned, and all made naked and bare to the sinner’s view; and when he is in pain on account of it, is broken and groans under a sense of it, and is filled with shame for it, and loathing and abhorrence of it:” it is then that he can be “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands”, a true circumcision of the heart. (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24; 2 Co 5:1; Eph 2:11; Heb 9:11,24)
‘in the removal of the body of the flesh’ –
- Define: ‘removal’ (‘putting off’ - KJV) – The Greek word, apekdusis { ap-ek’-doo-sis } literally means a putting off, laying aside, a stripping off. It is a stripping off from one's self as with clothes or armor (getting out of your clothes).
- The 'body of the flesh' is a symbolic reference to man's corrupt human nature. Although this really isn't one of Paul's topics in Colossians, it is important for us to remember that we are all born into sin, that our human nature is corrupt at its very core. In the book of Romans, Paul demonstrates that sin is not simply something which we do, but is a condition of our heart. (Rom 3:10-12) And in Ephesians Paul states that we are “by nature children of wrath.” (Eph 2:3; cf. Rom 3:9; Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Ps 51:5; Mr 7:21,22; Ro 5:12-19; 7:18) Of this there is no doubt. And that is what Paul is referring to when he uses the phase 'body of the flesh.' And it is also why Paul relates the physical act of circumcision to the removal of sin in ones life. The removal of the 'body of the flesh' is the renouncing of the deeds of the flesh, that is, renouncing sin in one's life. Sin is to be repudiated, cut out, cast off, eradicated from one's life. Jesus spoke of this too when we said, if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out, get rid of it! (Mt 5:29) And again in Mt 6:23, Jesus said “if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.” According to Jesus, if you have the slightest bit of sin in you, then you are drenched in it, sin will permeate your entire being. There is no such thing as a 'little sinful.'
- Its as if we are clothed with a garment of sin – and a very filthy, dirty one at that. The intent of the 'circumcision of the heart' is to strip off that garment of sin from us.
- The 'body' is the perfect metaphor to describe sin's impact on us. The human body is not made up of independent pieces unrelated to each other. Every part is connected to together to form a working unit. So, as we saw above, sin is not isolated to a specific part of us, it encompasses every part of who we are.
- 'Circumcision of the heart' is not something that we elect to have, even though we could live just fine or mostly fine without it. It is not a nice little out patient elective surgery, something akin to the removal of a hang-nail. It is a radical invasive surgery, something much more like quadruple open heart surgery. It is an immediate need, something that cannot wait. Think of yourself being on life support, kept alive by a machine, and both your body and the machine are failing. Without the 'removal of the body of sin', we have no real existence. We are the living dead. (Col 3:8-9; Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22)
‘by the circumcision of Christ’ –
- This seems to indicate that Jesus' circumcision is one that removes the whole corrupt human nature from those that have received Him. We are then enabled to renounce sin and devote ourselves to God. We should never again be enticed to return to ceremonial rites as if they somehow enable us to attain any deliverance from our sins. (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 2:10-18; Php 3:3; Rom 2:29)
- It would also seem that Paul had as his intention to utterly destroy the concept that Christians were required to be circumcised to receive Christ. Obviously there was some Jewish element teaching that circumcision was require for salvation, but Paul reminds the Colossians that God had always intended circumcision to be of the heart. The outward rite was only to be a visual reminder of the work God desired to do in their hearts.
‘having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.’ (2:12) –
‘having been buried with Him in baptism’ –
- Define: ‘buried’ – The Greek word, sunthapto { soon-thap’-to } means to bury together with.
- Being buried with Christ means that we are partakers in His death. For Calvin, this meant much more than being crucified with Christ. He saw it as a continual process of mortification of the flesh, or essentially a constant never ending battle to do away with our old nature that continually tries to assert control over us and lead us in the opposite direction that Jesus is leading us.
- Define: ‘baptism’ – The Greek word, baptisma { bap’-tis-mah } means immersion, submersion. It is an immersion into the calamities and afflictions where some one is completely overwhelmed.
- Baptism in OT times, which would have been what John’s baptism was, was a purification rite in which men, upon confessing of their sins, were then bound to spiritual reformation in their lives. This confession of sin obtained a forgiveness for their past sins, which qualified them for the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom which was soon to be established. As part of this purification, the person would be immersed in water. Consequently, this was also a valid baptism for Christians, since it is not recorded anywhere that anyone was ever re-baptized after the church was established. For the Christian baptism involves confession of sin, profession of faith in Christ lone as one's Savior, along with the immersion in water. (Some churches sprinkle or pour water on the person. Generally, both are viewed as valid forms of baptism, although immersion does seem to be the Scriptural mode intended.) Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The old sinful nature of the person dies with Christ, and the person that resurrects with Christ in a new person, no longer the old person that went under the water. (Online Bible Greek Lexicon, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.) (Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5-6; 1 Pet 3:21)
- Some commentators who would seem to be of the sprinkling or pouring denominations, seem to minimize the focus of one aspect of the phrase Paul uses here. They maintain that Paul's intent is not to describe the universal mode of baptism required, but his intent was to emphasize the profession of faith being made at baptism, and that we had become dead to sin, being buried with Him and raised to new life, as He had been. (Albert Barnes’ New Testament Notes on Colossians, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.) This does in fact seem to be the emphasis of Paul in this passage, but one cannot ignore the implications inherent in the definitions of the words used, nor the example which Christ left us. One is not 'buried' by sprinkling or pouring, one is buried by immersion. Jesus was buried when the stone was rolled in front of the tomb, isolating and separating Him from everyone and everything. In the same way, believers are isolated and separated from everything when they are submerged under water. Historically, it is easy to see how and why sprinkling and pouring began during the underground persecution times of the early church. For that reason, one should not be dogmatic about a mode of baptism, but neither should some be quite so cavalier. We should strive to be biblical in all that we do, allowing for grace during times that that may not be possible.
- The death and burial of Christ Jesus is the cause of the death of our 'old man', signed, sealed and delivered in the symbolism inherent in baptism. Our old carnal life, with it lusts and cravings, is put away, buried under the water, washed away. Baptism doesn't save us anymore than circumcision saved the Jews. It is the visual representation of our heart felt conviction and repudiation of our sin and our acceptance of Christ's death in our place, the rightful punishment for sin, and our commitment to follow Christ the rest of our lives. As with circumcision, baptism is a spiritual representation of our sins being buried with Christ in His death and raised in spiritual life with Christ’s resurrection. Baptism is a visual picture of this reality. (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:3-4)
- It is also important to remember why Paul is linking circumcision and baptism. It is because they are both intended to be viewed as outward expressions of inward changes in the heart of man. If baptism saves you, then what is the difference between the two, since Jews believed their circumcision saved them? As Christians, would we not be exchanging one ritual for another?
- The Expositor's Bible Commentary for the end of this verse says the following:
  - We partake of His death, inasmuch as, by the power of His cross, we are drawn to sever ourselves from the selfish life, and to slay our own old nature; dying for His dear sake to the habits, tastes, desires, and purposes in which we lived. Self-crucifixion for the love of Christ is the law for us all. His cross is the pattern for our conduct, as well as the pledge and means of our acceptance. We must die to sin that we may live to righteousness. We must die to self, that we may live to God and our brethren. We have no right to trust in Christ for us, except as we have Christ in us. His cross is not saving us from our guilt unless it is [molding] our lives to some faint likeness of Him who died that we may live, and might live a real life by dying daily to the world, sin, and self. (Expositor's Bible Commentary, p/o the Online Bible, Computer Program, © 1987-2005.)
‘in which you were also raised up with Him’ –
- Believers are raised up to be both 'in Christ' and 'with Christ'. It was to be 'in Christ' because believers are to walk in newness of life as new creations (2 Cor 5:17) and have a inward union with Christ. It was also to be 'with Christ' because it was God's intent that we enter into a lifelong fellowship with Christ.. (Rom 6:4, 8-11; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:5-6; 4:23-24; Col 3:10-11) Baptism symbolizes the burial and the resurrection, a dying of the old person we used to be, by uniting with Christ and becoming the new person God always intended us to be.
‘through faith in the working of God’ –
- Define: ‘working’ – The Greek word, energeia { en-erg’-i-ah } means working, efficiency, and is only used of supernatural power of either God or the devil. In this context it refers to God's active power. The English word energy comes from this word.
- It is through faith that believers see themselves as buried and risen in Christ. Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of all of our hopes, for without it, there is no hope available for mankind to grasp onto. Without faith, there is no working of God in our lives. How can He work in us if we do not believe that He has the power to do anything in our lives? Baptism then becomes meaningless as a symbol of anything beneficial to mankind.
- John Gill also points out that even faith is not natural for mankind. Faith is a gift given to believers by God (Eph 2:8), and he can't even exercise it without Christ enabling him to do so. Faith is what works in man, but only by God's gracious power can it be exercised by him. (Rom 3:22; Php 3:9, 21; Eph 1:19; 3:17; 2 Th 2:13; Heb 11:6)
‘who raised Him from the dead’ –
- Paul is showing here that the grace that we have obtained in Christ, through His death and resurrection, is far superior to anything that could be ascribed to circumcision. It is by faith, founded upon the power of God, that allows us to receive the salvation symbolized in baptism. (Act 2:24; Rom 4:24; Heb 13:20,21)
- If God has the power to raise Christ from the dead, then He has the power to give believers new life, for we were all dead in our sins at one time, and now we have been made alive in Christ. (Rom 6:6, 11, 14) If Jesus has not risen from the dead, then we have no reason to put our faith in Him, nor any expectation that we will rise with Him. If Jesus has not risen from the dead, then we have no hope of deliverance from sin, nor should we have a desire to be delivered from anything. What would be the purpose of living moral and righteous lives?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My main point in all of the above discussion of baptism and circumcision is that both were always intended to be outward symbols of an inward change of the heart. Most people, myself included, would not seen from reading the OT that circumcision was always intended to symbolize the heart change that God had always wanted the Jews to see from the act of circumcision, and even spoke about throughout the OT. But is it really any surprise that God would do the same thing with baptism? Especially with man's propensity to make some act or ritual an idol in the lives of people. And when that camel's nose is under the tent, then so is the rest of the camel.

So, let's look at a few Scriptures that would seem to promote baptism for salvation so we can see what was really meant.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19)

Mat 28:19 is used quite often to support that view, but does it really? If you will look closely at verse 19, you will see that the emphasis is on the making of disciples, not the baptism. The baptism part of the verse is the 'how', if you will - in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - the Trinity - i.e., in the name of God (See, this was about the Trinity after all!). Also, consider this: in Mat 28:19, baptism presupposes a faith that already exists. The baptism is being performed post-humorously; after the fact.

Now let's look at Act 2:37-41.

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41)

Peter first calls for repentance, and once they had repented, he then called for them to be baptized. And that is the same pattern of Act 8:12, 18:8, and 19:1-7. Its not that baptism isn't supposed to occur, but it does beg the question, why be baptized?

Let's also consider these verses:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8)

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Gal 2:16) (part of the works of the law was circumcision .. at least from the 1st century Jewish perspective)

So if it is by faith that you are saved, and not by works, then how would the act or work of a ceremony save you, because when it is all said and done, that is all baptism really is. Yes, we do it in obedience because we are told to be baptized, but is God really about ceremonies, or does He desire us to have a living and active relationship with Him? What you need to see is that God wants our hearts, not our acts. Why? Because when He has the heart, He has the acts, the obedience as well. We don't have to work it up. It is so easy to fake an experience, it is so easy to make people believe you are feeling something when in fact you may not be. But God sees the heart, does He not? So, realistically, why would He care about the act of baptism – I can fake that by simply going through the motions of being dunked or sprinkled. If my heart is far from God, then what have I accomplished? Am I really saved if I have not truly given my heart, my life to Christ? And what would the act of baptism save you from? Or into? There are just too many cans of worms being opened with this type of belief.

But we are not done looking at Scripture. Let's take a look at Mark 16:16:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

At first glance, this would appear to support that baptism is essential to salvation. But look closely at the last part, "but whoever does not believe will be condemned." If baptism saves you, then how can unbelief condemn you? It would seem that the emphasis is really on the belief instead of the baptism.

Now let's look at John 3:5:

"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Again, this verse would seem to promote baptism being essential to salvation. But what was baptism to Nicodemus? Remember from above? It was purification from sin. An outward sign (baptism) of an inward change of being (cleansing of the heart). Remember what John the Baptist said to the Pharisees?

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.' " (Mat 3:8-9)

What is his emphasis? Repentance or baptism?

Now lets jump to 1 Pet 3:21:

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also— not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

If you will look closely at the passage, you will see that it rather bluntly states that the baptismal ceremony does not have any saving effect on you at all. It is your public pledge to serve God with every fiber of your being. And that is what God has always been after, since the beginning with Adam and Eve, and later with Abraham and Moses, and then with why He sent the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and all of the minor prophets – God has always been after the heart!

Salvation is about what God did for you, not what you do for yourself or for God. I say this over and over to my little Bible Study group, "You did not reach out to God, He reached out to you! You did not reach up to Him, He reached down to you." And what I mean by that is that it is God that provided a way for you to come to Him; and not just the way, but He called you to Himself as well. While you were yet a sinner, Christ died for you. He made the way. And when we "chose" Him, it was not initiated by us, but by God Himself, via the Holy Spirit. He called us out of darkness, before the foundations of the world were laid. Why? Because He chose to. God knew that you would respond to His calling, because He is all knowing - He's omniscient! There is nothing past, present or future that He does not know. He knew that mankind could not make themselves clean enough to stand in the presence of a holy and just God, so He sent His Son to die for us of a Cross, because only a perfect sacrifice could take away the sins of the entire world, past, present and future. And since He is the initiator of this process, what does a ceremony have to do with a salvation that He offers freely to everyone in the entire world? He simply asks us to acknowledge the facts about who we really are, that we are sinners, and realize that we cannot save ourselves (i.e., clean ourselves up to make us presentable to God). He simply asks us to believe that He died for our sins, and that that death on the Cross cleanses us from all of our sins. Baptism is then, simply that public outward confession to our fellow believers that we have already put our faith and trust in Christ Jesus. Its a symbol of our faith and faithfulness to God.

If baptism saves you, then isn't that technically a "work"? Its something that I do. And what if there is no water? What if I'm on my death bed? What then? To me, baptism for salvation is back to the Jewish OT's bondage to the law, only in an updated NT style. God has ALWAYS been after our hearts. He doesn't want us to serve Him because we have to, but because we want to. I don't desire to obey God to curry favor with Him, or get some kind of reward. I don't agree to be baptized as part of some man-made saving work, I do it because He's asked me to make a public profession of my faith, and I want to, I desire to please Him, because I love Him.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8)

Trolling for Truth But Finding None: The Gospel of Barnabas

2007-09-22T17:27:00.000-07:00

I seem to have forgotten to post this from my Yahoo 360 blog. Posted Sept 13th ....

I sometimes troll for Christians or interesting people on the Yahoo 360. Some times I run across an interesting person or something that peaks my interest. This happened as I was looking at a friend of one of my Yahoo 360 friends. Here is an excerpt from the blog of a friend of a friend,

...
There is a Gospel known by the name the Gospel of Barnabas, which the church banned in 492 AD by the order of Pope Gelasius. It was confiscated everywhere. But there was still a copy of that Gospel in the library of Pope Sixtus V. Fortunately a certain Roman Monk called Framarino managed to bring it out. He had found the letters of Ireneus, where the came upon the name of the Gospel of Barnabas mentioned as a reference. His curiosity urged him to look for that gospel. When he became a close friend to Pope Sixtus V, he got that copy of the gospel and found in it that there would come a time when it would be claimed that Jesus is Allah’s son, and this misconception would continue till Muhammad, Allah’s Messenger comes, to set things right.

In the Gospel of Barnabas, (220:4), we read: “And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Muhammad the Messenger of God, who, when he shall come, shall reveal this deception to those who believe in God’s Law.”

Framarino was converted to Islam and published among people this Gospel, which the church had opposed.
...

Wow! If this is true, I mean a true gospel, then the above quote of the Gospel of Barnabas, 220:4, would be remarkable proof of the validity of Islam. If it was written around 492 AD, then it is prophetic in nature, mentioning Muhammad by name more than 100 years before he was born. And this would be even more remarkable if Irenaeus had actually commented on this 'gospel', since he lived between 120 and 200 AD. And if you know me just a little, you know that it was this comment about Irenaeus that caught my eye, and peeked my interest.

There are many more 'interesting' statements in this person's blog, but I'll limit my comments to this short excerpt. I then run across this,

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.

Again, if true, this is quite remarkable! This article traces the history of this 'gospel' from its origins to today. It did take a little bit of work to determine who wrote this article and who is sponsoring the site, but I wasn't surprised when I found that it is really a Muslim site. Still, if true, this could be life changing.

Don't worry, I'm not that gullible. But I do have to be an honest inquirer of all things. I never want to be so closed minded, as Muslims are, that I cannot entertain an unbeliever's questionings, even if the person asking the question really doesn't want an answer. As I have always said, Christianity is the only faith that invites questions from inside and outside the church, and provides legitimate answers. It is unfortunate that there are so many closed-minded Christians, who seem determined to demonstrate the opposite of what I'm saying right now. But it is Christians that have nothing to fear, they are the ones that have the truth on there side (and, they don't have to kill anyone to prove it, as Muslims seemly have to do). Only those with something to fear issue fatwa's at anyone that does not conform to their close-minded beliefs. And only those with nothing to fear can allow some one to walk away from the Truth. True Christianity does not need to force others to believe anything. The Truth of the Gospel shared by those who live it out in love, sincerity and grace, compels others to seek it out.

So, what about the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB)? Well, if there ever was a GoB, it is most certainly not the one that first appeared in the early 18th century. The current GoB first appeared in Holland in 1709, and later in Spain (however the original manuscript was apparently lost, although an 18th century copy was found in 1970). If this was really an historical manuscript, it would have been written in Greek or Latin, not in Italian and supplied with footnotes in poorly written Arabic. The source of this so-called "Gospel" is unknown, but is currently being preserved in the Imperial Museum in Vienna.

But is it historical? Well, let's find out. From a very good Wikipedia article;

The earliest mention of a Barnabas text which is generally agreed to refer to the one found in the two known manuscripts, is reported to be contained in Morisco manuscript BNM MS 9653 in Madrid, written about 1634 by Ibrahim al-Taybili in Tunisia. While describing how, in his opinion, the Bible predicts Muhammad, he speaks of the "Gospel of Saint Barnabas where one can find the light" . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas)

1634? Yep! That appears to be the earliest mention of the Spanish version. But, there is more.

Its main difference from the Italian manuscript is that the surviving transcript does not record a substantial number of chapters—which had, however, still been present in the Spanish original when it was examined by George Sale. The Spanish text is preceded by a note claiming that it was translated from Italian by Mustafa de Aranda, an Aragonese Muslim resident in Istanbul. (Ibid)

So, he copied it from an original which was written in Italian. And the surviving Italian version did not have a large number of chapters that the Spanish version had. So, our traceability to the original source is beginning to have some problems. Again from the Wikipedia article,

The Spanish version includes an account of the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in the private study of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590), an account which appears to many students to be historically incongruous; and this, together with paleographic inconsistencies in the surviving Italian manuscript, has led a number of scholars to conclude that the two known manuscripts may have been prepared in support of an exercise in forensic falsification, intended to discredit or incriminate some leading Roman Catholic ecclesiastic in the Roman Curia of the 1590s (David Sox; The Gospel of Barnabas 1984). There are a number of contemporary parallels for such an exercise - most notably the "Casket Letters" supposedly forged to incriminate Mary Queen of Scots. Some scholars who maintain this view consequently dismiss the entire Gospel as a hoax; but the majority would consider it more likely that the supposed forgers made use of a pre-existing heterodox text. (Ibid)

Now for the translation. So just what are “paleographic inconsistencies”? How about these: (once again from the Wikipedia article – these have also been independently validated with other sources)

The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,
There is reference to a jubilee which is to be held every hundred years (Chapter 82), rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25. This anachronism appears to link the Gospel of Barnabas to the declaration of a Holy Year in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII; a Jubilee which he then decreed should be repeated every hundred years. In 1343 the interval between Holy Years was reduced by Pope Clement VI to fifty years.
Where the Gospel of Barnabas includes quotations from the Old Testament, these correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate; rather than as found in either the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That would date it much later than Irenaeus. (Ibid)

There is one last rather damning “paleographic inconsistency.” A handwriting analysis of the manuscript was done comparing Fra Marino’s handwriting and that of the Gospel of Barnabas and the findings showed that they could have easily come from the same person, according Sox (p.70).

These problems, in and of themselves, create enough to cause more than a considerable amount of doubt as to the authenticity of this manuscript as being produced prior to the 1300's. It is much like the Book of Mormon talking about horse as existing in the Americas between 800 and 1200 AD. Horses were introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century. Its a detail which destroys the credibility of the entire book. And the three items above do the same thing to this so called 'gospel'.

Want some more? You didn't actually think I would stop there, did you? This so called 'gospel' has a number of discrepancies with both the Bible and the Koran - here are just a few:

Jesus is not the Messiah. ch.83; ch.97; ch.42 (Jesus is called the Messiah/Christ in Suras 5:75; 5:17 (2x), 3:45; 4:157, 171, 172, 9:30)
The Messiah is Mohammed. ch.97 God created all things for the Messiah. ch.191
Without faith in Mohammed, none will be saved. (Most Muslims do not believe you should have saving faith in Mohammed.) ch.192
Ishmael was the ancestor of the Messiah. ch.190; ch.191; ch.208; ch.43

Here are some additional contradictions with the Bible:

Jesus is a voice in the wilderness. ch.42
Angels "rolled" the soldiers away for Jesus. ch.153
Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus. ch.83, ch.88, ch.19, ch.72
God gave Jesus bad consequences because others called Jesus God. ch.112

And finally, some additional contradictions with the Koran:

Faithful Muslims who do not have works will be in Hell for 70,000 years. ch.137
Mohammad will go to Hell and be terrified as he beholds the punishment of others ch.135
Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain ch.3
Unlawful to hate anything except sin. ch.86

And if all of the above is not enough, here are some additional general technical errors the manuscript makes:

Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth. ch.20 (Nazareth is inland.)
Romans said the idols were almighty. ch.152
Rome has 28,000 gods. ch.152
There was a great famine in Israel in Jesus’ time. ch.138
Israel says Jesus was God or the Son of God. ch.138

Put this all together and you have a completely unreliable document. Never mind the historical nature of the document, there is too much wrong with it to be anything more than a fraud. It reminds me of the static generated by the so-called 'gospel of Thomas'. Reading the last section of the document should have been enough for everyone to reject it out right – a woman must become a man to gain eternal life? How utterly idiotic! Just like all of the rest of the crap found in that cave in Qumran Egypt. Gnostic 'gospels' are not gospels at all, anymore than this so-called gospel of Barnabas.

