The Write Journey

Are Miracles Possible?

2011-03-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

Photo by Anupam Pal (Kanpur, India)
Photographed December 2007, Chakdaha, India

It's interesting to me that there are people who claim to be Christians who also will claim, sometimes in the same breath, that there are some miracles of the Bible that they think could not possibly have really happened. So, God is powerful enough to make the earth--just by speaking--but then He struggles with parting the Red Sea or sending a great fish to swallow Jonah or walking on water? This seems inconsistent to me. Frankly, I can't see how anyone who believes in God--especially the God of the Bible--can deny that He has control over all of nature. (Just read Job 38-41 if you have any doubts as to the kind of power ascribed to Him.) But, it's deeper than that. It's much more than God having "control over" nature. God doesn't just control nature. Nature is a piece of God in the same way a painting is a piece of the artist. God is in nature. (But, to be clear, God is not 'in the tree' or contained by His creation like a sprite or a 'force'. See: I Kings 19:11-13) He works through it, but He is also glorified by it--in its beauty and in its power. But let us not forget that creation was designed for a purpose and with us in mind. Creation is for us--designed to perfectly fit our physical needs, but also perfectly designed to complement our spiritual needs by being a reflection of our Creator.

But, I digress...

One thing that kind-of bothers me is that some theologians like to split up miracles into categories. There are miracles that work with nature--like the first 9 plagues of Egypt or the calming of the storm. And then there are miracles that work above/against nature--like the 10th plague of Egypt or Jesus turning water into wine or the axe-head floating. They seem to suggest this shows how God is powerful in different ways, but really, I just think it shows more about us. The only real difference between a miracle that works within nature (as we understand it) or against nature (as we understand it) is our understanding or lack there of. We act as if one is harder for God than the other, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Think historically for a moment. If I was to go back only a mere couple hundred years with my ipod, I bet I could convince some folks I was capable of performing a miracle. That's because they simply wouldn't understand how I did it. Now, I'm not saying God doesn't really perform miracles. I'm saying everything God does is a miracle. It doesn't matter if it seems simple to us--like photosynthesis or rain or seeing a sunset. But think for a moment about each of those things. They are extremely common, but also extremely complicated, when you think about it. We don't think of them as miraculous because we experience them often and because we think we know how they work. (Most of us really don't, when pressed.) So, the only real difference between what we think of as a common, everyday occurrence and a miracle is our perspective (not God's). Frankly, we could no more imagine or create the process of photosynthesis any more than we could walk on water. Only God can do either.

So, it's a little comical when we have the audacity to claim God can create the sun, imagine a sunset into being, give us the power of sight so we can enjoy it, and then start listing all the things God "can't" do. As if we, in our infinite wisdom, knowledge and cosmic understanding, can decide which things would be harder for God to do. (That last clause doesn't even make sense to me!)

So, here are some questions for you:

Is God really pitted against "science"? What does that even mean? (Science, by the way, is a process, not a thing. So, keep that in mind when you answer.)

For those of you who believe in God, do you also believe in miracles? What about the miracles of the Bible--all of them? Why or why not?

If some miracles are harder for God than others, what does that say about God's character? And, what source do you trust for describing God's character?

Things I've Learned About God

2011-03-16T20:25:00.000-07:00

It's amazing to me how much we can learn about God's character and life even after growing up in a Christian home and church. That's not to say I didn't have good teachers and role models, only that God can always surprise you. In addition to Mary's note above, here are a few things I've learned:

1. God's primary characteristic (contrary to what many think) is not love, but holiness. Look at how many time God is called love in the Bible vs. how many times He is called holy.

2. God does not save us because He loves us. He loves everyone, but He will not save everyone. He saves us only when we allow the death and resurrection of Christ to take the place of the death that is demanded of us as payment for being the property of Satan--making us the property of God. Why does it have to be this way? Again, because He is holy. We are not.

3. Good and evil don't exist in the normal, conceptual way we think of them. That is why atheists (rightly) have trouble accounting for them as 'real'. The only way we can know "good" is to know God--(again, He's holy--the standard of goodness). Evil is the antithesis of God--anything that is contrary to God. God--a Being, not a belief or a concept--IS the standard. There is no such thing as a standard for goodness or a measure of evil without accepting that God is who He says He is. It just doesn't make any sense. This is also why asking questions like, "Why does God do evil things?" is nonsensical. Whatever God does is "good"--because He's the standard. He cannot be judged by any other standard aside from Himself. (Certainly not by us.) Good and evil are exclusively relational terms and always find their essence within a relationship or lack of relationship with God.

4. There is no such thing as blind faith. All faith is based on a reason or a set of reasons. (Although, they may not be good reasons.) Just ask someone--even the crazy guy in the asylum who talks to his magic marker--why they believe or act the way they do. They'll have some kind of reason.

5. Satan is evil, but he's not the "embodiment of evil." Evil entered the world through man, not through Satan. Creation was given to us and we promptly handed it over to Satan--practically gift-wrapped it for him. That's why he's called the prince of this world.

6. Angels don't have wings. Seraphim and Cherubim (never called "angels" in the Bible) do have wings. Regular angels don't. These are distinctly different beings created by God.

Well, that's it for now.

Is Commitment a Kind of Freedom?