And what about Irenaeus' comments about the GoB? Some Muslim sources state boldly that Irenaeus not only spoke highly of the GoB, he also opposed the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Of the preserved historical writings we have from him, Irenaeus, there is no mention at all of the GoB, nor was there ever. There was an Epistle of Barnabas but not a GoB, and the Epistle doesn't say anything even remotely close to what the GoB says. There is a mention of a GoB in the Gelasian Decree, but the only thing that that proves is that it was rejected as heretical long after the Canon of the NT was assembled and established. The above discrepancies with the Bible would have been enough to do that! And what “thinking” Muslim can accept the GoB when it clearly contradicts their “holy” book. Although it was mentioned in the late 5th century, there is no evidence that the GoB of Gelasian's day was anything remotely like the current 16th century version.

It should also be completely understood that Irenaeus never had any issues with Paul's teachings. As a matter of fact, he recognized Paul's writings as inspired, meaning he understood that Paul's writings were God breathed “Scripture”, and claimed that the current four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were the only ones ever given by God.

And if all that wasn't enough, an extensive research was conducted by Laura and Lonsdale Ragg into the claims of the GoB when they translated it into English in 1907. They provide both internal and external evidence demonstrating that the document was nothing more than a Medieval forgery. Muslim sources conveniently omit any mention of that.

So, now the real question is why was this forged document written in the first place? Of that we cannot be absolutely sure, but one reason would seem to be to promote Islam, which would explain the text referenced above by Muslim sources.

But one of the prime reasons was to refute the Trinity. How, you say? Well, look at what we've seen so far. Who is Jesus in this so-called gospel? He's not the Messiah, He's not the Son of God, He's not the Incarnate God. Who is He then? He's simply a prophet, less than Mohammad, but greater than Isaiah or Jeremiah. That is an attack on the Deity of Christ, and therefore an attack on the Trinity.

Is Jesus who He says He is? Or are we persuaded by arguments like those for the GoB? Or are you persuaded by the "religion of Peace's" persuasive arguments.

Research notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm
http://www.muslimhope.com/ForgeryOfTheGospelOfBarnabas.htm
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/barnabas.htm
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/marino.html
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/Barnmain.html
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/barn.shtml
http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/barnabas.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html
http://www.chrislages.de/barnarom.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm

WBTS Church History 101

2007-08-13T18:15:00.000-07:00

I noticed something really unusual in my last blog – I started a discussion about the Trinity, and I didn't bother to define it. Shame on me! Even though I really won't get to discussing it this time around, I really should start by defining what it is so that we all understand what the term really means, from an Orthodox Christian perspective. So let's do that right now, shall we? I'll use as my working definition what James White used in his book, The Forgotten Trinity,

Within the One being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (from The Forgotten Trinity)

So, what exactly does this mean? Let's start with De 6:4:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Any definition of the Trinity starts with the fact that God is ONE being, not three beings. First and foremost, Trinitarians are Monotheistic (James 2:19; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Ti 2:5-6), they are not tri-theistic or polytheistic (three Gods), nor Modalistic (one God who manifests Himself in three modes of existence), nor do they accept Arianism (the Son being subordinated to the Father).

The second tenet of the Trinity is that there are three who are God. There are three distinct persons within the divine essence. All three persons exist at the same time. (Is 48:16; 61:1-2; Mt 3:16-17) This is where we're going to spend the bulk of our time. Because its where the real questions about the Trinity lie, and the real confusion exists.

The third tenet of the Trinity is that Scripture joins the three together in unity and equality (Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 13:14; John 5:21-23; Mt 12:31, Rom 8:39). This can been seen in nearly every book of the NT, and I'll give plenty of examples along the way.

So, let me make clear what I am NOT saying. Unlike some people that think mankind can attain god-hood, or others that, once pressed, will admit that Jesus is a “lesser” god, Trinitarians believe that God is one being who exists as three persons. We do not believe that God changes into the Son some times, and into the Holy Spirit at other times. God the Father always exists and has always existed, the same is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father; He willingly subordinated Himself to the Father while on earth, which is something totally different altogether. Jesus was never an angel; angels are created beings and cannot change there state, nor elevate their nature. Each – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – have an eternal role, which was fulfilled and brought to consummation in the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus.

So with that, I want to start with a little history lesson. I admit that there are few things that can get me as riled up as unfaithful scholarship. Purposely misrepresenting facts - historical or otherwise - send me right over the edge. I admit it, it really does. That's why studying some cultic belief systems is a real challenge of my patience and self-control. This is especially true when you study things written by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS). To say that their form of scholarship gives every appearance of being disingenuous is an understatement. You could throw out a bunch of facts, or even misrepresented facts, about the history of the middle ages, and I'm a bit clueless, but I wouldn't try that with Ante-Nicene Fathers (100-325 AD). I've read quite a lot about them, not to the depth that I hope to some day, but I have a pretty good general understanding of the major players during this period and what they believed, so trying to “pull a fast one on me” would be pretty hard. And that is exactly what the WBTS pamphlet, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (SYBT) attempts to do to the uneducated general public – play fast and loose with the truth. Jesus said that the truth would set us free, and that is exactly what I will attempt to do, with respect to the historical truth about what some of the major players during the Ante-Nicene period believed. I'll deal with the theological issues in later blogs.

It is amazing to think that so much of the world's secular and religious history has actually survived through all of the burnings, the wars and conquests of ancient civilizations. Even through vast amounts of history has been lost forever there is still so much that it simply cannot be studied in a single lifetime. Some people give their entire lifetime reading and writing about these people, or even to a single individual. Imagine that, their entire lifetime devoted to a single historical individual. That's dedication. There is a 10 volume set of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that I have always lusted for. Yes, I said lusted for. You might think that reading a bunch of dead guys would be similar to watching grass grow, and for some, that is probably exactly the way it would be. But not for me. I have Phillip Schaff's 8 Volume Church History series that spans from 100 AD up to the Reformation, and I only read the first three volumes because its about the only era I study.

The names of Ignatius, Pappias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus may not mean anything to most Christians, but they are like friends of mine. I don't know them well enough, but I stand in awe of most of them. We live in the age of computers and Bible programs, but not these guys. These guys didn't always have a copy of all of the New Testament letters, since paper wasn't exactly available around the corner at the neighborhood OfficeMax or Office Depot. These guys had to work with scrolls, not books – book bindings weren't really invented until the age of the printing press. (that's what helps them last a generation or two) And they had to compensate for the language change from Greek to Latin, and then there were the copyist errors in some of the manuscripts. Good grief! I can't even get the spelling in my blog right, and I have a word processor with a spell checker!

If these problems weren't enough, there were the “false” gospels that Irenaeus and others had to deal with. Speaking of Irenaeus, you did see the quote at the top of my blog, didn't you? Of all the people of the history of the world, the one person I can't wait to meet in heaven, is Irenaeus. Did you know that up until 1947, the only thing we knew about Gnosticism was from Irenaeus' writings? Justin Martyr is called the first Christian apologist of the church, but I usually give that honor to Irenaeus. But my praise for him will have to wait for another time.

In making its case against the Trinity, and specifically the deity of Christ, the WBTS SYBT pamphlet attempts to utilize statements by the Ante-Nicene fathers to build their case against it. I would do the same thing, so I don't begrudge their desire to be complete. All scholarly writings would attempt that as well. What bothers me is that they give the impression that our church fathers didn't believe that Jesus Christ was God. Now, it would be a mistake on my part to insinuate that these guys had a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity; they didn't. But it would also be a mistake to say that they didn't consider Jesus Christ God; because they did. And I can prove it. You see, to prove that some one didn't believe something, you would have to read everything they wrote and collate and analyze what they wrote to determine what they believed just so you could make that statement. But to prove they believed something, all you have to do is find one quote that they wrote that proves your point. So, the WTBS has set themselves up for failure, if they didn't do their homework. I maintain that they were, at a minimum, incomplete in their research and zeal to disprove the Trinity (as opposed to it being a more serious issue of outright purposeful deception).

Let's look at some of their evidence. Quoting directly from their SYBT pamphlet (you can read along at the following WBTS link):

THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."

There is something that you should notice right off about this quote; the WBTS do not provide a single reference for any of their quotes (maybe that helps keep the rank and file from checking up on their teachers). I would love to tell you that I found each of these quotes and that each of them is out of context, but I can't. Why? Because I can't find any of them – anywhere! And as I said above, to prove that some one didn't say something would require that I read everything that the person ever wrote to disprove them. Coincidence? I think not.

True scholarship provides a reference to a quote. That shows sincerity and honesty, and gives credit to the author(s) that did the research they were actually quoting from. If there are no references to identify where these quotes were taken, how on earth does one verify the quotes and their context? As we have seen in the previous blog, the WBTS is not always very good at providing quotes within their proper context.

If one is to believe the WBTS, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) never said anything to support the concepts of the Trinity, like, for instance, stating that they understood Jesus to be God. And the WBTS's quotes leave us right there, questioning our heritage and giving us no way to prove or disprove anything they say – we are left to just trust them. For the ignorant and uninformed, they've already been convinced.

But is their information true? I submit that it is not, and I'll provide quotes and references to my quotes so that you can validate what I'm writing. Unlike the WBTS, I don't mind if you check up on me.

Although I have not read everything for each of the church fathers mentioned above, I was unable to local any of the WBTS quotes, and checking them out isn't as hard as it might sound. Did you know that there is a complete (or mostly complete) library of everything each of these church fathers wrote (their surviving works anyway), on the Internet? Its called the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. And guess what? Its searchable! Can you image the power and the impact of the WBTS SYBT pamphlet if they had provided links to their cited quotes! But they don't. Your next question should be, “Why didn't they?” Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that.

So, let's just take a moment to analyze what the WBTS quotes actually say above. First, Justin Martyr supposedly believed that Jesus was an angel. Notice, there are no quotation marks around that statement. Its not a quote, and with no reference, its just some one's belief; a statement without context. Also, notice those elipses – what did they leave out? I can't find the quote so I have no idea. And what about Irenaeus? Look closely at what was quoted. Only a statement that Jesus was inferior to the Father. Again, some one's belief with no context. Next we have Clement of Alexandria. Notice how they paste a sentence together with partial quoted words to form an idea they have already predetermined the sentence to say. Pretty slick, huh? After him is Tertullian, and finally we have something that could be considered a “damning” quote, but once again, there is no context nor a reference. Is that what Tertullian really said? Maybe, maybe not – who knows. Next is Hippolytus, who appears to be talking about the Father, where nothing being said would disagree with the Orthodox beliefs of the Trinity. I really like the added touch of tacking on the words, “... such as the created prehuman Jesus.” This is nothing more than a WBTS presupposition. Its not what Hippolytus said since its not in quotations. And lastly, the heretical Origen, who help formulate the Arian position and controversy that would consumed the Nicene counsel in 325 AD.

Bottom line is: what was actually said by any of these church Fathers, excluding Origen? Anything that disagrees with the orthodox belief of the Trinity? What additional “information” did the WTBS supply to help you understand what these church fathers supposedly said? Didn't they add the information to the quotes that would cause you to doubt? This is why I call their scholarship into question. This pamphlet was first published in 1989 and is still basically unchanged from its original printing, even in the online version. Don't you think that 18 years is more than enough time to supply references for these supposed statements?

Now that we have seen what the WBTS maintains these church fathers said, let's see what else they said. The first one I'm going to mention is a guy by the name of Ignatius. If you will notice from above, Ignatius is not mentioned, and one ought to ask why. Of all of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (ANF), Ignatius had the most to say on the subject of who Jesus was. Ignatius lived roughly between 30-117 AD (by the way, please notice I use AD, not CE, which stands for the politically correct “Common Era”, just in case you were curious). Think about the implications of what I just said: 30 to 117 AD. I wonder if or maybe I should ask how many of the Apostles he had actually met? That would have made him a contemporary with the Apostle John. In his epistle to the Ephesians, he wrote the following (See also here):

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, "whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians)

One of the things that you should see from this quote is that there is no equivocation in his statement whatsoever. Ignatius is boldly calling Jesus God; not “a god” but “the God”. Keep in mind that these guys believed Duet 6:4, which should make this statement all the more powerful.

You want another? I knew you would! This is from his 2nd Epistle to the Ephesians:

Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to the Church which is blessed in the greatness of God the Father, and perfected; to her who was selected from eternity, that she might be at all times for glory, which abideth, and is unchangeable, and is perfected and chosen in the purpose of truth by the will of the Father of Jesus Christ our God; to her who is worthy of happiness; to her who is at Ephesus, in Jesus Christ, in joy which is unblameable: [wishes] abundance of happiness. (The Second Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians)

Again, another powerful statement by Ignatius in regards to his belief that Jesus was God. But that's not the last one of his; here's one more from his Epistle to the Romans:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans)

I apologize for the length of the quote, but I had to get both references to Jesus as God into this quote, and keep them both in context. There can be no doubt that Ignatius believed that Jesus was God. And maybe, just maybe, that's why the WBTS forgot to mention him. It is also possible that the WBTS believed Ignatius to be an anomaly, and maybe that's why they didn't mention him. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. His statements, if the only ones, would make him an anomaly. And just like building an entire doctrine on one verse, we don't want to do that, state that Jesus is God and have only one source for that statement. And we don't have to! There are plenty to choose from in the New Testament, but let's put some of the burden of proof on the ANF, just for the heck of it. (by the way, if none of the ANF believed he was God, Scripture alone is more than enough proof. Remember, the reformation was built on that fact.)

So, let's move on. Are there any others? Why, yes, there are. How about Polycarp, he wasn't reference above either was he? He was a disciple of the Apostle John and lived between 65-155 AD. In his letter to the Philippians he wrote:

Now my the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, ad us with you, ,and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and his Father who raised him from the dead. (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians) (p. 129, J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, The Apostlic Fathers, 2nd Edition, © 1989: Baker Book House)

This is from a book on my bookshelf. In the very first sentence he calls Jesus the “eternal High priest”. And eternal means? That's right – no beginning and no end. But he eliminates any confusion, if their actually was any, by calling Jesus both Lord and God.

Now we can move to my favorite, Irenaeus. He lived between 120 – 202 AD and he wrote an extended series of books called Against Heresies, where we find the following in book 3, chapter 19:

For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.

Maybe you recognize that one? At the top of my blog? Once again, another ANF that was quite clear as to who Jesus was, and still is. Let me remind you of the dates of these people. So far, all have been before 200 AD. Pretty remarkable, huh? See, you've been told that it was decided by the Nicene Council of the Church in 325 AD, and that the evil Emperor Constantine forced belief of the Trinity upon the church. That is called, “historical revisionism” and it is quite popular in today's society. Unfortunately, we are very susceptible to its message because when some one repeats something long enough, and no one refutes that statement, we begin to accept it as fact, even when it was made up.

Here is yet another. His name was Athenagorus and he lived around c.a. 177 AD. Hum, he's not mentioned above either. Unfortunately I could not find the historical document online, and debated about using it as a source, but I've decided to add it because I have seen and read this quote in other places. The quote is referenced here and here.

likewise affirmed, "The Son of God is the Word of the Father…the Father and the Son being one.…The Son…is the First-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced — for from the beginning God had the Word in Himself..."

I know I might be seen as beating the proverbial dead horse here, but I want to leave you with the impression that the ANF believed that Jesus was God, and the only way to do that is to provide a lot of documentation. So here's another. This guy's name was Justin Martyr, who lived between 110-165 AD. He wrote the following (See CCEL):

Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, it was in fact the Son of God...who spoke to him…They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God and is God." Moreover, Justin said, "What was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am He who is, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and the God of your fathers,’ was an indication that they though dead still existed and were Christ’s own men.

For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.

Last one I'll use is from Melito of Sardis who wrote this in c.a. 177-180 AD:

He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.

You might have notice, and even if you didn't, I did not quote Origen, and that is because I couldn't locate anything for him, nor did I really try. Origen was declared a heretic for his unorthodox teachings. He started out orthodox, and then drifted away from the truth, although Origen's teachings were declared heretical after his death. Frankly, Origen created the some of the Trinity mess to begin with! So, even though I couldn't confirm the WTBS statements concerning him, I believe them, mostly anyway.

Now let's finish this blog talking about Tertullian. Did you know that Tertullian coined the term, Trinity? Well – you know that some one had to do this, right? Tertullian lived between 155 and 230 AD, and as Bowman points out in this book, Why You Should Believe in the Trinty, states that Tertullian wrote, “... even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had with Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word ...” (here's a reference to that quote) Many of the early fathers equated the references to "reason" in the OT to Jesus, and of course everyone knows who the Word is, right? This reference states that Jesus has been eternally with the Father. So, instead of the misleading and out of context statement of the WBTS, “... there is a time when the Son was not ...”, we have the very person that coined the term (see here - and here) and stated that the Son was equal to the Father.

So as you can see, once again, the WBTS hasn't really done their homework because its really not that hard to see that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did in fact believe that Jesus was God.

But it is true that, with the exception of Tertullian, none of them used the word Trinity to describe God, just as it is true that the word Trinity is not in the NT. But does that really matter? I want to confess a dirty little secret to you – the word omnipotent in not in the Bible either. Neither is omniscience, or omnipresent. So, are these clearly biblical beliefs to be questioned as well, simply because the words are not in the Bible? Absolutely not! This line of reasoning is only a red-herring, its a straw man, something to be used to make you think its important so that they can then tear it down and thus undermine your faith. But they are asking the wrong question. The correct question is: "Is the concept of the Trinity taught by Scripture?" The answer to that question is, emphatically Yes! In answering this question, hopefully I haven't bored you to tears.

Just in case you'd like to do a little light reading on the subject:

How Do We Discuss the Trinity?

2007-07-26T17:41:00.000-07:00

The Trinity is a very misunderstood topic, and unfortunately those misunderstandings usually begin with the church. A theological battle or sorts was waged in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and is still being waged today, to help codify what the church had always taught but had never realized it needed to codify. There are four streams of thought on the Trinity: 1) the orthodox view, One God, three persons; each co-equal with the other; 2) One God where Jesus is either a subordinate or lesser god, or a man; 3) that each, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each separate gods, and 4) that God is one being that manifests Himself as three different beings at different times, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son and sometimes the Holy Spirit. I subscribe to view number one, the orthodox view, which was believed from the beginning. Believe it or not the church fought off the other three views for the first three centuries, which is why it sought to codify the biblical view with a developed theology of the Trinity. If you understand the state of the church during the first three centuries, you will understand why it took until the beginning of the 4th to develop it. It you need help, just think 'persecution', you'll get there.

This is also a doctrine that most Christians are afraid of. When some one asks a question about it, or worse, questions the doctrine altogether, they go white as a ghost, get sweaty palms and a mouth full of cotton. 'Anything but that!', right? But Christians should know that they really have nothing to fear from questions. Of all belief systems, it is Christianity that has a rich tradition of defended its beliefs from both external and internal questioning. Most belief systems are scared of questions. Muslims, for instance, do not allow internal dialog questioning core beliefs – that can significantly shorten your life expectancy. Its is true, not because I can prove it, but because I said so! And the external world is not allowed to ask them either. But Christianity, from its very beginning has historically made questions an open discussion. Unfortunately, too many Christians have forgotten that they already have the answers the world is looking for. Most Christians seem to shy away from questions, but I embrace them. Why? Because it is an opportunity to show others that Christianity is not a collection of mindless rules to be followed, but an intellectual and well as spiritual faith built on a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. I don't believe because I have to, I believe because I want to. I don't believe because its what I've been told is true, I believe because I have investigated and tested this faith and found it to be true. That doesn't mean I have all the answers to every possible question, I certainly do not. But I do not fear any question. It also means that I will listen to all views, but you will have to convince me that I'm wrong, and you will have to do so with Scripture and logic.

So, let's set some ground rules for our discussion. First, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and the Muslims are three groups that state that the Bible was somehow tampered with, making what we have today somehow incomplete or otherwise corrupt. If this is your view, then please do me a favor, send me ten verses in the New Testament that are supposed to be corrupted, with supporting documentation proving they are in fact corrupt (and 1 John 5:7 cannot be one of them – something added in the late 15th century does not qualify). If you cannot substantiate your claim, then don't state that the Bible is corrupt. To the Christian it is the very words of God to mankind.

Second, do not use a single obscure “scholar” to prove a major point. I read a lot, and that means I recognize the names of many scholars, Catholic and Protestant. When I don't, I ALWAYS look them up. Always. It doesn't have to be a scholar that I know or have read, but it should be some one that is actually a scholar. Some pastor of a church of 100 people is not a scholar, no matter how much you like what he says.

Third, everyone makes mistakes, even scholars. That is why I almost always double check sources. I'm not a scholar, nor do I wish to insinuate that I am. But I do read and study all of the time, and have for the last 15 years. I have had to make the difficult decisions to change long held beliefs. Many times in my studies, I have disagreed with a number of scholars, like John Calvin, John MacArthur, Millard Erickson, John Gill, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Barnes, Matthew Poole, John Wesley, Bishop Irenaeus, and many others. My disagreements don't make me correct and them wrong. But my point is that any one can make mistakes. These disagreements however are usually on secondary issues. None of these men disagreed with the Orthodox view of the Trinity, though they may disagree with some minor points about the Trinity.

Fourth, do your own research. I do not get my information from any “all powerful” group or denomination or society. I consult scholars from many backgrounds by reading books, but it is my research with my own books in my own bookshelf. Although I do from time to time quote sources which are quoted in some one's book or article, I do try to verify the author quoted them properly. I have actually caught one particular author improperly quoting a source in a published book (roughly 15 yrs go in fact), for which he has never retracted. When that happens, I find it extremely hard to respect that author again, no matter what they say, unless of course, they publish a retraction. If all you can submit are articles that some one else or some particular organization publishes, that does not qualify as 'doing your own research.' I can copy from a booklet or an article, just like every one else.

So with that said, here is something that some one posted as their blog, which is asking some very valid questions. I post it in its entirety because it will be my intention to respond to each of these points.

JESUS called God "the only true God." (John 17:3) Never did he refer to God as a deity of plural persons. That is why nowhere in the Bible is anyone but Jehovah called Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word "almighty." Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called that, for Jehovah alone is supreme. At Genesis 17:1 he declares: "I am God Almighty." And Exodus 18:11 says: "Jehovah is greater than all the other gods."