2009-04-09T16:28:00.001-07:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about how variable the concept of "freedom" is. Freedom is only a relative state of being, for one thing. There is no such thing as "complete freedom"--you can only be "free of" something. If you are free of everything, you really aren't free at all. For example, if I am free of my family, I may find myself trapped by my loneliness and longing for them. If I am free of gravity, I am trapped by my inability to stay firmly planted on the ground and do all the things that require gravity (and, for that matter, I would soon be dead--"freed" of my life). So, "freedom" is only so valuable as the degree of evil of the thing from which you are made free.

So, when I visited Starbucks this week and read "The Way I See It" (#76) on my cup, I found it of particular interest. This is what it said:

"The irony of commitment is that it's deeply liberating--in work, in play, in love. The act frees you from the tyranny of your internal critic, from the fear that likes to dress itself up and parade around as rational hesitation. To commit is to remove your head as the barrier to your life." --Anne Morriss

Now, think about that for a moment. Read it again and let it sink in.

Our entire society--in fact, the society of the entire earth--is absolutely obsessed with the idea of freedom. We think we want free everything. We want free stuff (making us liberated from having to work or earn a living); we want free choice (liberating us from responsibility to the laws--whether they be moral or political); we want free love (liberating us from commitment to another person in marriage). However, in each situation these kinds of "liberations" or "freedoms" are illusions. They are traps. They are deceptions. They are lies. When we free ourselves from the need to work, we simply end up taking advantage of others, falling prey to laziness and self-centeredness and, when it catches up with us, starving to death. When we free ourselves from moral and/or political law, we also end up falling prey to our own depravity--we inflict pain on others and destroy ourselves. When we free ourselves from loving commitments to others, we become trapped by our loneliness, our lusts and, eventually, to all the ailments that attack those with a promiscuous lifestyle. What do all these scenarios have in common? Our destruction.

I, like Ms. Morriss, believe commitment to be one of wisest and most liberating decisions we can make--if made to something or someone worthy of that commitment.

God said:

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. (Jeremiah 29:11)

Challenge: Search your heart. How free are you? Have you committed yourself to something or someone that is robbing you of true freedom? Have you avoided committing your life to the God who made you and loves you and desires only your best? If so, make a change! Ask Jesus for the freedom only He can provide.

Does God Afflict Us?

2009-03-30T19:35:00.000-07:00

It is disturbing to most of us to think God might be out there causing us difficulties. For this reason many have accepted the religious idea that God is an impersonal being--a being who spun the world and humanity into existence, but then stepped back and left us to our own devices, without interference of any kind. Many find this concept easier to palate because we have no one to answer to except ourselves. According to this view, we are our own guides and we have no one to blame for our troubles except ourselves (or each other), but neither do we have any source of help or rescue except that which we can ourselves provide--or exact from others. The atheist viewpoint also embraces these consequences.

Personally, I find this idea not only lacking in merit from an emotional standpoint, but from an evidential one as well. There simply is no evidence to support such a view; it is empty philosophy and nothing more. Furthermore, the Bible contradicts this idea in nearly every passage of its 66 books. God is described as a very personal Being. He is highly relational. Not only did he design our world and our bodies, but He left His fingerprint on our hearts--leaving a place there only He can fill. He is intimately interested in our every moment. And, while it is true that He has limited His visible interactions with us since the fall--when we basically asked Him to stay out of our lives--His love compels Him to remain accessible to us and involved to the extent which we will allow (and, sometimes, beyond). In fact, though we may try to hide from Him, in this life there is no place we might flee to escape God's presence.

Psalm 139:1-16

"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.

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

It makes sense, then, that so many, when facing some trial or need, lift their faces to the heavens with lips ready with either supplications or accusations. Even those who question God's existence will often succumb to these kinds of interactions when times become dire.

So, does God afflict us? Is God to blame for the troubles that come into our lives? You may be surprised at the answer. The answer is both "yes" and "no". God does not cause evil or delight in seeing us suffer. However, Psalm 119:75 says: "I know, O Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me."

The reason it is so difficult for us to accept "affliction" from God is because of our lack of a trusting, loving relationship with Him. But consider who God is:

He is our Father. (Col. 1:2)

He is Love. (I John 4:8)

He is our strong deliverer. (Psalm 140:7)

He is our refuge in times of trouble. (Psalm 59:16)

He is the one who is able to keep us from falling. (Jude 24)

He is our provider. (Gen. 22:14)

And much, much more... (See Names, Titles and Descriptions of God)

Now, let us look at that verse again, along with the ones following:

I know, O Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me. May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant. Let your compassion come to me that I may live, for your law is my delight. (Psalm 119:75-77)

The writer of these words obviously had a deep, loving and trusting relationship with God. He was thankful that God was faithful in afflicting him! Then he seeks God's unfailing love as his comfort and stated that God's laws were a delight to him! This is not a cowering, frightened man begging to be spared from the hands of an angry God. This is a son speaking to his Father!

Imagine for a moment a good father and how he would guide his child through the obstacles of youth. No doubt there will be many times he will have to provide consequences (or cause "affliction") for misbehavior or as lessons for further healthy growth. For example, he might insist on a healthy diet, despite the child's sweet-tooth. Or, he might demand that the child get regular exercise, even though the child would rather spend the entire day playing Nintendo. He may have to provide punishment for disobedience or give a lecture in response to a bad attitude. And, yet, because of the relationship that exists between them, we can clearly see that each of these actions, while they may cause pain or discomfort for the child, springs from this man's deep love for his child and his desire to see the child one day become strong, healthy, independent and full of integrity, compassion and wisdom.