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ´eloh'ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ´elo·him' (gods) and ´elo·heh' (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as "God." Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: "The fanciful idea that [´elo·him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of ´elo·him': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute." To illustrate this, the title ´elo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: "[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."

´Elo·him' means, not "persons," but "gods." So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods.

The Bible also uses the words ´elo·him' and ´elo·heh' when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to "Dagon their god [´elo·heh']." (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called "a god [´elo·him']." (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" [´elo·him'] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Exodus 4:16; 7:1.

Obviously, using the titles ´elo·him' and ´elo·heh' for false gods, and even humans, did not imply that each was a plurality of gods; neither does applying ´elo·him' or ´elo·heh' to Jehovah mean that he is more than one person, especially when we consider the testimony of the rest of the Bible on this subject.

Sound authoritative, doesn't it? Looks intimidating with all of the Hebrew words and Scripture quotes doesn't it? But looks can be deceiving. Fact of the matter, this is straight out of the anti-Trinity pamphlet, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (which will be referred to as: SYBT), distributed by the Jehovah's Witnesses – I thought I had read that somewhere. Regardless of the source, these questions do deserve to be answered.

But before I do that, I want to point out that too many Christians are intimidated by the material that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (to be referred to as WBTS) distributes, and if you are one of them, you shouldn't be. It is easy to appear scholarly, just use big words that no one understands. But the real proof of good scholarship is found by inspecting the claims and reviewing the source material quoted, which is sometimes easier said than done.

So, along those lines, I want to give you an example of the scholarship of the WBTS. You ready? On page 4 of the Trinity booklet (http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_02.htm), it states, "The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason'". That sounds pretty conclusive doesn't it? I mean, the prestigious Encyclopedia Americana has spoken, right? But the quote they provided was taken out of context. You want to see what it really says? Here it is:

"It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind".

The first question you should be asking is, “which of you are telling the truth?” Here's my proof. The Encyclopedia Americana is not posted on the Internet, but is freely available at any public library. I'm not going to take a digital picture of the page and post it in my blog, I leave it to you to verify it at your leisure. I submit these Internet links as my proof:

http://www.towertotruth.net/ShouldYouBelieveintheTrinity.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Americana.htm
http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0402.pdf
http://www.watchman.org/jw/believeinwatchtower.htm
http://docbob1.home.comcast.net/misquotes.htm
http://witforjesus.org/jehovahs_witness/online/ysbt/ysbt_ch1.php#s1b

(NOTE: I do not vouch for the entire content of these sites – I have not had nor do I have the time to review an entire website. I only submit the proof of the exact quote from the encyclopedia in question.)

So, as you can see, you cannot always believe what some one or some organization prints in a magazine. You need to make the person or the organization earn its trustworthiness. It cannot be assumed simply because it has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend. Money does not equal trustworthiness.

Now, did you get the same thing from reading the “real” quote as you did from reading the WBTS quote? No? Gee, I wonder why? Again, let me caution you – don't just believe any one, not even me! I mean, who am I? If I quote properly, and you can verify that I have, then I earn credibility, but I don't have any until you actually make sure that I know what I'm talking about. And this is the state of the WBTS. The really sad thing is that no Jehovah's Witness seems to have the wherewithal, ability or even the desire to make sure that the WBTS is being honest, truthful and trustworthy. As you can see from the above links, the correction has been posted all over the Internet, but they don't accept anything that anyone says or writes unless it comes from the WBTS. And WBTS is never wrong, so the material posted by these “anti-Witness” sites are lies. It is a shame. I can tell you that I would not want to be part of an organization or group that misrepresented the truth of what others say.

So that you do not think that this is an isolated quote, here's another. On page 6 or the SYBT pamphlet (http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm) it states,

Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers ... give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. ... "

Any time you see ellipses – that's those three little dots (...) – you should always ask the question, “what am I not being told?” Sometimes they are legitimate, but some times they are not. So here is what Fortman really wrote: (I'll italicize the WBTS quoted material to help you see the differences)

If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Saviour, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission but they present in their own way the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal persons. But they do give us an elemental Trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.

http://www.pnc.com.au/~fichrist/lies.html
http://www.towertotruth.net/ShouldYouBelieveintheTrinity.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-JW-SYBTT-Watchtower-BOOKLET-Should-You-Be...
http://witforjesus.org/jehovahs_witness/online/ysbt/ysbt_ch1.php#s6b

So, as you can see, this quote is even worse than the first. They have chopped up a paragraph to form exactly what they want to present as the truth. In the process, they have put words into the mouth of some one else and then insinuated that he said them to support their viewpoint, for the sole purpose of “proving” to you that their premise – namely that the Trinity is a lie – is in fact true. This is at best, the very worst form of scholarship imaginable; and at worst, outright purposeful deception.

By the way, these are not the only two misrepresented quotes in this pamphlet; there are many more where these two came from. The SYBT pamphlet has been in print since 1989, and as you can see, the online version says exactly what I reproduced above. As bad as these two examples are, these misrepresented quotes should not be the soul reason to reject the message of the WBTS. Each of us should want to know the truth, and we need to find out if they are in fact correct. The very last thing we should ever want to do is reject the truth because some one is a bad messenger of it. Eternity is a long time ...

I will begin addressing the above blog posting as well as the truths about the Trinity in my upcoming blogs. I welcome all questions and comments on this topic. If there is something that you disagree with, please, by all means, comment. If I am wrong, please help me see the truth. I make mistakes, and I admit it when I do. Do you?

Banned from the Bible - Part II

2007-07-06T13:02:00.000-07:00

So I finally got a reply from my email of several months back concerning the History Channel program, "Banned from the Bible." Here was there response:

Dear Mr. Hadfield,

Thank you for your interest in The History Channel program BANNED FROM THE BIBLE. A purpose in presenting programs about religion is to explore what is known to be historical fact as opposed to--or in agreement with--what is believed by the faithful.

We regret that you find any of our programming biased. We can assure you that offending any particular ethnic, religious, racial, political or socioeconomic group is the farthest thing from the editorial goal of any program found on The History Channel.

The producers with whom we work on religion-based programs select historians and interviewees who are educated in a variety of religious disciplines. Like any scholar, each has his or her point of view; all, however, possess credentials from recognized universities and theological institutions. Viewers often agree or disagree with a particular interviewee, and with the point of view of a particular producer. We encourage the healthy and respectful exchange of opinions on matters of faith, and appreciate your feedback on our programs.

Regards,
Viewer Relations

As you can see, not really much of a response but it was a response. A friend of mine said two words, "Form letter." And that may be what it was, but it did come several months after my initial email. But it was less than appealing response from them. It was, just about what I predicted.

But wouldn't it have been nicer had they actually taken the time to respond to a single point I made in my original email to them? I would have rather gotten cussed out, or belittled than the predictable dribble I received. But I guess I should be happy some one took the time to respond, even if it was a "form letter" type response. But you know me, I just can't leave well enough alone. Here is my response to them:

Dear Viewer Relations:

I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my email. I'm sure that you get a lot of email, and that much is probably negative concerning religious material. It is a difficult topic to address because of the emotions it generates. For that, I do appreciate the effort made. That being said, I do wish I didn't have to be "one of those people."

Unfortunately, your response didn't seem to address any of the questions I posed. I am well aware that John Domenic Crosslan has a number of degrees, as I am sure that some of the other rather questionable interviewees have them as well. But their level of higher education was not the point of the critic, nor does the number of degrees indicate ones abilities as a true scholar - it was the lack of balance in the end result of the program that I questioned. It was the historical speculations passed off as historical facts that I questioned. It was the lack of an opposing view point that I questioned. Even if you consider the Bible to be fraudulent, it is difficult to compare literature written in ca 50-70 AD with that of literature written in ca 150-350 AD, which is what the program attempted to do. It is likewise difficult if not impossible to present literature that was written 200 yrs after Jesus' death as historically accurate, which is what your program attempted to do. In addition, it is beyond my ability to understand why you would seemingly purposely leave out important details of a supposed lost gospel that undermine its very credibility. If the Bible had some of this lost gospel material in it, it would surely be castigated for doing so. But your program omitted all of this information from any critic of these supposed lost gospels? Your show didn't give the viewer the idea that this damning material was even present in its texts. That is what I'm talking about concerning the lack of scholarship and balanced appraisal. The History Channel is about history, not speculation. And when it is appropriate to speculate, both sides should be given equal opportunity to present their views. As you do with other programs, why not present the other side of the debate? Why not balance liberal scholars - like John Domenic Crosslan - with conservative scholars, and let the viewer decide. Why not present all of the facts - like that the Gospel of Thomas' has an extremely low view of women - to put its credibility into the proper perspective?

I know these facts because I read about and study these things, but the vast majority of people do not. Your presentation only served to confuse people by not providing all of the facts for an honest appraisal. As you well know, an unbalance presentation of partial facts can only hope to present a skewed understanding of a subject. This your producers did quite well. It is a shame that those who reviewed this program prior to its airing had so little interest or understanding in the subject matter as to miss so many obvious errors in basic scholarship and unbiased presentation methodologies.

Sincerely,
Steve Hadfield

I'm sure that this too will fall on deaf ears, but it is better than saying nothing at all. In fact, it reminds me of an old saying:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)

A Christian's Response to Jihad

2007-06-21T17:52:00.000-07:00

I often wonder why God guides a person down the path he wants them to travel. When I became a Christian I can assure you that studying apologetics was not at the top of my list. At the time I didn't believe I had any perceivable gifts to speak of, and that may still be true! I have never had any desire to get embroiled in controversies, but I do seem to get involved in one from time to time. I would not consider myself to have any particularly intuitive or insightful perspectives on issues or beliefs, just more guts than brains. Frankly, I'm a 'nobody.' I'm sure I'm no more 'holy' than any one else. But here I am, wanting to contribute something of value in a cacophony of noise generated every day by so many that are so much smarter, more philosophical, and much more eloquent than I.

After 4 or 5 blogs on Islam, I'm sure that some of you may be like me, left a little disturbed and dejected, hoping that some one, anyone will have some encouraging words, or can give some guidance on the next steps. Armed with all of this information, what are we to do with it? Well, let me offer some suggestions. From a national perspective, Robert Spencer recommends the following:

Tie foreign aid to how Muslim nations treatment their non-Muslim minorities. Since Muslims and Muslim nations are killing and subjugating non-Muslims in their countries on a continual basis; should we really be giving these people any money at all? What do we get in return? Do we care what happens to Christians, Jews, Hindus and the rest? Do we care about human rights? Or are we going to continue to listen to the buffoons at Amnesty International, and let them set our policies. They think we're the worst human rights abusers! Oh please!
Reconfigure our global alliances based on how Muslim nations treat non-Muslims. That would be radical, wouldn't it. We should repent to the Russians for trying to twist their arm on Chechnya for the last umpteen years – why? Chechnya is filled with Jihadists; let the Russians do whatever they want! OK, OK, that's a little strong, but they're fighting a war on terrorism too. By the way, do you remember the school full of Russian children that was taken hostage by Muslim terrorists several years ago? Chechnyan Jihadists!
My personal favorite is that we should start a full scale Manhattan Project to find a new energy source – something not dependent on oil at all. I have said for years, we have been using the internal combustion engine far too long. I'm not a conspiratorialist, so I don't buy into the idea that “big oil” and the car companies are in collusion and have been hiding inventions from us. As a technology guy, I understand the difficulties in the invention process. Its not nearly as easy as the movies make it out to be. Besides, the Japanese would not be hiding an invention like that, they'd be marketing it! That being said, we don't spend enough money to benefit this country in this particular area – we give it all away in foreign aid to undeserving countries. I would also like to add that constitutionally, our government has both the right and the responsibility for the protection of its citizenry, and this it should do. I don't know if that extends to rebuilding a nation, but it is the Christian thing to do. Well, I guess you have to decide if its right to destroy a country whose main purpose was promoting world wide terrorism against the West and then just leave it in that state. I would say no. The North rebuilt the South, America rebuilt both Japan and Germany. Truthfully, its in our blood to help others; its part of that Christian legacy the ACLU wants to rip out of the American conscience. Some would say we shouldn't have gone after Osama bin Laden; but I would disagree. As I just said, constitutionally, our government has a responsibility to protect its citizenry, and he's the one that declared war on us back in 1993.

So then, what should the government's response be? It should respond with whatever is required to provide for the protection of its citizenry. Some times that's diplomacy, and some times that means militarily. It is a sad fact that some people only listen to the 'big stick.' I know that might repulse some, but it is true. How should a bully be handled? Everyone that's being bullied bands together and kicks the living crap out of the bully. Beat him within an inch of his life. I know, doesn't sound very Christian does it? Don't believe me? Hitler got nearly everything he asked for prior to WWII starting, but he wasn't satisfied (no dictator ever is); he wanted more. By the time the USA entered the war, he owned nearly all of Europe. Would we have gotten involved had we not been attacked by Japan? You don't appease a bully, you stand up to him. If you don't, you will always be under his thumb. I'm not arguing for a 'war' or even 'violence', I'm pointing out the obvious, it is an unfortunate fact that some times 'war' is the only thing that can prevent a worse oppression, and prevent the lust and greed of an evil ruler. Remember, this is from a 'national' perspective.

As a society, we like to think that we've 'evolved', but Scripture tells us that is simply not true. As a matter of fact, according to Scripture, man has 'devolved.' For all of our higher education, great thinkers, and constant reinforcement to the contrary, we are no better people today than our forefathers were a 100 or 1000 years ago. Its as it was in the days of Noah:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 6:5)

The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

This is the real state of mankind. He has evil in his heart all of the time. He cannot do good, no matter how hard he tries. I know that that will offend some, ,but that's what the Bible says, and we either believe it, or we need to be asking ourselves why we think we're Christians. As hard as this is to believe most Americans are really no better than Osama bin Laden. His evil is extended towards all that are not Islamic, totally dedicated to his cultic faith. Our evil is self directed, and self destructive.

So, as Christians, what should we be doing? I know what my 'flesh' says, but what my flesh wants is irrelevant. The question is: what does Jesus want me to do? When I ended my last blog, I really had no idea how to sum all of this up. But then two great resources fell into my lap. Quite by chance, I picked up a book that's been in my bookcase for a couple of years called, Nothing But the Truth, by John MacAurthur. He can be a bit controversial at times because he can be quite dogmatic about Scripture. But then, he's usually right for being so. The second is a resource that I've gotten every month or so for the last 10 years. Christian History and Biography is one of those resources that, to me, is indispensable. The philosopher and poet George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The latest issues is called, “Building the City of God in a Crumbling World”, and documents some of what the church has done throughout history when faced with persecution. So, with these two resources in mind, I will attempt to suggest some things that we, as Christians, could be doing.

First and foremost, one must have a true and authentic faith in Christ, otherwise none of this will make any sense at all. Jesus must be Lord of all, or He is not Lord at all.

Secondly, we must know the fundamentals of the faith. For some reason, the word fundamental conjures up a big fat white guy with a crew cut and an 800 lb Bible screaming at people to repent. There probably was one guy who fit that description 70 yrs ago, but he's dead now, so let's leave him buried. (yes, I know, I've seen his grandson too) To start with, “fundamental” is a good word. Historically the word comes from a series of letters that were collected into a series of books for the purpose of refuting the modernists of the late 19th century who rejected the miracles in the Bible like the virgin birth of Christ. Pastors and theologians joined together to refute the corruption of Christian doctrine and to promote the fundamentals of the faith. So, let me ask you a couple of questions: How many of you invite Jehovah's Witnesses into your home and witness to them? Or are you one of the ones that they can twist into a pretzel in about 15 seconds? Can you explain the Trinity? Do you know why that's the foundation of the Christian faith? If these questions scare you, then you don't know the fundamentals, and you need to. Go back to the beginning of my blogs and start reading. It doesn't contain everything, but once I'm done with Islam, I'll be getting back to the fundamentals of the faith. Get a good basic theology book, like Moody's Handbook of Theology and start reading.

Next, we need to be praying for each other and the lost. Do you do that? Do you pray at all? Do you believe your prayers matter? That, incidentally is why many believers don't pray, but your prayers do matter to God. There are believers all over this planet, and many of them are under constant persecution. They need our support, our love, our caring, and our prayers. Do we care? Do you know there are believers in Africa that pray specifically for America, pretty much 24 hrs a day? They are being imprisoned, tortured and killed, and they are praying specifically for us. That completely humbles and embarrasses me. We need to be a praying people, for each other and for the lost.

Do you have a testimony? Do you know when and why you received Christ? Can you share that with some one, or are you afraid that your testimony is not “powerful” enough? Do you know what God saved you from? And more importantly, do you also know that what God saved you for, is far greater than what He saved you from? Do you know that you were “called” by God? Do you know that before the foundations of the world were laid, God knew that you would lay down your life and pick up His? Rev 12:11 says, “And they overcame him [the devil] because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.” Is that you?

Do we preach the Gospel to a lost and dying world? Do you share your faith, or are you a JFK – your faith is personal. Our faith is personal, but it is also what the world needs to here, and we are commanded to preach it. Jesus said there is one single way to the Father. That way is not through “allah”, or Buddha, or Confucius, or the Mormons, or the JW's, or the atheists, or the deists; its through Jesus. If you don't believe that then maybe your not a Christian. And if not, I'd like to share with you the greatest gift God has even gave to mankind ...

This last one is not mentioned by MacAurthur, but I think it should be. If there is one thing that the church lacks more than anything else, its unity. We allow almost anything to divide us. If the color of the light bulbs is not to our liking, we're ready to start a revolt. Fire the pastor! Depose the elders! I know this sound ridiculous, but it is closer to the truth than you would ever think. Have you ever looked at the number of churches there are in any one town? The number of denominations in existence? I am sure these figures grieves the Holy Spirit. Now, I'm not talking about church's that have PCUSA feminist pastors preaching sermons on the earth goddess, Gia. (I know you think I'm kidding, don't you?) I'm not talking about the areas where we should make distinctions between what and who is a believer and what and who isn't. And I'm not talking about judging the heart of anyone, but the early church had to do this very thing, that's why we have “creeds”. Not everyone that calls themselves a Christian is one. You cannot be a Christian and reject the belief that Jesus Christ is God – that is a fundamental truth that must be upheld.

No, what I'm talking about is the unnatural separations that Christians make from each other. I'm a Baptist! I'm a Catholic! I'm an AME! I'm non-denominational! If you're a PCA Presbyterian can you fellowship with a Charismatic or a Pentecostal? I used to be Charismatic but I have some real theological issues with some of what they teach, but that doesn't mean I can't fellowship with someone from that kind of a church. As a matter of fact, I'm going through a book, The Gift of Prophecy, with a Charismatic friend because he's having trouble with some of the teachings of his current church in this area. I don't agree with everything that Wayne Grudem writes, but he brings up some important issues and makes some very good points. So, I guess my question is: could you do something like this? Or is what separates you from others more important than what joins us all together as believers? Is our Christian love for one another just lip service, or is it something that we need to reevaluate.

Please understand that I'm not talking about ecumenicalism; boiling all of our beliefs down to the lowest common denominator. I radically disagree with some Catholic doctrines concerning Mary, as well as most of the 'Word of Faith' teachings, but I could still fellowship and even worship with a Catholic and a 'Word of Faith' believer. But one cannot have true fellowship and worship with an unbeliever. So there are legitimate distinctions that have to be made from time to time. That being said, there is simply no reason for all of our separation and segregation.

One of our worse offenses in this area is race relations in the church. Two many white Christians and too many black Christians are racists. Yes, that's right, I've said it. I'm not talking about the Aryan Nation or the Nation of Islam sympathizers I'm talking about all of the normal people in the middle. All of us need to get over our perceived hurts as well as our preconceived ideas about each other. Just because I'm an white engineer does not make me superior to some one that's a black brick layer, or vis-versa. The level of melatonin in my skin does not make me superior or inferior to anyone else. James 2:9 says that it is a sin to show preferential treatment to one believer over another (Jas 3:9-17). Jesus died on a cross to deliver us from all of this crap, not for us to get mired down in it. Didn't God say that we were all created equal? Its all about a nasty three letter word called SIN, and sin is sinful. It is something that we are all infected by:

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Roman 7:15-25)

What makes us do the bad things that we do is sin. Sin is the disease, and Jesus is the cure! And we don't help our brothers and sisters in Christ by keeping silent when they sin, whether against us or not. As a believer, I am my brother's keeper. I should confront a brother or sister in the Lord who is in open sin – regardless what that sin is. But to do this I have to already be doing two other things as well. First, I have to love that person, and loving them is really hard at times. And second, I have to have already forgiven them because Jesus has. If a believer sins against me, it is my Christian duty and responsibility to forgive them. I'm not going to like what they did to me or towards me, but I'm still required to forgive, no matter the sin. I'm also required to love my Christian brothers and sisters. Making that dependent on something as trivial as skin color is absurd. Now I don't particularly like some Christian people who seem to always be giving Christianity a black eye. IMHO, they are first class jerks, like those “lovely” people that protest at the funerals of servicemen who've died in combat or the idiots in the “godhatesfags.com” group. There is nothing Christian in what they are doing, unless of course, doing the opposite of what Jesus would do is “christian” to you. But I'm not called to like what they do, I am called to love them.

So unity is the church is something that we all need to strive to achieve at least at some level. I could write a book on this topic, especially after reading an article on the secular philosophical under pinnings of multiculturalism, but I'll have to leave that topic alone for now. My point here is that we really have no hope for any unity if we cannot forgive one another, and love one another. No sin is unforgivable, and that extends to racism, homosexuality, and any other sin you consider unforgivable.

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:7-10)

Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation. (Luke 11:4)

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. (Matt 18:21-22)

All of this separation and unforgiveness that we do 'in the name of Christ' doesn't honor Him very much, or very often. As a faith, we need to be striving to find ways to become one in Christ, not further dividing. Why? Because we are commanded to do so in Scripture.

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-23)

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph 4:1-6)

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. (Col 3:12-15)

I apologize now because I have to admit that I really don't know how to help anyone implement this on a corporate scale. But maybe it has to be from the ground up; each believer helping another to see their sin against God so that they can change and do the same for another. But it is something that we need to pray for and strive towards.

So, what else can we do? Well, if we've started with the ones I've already mentioned above, that will keep us more than busy for the remainder of our lifetimes. But historically, there were methodologies that were followed in the past that we could learn from and some we could emulate. That's where the Christian History and Biography magazine comes in.

But before starting let me cation us all. Methodologies are fine, but only if the heart of the Gospel of Christ guides us via the Holy Spirit. The very second that the methodology or the work being performed becomes the slightest bit more important than the Gospel of Jesus, then it ceases to be guided by the Spirit. It simply becomes a “good work”, even if it is the most noble of pursuits. Social do-gooder-ism (if that's a word) is not what the Christian is to be about. God's desire is that mankind comes into a saving relationship with the God of the universe that created him. Paul's focus was never feeding the poor, but preaching the Gospel. In Acts, they started with helping fellow churches and specific believers, not looking for unbelievers to feed and cloth. We are not called to go into the world and help the homeless, but to make disciples. (Matt 28:19)

Some ideas gleaned from the magazine are: In the 5th century, Augustine wrote a book called The City of God, which most Christians have probably heard of, but few have read. Augustine lived during and partially through the fall of the Roman Empire. During his lifetime, Rome was attacked by the Visigoths, and the once proud Roman Christians were left stunned and with little hope. His momentous work was a response to that hopelessness. The point of his book was that this earth is not our home. We live in time, but belong to eternity. This earthy life is only temporary, and we should be focused on the larger picture which is what we should be doing to please God in this lifetime, and not be about pleasing ourselves. My daughter recently read a book called Requiem for a Dream. Its a very disturbing book, but with what I believe is an unintended Christian principle being taught. When we get the fulfillment of our dreams (outside of what God desires for us), they are not what we expected and don't fulfill us like we thought they would. One of the highest suicide rates is among the affluent, making that very point. The Gospel is not about me getting a BMW or a million dollar estate or winning the lottery, its about being an obedient bond servant of Christ Jesus, my Lord.

The second lesson comes from John Chrysostom, another 5th century bishop, but from Constantinople. During an affluent time of the church, he chastised it for being too self-seeking, much like our “me” generation, which seems to have prevailed pretty much since the 80's. Like Augustine he rebuked the church for not preaching the Word to the lost and not constructively helping the needy as a demonstration of true Christian love.

The next lesson we can learn is from the examples of both Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Albert Lutuli of South Africa. Everyone has heard of Bonhoeffer and his courageous stand against Nazism and Hitler, but most have probably never heard of Albert Lutuli and his courageous and non-violent stand against apartheid. Both teach us that conformity with evil should be abhorred. Both men believed that their faith demanded that they stand against the clear evil that was being condoned by the church. In Bonhoeffer's case this was the vast majority of Lutheran and Catholic leaders of his day signing onto Nazism, and in Lutuli's case, it was the white Christians of South Africa implementing Apartheid.

Next we have the examples of three men interacting with the Muslim community. John of Damascus, the Assyrian Church Patriarch Timothy I and Samuel Zwemer. John did so in the middle of the 7th century, but not very charitably. He spent much of his life writing against heretical beliefs, Islam included, but his writing style was a product of his times, and somewhat harsh. Still, he created a clear distinction between Christianity and Islam. Timothy lived during during the middle of the 8th century, and like John lived under the rule of the Muslim crusaders spreading their faith by the sword. But it was Timothy that was able to actually interact directly with the 3rd Caliph, al-Mahdi. Each man seemed to have great respect for the other, but it was Timothy that was under the rule of the Caliph, and his conciliatory language demonstrated that. Timothy used analogies to help explain Christian beliefs, like the Trinity, and draw clear differences between the two faiths. The last, Zwemer, spent most of his adult life (62 yrs) ministering and witnessing to Muslims in Arabia in the early 1900's. Like Timothy, his message was a more relevant and respectful one to the Muslims he lived amongst. But he engaged them on a daily basis, believing he was called to this particular missionary field.

My last example is Bishop Festo Kinengere of Uganda. Bishop Festo had been called the Billy Graham of Africa, and is a survivor of the butcher of Uganda, Idi Amin. He is noteworthy because of a book he wrote, which sums up what a Christian's attitude should be towards the world around him. His book title was I Love Idi Amin. Festo saw many of his friends and fellow servants of God murdered by Idi Amin, and he himself had to flee Uganda to survive his reign of power. So, why did he say the equivalent of 'I love Osama bin Laden?' Because as he put it, “The Holy Spirit showed me that I was getting hard in my spirit, and that my hardness and bitterness towards those who were persecuting us could only bring spiritual loss ... So I had to ask for forgiveness from the Lord, and for grace to love President Amin more.”

I feel thoroughly convicted by the example of Bishop Festo, as well as from Bonhoeffer and Lutuli, because I admit that I am a bit hard in my heart towards Islam because of its ruthless persecution of the church, its constant and never ending desire to force others to convert or die, and because the secular American culture continues to perpetuate the myth that Christianity is and has always been much worse than Islam could ever think of being. The self righteous justice of shadman thinks that it knows better than God does, and I know that that is not true.

I admit that I really do not want to be charitable towards Islam because too many of its followers have no desire to be charitable towards Christians. Their only desire seems to be to kill in the name of “allah.” But that is not what Jesus would do. He loved the very ones that hated Him, and that should be our example as well ... in every sphere of our life.

It is a forgone conclusion that the world will fail us, but it is also inevitable that our brothers and sisters n Christ will fail us too. So when they do, be ready and willing to forgive them. That may be the hardest thing you will ever have to do, but keep your eye on the prize. Nothing happens to us by accident, God is never surprised by our disobedience and sin, yet He still loves us and forgives us.

The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Pet 4:7-11)

Oh, yes, and I almost forgot, in the month of May there were 276 Jihad attacks, and 2084 dead bodies as a result of the religion of peace demonstrating its superior ways of peace and religious enlightenment.

Come Lord Jesus, come ....

Crusading for the Truth

2007-05-27T19:09:00.000-07:00

And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. (Mark 13:13)

There is for you an excellent example to follow in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, unless ye belieive in Allah and Him alone. (Qur'an 60:4)

Wow! Its actually been a month since my last blog. And the crazy thing is, I started immediately after I posted my last one. But then I got to looking at a really interesting Scripture related to the Trinity, and then a mild controversy by what I had shared about a particular verse. But, no matter – here we go!

The Crusades are not one of the bright spots as you look at the history of the church, but that really has more about their outcomes rather than the actions of the participants. I'm not going to gloss over the things that were done wrong, nor am I going to excuse the actions of some of the Crusaders because the Muslims did the same or worse. As Christians we are held to a higher standard than unbelievers, which just so happens to include Muslims, along with all other religions, and Muslims are quick to remind us of that. They apparently seem to concede the fact that they don't have to have any morals, well, what we would consider morals anyway. But this “crap” (can I say that in a Christian blog?) about the Crusades being started by the Christians is historical revisionism.

I'm only going to write two more blogs on Islam. This one will be on the real Crusades, not the fake one of Hollywood's invention, or what the Muslims would have you believe. The last one will wrap up this topic for a while, so I can get back to the attributes of God, or maybe I'll go right to the Trinity, I could probably write for the next 6 months on that subject alone. However, this one will really be easy compared to the next one. The next one I'm somewhat afraid to even tackle because I will call into question some of our current “taboos” that have nothing to do with Islam at all, but contribute to the devaluing of our personal freedoms like freedom of speech. It will hurt us all, but some of us more than others. Its is a point that I think that Robert Spencer missed or avoided in his book. I tend to think the latter because I certainly don't want to tackle it either, but its an unfortunate side effect of our politically correct elitists whose motivation is not promoting Christ and His righteousness.

I've also decided to re-write what I originally started because it was just too cynical, too 'in your face', and frankly it was tacking in a direction I didn't like. I have said since starting this blog that its purpose was to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing else really matters in life, compared to that. Please, don't think that I'm trying to be overly spiritualizing. I'm the same sinner saved by grace that the rest of you are. For me, I just want to be found doing God's will in my life. So if the goal is to make this blog a testimony of faith in Christ, it can't just be about the horrible things that go on around us every day. There has to be something redeeming in what I write, or I'm wasting my time.

So to lead off this blog about the Crusades, I want to relate a bit of news that you just don't hear from the big three. For years, conservatives have been screaming from the tops of the rafters that “news” is big business and that liberal journalists project their own biases into their stories. And you know, that's OK, because conservative journalists do the same thing! I realize that that is a gigantic revelation, but the only people that “don't get it” are the liberal journalists, that sit around on PBS stations and ask each other if they're biased, while denying their own. Quite comical if you ask me. So, with all that said, should it be any surprise when you're not told the truth about an incident? Let me relate some of the details about the murder of three Christians (here and here) in the country of Turkey about a month ago. But I warn you ahead of time, its a bit graphic. As always, there is a reason why I'm relating this story. So, here's an excerpt from the story you didn't hear:

They [the Mulsim Jihadists] arrived, tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman’s hands and feet to chairs and as they videoed their work on their cellphones, they tortured our brothers for two hours. Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated [castrated] and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, practically decapitated.

Again, I apologize the the graphic nature of this story, but it is important for Christians to understand what they will be facing in the future. A little strong, you say? Remember, Turkey is a country attempting to get into the European Union, at a time when it seems to be returning to its Ottoman Empire roots. One of the reasons why I relate this story is because this is a microcosm of what is going on all over the world in Muslim countries. I'm not trying to insinuate that all Muslims are terrorists or Jihadists, but it is a much greater percentage than the PC media and our current administration are willing to admit. By the way, the previous administration was no better, being just as blind.

Most people think the Crusades were started by the Christians, but to believe that and even say that is a travesty; a complete and utter ignorance of the historical facts. Does anyone out there know why the Crusades were called? I've already told you about Spain, and the 700 yr of wars to retake the country from the Muslim usurpers. And I've also hinted at Charles Martel – the grandfather of Charlemagne – who fought the Muslim onslaught to defend Europe, pushing the Muslim invaders back over the Pyrenees, and back into Spain. Charlemagne had to do the same thing. But I haven't told you about what was going on in the east at the very same time, so you're going to get a quick history lesson before we dive into the Crusades. Sound fun? Here we go. First, let me state boldly and clearly, it is a myth that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack against the Islamic world. Only a complete idiot would actually believe that; the historical evidence is overwhelming, unless of course, you want to ignore history. “The Kingdom of Heaven” is a Hollywood movie that was about an historical battle in the third Crusade, and it is true that the Muslims won that crusade, and that they even let the Christians go, but nearly everything else in that movie was fabricated. Why didn't you hear a Muslim outcry after that movie was released? Did you hear CAIR protest even once? Why was it only the Christians that angrily denounced the movie as a historically inaccurate and revisionist? Isn't that obvious?

There is really too much information to try to relate it all here, but I'll do my best to give you a good idea of some of the things that were happening at the time. Again, a lot of this information is from Robert Spencer's book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades”. Officially, the First Crusades was in 1098 AD, but to start there would ignore the very reason Pope Urban II called for it in the first place. If you will remember from a previous blog, Muslims overran Jerusalem in 638 AD, they conquered northern Africa shortly thereafter, and by 711 AD, they were pressing into Spain. On the east side, they were invading India in 634 AD, and worked their way into what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan by the beginning of the 8th century. Muslims invaded Sicily and Italy in 827 AD. By 846 AD They had reached Rome, looting, pillaging and raping their way there. Their hold was never strong within Italy, but Sicily was not retaken until 1091 AD. The eastern church, the Byzantine Empire was being attacked continually from the 7th century on. During this entire time, the Muslim conquests were always characterized as “religious” in nature (can you say Jihads) by the Muslims themselves.

Just like today, Muslims were particularly brutal when it came to other Muslims that converted to another religion, and beheadings were just as popular back then as they are today. Seems Mohamed's words have always been taken literally as the proper punishment, regardless of what CAIR says. But they also seemed to extend that “special grace” to the associated Christians as well. In the 9th and 10th centuries, as the Muslims took more and more ground from the Byzantine empire, the churches in those areas were either desecrated and taken over, or desecrated and destroyed. In 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage and plundered and destroyed the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection. By that time, the Muslims had taken what is now Syria from the Byzantines. Finally, in 960 AD, the Byzantines moved in to retake some of their lost lands, though it was short lived victory. You see, anything that belongs or has even belonged to the “house of Islam” belongs to her forever! That's why Spain will never be rid of the Basq separatists. Oh! You didn't know that they were Muslims?

Just like today, in Iraq, Shia and Sunni Muslims have always been fighting each other, and so their bickering at that time helped slow the onslaught of Jihad warriors. And, as is true today, the Byzantines learned the hard way that it is futile to attempt to negotiate a truce with Muslims – they are only doing it to strengthen themselves for another attack. I know that sounds cynical, but it really isn't. How many truces has Israel negotiated with the Palestinians? During each and every truce for the last 30 yrs, the Palestinians have never stopped firing rockets into Israel or sending suicide bombers into teenage Pizza joints to kill 12-14 yr old girls. And no one ever holds them responsible for an organized governmental campaign of terrorism. Like the fools that we like to be, America has been the primary supporters of the PLA and their associated so-called refugee camps (no time to explain the truth about that right now), supplying them with “humanitarian aid” while Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian money went for guns and bombs. Their regional maps have never shown Israel as a country, because they are dedicated to its destruction. But like I said, I don't have time for this rabbit trail ....

By 1060 AD, the Seljik Turks were the ones attacking the Byzantine empire, and on all sides. They retook Syria and Jerusalem in 1077. In 1054, 300 Christians were expelled from Jerusalem, and Muslims forbade European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Byzantine Empire was on the verge of crumbling. It once ruled half the known world, but had been reduced to what is now Greece. So, in ca 1090 AD, the Emperor swallowed his pride, and asked for help from the western church. If you will remember, something significant happened in 1054 AD – the Byzantines had forced the great schism, that separated east and west along theological lines. So it was with this backdrop that the Byzantine Emperor humbly came to the west for help. And it wouldn't be the last time either.

As I've clearly stated in my previous blog entries, Islam is a religion that is and has always been spread by the sword. The Islamic terrorists boldly proclaim this as they kill relentlessly in the name of “allah”. Meanwhile, the less extreme are so offended by my statement that they kill those that state the obvious to defend the name of “allah”, thus demonstrating the very thing they are trying to deny. Theo Van Gogh is a classic example of this very thing. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are offended as well, but they truthfully don't understand the roots of their own religion. This is the CAIR crowd that sues people for saying the things I've been saying. It seems that “freedom of speech” today only extends to Americans of special classes. They can say what they want, misrepresent their beliefs, but the rest of us aren't allowed to call into question some of these rather extreme “beliefs”. But more about that next time ... if I don't chicken out. The small remainder are ambivalent about their own religion, much like the cultural Jews and Christians are.

Its is also a myth that the Crusades are an example of western imperialism. When Pope Urban II called the Crusade, it was because the Muslims had devastated the eastern church, killing and destroying anyone and anything that was not Muslim. Urban's words were, “... to destroy this vile race from the lands of our friends...” It was not to kill every last Muslim, as is usually believed, but to liberate the oppressed people and return their land to them. Reminds me of the goal for Iraq and Afghanistan. They were not looking to pillage the land, but to liberate it, considerably different from the goals of Islam at the time and even today, and really, ever since Mohamed. Nor was their goal to convert Muslims to Christianity. I remember a popular Kevin Costner movie, where his character repeats a common myth, that the reason for the Crusades was for Christians to force Muslims to convert or die by the sword. Nothing is farther from the truth. I know it's been done in the past, but those are the exception, not the rule. Its is also a myth that Muslims were treated worse in Christian lands than Christians in Muslim lands. A Spanish Muslim traveling to Mecca, through Christian lands in ca 1180 AD stated this, “The inhabitants were all Muslims (near the city of Tyre), but they lived in comfort with the [Crusaders] ... Their dwellings belonged to them and all their property is unmolested. ... the latter suffer from the injustice of their coreligionists, whereas the [Crusaders] act with equity.” His meaning was that Muslims in Muslim lands don't fare as well as Muslims in Christian lands. I'll bet you've never heard that on CNN or NBC!

There were actually seven Crusades that were called, and of the seven, only the first one was successful; all of the rest were essentially failures, while some were disasters.

So why were the Crusades called? To defend and help liberate the eastern church from the Muslim usurpers. It was the Muslims that had been the aggressors, and to be quite frank, just like they have always been. And after the last Crusade in 1250 AD, the Muslim aggression did not stop. In 1426, Cyprus fell to the Egyptian Mamluks. In 1396, A large European force was defeated at Nicopolis, a town on the Danube river. At that point, nothing stood in the way on them taking all of Europe. Fortunately for the Christian world, the Mongols distracted the Turks from decimating Europe. The jewel of the Christendom was Constantinople and in 1421, the Ottoman sultan set his sights on its overthrow. It would take him another 32 to realize his dream. In 1444, a 30,000 strong Christian army was wiped out at Varna, Hungry. In 1456 the Turks took Belgrade, and even tried to get to Rome again, but thankfully, were too weak to do so. In 1529 – that's 1529 folks – they laid siege to Vienna. In 1672, the Muslim Jihadists defeated the Poles, and took large sections of the Ukraine. In 1683, they once again set their sights on Vienna, but failed. That was the point at which the Muslims had had their furthest advance into Europe, until the 21st century of course.

There is so much more that could be said, and maybe even should be said, but I will stop with this. Hopefully, you've caught some of these dates. Remember that King James commissioned the Authorized version is 1609. So where do we stand? In the month of April there were 276 Jihad attacks and 2081 dead bodies. You tell me? Have they stopped, even a little? Or have they been emboldened by our inability to call their actions exactly what they are – a Jihad against the western world, with the support of vast numbers of Muslims worldwide? Our western mindset is our worst enemy. Our freedoms are being used against us, or PC mentality is being used to silence all debate. Folks, we are defeating ourselves, and we don't even know it. You have to know your enemy to be able to fight him, and we are completely ignorant.

I know that this sounds defeatist, and I'm really sorry about that, but the picture is bleak because that is the reality of the situation right now. We're safe in our homes, while we debate WMDs, and some seek to impeach the current president, but we are missing the point of the war on terrorism, a war that we should and must fight. Debate, if you like, that our president is “evil”, but it was an un-provoked attack by Muslim Jihadists on Sept 11th, 2001. So was the USS Cole, so was the Marine peacekeepers barracks in Lebanon in 1983! (and I could name at least 10 other incidents over the last 30 yrs directed at America) How many more Christians have to die before we will finally wake up to the truth about Islam? If it really is a “religion” of peace, then let them prove it – let them police themselves for once. Let them extend the same freedoms to Christians in their own countries, that are extended to Muslims in the west. Where is there aid to American disasters? They donated a combined few million dollars to Katrina victims; while we contribute billions to the tsunami victims; and not even that, we donate billions all of the time to everyone around the world, regardless of their religion. Where's the parity? If Islam is a religion of peace, then why are there so many Christians in Muslim countries dying every single day?

As Christians, each of us is called to make disciples, are we doing that? Do we engage the culture around us, or just offend it by our attitudes and our actions, or worse, ignore it, choosing to stay in our cocoons? Do we live Godly lives? Do people see Jesus when they look at us? Or do they see legalistic, busy-bodies acting like the rest of the unsaved world around us? Are we characterized by our love for one another? Or are we preoccupied with social do-goodism and missing the point of the do-goodism altogether? Are we to be preoccupied with letting every manner of debauchery and sin into the church in the name of PC inclusivity? Does the world really see that we are different? Does our faith mean something to us? Or are we just cultural Christians?

To be able to respond to the world around us, we need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We need to understand the world around us, and not be sucked into the godless, lifeless, materialistic hedonism it promotes. Do we study the Word? Or is the newspaper, sporting events, or our pet projects more important to us? Is Christ the most important thing in our life? Some day there may be no freedom to worship God, are we ready for that? Are we ready to stand up for Christ? Or will we melt away into the woodwork? Satan is alive and well in this world; Islam is just the latest example of it. In the first three centuries of the Church, they turned the world upside down and never lifted a sword. Are we ready to follow suit? This may be much closer than we think ...

The history of the Crusades are not the best period of Christian history. Much was done and done wrong in the “name of Christ.” The church was under siege by the Muslim world for 900 years, while the church executed reformers calling for Christian purity; while Popes had children out of wedlock; while so-called Christian leaders brutalized those under them. Even with all of that, much worse was going on in the Muslim world, in the name of “allah.” That being said, we've never been told the real truth of the Crusades, the anti-Christian PC elitists have focused our education on all of the evil that Christians did, very rarely pointing out any good Christ-like behavior that was done. Jesus said, “The truth will set you free.” This is a lot closer to the truth than we've been taught for the last 50 yrs. Prior to the 1st Crusade, western leaders read the Qur'an to be equipped to engage their enemy. I encourage all of you to learn about Islam so that you can become defenders of the truth. But before you do that, learn about the real truth, Jesus Christ, the one that laid down His life to deliver you from an eternal separation from God.

Clash of the Titans

2007-04-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

Seems I forgot to post my April 15th Yahoo 360 blog entry ... so here it is.

Before I begin – just wanted you all to know that I have not received any reply from the History Channel (see previous blog entry), not that I expected one. Maybe some day they'll get the hint, but its doubtful.

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. (Luke 6:35)

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. (Qur'an 3:28)

I'm sitting here on a Sunday morning, a little sick, so I'm staying home from church and writing a blog entry instead. I just got done watching the movie, “United 93”, about the passengers that fought back against the Islamic Fascists that had commandeered the plane and prevented that flight from crashing into the Capitol. It was a really hard movie to watch, but I did it anyway. Many people remember where they were when John F Kennedy was assassinated, I remember where I was on Sept 11th, 2001. Yes, I know it was 6 years ago, but in many respects, it was like it happened yesterday. My father's and grandfather's generation probably have Dec 7th, 1941 seared into their consciences, but I wasn't alive then, and I was too young to JFK.

So, the movie has only added more fuel to my current fire because we Americans have such short memories. That day, over 3000 souls were assassinated by the religion of peace. But the bloodshed has not abated even a little since that day. I know I must sound like a broken record, but every day there is a new demonstration of what the real truth about Islam is. According to the Religion of Peace website (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) there were 288 terrorist attacks in 16 countries in the month of March 2007 alone, with a body count of 1974 souls murdered in the name of Islam, the religion of peace. Now, before you click on the provided link, please understand that you will see some very disturbing images, things you won't want to believe.

Unfortunately, I don't know how add videos into my blog, but here's an interesting link (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016010.php). - please, don't get freaked out by Ann Coulter's picture; she's a person that gets it, even if you don't like her politics. The title page is a quote from the Ayatollah Khomeini. You know, that really nice guy with the long beard who held our embassy employees in Iran as hostages for 444 days – another one of those events that is seared into my mind, along with Jimmy Carter's total mismanagement of the situation. Its says:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adults males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world ... But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.