This is what God desires for us. When God "afflicts" us, it is not to see us crushed, but to see us develop into a person of character--one that reflects His own amazing qualities. However, to understand these trials, it is necessary for us to have a relationship with God.

Challenge: When you feel as if you are dealing with some kind of affliction, refrain from whining and blaming God. Instead, spend time in prayer and in study of God's Word, the Bible. Ask God to reveal to you the lessons He wants you to learn. Ask God to give you wisdom. And offer yourself and your life to Him to mold into the person He created you to be.

Stockholm Syndrome--A Common Reaction to Sin

2009-02-23T08:00:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia defines Stockholm Syndrome as “a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which he has been placed.” This term was coined by criminologist and psychiatrist, Nils Bejerot, when, in August of 1973, several people were taken hostage during Kreditbanken bank robbery in Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden. Though the victims were held hostage for six days, once freed they showed attachment to their captors and even defended them.

Another example can be found in the case of Carol Smith. On May 19, 1977, Carol (age 20) was attempting to hitchhike from Eugene, Oregon to Westwood, in Northern California. When a young family--consisting of a man, woman and baby--stopped to pick her up, she felt they were safe, and so accepted the ride. Soon, though, she realized her danger, when the man--Cameron Hooker (who had already murdered one young woman)--drove to a remote location, put a knife to her throat and then bound, blindfolded her, gagged her and put a plywood box over her head that prevented her from being able to eat, drink, hear or see. Over the next seven years, Carol was held by this couple and used as a sex slave. She was repeatedly beaten, raped and tortured. For much of the time she was caged in a small wooden box until Hooker felt the need to heap abuse on her. In addition to all this, Hooker used psychological abuse and threats to her and her loved ones to keep her under his control. However, even after she escaped (only willing to do so at the insistence of Janice Hooker, the wife), Carol never went to the police. In fact, she even called him many times. It was Janice who finally turned Hooker in. During the trial Carol was reticent to testify against her captor and the defense introduced letters in which Carol proclaimed her love for Cameron.

Other examples of Stockholm Syndrome include victims of domestic abuse and child abuse who refuse to leave or turn in their abusers.

Once source explains it this way:

"What appears to occur, according to experts who have studied the phenomenon, is that the person "freezes" as a way to avoid further torture, and then yields to try to appease the captor. If the captor then takes care of basic needs, the captive may feel gratitude bordering on affection.. Such victims become susceptible to suggestion, and having their own world shrink to that shared with the captor, may become sympathetic. Identifying with the captor and seeing no way to escape, it becomes easier to acquiesce, even to the point of acting as if they love their captors. They are trying to arrange their otherwise unsafe and difficult world for maximum comfort and safety." (Ref.)

When I hear these anecdotes of people who identify with and even defend their captors--people who have viciously abused and brutalized them--I am dumbfounded. And, yet, it is my belief that Stockholm Syndrome is much more common than we may think. In fact, the vast majority of us will experience some level of Stockholm Syndrome at some point in our lives. Some of us even live in a continual state of this mental condition. How? Consider this: Anytime we are held captive by anything that is detrimental to us, we are at risk of developing Stockholm Syndrome. Whenever we are caught by an enemy, we have two choices: fight for our freedom or give in to our captor. When we fight, we will most likely go through a heightened time of trouble--at least until we gain our complete freedom. However, by giving in-- aligning ourselves with the enemy--we are able to embrace the illusion that we have some amount of power in our situation and, thereby, granting ourselves a false sense of freedom.

What are these enemies? Anything that stands between us and our relationship with God. That is, anything that controls us to the exclusion of God's control over our lives.

Romans 6:12-14 "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, for you are not under law, but under grace."

The Bible has warned us of many of these things--such as sexual sin, alcohol abuse, greed, idolatry, etc.--but keep in mind that anything can become your master if you allow it. Even such things as shopping, video games, relationships and even religious activities can come between us and the freedom Christ purchased for us on the cross. Anything in your life that draws your love away from God puts you at risk. Once made captive, you are in danger of succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome and, thereby, being destroyed.

James 1:13-15 "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full grown, gives birth to death."

Romans 3:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord."

We are all often tempted to sin and to put other things in God's rightful place in our hearts and lives; however, if we don't resist, that temptation, we become sin's captives. Once captive, we can either struggle against our captor and ask God to free us, or we can accept the sin in our lives, learn to love it, and turn our backs on the truth of the evil we have embraced.

I have seen this unhealthy response many times--even in my own life when I chose to remain in an unhealthy relationship to the detriment of my relationship with God. I have seen it in my friends, who embraced homosexuality, allowing themselves to be convinced that it was okay--even healthy--despite the absolute wreckage it made of their lives. I have seen it in the beliefs of young people who have accepted false teachings. But, perhaps the most depressing of all, I have seen it in a woman who completely turned her back on Jesus to the point of becoming an atheist because life without God made her feel free. Suddenly she believed she was the master of her own life.

Unfortunately, all of us were not embracing Truth, but lies. We either failed to recognize our captor or we decided to embrace our sin in order to revel in a false freedom. Somehow this seemed preferable to going through the humbling process of allowing God to rescue us, clean us and give us true freedom--freedom from our sin.