Now, you do understand the significance of what's being said here, don't you? Just in case its not quite clear enough, let me help you. It says that anyone who is a “true” believer in “Allah” will know that it is a man's duty to get involved with the spreading of Islam to every nation on the planet. Now if that was all it was, no one would be upset, including me. But the emphasis is not on standing on the corner preaching to whoever will listen, but on forcefully compelling people to its faith, conquering any country that resists and forcefully compelling its people to Islam. Most people do not know that prior to 911, Osama bin Laden wrote an open letter to the American people to embrace Islam or else face the consequences. We now all know what those consequences were – radical Islam's all out war on anyone that they perceive as “unbelievers.” It was not published in any media for us to read and take heed. And it would not have mattered anyway because most Americans would not have read the piece or given it any credence. But we got our warning, in about the same want we got the Japanese warning prior to Dec 7th.

Six years after 911, all we hear is the complaints from the Dems about how Bush lie (a la Michael Moore), even though nearly every single foreign intelligence service came to the exact same conclusions based on the information that was available, which, by the way, has never been contradicted. So, if Bush lied, then so did Germany, France, England, Russia, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and the list goes on and on. And the GOP isn't any better. In his rush to embrace the so-called moderate Muslims, his first visit after 911 was to a Mosque, reminding us all that Islam is a religion of peace and the religion was being hijacked by a very few number of extremists. If only that were true.

From its very beginning, Islam was spread by the sword – and I can hear the protests now. “You Christians have a lot of room to talk! You did the same thing!” Really? You want to bet me? When Jesus died, resurrected and ascended to heaven, who ruled the middle east? The Romans, good. What was their religion? The Romanized Greek gods, again, very good answer. In the garden of Gethsemane, when Peter picked up a sword to prevent the Jewish temple guards from taking Jesus into custody, what did Jesus say to him? Don't remember? Turn with me to Matt 26:51-52. “Those who draw the sword will die by the sword.” So, up until the time of Constantine, Christianity was persecuted by the Roman empire; Christians never once took up arms against the Romans. Christians met in secret and their faith spread like wildfire. Read Foxes' Book of Martyrs sometime. Christians were fed to the lions, impaled and used as candles for Nero's parties, just to name a few of their collective treatments. Lovely stuff.

But Islam uses the direct route. After Mohamed was rejected by his own tribe, the Jews and the Christians, he turned to force. First to force his own tribe of people to his newly founded faith, then to subject everyone in the surrounding areas. He died in 632 AD, after taking Medina and Mecca, as well as most of Arabia. Muslims invaded India in 634 AD. In 635 Damascus fell. In 644, Iraq fell. Egypt was invaded in 639, and fell in 642. In 688, Muslims laid siege to Constantinople, but it didn't fall until 15th century – no thanks to the Pope in Rome. By the beginning of the 8th century, all of North Africa had been conquered. Spain was invaded in 711 AD. By 715 AD most of Spain had been conquered, and they were beginning to press into France. Thank God for Charlemagne! Charles Martel, nicknamed the “hammer”, stopped their advance in 732 AD at the city of Tours. Its a very interesting read and is readily available on the Internet, just in case you're interested. At the close of the 8th century, the Muslims called for another Jihad into France, but it was repelled.

I feel compelled to remind you that all of this predates the Crusades and the evil Christians attacking the poor, helpless and defenseless Muslims – who knew they were coming. It was a long, slow process, but the Muslims were finally overthrown in Spain around the time of Columbus, 1492. And Spain has had terrorist attacks on its soil ever since. So the next time you think about your utter disdain for the Spanish Inquisitions maybe you'll remember why they came about in the first place. Yes, that is exactly what I'm implying. And in case you missed this bit of news, there are Muslims that are now calling for a new Jihad in Spain, to reclaim their lost ground, after all, its a Muslim nation that was overthrown by the evil Christians.

I started off this blog with a quote from the Qu'ran. “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers ...” This is something that you may not understand, but every Muslim does. They are not to take unbelievers, read Christians, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else that is not a Muslim, as friends. You might think they are, and maybe they are, but how will you know for sure? Yes, I know that's not very nice of me, but we need to wake up to the radical Islam that is sweeping throughout the world. Its not just the extremists, this is a movement that is capturing the hearts and minds of roughly 25% of the Muslim population. Do you remember the dancing in the streets by Palestinians on 911? I do. You probably don't know that the USA has been funding their so-called refugee camps for last 30 yrs via the UN. Some thanks for us feeding and clothing them for 30 yrs, while they pretended to be our friends.

I apologize for the excessive amount of sarcasm in this blog, but we are such a naive bunch of people, and so easily duped. And that's what's going on right now. I'm not calling for armed conflict, although our government does have the constitutional responsibility to protect its people. But as Christians we are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. Are we? I don't like the thought of “turning the other cheek” to these people anymore than anyone else does, but its not about what I like or dislike, its about what Jesus commanded. He also commanded us to preach the gospel to everyone in the world – not with a sword in our hand, but with His word. Its not about being obnoxious to people, like standing on a corner with a 600 lb Bible and screaming at people, but about be-friending people - believers and unbelievers, and finding a way to help hurting people by showing them the way to Christ and discipling others in their faith; being faithful to the things that God has called us to. That's the charge to Christians, which is a sharp contrast to that of Muslims. The Bible tells us,

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Mat 28:19-20)

This country has nothing to fear, if we Christians would be doing what we're supposed to be doing. Much of Europe will likely be Muslim countries in the next 50 yrs, simply because they have rejected Christ, and the Christians who remain have basically stopped being disciples of Christ (there is a remnant there though). We are here for such a short time, but we'll be in eternity forever. Shouldn't that change how we think down here on earth? Are our political affiliations or ethnic or racial backgrounds more important than Christ Jesus our Lord? Blacks and whites – many of them Christians – spend most of their energies finding new ways to point figures at each other for the inequities in life. This should not be. We are all too interested in being the victim instead of being found faithful in Christ. I started this blog last year for one reason and one reason only: to find another outlet to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Because in the end, when we stand before Christ, He will not care about whether we were in the NAACP, or the NRA, or protesting the war, or making a million dollars, He will only care whether we did the things were we saved to do (Eph 2:10). He will not care about how many times you attended church, or the size of your house, or how much money you donated to charity, or whether we spoke in tongues of angels, or how many Bible classes we attended or taught. All of our “good works” will be burned up, if they were not done in the name of Christ. If He was not the one telling you to do those things, then they are works of the flesh that will burn. Our priorities should be Christ first, in everything we do. Do you seek Christ in what you do? Do you feel His calm in the midst of the storm? Do you love others enough to rescue them from eternal damnation? Do you love your brother in Christ even though the pigment of his skin tone is darker or lighter than yours? Do you love God enough to do whatever He tells you to do? Keith Green asked this question in one of his hard-hitting songs in the early 80's, "Will He find faith on the earth?"

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 1:13)

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. (Heb 10:23)

Lies, and Damn Lies

2007-04-27T21:53:00.000-07:00

No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

The Jews say, “Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will.” (Qur'an 5:64)

I believe the real quote is that there are “lies, damn lies and statistics”, but I only need the first two parts of this quote. It was my intention, for my last blog, to talk about the myths about Islam. I got a little side-tracked and a bit strong but I don't apologize for telling the truth. That's why what follows may shock you as much or even more than what I blogged last time. So, are you ready? Too bad if your not ...

Let discuss the perception that Islam is responsible for the great advances in the sciences and the arts. If you haven't heard that, then, just where have you people been – under a rock? Did you sleep through your LIBERAL arts classes in high school? Oh, right, they were taught by liberals so you got the condensed and sanitized version of world history, right? You know, “communism is great and democracy is not such a good form of government” stuff. And the other side of the coin, the “everything that you were taught about American history was wrong” classes. Well, I did anyway. I remember reading one of those alternative “history” books – it happened to be the curriculum history book, you know the ones that down-play or out right deceive you about the Christian faith of the founding fathers of this nation, and the re-education camps about Lincoln, who you know was only out too free the slaves to make himself look good. Nothing was mentioned about the 50 yrs of abolitionists that changed the minds of the majority (even if it was a slim majority) of Americans in the North; all they focused on was just the one guy who died in Kansas, right? There is some truth that it may have been more self serving than we would like to idealize Lincoln as, but if I remember correctly, abolition of slavery was part of the newly created Republican party platform, not the democratic party's platform. (I didn't look that up; I'm going on my memory here)

Now, don't anyone go and get all political on me because I said some of the things I said above. I didn't say any of it for or against a political persuasion. Hopefully, you've figured that out about me by now. I said it because of the myths that we all believe about our own nation and its history, as well as the myths we'll believe about others. It is so easy to make some one believe anything you want them to believe. All you have to do is repeat it long enough, and they will begin to believe it. Its why Al Sharpton and David Duke deceive(d) so many people. Both are openly quite racist ,if you ask me (which none of you have); even though only one is perceived to be. We all believe it about Duke, that's easy, but Sharpton – he's a “civil rights” icon. So why does he unapologetically call the Jewish side of town, “hymie-town”, or “Jewing some one down”, humm? Or maybe I should have used Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, maybe that would be easier to swallow. I just remember all of the black Christian churches that got sucked in by this guy for the Million Man March, and all because of his skin color. Now before you get ready to crucify me, I know of what I speak, I got sucked in by David Duke in 1988. Hey, people change, right? Sometimes ... unfortunately, less often than we'd like. I forgot to look at his “fruit” - a real profession of faith – which wasn't in Christ! That and he was out and out lying into the cameras; saying things to deliberately pass himself off as something he wasn't. I could also mention people like Abramoff crook, and the two Republican congressman (one from Ohio and one from California) and the people they deceived! Now my point is not to offend anyone, which I may have already done, but to help us see how easily we are “sucked in.” We believe what we believe about people because we are told so often what to believe about them by so many. But as Christians, aren't we supposed to be “discerning?” Do we check the facts, and look for fruit? Do we look up sources and see if they're true? Or do you just assume that they are? And does it bother you when people don't cite their sources? It does me! Do we get our ability to discern from the newspapers and CNN? Or do we get our ability to discern by knowing the Word of God? We don't need “tea leaves”, we need Jesus; we need His promised Holy Spirit living in us, teaching us all things. Otherwise, we are just children, tossed here and there by every wind of doctrine. (Eph 4:14)

So, since I talked about source material, I'm getting a lot of what follows from Robert Spencer's “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).” Oh yeah, and I'm doing a a little cross referencing on the Internet to double check Robert.

Let talk about some of the myths of Islam that we take for granted because we've been told for so long that their true, shall we? And I apologize in advance for bursting your bubbles ...

Islam likes to pride itself as well as promote itself on it scientific discoveries and the spreading of those scientific discoveries to the West (“see how nice the Muslim's are?”). But they have a lot more in common with Microsoft than Thomas Edison or George Washington Carver (who might just be the most brilliant scientist this country has ever produced!). In actuality, like Microsoft, the Islamic world has never invented anything of real value, but they like to pass themselves off as such.

Myth: the Muslim world invented the mathematical value of zero as well as Algebra and the Arabic numbering system. Now you might be laughing at me right now, but the zero was actually one of the things that helped propel the field of mathematics. For some strange reason the Greeks never realized they needed nothing! We've always been told that we get our Arabic numbering system from the Muslims, right? The problem is that the Islamic world did not discover the zero, the Hindus did. All the Muslims did was introduce it to the West. And there was a pioneering Arab mathematician (ca 850 AD), whose work introduced Europe to the power of Algebra, but Algebra had been invented centuries before. I believe that stealing and passing something off as you own work is called plagiarism. Oh, and by the way, our Arabic numbering system (0, 1 2, 3, 4, etc., instead of I, II III, IV, insanity) was originally taken from India as well. They didn't invent that either.

Myth: Islam was the foundation of modern medical advances. Sorry but this is a myth of the highest order. It is true that Muslims established the first pharmacies and set standards for knowledge and competency for doctors and pharmacists. But it was the evil Europeans (Andreas Vesalius to be exact) that did that by publishing the first accurate descriptions of human anatomy – in 1543. Why, you ask? Why, because dissection of the human body was forbidden in Islam, but not in the West (although to be fair, Christianity in the middle ages had a lot of issues with a lot of sciences during that time and into the beginning of the enlightenment era). Well, you say, Muslims established the first hospitals! The first one was, in fact, in Bagdad. But did you know that the first medical treatise was written by a Christian priest, and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683 AD? Or that it was a Christian who built the first hospital? Or that it was Christians that founded the first medical school? Me either.

Its also a myth that it was the Muslims who preserved the philosophical works of Aristotle and Plato to name only a few. It was a Christian who translated Aristotle into Sriac in ca 873 AD, and his son that translated them into Arabic. Muslims are usually credited with re-introducing the West to the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, but that isn't really the way it happened. It was the conquest of Constantinople that caused Greeks to flee into Europe and its universities. They brought the philosophical works with them.

But what about music and art? Well, yes, there has been some impressive music and art in some Islamic countries, but that was more in spite of Islam, than because of it. Did you know that Mohamed forbid musical instruments? Neither did I. But according to Islamic apologist 'Umdat al-Salik (i.e., ancient dead guy), Mohamed said, “On the day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead in the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress. Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.” Now I know that none of you have ever heard of this guy, but I'll bet you've heard of Ayatollah Khomeini, and he said this: “Music corrupts the mind of our youth. There is no difference between music and opium. ... Music is treason to our nation and to our youth. ... And art? Islam's prohibition of representational art is even more absolute. Mohamed said: 'Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or some images (or pictures, etc) of living creatures.'” So that's why they didn't like the cartoons ... and your little dog too! That's why there has never been an Islamic Mozart, or Beethoven, or Michelangelo.

As Robert Spencer pointed out, no culture has ever existed in a vacuum, every culture has borrowed from others and there is no shame in that. The Roman culture that succeeded the Greeks incorporated most of Greek science and philosophy into its own, as well as its gods. And to some degree, Islam benefited from the cultures it assimilated (I'm sorry, but I have this unnatural desire to quote the Borg - “resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!”), but he also posed a question:

But when they had taken what they wanted from Byzantium and Persia and sufficient numbers of Jews and Christians had been converted to Islam or thoroughly subdued, Islam went into a period of intellectual stagnation from which it has not yet emerged. Even more nagging is the questions why, if Islam really did reach such a high level of cultural attainment, it went into such a precipitous and lingering decline.

He postulates that unlike Islamic countries, “... Europe had a longstanding intellectual tradition that made such innovations possible.” Europe made use of Muslim works which they themselves largely ignored. Muslim commentators on Aristotle were studied since the 12th century in Europe, but mostly ignored in the Islamic world. Much of what they did, and still do today, is limited to studying and memorizing the Qur'an. And that is the primary source for the rejection of science and art in the Islamic world, the Qur'an. You see, Jews and Christians know that God is good, and that His goodness is consistent. Which means that universe He created has purpose and He created laws that govern it. This makes scientific investigation and discovery both possible and worthwhile. Thomas Aquinas explained it this way:

Since the principles of certain sciences – of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, for instance – are derived exclusively from the formal principles of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predictable of the species, not lines drawn from circle's center to its circumferences not be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles.

You need a little deciphering? When two dogs mate, they produce – drum roll please – a dog! Not a horse, or a rabbit, but a dog. Somebody wake up the evolutionist over there! Concerning logic, He cannot make a rock (no pun intended) so big that He cannot lift it. God cannot violate absolute laws of equality, unless a higher law supersedes it. So, 2+2 will always equal 4, and God cannot change that nor violate that law. Now if we could just get the public schools to agree to that, everyone would be mostly happy with them. Just 'cause little Johnny thinks its 5, doesn't mean it is, and its OK for little johnny to be wrong; he'll get over it!

But in the Islamic world, allah is absolutely free, which means that He does not create laws that He must operate within, because that would violate his freedom. Because of this, allah effectively killed science in the Islamic world. There is little point in studying nature, if it has no laws.

In my last blog I mentioned Christopher Columbus and the significance of 1492. How many of you remember why old Chris was sailing across the ocean blue? To find a new trade route to the east indies, right? Good! Now for the hard question? Why did Chris need a new trade route? Yes, they forgot to teach you that in the public schools, didn't they? I'll give you a hint: Constantinople fell in what year? Yes, I see that hand in the back. What was that again? 1453? Excellent! You've been paying attention after all! And just who overthrew Constantinople? Why, the Muslims did, specifically, the Ottoman Empire. Well done! And please remember, good old Chris wasn't the first to sail west, he was just the one that succeeded. So, closing the eastern route of trade spurned innovation and discovery. The Americas were discovered, and the earth was no longer flat (you do know that there are people that still believe the earth is flat, right?).

And it could be argued that Islam's lust for land and forced conversions created the enlightenment. All those Greeks fleeing the advancing Islamic armies, brought sciences to Europe, which spurred investigation and advances in art and music as well. But I'm not ready to give the Muslims all of the credit just yet ...

So, although Islam claims great advances in the sciences and the arts, in actuality, they have very little to show for it. What they show us today, is unceasing violent in the name of their so-called god. And we suck up to the lie that Islam is a “religion of peace” instead of the reality of what it is, and what it is about – total conformity to a set of man-made laws, in the name of a non-existent god. To be at peace with Islam means that we will need to sacrifice the arts and the sciences. Now, truthfully, I'm OK with putting a halt to public funding of such masterpieces as “The Piss christ” we all paid for years ago. I wonder if the so-called artist has the testicles to create a “piss Mohamed?” What do you think? Yeah, me either. But by the same token, it should be legal for this particular artist to create his so-called masterpieces. That's what a free society is, and allows. And that free society came from a Christian belief foundation, and a Christian invented form of government that is the single most unique style of government on the face of the planet, even with its faults and its perversions. People flock to this country. Why is that? Very few of the people that came to this country – the Europeans, or those that were forced – the Africans – ever left. Incidentally, that was the purpose of the country of Liberia, and why it exists today. So many people, try so very hard to find so much wrong with this country. I only have one question for them all: “Why are you still here?” We are not perfect, and I don't mean to trivialize some of our short-comings, but if Muslims find the West so offensive, then why on earth do they come here to go to school, and why do they stay? Why do they seek to kill us when we have no intention of living in their god-forsaken countries? If they don't like our music, why do you have a radio or TV? If we are so bad, why do they come here?

Its because our very existence is a threat to everything they teach their children. Mohamed said we were evil, so we must be converted or killed or subjugated to save their culture from our influence. Its as simple as that. Islam is stuck in a 7th century mentality, that isn't going to change as long as Mohamed is their prophet. And if you reject religion, then you only have two possible outcomes – dead or conversion.

It is way past the time for us to stop believing the lies about the religion of Islam. People have done some good in the world, in the name of Islam, but there here lately, its been shouwing its true foundation – violence and hatred of others. It really depends on who's slave you want to be – a slave to Christ or a slave to sin ... or a slave to Islam.

Banned from the Bible, really?

2007-04-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

I just got done watching a couple of programs on the History Channel. Before I get to my blog post, I want you to know that I'm a big history buff. I really love just about anything historical: WWI, WWII, Civil War, Pilgrims, presidents, technologies, scientists. But really I love reading about earlier Christian history between 100 and 300 AD (not CE). I just love it! Yes, I know that probably sounds a little strange. So I know things that a lot of things that most people just don't know about the early church. Like, did you know that during Constantine's time it was common to be baptized on your death bed because they were afraid of loosing their salvation for sinning after baptism? Or that the books for the NT were pretty well decided by ca 180 AD? Or that until 1945, the only thing we know about Gnosticism came from the apologetic writings of a guy by the name of Irenaeus, who would explain what the Gnostics believed and then refute their beliefs from the OT and accepted NT books, roughly 22 of the 27? Fun little facts like those.

So imagine my surprise when I turn on the History Channel, one of my favorite channels – go figure – and see a presentation of “Banned from the Bible”. Without reading anything about the program, I already knew what it would contain,. As expected, there was one of the main staples, John Domenic Crosslan of the Jesus Seminar and several people with similar beliefs, pointing out all of the teachings and writings that were banned from the Bible by the evil early church fathers.

You do know about the Jesus Seminar, don't you? Those are those “enlightened” theological liberals that get together to vote with their colored marbles on what verses they believe actually occurred. If you didn't know, according to their superior knowledge the nothing in the book of John actually occurred. Its been voted out. It would seem that in their “search for the historical Jesus” they got caught up in the journey and forgot to actually look for Him.

So, the history buff in me is now interested in seeing just how fair they would be. Surprise, surprise! Yet another one sided presentation ripping Christianity as anti-woman, filled with stuffy, self-promoting, orthodox dictators bent of shaping, or should I say reshaping Christianity into their own vision of what it should be. These church leaders seem to have abandoning Jesus' original teachings for what they consider to be a better way. This from a guy that uses colored marbles to tell me what Jesus actually said and didn't say.

I watched a hour and a half of this garbage and got bored of the same old diatribe. It did cause me to get a little inspired and what follows is a email comment I submitted to the History Channel:

Banned from the Bible - Was wondering where the balance was. You left me with the impression that the Bible is missing books by focusing on the likes of John Domenic Crosslan. Where were the conservative scholars that told us these stories were ridiculous speculations? I'm OK with people that disagree, and even question the Bible, I'm just not OK with the lack of balance and the insinuations the programs made by only reporting 1/2 of the story. It doesn't matter that you showed Jesus of Nazareth, what matters is historical integrity and accuracy, and presenting both sides of an issue. Why not point out some of the outright anti-woman aspects of the Gospel of Thomas, instead you just blamed earlier Christian leaders as anti-woman? Why blame Athenaius for the Canon of Scripture, as if he had some evil agenda in doing so, when it was pretty well decided 50-75 yrs earlier? Yes, there were questions about a couple of books, but you purposely confused the books that were written between 50-70 AD with those that were written in ca 150-250 AD. And why is it only the Christian Bible and earlier Christian leaders that you focus on as "corrupt, self motivated egotists bent on shaping the Bible into their own idea of what is orthodox and what isn't"? Where was your interview with real NT scholars, not these pretenders who focus on un-orthodox so-called missing gospel books of the Bible. Why not report about Irenaeus who refuted many of these Gnostic texts in the 3rd century AD (Against Heresies)?

I was also wondering when I will be able to see a special on Mohammad and the Koran, specifically the “satanic verses”? How about a documentary challenging Islam as a so-called religion of peace? That would be quite easy to do, both today and throughout its entire history. What I'll get is a puff piece on how great Islam is, and 10 more “how evil earlier Christian church leaders were.” Again, I'm not against two sides debating issues, but I would really like to see the other side of the story presented for once.

I am a big History Channel fan, but your lack of historical integrity and accuracy, and your unwillingness to present both sides of an issue whenever you present documentaries on Christianity makes me wonder just how much of what you produce is historical in the other areas you present. To put it bluntly, you do present truthful and accurate history, don't you? Or have you degenerated into producing wild speculations as truthful and accurate representations of historical events, like the Discovery Channel recently did? And on Easter, for heavens sake!

I know its popular to “bash” Christianity because we don't kill 150 people world wide because of cartoons about Jesus, and I know its popular to focus on the scandalous leaders in the church, painting all Christians as just like those people, but for once, it sure would be nice to see you present something that is actually historical concerning Christianity, and didn't always focus on the bad things or the controversial (where you only show one side). John Domenic Crosslan speak of a very tiny minority of people, but you focus on him like he's a major spokesman of the universal Christian church. And the really sad part is that you already know that.

If this, and the many other programs that you've produced over the last several years are examples of your scholarship in producing historical material for a TV channel that purports to be historical, I'll have to reconsider my limited viewing time because it causes me to question your ability to be historically accurate in all that you do. My only other alternative is to believe that you have some hidden agenda to misrepresent the Christian faith. I don't really believe that, but I'm still left wondering what your agenda is for misrepresenting the opposing side of your presentations concerning Christianity. Or, are all of your programs misrepresenting the truth? Yes, I really do want to know the answer to that question.

I know that it won't do any good, and I know that they will all privately laugh at me, send me a cute little form email thanking me for my interest in the program and telling me that differing people have differing opinion and how great that is, and that I should be open minded, and thanking me for my suggestions, blah, blah, blah. But that will be that. And that's assuming I even get a response.

Everything you've been taught about Islam after 911 was wrong!

2007-03-16T22:55:00.000-07:00

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (Qu'ran 9:111)

I really don't have time to write a blog right now, with working a 40 hour a week job, writing a commentary on Colossians and teaching it each week in the Home group I lead, and pondering starting a web development company with a friend, as I get ready to start the third section of the foundations class I teach next week. I'm even slipping in developing the audio-visual team at church, training sound personnel, coordinating the purchase and installation of lighting, while trying to plan just how I'm going to get a bunch a talented, but fussy musicians to switch to an in-ear monitor system. No, I'm not trying to make you feel sorry for me, nor trying to impress you. I, for one, simply don't understand how God works. I somehow seem to be getting most of these activities done, though not always as quickly as I'd like. Now, I'm adding the study of Islam which I certainly do not have the time for either, but seem to be burdened by God to begin.

Maybe its the near daily news of the religion of peace demonstrating it ruthless brutality all over the world. Maybe its the news that the fastest growing religion in America is Islam, and that American women are flocking to it. Maybe its the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are having trouble with church growth, seemingly having peaked. Or maybe its the disturbing email conversation I had with my brother, an unbeliever, who thinks we – Christians and Muslims – worship the same God. Or, maybe its just God wanting me to inform others. I really am not sure, all I know is I see a collision of worldviews coming in the near future, and a whole lot nearer than any of us really want.

Back in the late 70's and earlier 80's, Hal Lindsey was all the rage. The cold war, black helicopters, the EU as the 10 horned beast, Gog and Magog. I admit, I was sucked into it all for a short time, only to be confused, scared and paralyzed. I got to where I just didn't want to hear anything else about the microchips that would be implanted in my forehead the next year, desperately hoping that the rapture would come next week. Fortunately, I started ignoring it all. I just couldn't buy that Russia would swoop down on Israel. Who knows, that may still happen, but I just don't think so. Once I started studying theology, I realized I wasn't a pretrib, premil kind of guy. Premill yes, pretrib, no, not at all. I read too much history, and I couldn't reconcile the escapist mentality of the pretrib crowd, especially after reading Foxes Book of Martyrs.

But neither am I a post-trib'er. I know the whole preterist system has become fashionable these days – even during the “Left Behind” series, but that just doesn't seem to line up with Scripture or history. I just can't escape Irenaeus' quote in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, or the miss quotes of it by some (not all) Reconstructionist types. (David Chilton, Gary North – are you listening?)

So here I sit reading the news and seeing man's brutality to man in the name of “god” nearly every day, and these old scary Hal Lindsey thoughts creep back in. Oh, don't worry, I'm repressing them quite well. But it leaves me wanting to know more about a so-called religion of peace, where its members attempt to kill as many people as they can in the name of their god. And I, like many Americans, have no idea what Islam is, what it believes, and why they see the need to kill innocent people in every nation on the face of this earth, all to get 40 Virginians ... ah, sorry, that's virgins. By the way, you ever wondered, like me – where do all these virgins come from? I have. And why 40? I mean, sure, every guys dreams of having multiple women swamping him with their affections, until he actually gets them. But, 40? Guys, can you imagine getting 40 'honey-do' lists? A women's wants are different than what a man usually wants – yes, I know, its a shock isn't it. I sure hope you were sitting down. But seriously, my wife exhausts me sometimes with her talking, but I would miss it terribly if she ever stopped. Even so, imagine if you will, 40 women needing to get their 25,000 words out. Now that is a really scary thought ... so let's stop thinking about that, shall we?

I make jest of all of this because everything in Islam is focused on the man. I have heard some of the most vicious condemnations of Christianity by feminists because its “Christianity is all about subjugating women.” Now that's a crock, (and if you take issue with me saying that, I can back that up) but I haven't heard a single feminist group say anything disparaging about Islam. Matter of fact, I almost never hear anyone say anything negative about Islam – you ever wonder why? Maybe the death threats, from the religion of peace? Could be ...

Well, I just got finished reading the book by Robert Spencer called, “the Truth About Muhammad.” (now there are like 50 spellings of Muhammad, so take your pick) Its a book about what Muhammad taught, straight from the Qu'ran, the Haditha, and prominent Islamic scholars throughout history. Its eye-opening to say the least. Most of what you've been hearing about the peaceful Islam is fiction, really bad fiction. A friend at work has already borrowed the book from me, but no worries, I have two other books to help me out. You want some good examples of this focus on the man religion? Look at what Muslim women have to wear. Now compared to some of the really inappropriate clothing some women wear, I can understand the reaction towards modesty, but a burka? Did you know that the Taliban used to pull out the fingernails and toenails of any woman caught wearing fingernail polish? Just showing the love, I guess. How about that a man can marry 4 women. And many women in some of the Taliban type countries have their genitals mutilated, I guess to make sure they won't “want” another man. Yep, I'm feeling the love on that one too. My personal favorite is “honor killing”. If a woman does anything that is perceived as insulting or could be considered insulting to the man, he has the right to “save” his honor, by killing her. That could be his wife, his daughter, his aunt, or his niece. Sweet. I'm sure he was just trying to “honor” her. So, what if a man insults his wife? Or daughter? She's SOL. Suck it up girls; don't be so sensitive. A man also has the right and is taught to “discipline” his wife(s). That gets interpreted as “its OK to beat them.” Here's one last example you're sure to agree with. Some Muslim women are raped, and the insult is that the woman will end up going to jail because she is convicted of being “alone with a man that is not her husband.” Yes, that's right, the woman gets to go to jail for trying to get a man convicted of rape. That's why there aren't a lot of rapes reported in Muslim countries. So much for the modest dress code.

So, I hope you don't mind, but my next series of blogs will be about some of the disturbing aspects of Islam that all of us need to know. Just so you know, I'm not advocating the senseless murder of Muslims, even though 50,000 Christians have been slaughtered in Darfu by the so-called ambassadors of the religion of peace. Fortunately, the Hollywood types haven't found that out yet; once they do, they will quietly stop promoting Darfu as an issue.

True believers know that Christ does not conquer by the sword as Muslims do, but by the Spirit of God, the spirit of truth.

My God can beat up your God

2007-02-15T18:48:00.000-08:00

Today, I'd like to tackle omnipotence. Its really not an attribute of God with which Christians have a problem. I would guess that we would all agree that God is omnipotent, since most of us still hold to the belief that God created the heavens and the earth, right? Some of us (although I'm not one of them) believe that God needed several hundred million years to create it, but He did create it. We might question His ability to be everywhere, all of the time, or His ability to know everything there is to know, but creative power? No, that's not really in question. So why is it that we seem to act like He doesn't have the power to do anything else in the earth today? Its down right schizophrenic! Don't believe me? I'll get to that a little later ...

The Jehovah's Witnesses are really good and making sure that you know the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible. Well, I'd would like to remind us all that neither are the words omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, or immutable. But if God does not have any of these traits then what kind of a 'god' is He? And if we can see any of these attributes in Scripture and can accept it as truthful about Him, then why do we have such a problem accepting all of them to be true, because they are EVERYWHERE in Scripture! 'Where?' you ask? I'm so glad you asked ...

So what is omnipotence? Let's start with some Scripture this time and then well define the term.

But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. (Ps 115:3)

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Gen 1:1-3)

Who is like You among the gods, O LORD? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders? You stretched out Your right hand, The earth swallowed them. In Your lovingkindness You have led the people whom You have redeemed; In Your strength You have guided them to Your holy habitation. (Ex 15:11-13)

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation. (Ps 33:6-11)

The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet. He rebukes the sea and makes it dry; He dries up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither; The blossoms of Lebanon wither. Mountains quake because of Him And the hills dissolve; Indeed the earth is upheaved by His presence, The world and all the inhabitants in it. (Nah 1:3-5)

For God to be omnipotent, He must possess infinite abilities. To be able to create the entire universe, by its very nature means that God has infinite abilities. In other words, God possesses absolute power.

In the debate between creation and evolution, I think its only appropriate to point out a couple facts about the universe, as mankind currently understands it. The universe bears witness to an intelligent design that appears to have been fashioned to benefit mankind. First, the earth is just the right distance from the sun to sustain life. Any closer or further away, and earth would be either too hot or too cold for life. Second, earth has just the right kind of atmosphere, the right thickness to protect us, and the right composition to support life. Third, plants breath in what we exhale and visa-versa. Everything is composed of collections of atoms, which contain three particles, protons, neutrons and electrons. These particles are perfectly balanced. The slightest change in the mass of a proton would result in the destruction of hydrogen, the most basic element of our universe, and that would in turn destroy our universe. And that’s just touching the surface of the intelligent design argument.

In reality, neither creation nor evolution is provable, so its legitimate to say that creation is not the only possibility. As Carl Sagan used to say, “There are billions and billions of star, with potentially billions and billions of planets” so there is the possibility that we are “just lucky”. Then again, statistical analysis of the possibilities than all of the “right” circumstances lined up to “produce” life here on earth mitigates against that explanation. And since we can't create the spark of life in the laboratory, maybe that's because it can't be done. I mean, do you want the job of throwing all of the right components that make up life against a wall until you finally succeed? OK, so lifetime employment is appealing ...

The absolute, infinite, and unlimited power of God is seen in the Scriptures in many places. We see it in connection with His work of creation {Ge 1:1; Ro 1:20}; His work of upholding the world {Heb 1:3}; the redemption of mankind {Lu 1:35,37; Eph 1:19}; the working of miracles {#Lu 9:43}; the conversion of sinners {1Co 2:5; 2Co 4:7} and the complete accomplishment of the great purposes of His kingdom. {Mt 6:13; 13:31-32; 1Pe 1:5; 1Co 15:1; Re 19:6}. As I said before, its everywhere.

So if God can create, then He has unlimited power over nature, human life, and the course of history. So, if God can create the universe, do you really think that He cannot work in your life or the lives of your friends and family?

To say that God has absolute power, does not mean that God is freed from all the restraints of reason and morality. He is able to do everything that is in harmony with His wise and holy and perfect nature. People love to pose those “impossible” questions, like “Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?” If you are expecting God to act outside of His nature and attributes, I'm sorry to disappoint you. The truth of the matter is that the question is absurd so it doesn't deserve an answer because no answer was ever expected. To be all powerful means that you lack nothing, and that nothing is too difficult for you to do.

As my friend Bob put it, even though God has no limitations on what He can do, He has chosen to limit Himself as the what He will do. He purposely limits Himself to His own wise, holy and loving will, and will only do what His infinite wisdom, holiness and love dictates.

At the beginning of this blog I said that many Christians live like God has limited power, especially when it concerns us. When we don't get an answer to prayer, we sometimes attribute that to a perceived inability on God's part. But just because He didn't do what you wanted doesn't mean God lacks power to control events in our lives. Maybe its because what we asked for violates His infinite plan for our lives and / or His holy and perfect nature. When we ask for something like that, we can be assured that He will not answer our prayer. That doesn't make us very happy, but that's OK, God's plans are eternal and He always has our best interests in mind. Ours are temporal plans focused on ourselves. So when we don't get our way, its not because God doesn't have the ability to do something. Maybe what we're asking for is the issue. Remember, prayer is about us conforming our will – our wants and desires – to His eternal plan for us and those around us. Its not about twisting God's arm to do what we want, its about us asking according to His will, since we re being transformed into His image. Its not long us that live, but Christ living in us. That is the only way we know what to ask for. So, if you were hoping for me to help you get that new Caddy, sorry.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:16-17)

What Does God Really Know?

2007-02-02T20:11:00.000-08:00

Have you ever questioned whether God really knows what's going on down here on earth? You ever looked back at 911 and asked, “God, did you know that was going to happen?” Maybe we look back in history and ask why He allowed the Inquisitions to occur. Or why He allowed Nazi Germany to come to power. So for this blog entry I want to look at the attribute of omniscience. We all probably know that it means all knowing, but I'm also sure that sometimes we probably question whether He really is.

In beginning this blog I'd like to give a little credit where do, to a good friend of mine, Bob Wells, who wrote what amounts to a children's theology book. It is awesome! Its really nothing more than a collection of definitions and stories to teach the attributes of God. It was a fantastic idea, quite unique. What is most surprising to me though is that no publisher would touch it. “It's too hard for little kids to understand,” they said. Yet, independently of Bob, this is exactly what I did in a 4th and 5th grade Sunday school class I taught years ago. If you've ever taught a children's Sunday school class you know the cutesy “Standard's Publications” booklets they give you every single year. They pretty much have the same stories every single grade year, they just add a little something new to it. So by the time these kids become teenagers, they know a lot about Joseph's coat of many colors, but they don't understand the first thing about who God is. He's not real in their lives. I threw away that curriculum booklet, and taught they the attributes of God and the Trinity, one week at a time. I wasn't surprised when I found that they actually understood what was being taught – kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. I introduced the “big” words to them, like sovereignty, omniscience, omnipotence and immutability. These words were explained to them, but the great news was that they understood, and started asking the most interesting questions – sometimes related and sometimes not. And the coolest part was that I was able to pull in the disinterested kids. Now, I considered my class “controlled chaos” and I'm sure the elders cringed every time they walked by my classroom, but if that's what it takes to get them to interact and have a little fun learning about Jesus, then so be it. You ever played Bible checkers using the kids as board pieces? They had a blast answering questions to try to beat the other side. (and its really cool when the kids are disappointed when your not teaching them that week. I did have to endure the other teacher's wrath though, because they “weren't any fun!”) I'll be using a little bit of Bob's material for this blog entry.

So let's get started. What is omniscience? First, you're not going to find the word in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it isn't represented everywhere in Scripture. It is actually two words, 'omni' which means all or universal, and 'science' which one dictionary defines as a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Now there's a mouthful. Another dictionary says that its knowledge, especially knowledge gained through experience. It is the Latin word “to know”, so 'omniscience' means 'all knowledge' or 'universal in knowledge'.

As referring to God, omniscience means that God is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and understanding. There is nothing that God doesn't already know. As Bob put it in his “Train Up a Child” book, “nothing escapes His notice, neither past, present or future.” God knows all things that are actual or possible, and by that I mean this: God knows everything that has ever happened or will happen. He knows everything that you've ever done. Is that a little scary? It should be. It also means that He knows everything that will ever happen in the future. He knows what you'll decide to wear tomorrow, or say tomorrow. He knows everyone that you'll run into next week and the week after that, or next year, or 10 yrs from now. Nothing that will happen to you will surprise Him. Nothing that you will decide to do or not do will catch Him off guard. God knows right now what will happen to you tomorrow and what will happen to your children's children 50 yrs from now. God knows all actions, words and thoughts. His knowledge encompasses everything from the smallest detail to the largest, most complicated situation. There is nothing to small or to complicated for Him.

Just in case you're not really sure about this omniscience thing, let's look at a little Scripture:

O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; You are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue You know it completely, O LORD. You hem me in—behind and before; You have laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. (Ps 139:1-6)

Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit. (Ps 147:5)

For a man’s ways are in full view of the LORD, and He examines all his paths. (Pr 5:21)

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. (Pr 15:3)

His eyes are on the ways of men; he sees their every step. There is no dark place, no deep shadow, where evildoers can hide. (Job 34:22)

With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge And informed Him of the way of understanding? (Isa 40:4)
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:13)

These are just a few of the plethora of Scriptures that talk about God knowing everything. And as you can see, the Bible says that God knows everything about us. Since He already knows what everyone will decide to do in the future, nothing catches Him by surprise. Nothing. And since He already knows, it means it must already be planned, so that means that He always acts in the best way, since God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes (see my previous blog entry). Now I'm not going to say that we will always understand why He allows certain things to happen, but He has a master plan and we can never mess up that plan.

Please understand, I'm not talking about everybody's favorite subject. Predestination – I'm talking about omniscience. OK? So you can relax now.

That means that His wisdom is unsearchable and unquestionable. Again, we may not like what happens but He is God, the creator of the universe, the one that knows all things. Everything makes sense to Him; its not required to make sense to us.

Truthfully, His omniscience should be a source of comfort for believers as well as discomfort for unbelievers. When we really understand God's omniscience we can have confidence in His word to us, the Bible. If God is all knowing, then He must also be the source of all knowledge. Why you ask? Simple: there is nothing He doesn't already know, so no one can teach Him anything. If no one or no being can teach Him anything, then He must be the source of the knowledge in the first place. Remember that He is also the creator of every that is. So, if He's the source, shouldn't we seek Him for wisdom, knowledge and understanding? And if that is true, then why do we get sidetracked into seeking wisdom that comes from mankind?

I've been teaching a Bible study on Colossians for the last year (its a rich book) and one of the main reasons the Holy Spirit had Paul write this book was to refute the growing Gnostic religion that would come into full bloom in the 2nd century. Over and over in the first two chapters, Paul reminds the Colossian believers that they didn't need the secret knowledge being pedaled by the Gnostics – they already had everything they needed. And so do you! Jesus had delivered them from sin and death, what more did they need? What more do you need?

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the
Lord? Or who has been His counselor?" "Who has ever given to God, that God
should repay him?" For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To
Him be the glory for ever! Amen. (Rom 11:33-36)

How to be Perfect

2007-01-13T19:53:00.000-08:00

I'm currently sitting in a book store because we are once again without power. St. Louis seems to be a magnet for weird storms right now. Its beautiful outside, but dangerous too. I have a fairly large limb on my roof right now – the very one that I just contracted a tree service to cut off. Unfortunately, they haven't been able to get to it yet. So, after taking a 45 minute walk with my wife, and while she continues to walk, I decided to stop and create a blog entry that I hope to be able to post in the next couple of days – just depends on when and where I can find an Internet connection.

The next topic on my quest to discuss the nature and attributes of God is God's perfect nature. So let's borrow some information from my Online Bible program (which just might be the very best low cost Bible program available. Esword is good, but it doesn't hold a candle to OLB – especially when you add Gary Gallant's DVD of add-ons). This definition of God's perfection is from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary:

Without flaw or error; a state of completion or fulfillment. God’s perfection means that He is complete in Himself. He lacks nothing; He has no flaws. He is perfect in all the characteristics of His nature. He is the basis for and standard by which all other perfection is to be measured.

So let's see what the Bible has to say:

His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. (Deut 32:4)

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. (2 Sam 22:31)

As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the LORD is tried; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him. (Ps 19:7)

As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the LORD is tried; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him. (Ps 18:30)

I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. (Eccl 3:14)

Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:48)

As you can see from the above verses, the Bible does not seek to prove itself to be true, it simply assumes it is. And in these verses we have that very example. So, concerning God's perfection, everything that God sets His hands to do is perfect. Now, you do realize that I'm referring to God hands in an analogous way, as does Scripture, right? I'm not talking about God's hands as the Copeland's and the Hagen's of the world do. God is spirit, He doesn't have a 9” hand span as Hagen has taught, OK? I simply mean that everything He sets His mind to do is done perfectly and completely. And in the same vain, God is truthful in all that He does. God does not lie; as a matter of fact, He cannot lie. It goes against His very nature. You can't be perfect and lie at the same time. You cannot be perfect and do things wrong – they are mutually exclusive. God doesn't make mistakes. The sin that has corrupted the world is responsible for what's wrong in the world, including us.

If we want to contrast God to ourselves in terms of being perfect, well, there's just no comparison to be made, is there. We cannot seem to do anything correctly for very long. We can't think properly for a single day, let alone a week or a lifetime. Anything we do right is either by accident or the remnant of God's law and grace that still exists in this world. Most of us were taught by our parents that lying is wrong – well, some of us were – so when we grow up and feel guilty about lying to some one, its that remnant of God's law and grace that helps us hold onto some of His moral law. We, in ourselves, are just too selfish to do it on our own. Left to our own devices we will almost always think of our selves first, even if that means hurting others around us that we say we love. Some people don't feel the slightest bit of guilt, others do. It just depends on how much your conscious has been seared.

Another one of these consequences is that God's law is also perfect. As Christians we sometimes mistakenly think that “law” equals “bad” because we've been delivered from the penalty of breaking God's perfect law. But the truth is that the law is still there, its just supposed to be written on our hearts now. Jesus fulfilled God's perfect law, but the law is still there, and is still required to be followed. The Christian is “enabled” by the Holy Spirit that resides in us to keep God's law, and God's grace and mercy are there when we break it. And the world? That's why they are still under God's judgment, because they are still law breakers without the grace and mercy which Christ brings to all believers, and God's perfect law is still perfect and holy. How many of you have thought about the law like that?

This leads us to the next consequence, which I've just basically stated above but different words. Because God is perfect, nothing can be added to, or taken away from His word. Not one jot, not one tittle of God's law, or anything in His word can be taken away. Without Christ, mankind is still required to “fulfill it”, which obviously they cannot. With Christ, we are being transformed day by day, minute by minute, so that His ways become our ways, His thoughts become our thoughts. We don't have to “try” to keep God's law, because it becomes part of who we are. We end up following it without even trying because we are becoming like Him. That doesn't mean that we will ever achieve perfection; we can never do that. But our daily progression of being transformed to be like Him enables us to choose to stop sinning because the Holy Spirit resides in us, enabling us to choose to do right, giving us a desire to do right, and the ability to choose it.