This is not a new problem:

Romans 1:18-32 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

When we allow ourselves to remain in our sin--in opposition to God--we do not secure freedom, but our own destruction.

CHALLENGE: Ask God to search your heart and identify those areas which you have allowed to be mastered by another. Rededicate those areas to Him and ask Him to help you despise sin and cling to Jesus--the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6)

Psalm 139:23-24 "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

What Kind of Obedience Does God Expect of Me?

2009-02-17T08:49:00.000-08:00

"What you do reveals what you believe about God, regardless of what you say." Henry Blackaby

Matt. 21:28-30:

The Parable of the Two Sons

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

"Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

I would venture to guess that most of the world finds the concept of obedience to God uncomfortable. Obedience to a Being we can neither hear nor see? It seems ridiculous, sometimes even to those who believe in some kind of deity. Perhaps this creeping feeling of uneasiness comes from the sad fact that we often we equate obedience to God with obedience to a man proclaiming to have God's ear, or His power, or His word, or whatever. In other words, whenever we allow ourselves to confuse God with man, we run the risk of falling for the devices of a false prophet. We've seen what blind obedience to false prophets can do within cults--just consider David Koresh, the FLDS, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, etc... It's not surprising that we shrink from anything that would seek to control us.

However, once we recognize God for who He is--a Being capable of reaching us in His own way and on His own terms--One who, though He desires to work in us and through us, does not require a human third party in order to speak to our souls--One whose very nature is that of Holiness and Love and who proved this on the cross through Jesus Christ--well, then, hopefully, we will come to the place where we can love Him back and enter into a relationship with him. Once we do so, it is His desire that we trust Him and obey Him. Our obedience is how we show God we love Him.

John 14:15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

If we claim to love God, but refuse to do what He says (in the Bible, that is), then we deceive ourselves and make ourselves hypocrites. In the second verse above, don't miss what Jesus promises to do for those who obey Him--He will show himself to them! What an amazing promise! We come to know God through obedience. We see more and more of Him as we act on faith to trust Him enough to know what is best for us--regardless of what the world is saying.

What kind of obedience does God require? Full obedience! God takes a very dim view of sin. He spun your world into motion and He knows exactly the kind of thing that will throw it off its axis. He's given some pretty clear warnings in the Bible, and when we completely ignore them, we often not only hurt ourselves, but others as well. His rules are for your BEST!

Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Challenge: If you are having trouble obeying God in some area of your life, recommit yourself to Him now. Perhaps the following prayer will help:

"Dearest Lord Jesus, Thank you for loving me enough to save me, even though I was trapped in my sin. I no longer want anything to have mastery over me except You. I know in my head that You are trustworthy and that You would not ask me to do anything or to abstain from anything unless it was for my best. Right now I am struggling with ____[sin/addiction/etc.]_______ and I long to know in my heart that You can and will free me from my captor. Please give me the faith I need to trust in You and the strength to do what is right. This moment I renounce this captor's claim on my life and I give myself back to You. As I obey you in this area of my life, I ask that You show Yourself to me more and more. Help me to know You and love You, Jesus!"

Then, STOP whatever it is you're not supposed to be doing, or DO whatever it is you are supposed to be doing. Remember, your relationship with God is between you and Him. When you disobey Him, you damage that relationship. This prayer is not a magical formula to get you back on track, but if you mean what it says, God will hear you. He will help you, but you must keep your eyes focused on Him, not on your own strength. That means that you might have to say this prayer every day, or even every hour, until the temptation to go back to your sin is gone.

Remember, if you need encouragement along the way, you are not alone. Find a Christian friend to be an accountability partner with you, and, of course, I am here as well. Leave a comment and ask me to pray for you. (I don't need to know what you're struggling with in order to pray for you. God already knows.)

God bless you as you continue to seek the Lord.

Are Christians Buying Into a False Faith?

2008-12-04T15:25:00.000-08:00

Could it be that Christianity--despite its loyal masses and moral trappings--is a false faith after all? Could it be that Jesus wasn't Who He claimed to be--or worse--never existed at all? Could it be that when we cry out to God, no one hears us?

The Bible condemns such faiths, for faith--no matter how sincere--is only as valid as the object of that faith.

They say to wood, 'You are my father,' and to stone, 'You gave me birth.' They have turned their backs to me and not their faces; yet when they are in trouble, they say, 'Come and save us!' Where then are the gods you made for yourselves? Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble! For you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah. (Jeremiah 2:27-28)

So, if the Bible is so adamant about the futility of such faiths, then the "truth" the Bible puts forth had better be valid. In other words, there must be a great deal of evidence for the validity of Scripture as truth, or that verse would be nothing but a clever deception (not to mention the rest of it).

Interestingly, there is indeed a vast amount of evidence for the validity of Scripture--so much, in fact, there have been no accusations that have been able to stand their ground against it. What about the many accusations that the Old Testament was simply mythology? Ahh... but archeaology has brought silence to most of those and brought into serious question the rest. And, what about the theory Jesus never existed? Well, that has been soundly blasted out of the water. (For a small taste of this, see: Did Jesus Actually Exist?) And, what about the consipiracy theories--those that claim Jesus' disciples merely collaborated and made up the stories of Jesus so they could start a new religion? But, of course, those have been proven (through a study of extra-biblical historical documents, the religious and political history, the prophetic fulfillments, contextual coherency & accuracy, documental preservation, archeaology and eye-witness accounts) to also be false.