And lastly, He wants us to be perfect, since we are called to be “like Him.” This is a tall order, or should I say an impossible mission to accomplish, without Christ. Hey, its not very easy to accomplish when we have Him living in us! That “old man” keeps creeping back into our thoughts, and we revert to our old ways of living. None of us have the power to live correctly, yet we are still told in the His Word to be holy, because God is holy:

For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. (Lev 11:44)

Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy. (Lev 19:2)

Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine. (Lev 20:26)

You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. (Deut 18:13)

So, that's what it means when some one says that God is perfect. God has set a standard of righteousness by being perfect. Jesus came to earth and lived the perfect life, and we are being called to be perfect too. It is a standard that we cannot hope to follow on our own. It is something that we can only hope to do by being followers, disciples of Christ. We must allowing the Holy Spirit – God in us – to reside in us, to teach us, to transform us.

The Eternal One

2007-01-03T16:14:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted Dec 22, 2006 in my Yahoo! 360 blog:

Its been a really long time since my last post, and I apologize for my absence. So, let's try to pick up were I left off in early December. I want to tackle some of the big words of theology, and one of them is the word eternal. What exactly does the word eternal mean? To understand that, we need to go to the source, to see what the Bible say about who God is. So let's start with a couple of verses to see what they have to say about who God is, starting with Ps 90:1-2 says:

Lord, you have been our dwelling-place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

God has always been seen as being in existence, with no beginning and no end. He has just always been. Now let's take a look at Job 38:4-5. God asks a few questions to Job:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?”

To understand God one must come to grips with one's own limitations. In the above verse, God is reminding Job that it is He, not Job, that has always existed. For as far back as one can measure the existence of time, God has always been there. It is He that created everything that now exists, which is really a different attribute other than eternal, but goes to show the agelessness of God. You can also see this in Gen 1:1, Ps 102:25 and Heb 1:2.

So with these couple of verses we're ready to define some words. The Hebrew word everlasting (eternal) literally means 'a long duration, forever, everlasting, evermore, or perpetual. It is used in reference to God as having no beginning and will have no end'. The Greek word is translated eternal and means 'without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be'.

So, to say that God is eternal is to say that He is infinite with respect to time. Put another way, God has no limitations with respect to time. Although He created time, He is outside of time, which is to say that time simply does not exist for Him. The terms “past, present and future” do not apply. Why do I say that? Let's look at 2 Pet 3:8:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Which points back to Ps 90:4:

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

What do we see here? We see that one of two things are true: Either this refers to the fact that because God is eternal, the passage of 1000 years for God is like the passage of one day for mankind. Or, it means that time doesn't have any meaning to God. I lean in the second direction because from a logical position as creator of everything that can be know by humans, the creator Himself must be outside of the creation – all of it! And time is one of the things that God, to me, must be outside of.

So that you don't think that these are the only verse, here's another Isa 40:27:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no-one can fathom.

1 Tim 1:17:

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Heb 9:14:

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God.

Another tack on God's eternality is Ex 3:13-14;

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

“I am who I am.” These simple words have a very important meaning. “I am” is present tense, infinitive, obviously indicating that God existence is perpetual. He didn't say “I was” or “I will be”, He said “I am”, which is another way of saying, “I have always been and will always be”.

Since God has always been and will always be, it means that He is answerable and accountable to no one. He didn't ask for our permission to create the world, and nor does He ask for our help to sustain it. Unlike mankind, He cannot be bribed or coerced to do anything. We do not possess the ability to alter His will. And since God is infinite, He will never suffer death. God offers us eternal life, and only some one who is infinite and eternal could offer such a gift. And only God has the ability to deliver on such an offer. John 5:26 is another interesting verse that adds a new dimension to God's eternality when it says;

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

God draws life from Himself, and grants that life to others. This should give us peace and comfort us in that we can depend upon Him to deliver on His promise of eternal life to us. If God was not eternal, we would never be able to depend upon Him for anything because He would be like us.

Course, this only make sense if you are a Christian.

So I said: "Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end. (Ps 102:24-27)

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ (Act 17:24-28)

Where does holiness fit in?

2007-01-01T18:22:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted in my Yahoo! 360 blog, Nov 8th, 2006:

I've been slowly but surely directing my blog to the attributes of God, something that I personally feel that most Christians simply don't know enough about. In so doing, I've been using Islam as a contrast to Christian teachings. I'm sure that some would accuse me of being unfair to Islamic beliefs, but the fact of the matter is, Islam is constantly in the news, and the overwhelming majority of that news is not very complimentary to that faith. So, why not use their 'faith' to contrast what the Bible says about who God is, right?

In my last blog entry I wrote about God's mercy, which can be summarized as 'not getting what we deserve'. God withholds the punishment we deserve for the sins we continually commit. Unlike Islam, the Christian faith teaches us that we are to be merciful because God is merciful to us. So this time I'd like talk about justice, but before I can get there, I must talk about God's holiness first. Why, you ask? Good question. To understand God's justice, we must first understand that God is a holy God.

When I say that God is holy, I mean that God is completely free from all impurity and imperfection. The word holy means set apart or separated, so when applied to God, it means that He is entirely set apart and separated from sin and sinners.

The consequences of God being holy is that He hates sin. Ps 45:7 says,

You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.

He cannot permit sin in His presence, and that creates a very BIG problem for mankind, because if there is anything we do really good, its sin. We constantly go out of our way to invent new ways to sin! But God demands holiness because He is holy. Lev 11:44 says,

I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy.

So, if God is holy, and He demands holiness, it means that He is setting the standard of conduct for all of mankind. This becomes our second gigantic problem because its a standard that we cannot live up to. Rom 3:23 says,

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

That doesn't mean that some of us do that; it means that each and every single one of does that. We all sin, all the time. Adam and Eve were only told to not eat the fruit of one tree, and instead of obeying God, they disobeyed, and in doing so passed that nature of sin down to all of the rest of us. Gen 6:5 says,

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

That's us, in a nutshell. We cannot do good no matter how hard we try because its not in our nature. Modern psychology says that mankind is basically good, and we bite into that apple every chance we get because no one wants to believe that their nature is evil, right? We're all basically nice people, its just some of us are bad. If the bad people had had our opportunities they would be good like us. And the hook is set in our mouths. But the word of God says something completely opposite. It states that we're sinners, all of us, and that we cannot do good no matter how hard we try. And you know what, down deep inside, we all know its true, which is what leads us to our third problem.

And that is: its God's holiness that produces a sense of our sin in us. My Dad always said “to thine own self be true”, and what he meant by that was be honest with yourself because you cannot lie to yourself. You always know the truth that you hide from every one else. When you lie to others, you know the truth.

Isa 6:1-7 is a very interesting passage.

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory." At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." With it He touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."

In verses 1 through 5 Isaiah sees the holiness of God, and then in verse 6 we see what it produced in Isaiah, a recognition of his sin. We know when we sin; we always know. That is what makes His mercy so great. Even though we are sinners who spit on the holiness of God, He still loves us, and reached out to us before we even knew Him. He is there to give to us that which we do not deserve.

As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. (1 Pet 14-17)

As for me and my household ...

2006-12-30T17:24:00.000-08:00

In the past I have pointed out some of the inconsistencies of what is stated about Islam and what it seems to practice, as well as some of the differences between Islam and Christianity. Today's entry is really no different.

These days our so-called secular media seems to be going out of its way to faun all over Islam and prop up the ridiculous “religion of peace” mantra it tries to hind behind. I read a couple of very interesting articles concerning the newly elected African-American Muslim congressman from Minnesota. This is an article about Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to congress. Beyond the flap about him putting his hand on the Koran instead of the Bible for the ceremonial pictures of the swearing in process, the larger issue is, that as a Christian convert to Islam, Islam seems to get a pass on all of the questions that would be asked any other person with seemly extreme personal beliefs that would also seem to violate the US Constitution, the very thing he will swear to uphold. You want some examples? I knew you would.

Picture this, a member of the KKK is elected to congress with the follow beliefs:

Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs.
Forbids having Christians and Jews as friends.
Believes there should be war without end against non-KKK members, including Jews and Christians.
In that war, decapitating prisoners.Sound a little extreme?

Now add that its politically incorrect to ask that person running for office about those beliefs. And to add further insult to injury, add that white people vote for him simply because he's white, and you don't get to ask about that either!

These are beliefs boldly promoted in the Koran, and for which Ellison blindly accepts, even if in ignorance. But they are also politically incorrect to ask about, for two reasons. First Ellison is African-American, and second Islamic beliefs are never challenged by the media – even when a white, liberal, female reporter is dissed by a Muslim man. (If a Christian did that, and they wouldn't, they would be castigated for months.) Ellison was supported by Muslims and Christians alike in his district – Muslims for obvious reasons, but black Christians because he's black. As a Christian, I would have a really hard time supporting some one like that whose beliefs oppose my Christian principles and beliefs, irrespective of his/her skin color. I, like the author of the article, would like to ask Ellison about his stance on the following atrocities:

The Madrid bombings of 2004, the London bombings of 2005 and the plot to blow up as many as 11 trans-Atlantic flights that unraveled in 2006
The Beslan massacre – where 186 Russian school children and 158 adults died in a hostage crisis in 2003
Rioting in Pakistan , Afghanistan , Nigeria and Libya (over Danish cartoons dissing Mohammed) in which 139 were killed
A series of blasts in Mumbai , India , in July, which left 209 dead and more than 700 injured Attacks during this year’s celebration of Ramadan (280 in 17 countries) in which more than 1,600 were killed.
The murder of a priest and a nun, the firebombing of churches in the West Bank and multiple death threats following the Pope’s comments on Islam and the balance between faith and reason
The ethnic cleansing of 90% of Kosovo’s pre-1999 Serb population, not to mention the destruction of hundreds of churches, monasteries, convents and shrines in the province The ritual slaughter of Dutch filmmaker
Theo Van GoghTruthfully, I'm OK with Ellison being a Muslim, and even being in congress.

What I'm against is his protected status. I, as a white male, would have to answer these questions. So, is it wrong to want the same thing for others?

The second one is by the same author but from his blog site. This article (Anti-Defamation League Reaches New Low – Attacking a Jewish Commentator For "Islamaphobia") points out some disturbing facts about CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, its roots and its statements, as well as the ADL. It should be a little shocking to all of us that the ADL would rather see a Muslim America than a Christian one. (yes, that's a bit extreme to say, isn't it)

This last article is by an ex-Muslim and is a much needed history lesson on Islam's roots and your likely roll under Islamic rule. Yes, that's pretty extreme for me to say that too, but not so far fetched as you may think. Less than 10 yrs ago, homosexuality was an unacceptable behavior, now its viewed as normal. That mentality changed almost overnight by the homosexual activist grou, ActUp. And coming down the road is NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love Association. (but its reign will be short lived under Sharia law)

I leave you with two thoughts. This first is the album cover to Keith Green's No Compromise. It says it all. Pictured is a man who will not bow to anyone but Christ, while every one else, out of fear bows. I don't point these articles out to be political – I learned that painful lesson in the 80's. I point them out for all of us to start the year with the resolution to serve God with a whole heart, unyielding to the pressures around us to conform to politically correct behavior. Is our faith in Christ important to us? What about your friends and neighbor? The second is a parting Scripture:

If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Jos 24:15)

If Jesus is not Lord of ALL, then He's not Lord at all. That's radical, but its also biblicial.

A God of Mercy or a God of Vengeance: Which would You Choose?

2006-12-29T19:33:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted in my Yahoo! 360 blog, Oct 16, 2006:

I want to talk about mercy in my blog today, and to do that I want too relate a story that didn't get much coverage in the news. In Iraq, a country that the USA is currently still trying to help become a democratic nation – maybe even against their own will, a little known murder took place last week. A Greek Orthodox priest was kidnapped and found three days later with his head severed from his body. The reason given by the merciful Muslims that did the kind and compassionate act upon an obvious infidel, was the Pope's recent comments about the need for more dialog between religions. If you will remember, the Pope quoted a 12th century Emperor's statement to a Muslim scholar that he was debating. Obviously this evil priest was responsible for the Pope's statement, and therefore his compassionate kidnappers had every right to behead him for not preventing the Pope's thoughtless comments. Oh yea, and the $350,000 US will obviously assuage the anger of Allah.

Hopefully you are not fooled by my sarcasm. I fail to see much in the way of mercy ever exercised by Muslims. They seem to always be filled with rage about something, and killing – the more gruesome the better – seems to be their first thoughts. Now I know that there are moderate Muslims out there (somewhere), but it was the moderates that you see protesting and threatening Christians on a daily basis. It was the moderates that had proverbial cows over the Mohamed cartoons. It was the so called moderates that were torching Christian churches and terrorizing Christians three months ago when it was a story. 50,000 Christians have been murdered in Darfu, does anyone care? No! Its just a bunch of African Christians and the media conveniently omits that little tidbit of information. (the media and the general public would care even less if they knew these people were Christians) If Islam is a religion of peace, I'm still wanting to see examples of it somewhere in the world. As I continue to investigate Islam (from an apologetics perspective) I continue to see more and more examples of Islam's so called peace being exercised, and way too much of it never reported.

If you really want to understand mercy, you need not look any further than the Amish response to the murderer that executed 5 young children, having intended to rape them first, but didn't get the chance (thank you, Jesus). It was their understanding of God's mercy that helped them to be able to respond to to this horrific event with a forgiveness that can only come from God Himself. Allah would have never permit this. He would have demanded vengeance, and the murderer's wife and children would most likely have been murdered as a 'justifiable action', like somehow these poor people were responsible.

So just what exactly is 'mercy'? If God is merciful, what does that really mean? The theological definition is that God withholds the punishment that our sins deserve. It assumes need on the part of the person that receives mercy. It also assumes that some one has done something so terrible and that they simply cannot make amends for the wrongs that they have done.

The mercy of God is His goodness and love shown to mankind even when mankind does not deserve such treatment. Mercy stresses the faithfulness of God despite man's lack of faithfulness. God's mercy is free of obligation and is given according to His sovereign choice.

Rom 9:15-16 says,

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

God sovereignly withholds the punishment that our sins deserve, relieves us of the misery caused by sin, and provides us with that which we don’t deserve.

Duet 4:31 says,

For the LORD your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which He confirmed to them by oath.

Mercy requires that God not abandon us to ourselves. We may for get Him, but He will never forget us! And then Ps 103:10 says of God,

He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.

We don't deserve the treatment that God extends to us. Eph 2:4-5 says,

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Undeserving, God reaches out to a people that rejects Him on a continual basis. He extends an unmerited grace to an undeserving people. And finally Tit 3:4-7 says,

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

This is God's mercy towards the people whom He made and the people whom He loves.

There are two rather obvious consequences to God's mercy. First, His mercy is our source of salvation. Salvation is impossible without God's mercy being first extended to us. Without His mercy, we do not have the ability to reach out to Him nor would He accept us is our current state of sin if we could. God is holy and He cannot have sin in His presence, so why would He accept us? He wouldn't, unless of course, His desire from the beginning was to reach out to us first. And isn't that the way we are as parents? When our kids do wrong, isn't in our hearts to extend them mercy and forgive them, even before we correct them and / or they repent for their sin? The point being that its already in our hearts to forgive them long before they repent.

And I've already stolen the thunder for the second consequence which is that God first loves us while we are sinners, long before we realize that we need Him. First and foremost, God is a God of love and not vengeance. If He was a God of vengeance then none of us could stand before Him, ever! He would never be able to forgive us because our sin would always need to be punished first, and that punishment would require our lives.

But because God is a merciful God, He withholds the punishment our sin demands, and extends to us a way out of our current state of separation from Him. Why, because He has chosen to have a relationship with the people whom He created, even though they do not deserve it.

Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Heb 4:16)

Its My world and I can do what I want to!

2006-12-28T14:33:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted in my Yahoo! 360 blog, Oct 7, 2006:

Fortunately there doesn't seem to be any horrible world events to report on right now, just the normal carnage in Iraq (the daily unending Muslim Islamo-fascist terrorists murdering innocent Muslim men, women and children – and any American they can find), political scandals in the West (like Rep Foley chasing young teenage boys), and the normal raping and murdering that goes on all over the world. Everybody wants to exercise power over everyone else. Everybody wants to be in charge, but no one really knows what to do or how to act once they get in charge. If the terrorists win in Iraq, what kind of a government do you think they will establish? Do you think they've even thought about it yet? Or is killing the only thing they really know how to do?

Have you ever thought about why its so hard to lead? Most of the time the wrong people want to lead, and the right people don't want anything to do with leadership. Why is that? I've seen this in my several jobs as well as at several of the churches I've been in. I don't have to mention politics do I? America, Iran, North Korea, and this list can go on and on ...

Without fail, any power we think we have, we quickly find out that we have very little ability (if any at all) to control our own lives, let alone any one else's. Have you ever thought about why that is? As a Christian its very easy to answer; its because we know that we're not in control. (by the way, that doesn't make it any easier for us than it is for the non-Christian)

It's summed up in the understanding of the 'sovereignty of God'. Most people, Christians included, do not like to concede the fact that we are simply not in control of our lives. Let's take the killings of the innocent Amish children last week by a man that wasn't Amish and didn't have any issues with the Amish at all. He said he was mad at God. So he was going to rape and murder a bunch of innocent children who never did anything to anybody. (It fits nicely into my previous blog, the "Evil Within", don't you think?) Did those kids do anything to deserve that treatment? How about their parents? It shows you just how little control over our own lives we truly have. But if I'm not in control, then who is? The only real answers to this question are either: 1) no one is in control and there is nothing outside of mankind – we're alone, or 2) some one or something outside of mankind controls the world and its events, and that some one or something is God.

Now if you believe that God somehow started everything and now has nothing to do with the world and all of us, then that's really not a God of any value or importance. To me, it starts looking a lot like the no one or the nothing of option 1).

If there is a God, then He is a 'some one' and a 'something' that not only made this world and the universe it resides in, but made us as well. And He made us with the ability to choose between doing good and doing evil. So if He is the maker, the creator, then He is the controller of everything as well, and if He is the controller, that means that He is sovereign over His creation. Now what in the heck does that mean? That's a very good question. Let's define it.

By saying that God is sovereign over His creation, I'm saying that God is the source of all creation and that all things come from Him and depend upon Him (Col 1:15-17). God has the absolute right to do whatever He wishes with His creation at anytime He pleases. This would also imply that no one controls God. If no one controls Him, then no one made Him either. But more on that some other day.

So, why do I say that? Let's look at a couple of verses from the Bible. Psalms 24:1 says,

The earth is the LORD’s, and verything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for He founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

In Psalms 50:12 God says,

If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.

Isaiah 40 is a very good chapter referring to the sovereignty of God. Starting with Isa 40:12-15,

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, or with the breadth of His hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed Him as His counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten Him, and who taught Him the right way? Who was it that taught Him knowledge or showed Him the path of understanding? Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; He weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.

And again in Isa 40:17-18,

Before Him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by Him as worthless and less than nothing. To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare Him to?

And again in Isa 40:21-23,

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

If your God is smaller than this, why do you believe in a god at all? A god with no power? A god that is very much like a man. You would do much better to have no god at all than to have a god that knows nothing and can do nothing.

Now I know what you're thinking, "So why doesn't God do something about all of the evil in the world?" Didn't you read my last blog entry? Are you going to "damn" God for giving you the ability to choose right from wrong, thus bringing evil into the world in the first place? Or for making you a robot, made only to walk out a preprogrammed life?

We can't have our cake and eat it too. We either want God to intervene in our life, which means He judges us and our wrong actions each and every time we purposely do evil – and we all do evil. Or we want Him to do nothing, which means our evil adversely affects others, who in turn ask the very same question we just asked, "God, why did you let this happen?" Oh, that's right, we want Him to judge everyone else but us, don't we? Like I said, we can't have our cake and eat it too.

So, now we have 'sovereignty' added to the mix. But we still have our nagging questions don't we. 'Why does God continue to let people in this world do such horrible acts of evil?'

So He can show mankind, whom He wants to have a relationship with, mercy.

The Evil Within

2006-12-24T04:07:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted in my Yahoo! 360 blog, Oct 1, 2006:

This past week, one of the most gruesome crimes imaginable was committed by a woman. A woman cut the unborn child out of the womb of her friend, killing both and drowned her three other children, stuffing them into a washer and dryer. If the authorities know why she did this unspeakable evil, they aren't saying. She plead innocent even though she's admitted the crime to her boyfriend and the police. I'll assume our “justice” system will place her in the loony bin for a few years and then pronounce her cured. Not much justice for the victim's family in that.

As a Christian I know exactly why this crime happened. There is evil in this world, and his name is Satan. Yes, I'm one of those. The very first question that most people ask is, “How can God let such an unspeakable thing happen?” But the assumption in that question is that somehow its all God's fault. But is it? How many of us want others to make our decisions? Don't we want to exercise our right to choose? And then, what exactly are the repercussions of us making our own choices?

The fact is that we would fault God if we were not given a choice to do good or do evil. And once we, and everyone else around us, have that ability, we turn around and blame God for allowing us to have the ability to choose. Not really very fair, is it? Answer me a simple question – would it be better to allow people to choose to do right, but have the possibility that they will choose wrong, or would it be better to force us to choose right with no opportunity to choose at all?

If God wanted a bunch of robots, He would have created us with only the ability to do whatever it was that God wants us to do in the first place. Instead, He created mankind to have a relationship with Himself. But to have a relationship with some one, you have to have the ability to choose. Relationships are built on honestly, faithfulness and trust. They are built on mutual love for one another, and love is a choice. If its forced, then its not love at all. Love, then, assumes the ability to choose to exercise that emotional action.

In the garden of Eden, God told Adam (who did a very poor job of communicating what God had said to Eve) that he could eat anything he wanted in the garden except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (did you catch that? The “knowledge of”). And Satan saw his opportunity to have a little fun with Adam and Eve.

And why was Satan in the garden in the first place? He, as an angel who had been created to minister to God as well as worship God, had been given the opportunity to choose as well. His choice was to be top dog, to take God's place. Fortunately, the created cannot usurp the creator, and Satan was kicked out of heaven, along with one third of the angels whom he had deceived. (sorry, but I simply do not understand that one either!)

God placed trust in Adam. First to communicate His will to Eve correctly, and secondly to honor His wishes. It would seem that at least Eve had made a bee-line to the only tree she wasn't supposed to eat from. And who did she find there? That's right, the fallen angel, who twisted God's words which appealed to Eve (lust of the eye, lust of the flesh and the boastful pride of life) who chose to do what she wanted, and helped her husband to disobey God as well. The end results was that they brought the knowledge of good and evil into the world, as well as death.