So, if there are so many evidences for the Bible's accuracy and validity and so few arguments against it, why doesn't everyone believe? Because spritual truth is given directly by God and only by God.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14) (See also Mat. 16:13-17)

It cannot be figured out. It does not come through study. It does not come by being born into it. It is a gift--and it is given only to those who have been called by God and respond to His call.

"No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unelss the Father has enabled him." (John 6:44-45, 65)

Now, we are all called by God at one time or another. (See: Jeremiah 7:13, Matt. 18:10-14, John 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:9) So, there are none that are not chosen to be His, but we are not all called at the same time nor in the same way. Also, even once we are called, we are not forced to believe. That is our choice--although God has made belief very available, simple and appealing. (I mean, what's not appealing about being forgiven for our sins, reunited with God--the omnipotent and loving Being who made us, having his all-knowing guidance during our lives and having the assurance of paradise with Him after we die?)

So, could Christians be buying into a false faith? No. Not as long as that faith is in Jesus Christ--fully God and fully man--as defined by the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments but no other books). The question then is, why haven't you accepted Jesus yet? Is it because God hasn't called? Or, is it because you haven't answered? Hopefully, though, it isn't because you have rejected Him outright. If so, I ask you to take another look.

Names, Titles and Descriptions of God

2008-11-24T13:21:00.000-08:00

A faithful God (Deut.32:4)
A forgiving God (Neh. 9:17)
A fortress of salvation (Ps. 28:8)
A glorious crown (Isa. 28:5)
A jealous and avenging God (Nah. 1:2)
A Master in heaven (Col. 4:1)
A refuge for the oppressed (Ps. 9:9)
A refuge for the poor (Isa. 25:4)
A sanctuary (Isa. 8:14)
A shade from the heat (Isa. 25:4)
A shelter from the storm (Isa. 25:4)
A source of strength (Isa. 28:6)
A stronghold in times of trouble (Ps. 9:9)
An ever-present help in trouble (Ps. 46:1)
Architect and builder (Heb. 11:10)
Builder of everythign (Heb. 3:4)
Commander of the army of the LORD (Josh. 5:14)
Creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19)
Defender of widows (Ps. 68:5)
Eternal King (Jer. 10:10)
Father (Isa. 9:6; 63:16; Matt. 5:16)
Father of compassion (2 Cor. 1:3)
Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9)
Father of the heavenly lights (Jas. 1:17)
God (Gen. 1:2)
God Almighty (El Shaddai; Gen. 17:1)
God and Father of Jesus Christ (I Pet. 1:3)
God Most High (Gen. 14:18-22)
God my Maker (Job 35:10)
God my Rock (Ps. 42:9)
God my Savior (Ps. 18:46; 27:9)
God my stronghold (Ps. 144:2; 2 Sam. 22:3)
God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Ex. 3:16)
God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3)
God of all mankind (Jer. 32:27)
God of glory (Ps. 29:3)
God of gods (Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2)
God of grace (1 Pet. 5:10)
God of peace (1 Thess. 5:23)
God of retribution (Jer. 51:56)
God of the living (Matt. 22:32)
God of the spirits (Num. 16:22)
God of truth (Ps. 31:5)
God our Father (Col. 1:2)
God our strength (Ps. 18:2)
God over all the kingdoms (Dan. 4:17)
God the Father (Col. 3:17)
God who avenges me (Ps. 18:47; 94:1)
God who relents from sending calamity (Joel 2:13)
Great and awesome God (Deut. 7:21)
Great and powerful God (Jer. 32:18)
Great, mighty, awesome God (Deut. 10:17)
He who blots out your transgressions (Isa. 43:25)
He who comforts you (Isa. 66:13)
He who forms the hearts of all (Ps. 33:15)
He who raised Christ from the dead (Rom. 8:1)
He who reveals His thoughts to man (Amos 4:13)
Helper of the fatherless (Ps. 10:14)
Him who is able to do more than all we ask or imagine (Eph. 3:20)
Him who is able to keep you from falling (Jude 24)
Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead (2 Tim. 4:1)
Holy Father (John 17:11)
Holy One (Rev. 16:5)
Holy One among you (Hos. 11:9)
I AM WHO I AM (Ex. 3:14)
Jealous (Ex. 20:5)
Judge of all the earth (Gen. 18:25)
King of glory (Ps. 24:7-10)
King of heaven (Dan. 4:37)
Living and true God (1 Thess. 1:9)
Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:18)
Lord God Almighty (Rev. 4:8; 16:7; 21:22)
LORD is Peace (Judg. 6:24)
LORD Most High (Ps. 7:17)
LORD is my Banner (Ex. 17:15)
LORD my Rock (Ps. 28:1)
LORD of all the earth (Mic. 4:13; Zech. 4:14)
Lord of kings (Dan. 2:47)
LORD our God (Deut. 1:6, 10)
LORD our Maker (Ps. 95:6)
LORD who heals you (Ex. 15:26)
LORD who is there (of Jerusalem; Ezek. 48:35)
Lord who makes you holy (Heb. 2:11)
LORD who strikes the blow (Ezek. 7:9)
LORD will provide (Gen. 22:14)
Love (I John 4:8)
Maker of all things (Eccl. 11:5; Jer. 10:16)
Most High (Gen. 14:18-22)
My advocate (Job 16:19)
My Comforter in sorrow (Jer. 8:18)
My confidence (Ps. 71:5)
My helper (Ps. 118:7; Heb. 13:6)
My hiding place (Ps. 32:7)
My hope (Ps. 25:5, 21)
My light (Ps. 27:1)
My might rock (Ps. 62:7)
My refuge in times of trouble (Ps. 59:16)
My song (Ex. 15:2)
My strong deliverer (Ps. 140: 7)
My support (2 Sam. 22:19)
One to be feared (1 Chron. 16:25)
Only wise God (Rom. 16:27)
Our dwelling place (Ps. 90:1)
Our help and our shield (Ps. 33:20)
Our judge (1 Sam. 24:15)
Our lawgiver (Isa. 33:22)
Our leader (2 Chron. 13:12)
Our Mighty One (Isa. 33:21)
Our Redeemer (Isa. 47:4; 63:16)
Our refuge and strength (Ps. 46:1)
Righteous Father (John 17:25)
Rock of our salvation (Ps. 95:1)
Shepherd (Ps. 23:1)
Sovereign Lord (Acts 4:24)
The Almighty God (Gen. 49:25; Ruth 1:20)
The compassionate and gracious God (Ex. 34:6)
The Eternal God (Gen. 21:33)
The consuming fire (Isa. 33:!4)
The everlasting God (Isa. 40:28)
The exalted God (Mic. 6:6)
The faithful God (Deut. 7:9)
The gardener (husbandman; John 15:1)
The glorious Father (Eph. 1:17)
The glory of Israel (Mic. 1:15)
The God who saves me (Ps. 88:1)
The God who sees me (Gen. 16:13)
The great King above all gods (Ps. 95:3)
The just and mighty One (Job 34:17)
The living Father (John 6:57)
The Majestic Glory (2 Pet. 1:17)
The Majesty in heaven (Heb. 1:3)
The one who sustains me (Ps. 54:4)
The only God (Jude 1:25)
The potter (Jer. 18:6)
The rock in whom I take refuge (Ps. 18:2)
The spring of living water (Jer. 2:13)
The strength of my heart (Ps. 73:26)
The true God (1 Thess. 1:9)
You who judge righteously and test the heart and mind (Jer. 11:20)
Your glory (Ps. 57:11)
Your praise (Isa. 38:18; Ps. 71:8; 138:1)
Your very great reward (Gen. 15:1)

(This list was recorded in Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God workbook.)

Is Preterism Sound Doctrine?

2008-11-20T20:34:00.000-08:00

What is "Preterism"?

Preterism is the belief that the end time events prophesized in the New Testament have already happened. The great war of Armageddon in the book of Revelation occurred in the late 60's and early 70's AD when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, many Jews were killed and the rest were driven from Palestine. When Jesus talked about the end of the world, he did not mean that the physical world would be no more. He taught that the old Jewish worldview was coming to an end, to be replaced by a new concept, the Kingdom of God. Thus, all of the major elements in the book of Revelation (Tribulation, Armageddon, Rapture, etc.) actually took place in the first century AD.

How To Understand Confusing Biblical Passages:

Whenever there is confusion over a passage of Scripture, one must do the following: 1. Humble yourself to submit to the teaching of the Word--admitting you really don't know much about the ways of God (Isa. 55:8). 2. Ask the Holy Spirit--the Spirit of wisdom and understanding (Eph. 1:17) to help you understand as you read and then don't jump to any conclusions until you're certain He has answered. 3. Read the entire passage & consider it within the context of ALL Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). 4. Consider the meaning of the confusing words in their original languages*. 5. Avoid "proof-texting": simply looking for verses to support your view instead of considering the Bible as a whole. 6. WAIT and keep searching and praying! Sometimes God teaches you things over time. You can't expect to understand everything in an afternoon.

*The trouble of interpretation arises when we strictly rely on the English variances of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic words instead of returning to the original languages. Strictly speaking, the Bible is inerrant only in the original languages. Translations must be studied with the understanding that there are inherent difficulties within language translation--take it from someone who knows; I'm bilingual.

A Couple of Verses Explained Which Have Been Misunderstood:

Matthew 24:34: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things [the end time events] have happened." Trouble: Scholars agree that "these things" refers to end time events; however, they disagree as to what Jesus meant by "this generation". Preterists believe "this generation" meant specifically those who were alive at the time of Jesus' teaching. However, we have to recognize that Jesus had a tendency toward being cryptic--using earthly/physical references to teach spiritual things. The parables provide many examples of this, but perhaps an even better one is in John 2:18-21: "Then the Jews demanded of him, 'What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.' The Jews replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it again in three days?' But the temple he had spoken of was his body." Though Jesus said, "temple", what He meant was "body"--two very different words and very confusing to those around Him; however, later the truth of His statement became clear--even to his enemies and even before His actual resurrection (Matt. 27:63). So, given Jesus' tendency to cryptic messages and the vast amount of Scripture that is very specific about the events that are yet to come, it would be best to be careful in our interpretation of what Jesus intended to say here. Furthermore, the word "generation" lends itself quite easily to double meaning--even more so than the word "temple", in my opinion. The word "generation" in the Greek used here is "Genea", meaning: a space of time, circle of time, a race, an age of time. It could also mean the type of Jew in existence at that time, but it is not specific to a generation as we understand the term in English to mean the lifespan of one individual.