So, now that we know what's good and evil, shouldn't we be able to choose good over evil? Now for my second question, “As a Christian, I have a standard with which I try to live by, but if you're not a Christian, what exactly is your standard?”

I'm not exactly sure I've ever gotten an answer to that question, but I'd think an honest person would respond that they essentially do what they believe to be correct. And that's exactly what the Bible says about us too. But that's not what we're supposed to do. Bypassing the “standards” issue for the time being, whatever our choices are, there are consequences to those choices. When we choose to do what's wrong, our choices can have unexpected results. For instance, if I choose to drive while drunk, I may hit some one and kill them. Did that some one do something to me to cause their harm? No, but my wrong actions created a consequence that harmed an innocent bystander. That's what choices do, they have consequences. Right actions have or may have positive consequences, and wrong actions have or may have negative consequences. If I get mad and shot some one, that some one has a family, who will be harmed by my actions.

But if I don't have the ability to choose right and wrong, then I have no will of myself. I simply do whatever I'm programmed to do. That is not life. Mankind was create to have life, to exercise choices so that he could choose to love God of his own free will. God created us to have life, and then to be able to live it abundantly. But, by giving us a choice, God has allowed for the possibility that we will choose wrongly. (we'll talk about omniscience in the future) God doesn't cause us to do wrong, we freely choose to do that on our own. However, without a standard, how can we possibly know which decision to make?

So, back to our standards. How do we know what's right and what's wrong? It becomes a very important question because of the consequences. If my standard is “whatever I believe is right”, and your standards may conflict with mine, then whose standards are right? I may believe its right and good to kill you, but I doubt that your standards believe that. In my eyes I'm right, but it your eyes, I'm wrong. With no standard, who's correct? Wicca attempts to answer to the question by saying that basically anything is OK as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But that standard is still based on what I personally think is correct, and so is yours, which makes truth relative. That is really another way of saying that there aren't any absolute truths at all. And if there aren't any absolutes, then neither is murder an absolute wrong, which means that its OK for me to kill you, right? Somehow I still think you would disagree with me.

Personally, this is hogwash. For the Christian, there are absolutes, its called the word of God. For the unbelievers, there aren't, and they're in chaos and don't even know it. If I have no standards, then there is no way for me to know whether my choice is truly right or wrong. I make my decision and hope for the best.

So, if you do not have any absolutes, how do you resolve this? If you are a Christian, do you live like you have absolutes?

Devotion to God

2006-12-22T13:40:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted on my Yahoo! 360 blog in early Oct 2006.

The world is such a fickle place. Every one wants their history rewritten. This past Thursday, the "Pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam." (Foxnews.com) The quote of the Emperor was as follows: 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."'

Now the Muslim world expects the Pope to apologize for a truthful statement. It would seem that the Muslim world wants Islam to be known as a peaceful religion, but they just can't stop reacting violently to anything major or minor some one says to prove that they might just be non-violent. In the words of Fox News the world sits in fear that Muslims may break out in another round of anti-Western protests. Gee -- what's new about that? If you will remember the peaceful reaction to a bunch of Danish cartoons - how many people were murdered to aswage the anger of peaceful Islam?

So how is the Muslim world reacting to the Pope's reference to an obscure Byzantine Emperor?

"The pope and Vatican proved to be Zionists and that they are far from Christianity, which does not differ from Islam. Both religions call for forgiveness, love and brotherhood," Shiite cleric Sheik Abdul-Kareem al-Ghazi said during a sermon in Iraq's second-largest city, Basra.

(You notice that the Jews are always blamed for anything and everything? Reality check -- historically - that would be in the past - Catholics have been some of the worst pursecutors of Jews.)

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

And finally, five West bank churches - Anglican, Catholic and Greek Orthodox - were fire bombed in protest to what the Pope said. So, what exactly did the Anglicans and the Orthodox do again? I expect much more in the coming days no matter what the Pope does.

And what started this controversy to begin with? The Pope was calling for more dialog between religions among other things. (psst! Pope Benedict - get used to this. These are the kinds of exchanges that will occur - Christian talks, Mulsim fire bombs. Reminds me of the Roman Empire's reaction to the church for the first 300 yrs) During his stops in Germany he also called for Dedication to God - true devotion to God and the real reason we are here on this earth to begin with. He said, "God needs people, he needs people who will say, 'I am ready to help with your harvest." So what was the Pope really talking about? Well, I'm not a Catholic and I haven't read his sermon, but let me share with you what it means to be dedicated and devoted to God.

1) Love for God. There must be an attitude to give your whole heart to God, not just part of it. True love of God, not token acceptance of Christ. Duet 6:5-8 says:

"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

We are to learn about who He is, what He wants, and do that, but not just that - to teach those things to others, especially our kids. God should be the first person we think about in the morning and the last person we think about at night.

So are we to wear strange contraptions on our forearms and forehead? Take black marker and write all over our doorposts? No, it was about doing something out of the ordinary to help jog your memory. Set something out of its normal place so that you see it and remember something important. Do whatever is required to prevent you from forgetting who should be the single most important person in your life. And if that means carrying a 500 lb Bible to prevent you from forgetting, then that is what you do! I use Christian worship songs. I have them on my work and home computers, and I listen to them all of the time. I get two Christian magazines a quarter. What do you need to do to help remind you to keep your whole life totally and completely devoted to God?

2) Obedience to God. Ps 119:2 says: "Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart." Can we love God with a whole heart and not do what He wants us to do? Can we really seek His will in our life and not obey Him?

3) Trust in God. Pro 3:5-6 says: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." If we love God and believe that He loves us, then we must by default trust Him. When we lean on our own knowledge, our own understanding of truth, that usually causes us to question the truths of God. Look at the 19th century intellectualism that rejected the biblical miracles. Men who thought they knew more than God.

4) In Prayer. Jer 29:13 says: "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." Some one devoted to God seeks God continually. That person talks with God all of the time. You don't get to know some one by keeping them at arms length; you spend time with them - lots of time! Whole hearted devotion means whole hearted seeking, so don't be surprise when He shows up! (actually, He's always there, its us that are MIA)

5) In Repentance. Joel 2:12-13 says: "'Yet even now,' declares the LORD, 'Return to Me with all your heart, And with fasting, weeping and mourning; And rend your heart and not your garments.' Now return to the LORD your God, For He is gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness And relenting of evil."

The truly devoted believer with seek God with every fiber of his being. They will not be scared to repent of their wrongs, nor holding up their rights as a banner for themselves. The true believer seeks to listen to God and obey (Eph 2:10), not for the brownie points, but simply because they desire to do the will of the God that saved them. The true believer will trust God in the good times and in the bad, and especially in the bad. They will be looking for excuses for their lack of faith or improper behavior, as if we could ever come up with any. The true believer loves God with their whole heart, seeks Him continually, listens for His voice, and longs to be in His presence.

Are you a true believer? Are you truly devoted to God?

Allahu Akbar and pass me another clip!

2006-12-07T18:36:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted on my Yahoo! 360 blog in early Sept 2006.

Is there any place on earth that is safe from Muslim terrorists? In one of the most moderate Arab nations on earth, a British tourist (along with six others) was gunned down in Jordan today. His crime - being from the West. In America we'd call that a hate crime ... on second thought, it would never get classified that way, CAIR would see to that. But it is a shame that we in the West continue to travel to a part of the world that is simply hates us for being who we are. It is yet another example of our ignorance, thinking that they will like us if we're nice to them. This is the communism of the turn of the 20th century.

When I was in school, I was taught about this wonderful idealist named Lenin. But Lenin was the monster that Stalin emulated. Funny what they conveniently leave out of the textbooks. Today, the bin Laden's and Zarqawi's of the Mulsim world got their "inspiration" from Sayyid Qutb. Never heard of of him? Neither had I until the latest Christian Research Journal, Vol 29, No. 4, 2006. If you want a picture painted for you of just who this guy was, whenever you hear the name bin Laden or Zarqawi, just think Joseph Stalin. Qutb was the inspiration for all of the evil these men spew; he was Lenin. The only difference between Qutb and Lenin is that Qutb considered everything he suggested to be done, and that bin Ladin and Zawqawi do, should be done in the name of Allah. All of the problems of the Muslim world could be blamed on the evil West. Its the basis of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia (and those nice little schools they set up in all of the West countries. "Class, today we're going to learn how to be a suicide bomber") - and that they've exported to every nation possible. Remember that nice man named Khomeini of Iran (think - 1979), one of Qutb's students.

In the Christian West, we do the same thing, well, except for all of the targeted killing of the innocent (humm, abortion, I guess I'll have to think about that one ...). We follow men too, but for the material things or the personal experiences they can promise us. Give a $100 and receive $10,000! “Your not sick – claim that healing, in Jesus' name!” Remember laughing revivals? ("But they're real, right?") Come get a double portion, and bark like a dog too! Or, we follow some one because of their politics, because if we could just pass this one law, everything will change.

But these aren't the examples that we, as believers, as Chrisitans, should be following. Jesus told us that the greatest commandment was to “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Mat 22:37-40) But how on earth can we do that when we are in love with wealth or money and power. In reality, its not those “things” that we're in love with, its our reflection in the mirror, ourselves. We want what we want when we want it, and its only a “white” lie, right?

But where is our love for God, our devotion to Christ? These terrorists have a thousand times our devotion, for a cause that promotes the innocent slaughter of thousands, and hundreds of thousands if they get their way, all for a false god, one chosen by random out of the 360 available at the big black box in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in the 7th century. Kind of like the Jehovah's Witnesses, always knocking on someone's door ... While we in the West chase “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life.” (1 John 2:16) If Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, don't you think we should start living like it really is true? Are you living for Jesus, really? Or are you living for yourself?

Convert or Die ... Postcards from al-Qaida

2006-12-06T15:30:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted on my Yahoo! 360 blog in early Sept 2006 ...

Once again, the West or should I say America, has received another love letter from the Islamo-fascists in the Muslim world. In a nutshell, we are told by an American traitor, Adam Gadahn, a convert to Islam and now a militant Muslim in al-Qaida, to “convert to Islam or face the consequences.” For all of you out there that are shocked by this, it's really nothing new. Islam has been doing this since it began in the 7^th century. I know, I know, not very politically correct to point out their history, is it?

Interestingly, I heard this past week that American Muslims are finally “looking within” to see if maybe they need to be “good” Americans and police themselves. Now there's a concept – are you listening Muslim world? CAIR? After 9/11 all Muslims seemed to want to do is run around and tell every one how offended they were at being labeled as Islamists. I do understand that, and I even agree. Discrimination is wrong. However, telling me your peaceful and then hearing the hate speech from so many Mosque's, that's a hard sell. CAIR is the major proponent of this mentality, and is more interested in its “rights” than actually promoting the “peace” they say is the hallmark of their religion. Frankly, I simply don't see anything peaceful about Islam, past or present.

Christians and Muslims disagree on their fundamental beliefs. For a Christian, Islam perverts biblical truth; we do not serve the same God. So, from the Christian perspective, the religion 'Islam' is evil. Calling that “hate speech” is a real stretch. If its hate speech for Christians, then why isn't it hate speech for Muslims? Muslims call Christianity an evil religion – that's what Adam Gadahn just did. He became a militant Muslim in America! And the whole world knows what Muslims think of the Jews. So, if Franklin Graham calls Islam an “evil religion”, then OK, so what? Does that mean we deserved 9/11? We have to upgrade our security in everything we do because there are so many Muslims trying kill Americans, and Britain's, and Spaniards, and Indians, and Russians, and even other Muslims. Do they ever do anything other than make plans to kill people? What is so peaceful about Islam? Why should Islam get a pass? If Muslims wants respect, then they need to police themselves! But they don't do that. No, them make it the job of the West, and then hate us for it.

By the way, I can't remember the last Muslim that was beheaded to show how great a religion Christianity is. But I do remember an American man in Iraq being beheaded to show how peaceful and great Islam is. And I also remember a Muslim man a couple of months back forcing his way into a Jewish center in Seattle so he could shoot 6 unarmed women. Now that's bravery!

According to Islam, the West is “christian”, and anything the West does is a “crusade”. It is unfortunately that the majority of people in the West aren't really Christian at all! So its fact check time. France and Italy are “culturally” Catholic. Germany is “culturally” Lutheran. America is “culturally” Protestant. True Christianity isn't being practiced by very many people at all (remember, its the narrow road, not the wide road). And Israel is “culturally” Jewish – not that many actually practice their religion. I'm sure the same can be said for some Muslims, but it's probably less prevalent.

I don't say this to promote Islam, but to shame the West and Christianity. The West is engaged in a “war on terrorism”, and what they don't seem to understand is that it's a “religious war”. That's right. We think that if we play nicely in the sandbox with the Muslim world, they'll like us. But they never will. Their core beliefs state clearly that they have the right and the responsibility to rule and dominate anything that isn't Islamic. Living peacefully with Christianity and Judaism is just not on their agenda. Look at Iran. Their leader is clearly an Islamo-fascist. There really isn't much difference between him and Osama bin Ladin or Ayman al-Zawahri.

So what are Christians supposed to do about all of this? Converting to Islam will not save you, because of guys like me. I will never, I know too much about Christianity and Islam. So, what's the alternative? Well, how about continuing our mandate. Matt 28 says “preach the Gospel to all nations.” That includes the Muslims in America, Europe, and the Muslim world. Islam isn't going to change. It will still be against the law to possess a Bible in Saudi Arabia, and to preach Christianity in any Muslim country. CAIR will not be coming to your aid if you are in an Iranian jail. And it will still be a capital offense for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. But their eternal destiny without Christ is hell. Are we going to start being authentic Christians, or continue being “cultural” christians?

Of Terrorism and Terrorists ...

2006-12-05T18:48:00.000-08:00

This was originally posted in my Yahoo! 360 blog back in Aug 2006 ... and its still ass true today as it was back then ...

A couple of days ago, once again, we got a reminder of what the face of terrorism is. The West just doesn't seem to get it – its about religion stupid! Its a bit unrealistic to think that the Islamic fascists controlling the vast majority of Islam today would embrace democracy when they are still stuck in the 7^th century, and they still believe that killing in the name of God is their highest calling. I say the 'vast majority of Islam' because you really never hear moderate Muslims reject or repudiate the teachings of the Islamic fascists. I know that they are out there, they just seem to be conspicuously silent, or making excuses as to why what the Islamists do is somehow justified. But then, I understand that mentality a little. Years ago I was part of the Operation Rescue movement and its attempt to eliminate abortion via non-violent civil disobedience. Some of those people were somewhat sympathetic to the abortion bombers and murdering abortion doctors, even some that would never ever participate with OR. Bombing and murdering in the name of God is domestic terrorism plain and simple. But it was justify because the 'ends justifies the means', right?

But that isn't the real problem I see ahead of the Church. The real problem back in the 80's was 'we' – the Church lost our focus. I don't remember reading about Jesus demonstrating against abortion, do you? And I don't remember Jesus trying to change the laws of the Roman government. It wasn't about politics or taking on a political agenda, as if politics can change the heart of mankind. And today, once again, we are in danger of missing the boat. Terrorism is evil, and its also very frightening and unnerving. But it is not the Church's place to get political and fight terrorism. That doesn't mean that we stop being good citizens, or stop voting for those whom we believe would be the best people to run this country. We live in a democracy and it is both our right and our responsibility to vote, according to Scripture. But does that mean we are to become political? (and yes, there should be Christian politicians) Is it the job of the Church to convert the world to our political viewpoint?

The mission of the Church is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. We have been given no other mandate. The Roman empire was converted from the inside out, not the outside in. No one sought to change the laws, or overthrow the government. Rome was changed one person at a time. These were Christians that were willing to die for their faith, not their political beliefs. And as much as I want to say, 'nuke'em till they glow, and then nuke them some more', that is just plain wrong. It is the responsibility of this country to defend its citizens, so I don't have a problem with US government taking out the Talaban. Nor do I have a problem with the US government continuing its fight against the Islamic terrorists of al Qaeda.

But as Christians, what should our response be? That's easy. These people are God's creation, made in the image of God, and as much as I dislike them for what they do, Jesus still loves them (but obviously, not what they do). We are called to love our enemies. That's doesn't mean that we're supposed to be their human shields, nor their human sacrifices. What we should be doing is praying for them, and praying for their salvation. I heard the other day that about 1000 Koreans were deported from Afghanistan (yes, I know, that number sounds high to me too). Why were they there? To preach the gospel of Jesus to a Muslim nation, at considerable risk to their own lives. And what about us? Do we engage our friends and neighbors? Do we even know who they are?

As we listen to what's going on in the world today and tomorrow, let us not loose our focus of why we are here on this earth in the first place. It is not to do our own thing, or making a million dollars, but to be doing the will of the Father. And what is that will? To make disciples. If you really want to make an impact on this world, preach Jesus, not politics.

Thanksgiving and Turkey Visiting ...

2006-12-04T15:40:00.001-08:00

Last week the Pope embarks on yet another historic good will trip, this time to Turkey. There is considerable open hostility towards him right now in Turkey, or any Muslim country for that matter. But that's really not what's news-worthy, even though its what's being reported. Have you thought about “who” is doing “what”? By this question, I'm not trying to focus on the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church or as the symbolic head of Christianity (but he is doing the heavy lifting, isn't he), but rather on Christianity as a faith.

The original flap was about a statement the Pope read which was taken out of context by Muslims, something they do quite often. But the purpose of his comments was to challenge Christians (and in his case, Catholic leaders) to work harder at reaching out to other faiths, and Islam in particular. And that is the real news in this story of his trip to Turkey. The Pope challenged his cardinals and bishops to reach out to Muslims, and now he is practicing what he was preaching. Its not the Islamic faith that reaches out to others, but the Christian faith that has always held that role. Personally, I think what he's doing is extremely brave and extremely foolish. I say foolish because I think he's throwing his pearls to the swines. Muslims aren't interested in free and open dialog, if they were, there would be religious freedom in their countries. But there isn't – not a single one that I'm aware of. But the Christian west does allow for that (yes, we've had our problems in the past haven't we. But tell me the truth, where would you rather live, hum?). And I say brave because he's willingly walking into the Coliseum, which again is a trait of Christianity, not Islam. If you will remember the previous Pope's encounter with some one from Turkey he delivered his greetings with a smoking gun. And I probably don't have to remind you that the Turk was a Muslim, do I?

Christianity is so unlike any other faith. Christianity forgives because God forgave us. Christianity loves its enemies, because while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Christianity turns the other check. I need some help though. Can anyone help me understand what Islam promotes? OK, OK, suicide bombers. ... besides that?

But that's not supposed to happen ...

2006-12-03T17:38:00.000-08:00

This past summer we lost power for 8 days – see my second blog entry. Eight long days w/o electricity. And they say lightening is not supposed to strike twice in the same place – don't believe that! We had another St Louis storm, but this time with ice and snow. 14,400 out of 19,600 in my zip code were out of power! Over 350,000 people went dark. They were saying that it could be 5 days to restore power for most people. Thankfully, we were only out for two and half days this time – thank you Jesus! We have radiant heat – water pipes in the floors – and I was really worried that we might be out for 4 or 5 days. Never mind the inconvenience of no electricity, I was worried about the freezing temperatures freezing my floors. It only got down to about 25 the first night, but down to 15 the second night. The night we got electricity back it was going down to about 10 degrees, which might have frozen my perimeter. Once that happens, the pipes burst and the concrete slab seeps water into the house. And then its forced air and about 2 grand to fix. I spent a lot of time praying for the Ameren UE repair guys. Really tough conditions to work in.

I can do the heat, but the cold – no thanks! Some friends were going to put us up for however long it would be, which turned out to be only one night. Its always nice to have good friends with finished basements. It was the body of Christ in motion. Christians reaching out to the family of God.

I want it!

2006-12-01T09:09:00.000-08:00

Several days ago, I was trolling MSNBC technology news and I ran across this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

What an awesome looking car! And the technology – you have to take the time to read about it! Now I’m not an environmentalist, but I do care about the environment. More than that, I’m tired of helping the Islamic fascist nations rape us on oil prices. ‘Course, we were the idiots that set up OPEC, weren’t we. I’d really like to see them go back to herding camels in the deserts, instead of promoting terrorism all over the world because their so damn rich and have just too much time on their hands. Sorry, that’s not very Christian like of me, but I’m really tired of hearing all of the terrorist acts that happen every day in this world, all over the world. Columbia, Philippines, England, Britain, Spain, USA, France, Netherlands, Russia, China, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and nearly every country in Africa (these last 3 seem to do as much promoting terrorism as they receive) …. have I missed any of them? Probably. Oh ya, Israel. But I digress …

A bunch of Silicon Valley electrical engineers who are gear heads and environmentalists decided to try to solve a problem that the Big 3 seemed to be avoiding. I’m probably wrong on that, because it’s probably that they are just too close to the problem and they’re probably just myopic. But these engineers decided to light a fire under Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, etc. (Although Honda and Toyota are probably close to introducing the same. And I did see that GM has a prototype of a fuel cell car, but it’s the size of a house and probably 6 or 7 years from production.) These guys are ready to go production after meeting the auto safety standards, hopefully by late fall 2007.

Now, none of us can afford it for a few years, but the fact that they have solved some very difficult engineering problems is the real news in this.

A simple beginning

2006-11-30T18:15:00.000-08:00

First, let me start by saying that I am a Christian first and foremost. I don't expect some of you to believe what I will be writing, nor do I expect you to agree with it. I see things from a slightly different perspective and I acknowledge that it is colored by my faith. Before you respond (or even read any further), you must also admit that the same is true for you. Each of us believe what we believe because of our background (how we grew up, who we interacted with, how we were treated by friends and family) or particular circumstances in our lives (things that we did or things that occurred to us), as well as the God given personality that we all have. Just like you I have a worldview, but mine is a Christian one. And just like you, everything is filtered through that lens. And since you do the exact same thing, please don't pretend that you don't.

Second, I think, investigate and have opinions about a lot of topics. Most of those topics are in some way related to my Christian faith. These are the only ones that really matter, and unfortunately, I'm not always correct. I'm human and I make mistakes.

Third, I'm not into conspiracy theories. There are some Christians that have a conspiracy theory about almost everything that occurs in life. I would agree that the god of this age is behind all of the junk, I just don't agree that he has the ability to control mankind's actions as some people do. Its inconsistent with Biblical theology. Satan is, after all, only a fallen angel, not an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.

Fourth, I'm into history and apologetics. That is what fuels my love for theology. I believe I know what Christianity is, and what it isn't. I have had to go through the very painful process of systematically evaluating what I believe and why I believe it, because at one time I was deceived and in error. Its given me a lot more grace for others, but its also made me much more resolved in my faith.

shadman