Matthew 10:23b: "I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Trouble: Given Jesus' cryptic language and His tendency to make seemingly simple statements which are actually pregnant with deeper spiritual meaning, one needs to really consider the Greek word for "city" in this passage. The word in the Greek is "polis", meaning, "city or town", but is very closely related to the word, "polemai", meaning "warfare, battle, fight or war". If you read the entire chapter you will note the vast number of references to warfare--both physical and spiritual. In fact, verse 34 states, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus' hearers would have understood the double meaning--that the "cities" they were going through would indeed be "battles". Furthermore, the Jews have not yet been reached. Due to the diaspora (the scattering of both the northern and southern tribes of Israel at the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians centuries earlier) not all of "cities of Israel" were even in Israel at that time. Even today they are scattered across the globe and still have not all been reached with the Gospel of Christ. This verse seems to say that Jesus Himself will have to be here before the Jews are all reached and, yet, since those Jews have consistently remained lost since then until even today, it seems obvious that we are still waiting for His return.

Others: There are various verses in Scripture that refer to Christ coming "soon" or that the time is "near"; and there is no doubt that some of these passages are difficult to understand; however, we must take these in light of how God--who is the Creator of time and not to be governed by it--intends. Naturally, we will not naturally understand God's ways. It must be taught to us through the Holy Spirt and through the Word. Here is one verse that sheds some light on how God sees the passage of time: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)

The Trouble of "Missing Events":

One of the primary arguments against preterism is the fact that there is little to no evidence that many of the end time prophesies have, indeed, occurred--let alone within the lifetimes of those who were there to hear Christ's teaching on the subject.

These "missing events" include:

False "Christs" which perform great signs and miracles, Wars, Famines, Earthquakes in various places, most of the believers leaving the faith, the gospel being preached to all nations, an abominable thing will be set up inside the holy place of the Temple, the flight of the people of Judea into the hills, Jesus Christ will appear in the sky and all nations of the earth will mourn, the sun and moon will be darkened, the stars will fall from the sky, the heavenly bodies will be shaken; a loud trumpet will sound, all believers from all around the world will be gathered (raptured) and taken to heaven as they go about their business, many will have long given up and cease to expect Christ's return, the appearance of the Antichrist, the appearance of the ten kings, the enforcement of all to take the mark of the beast or be beheaded, the inability of any without the mark of the beast to buy or sell, the 7 years of tribulation, the 200-million man army from the north, the drying up of the Euphrates River, the falling of 100-pound hailstones, the destruction of all of Satan's forces by the words of Christ's mouth, the battle of Armageddon, the imprisonment of Satan and his spiritual forces, the 1000 years of peace on earth.... and the list goes on and on and on....

How Do Preterists Get Around This Lack of Fulfillment of Prophesy?

The Bible takes a very dim view of false teachers and false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:22 states, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." In other words, if any prophesy goes unfulfilled, then that prophet is a liar. A prophet of God will be correct 100 percent of the time.

The preterists, however, do not say the prophesies went unfulfilled, they simply spiritualize them and try to make them appear to have been figurative only--not real prophesies or literal fulfillments at all. For example, they say that the "old earth", prophesied in Scripture to pass away, is the "Old Covenant". The new earth then becomes the "New Covenant" and the "elements" which Scripture says will burn with fervent heat are the elements of the law. Furthermore, it's quite interesting to watch preterist theologians (after their dogmatic defense of the literal interpretations of other passages of Scripture) try to squeeze the very specific number of the millennium--no less than 1,000 years--into the 40 years between 30 AD and 70 AD. The backflips they have to do with Scripture would make an Olympian beg for an ice-pack.

When we begin to study prophesy, a good place to look for how God both makes and fulfills prophesy is to those prophesies fulfilled by Jesus Himself when He first came to Earth in bodily form. We must ask: Were the prophesies specific in nature? Were the prophesies fulfilled in a specific manner? Were the fulfillments easily recognized? Did all of the prophesies come true up to that point? Were the prophesies about literal, physical realities? Were the prophesies fulfilled literally and physically? To each of these questions, we must respond with a resounding "Yes!" So, it stands to reason that when there are prophesies surrounding the end times that call for "earthquakes in various places" (Matt. 24:7), "an army of 200 million soldiers on horseback" (Rev. 9:16) or "100-pound hail stones" (Rev. 16:21), that those are literal, physical prophesies that must be fulfilled. Well, have they?

So, Is Preterism Sound Doctrine? Based on what I've seen, I would have to say, no.

What Are the Dangers?

When Scripture can, at a whim, be taken as "figurative" in order to make it fit with our worldview, we are straying onto very dangerous ground. Suddenly, anything we dislike, can be rationalized away. Convenient, isn't it? Instead of basing our faith on God and His instruction, we are now trusting in ourselves--massaging our own wants and desires. We no longer even have to have a relationship with Him--we just have to find the path of least resistance toward a "warm and fuzzy" conscience and get on it. (But, beware! A deep pit of legalism waits just down this road!) In fact, why bother taking anything Jesus said seriously? I mean, after all, He could be a bit of a battle-axe sometimes--all that talk about how even looking at a woman lustfully being sin and taking a whip after those guys trying to make a living on Temple grounds. And, while we're hard at the task of stripping away anything that pricks our consciences or makes us afraid or confused, why bother believing in Jesus at all--or even in God?

Do you see how dangerous it is to pretend we have an intellectual superiority over the Scriptures? I'm not denying there are confusing passages within it's pages. That's part of the point! Jesus' words were often very confusing to His disciples. Why did He speak in riddles so often? So that they would SEEK HIM--so that they would RELY on the HIM and, later, on the HOLY SPIRIT, not on themselves to understand spiritual things (Prov. 3:5-6). Remember, only the Holy Spirit can reveal spiritual truth. Reading the Bible alone isn't going to do it.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:14)

Names, Titles and Descriptions of Jesus

2008-11-20T14:49:00.000-08:00

A Nazarene (Matt. 2:23; Mark 14:67)
All (Col. 3:11)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8)
Anointed One (Actsw 4:26, Ps. 2:2)
Apostle and high priest (Heb. 3:1)
Author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of life (Acts 3:15)
Author of their salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Branch of the LORD (Isa. 4:2)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of life (John 6:48)
Bridegroom (Luke 5:34-35)
Chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chosen and precious cornerstone (2 Pet. 2:6)
Christ Jesus my Lord (Phil. 3:8)
Christ Jesus our hope (I Tim. 1:1)
Christ of God (Luke 9:20)
Consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25)
Crown of splendor (Isa. 62:3)
Eternal life (1 John 5:20)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful and true witness (Rev. 3:14)
First to rise from the dead (Acts 26:23)
Firstborn from among the dead (Col. 1:18)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor. 15:20)
Fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2)
Friend of tax collectors and "sinners" (Matt. 11:19)
God over all (Rom. 9:5)
God's Son (John 11:4)
Great high priest (Heb. 13:20)
Great light (Matt. 4:16)
Great Shepherd of the sheep (Heb. 13:20)
Guarantee of a better covenant (Heb. 7:22)
He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (John 6:33)
He who searches hearts and minds (Rev. 2:23)
Head of every man (1 Cor. 11:3)
Head of the body, the church (Col. 1:18)
Head over every power and authority (Col. 2:10)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
Him ... who died and came to life again (Rev. 2:8)
Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins (Rev. 1:5)
His one and only Son (1 John 4:9)
Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14)
Holy One of God (John 6:69)
Holy servant Jesus (Acts 4:27, 30)
Hope of Israel (Jer. 17:13)
Horn of salvation (Luke 1:69)
Image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15)
Immanuel (God with us; Matt. 1:23)
Indescribable gift (2 Cor. 9:15)
Jesus (Matt. 1:21)
Jesus Christ (John 1:17)
Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 1:4; 5:21)
Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:6)
Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 1:24; Matt. 26:71)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
KING OF KINGS (Rev. 19:16)
King of the ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb of God (John 1:29; 1:36)
Light for revelation to the Gentiles (Luke 2:32)
Light of men (John 1:4)
Light of the world (John 8:12)
Living bread that came down from heaven (John 6:51)
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18)
Lord (Kurios; Josh. 3:11, 13)
Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
LORD OF LORDS (Rev. 19:16)
Lord of peace (2 Thess. 3:16)
Lord of the harvest (Matt. 9:38)
Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8)
Lord (Rabboni; John 20:16)
Man accredited by God (Acts 2:22)
Man of sorrows (Isa. 53:3)
Master (Luke 8:24; 9:33; Col. 4:1)
Mediator of a new covenant (Heb. 9:15; 12:24)
Merciful and faithful high priest (Heb. 2:17)
Messenger of the covenant (Mal. 3:1)
Messiah (John 1:41)
Morning star (Rev. 2:28)
My friend (Jer. 3:4)
My intercessor (Job 16:20)
One who makes men holy (Heb. 2:11)
One who speaks to the Father in our defense (1 John 2:1)
One who will arise to rule over the nations (Rom. 15:12)
Our glorious Lord Jesus Christ (Jas. 2:1)
Our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1)
Our only Sovereign and Lord (Jude 1:4)
Our Passover lamb (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our peace (Eph. 2:14)
Our righteousness, holiness and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Physician (Luke 4:23)
Prince and Savior (Isa. 9:6)
Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6)
Prince of princes (Dan. 8:25)
Prince of the hosts (Dan. 8:11)
Ransom for all men (1 Tim. 2:6)
Refiner and purifier (Mal. 3:3)
Resurrection and the life (John 11:25)
Righteous Judge (2 Tim. 4:8)
Righteous One (Acts 3:14; 7:52)
Rock eternal (rock of ages; Isa. 26:4)
Ruler of God's creation (Rev. 3:14)
Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5)
Savior of the world (John 4:42)
Second man (1 Cor. 15:47)
Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Pet. 2: 25)
Son of Man (John 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27)
Son of the Blessed One (Mark 14:61)
Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16)
Son of the Most High God (Luke 8:28)
Source of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9)
Sure foundation (Isa. 33:6)
Teacher (Matt. 23:10)
The Amen (2 Cor. 1:20)
The Beginning and the End (Rev. 21:6)
The bright Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
The exact repreentation of His (God's) being (Heb. 1:13)
The First and the Last (Rev. 1:17)
The gate (door; John 10:7, 9)
The good shepherd (John 10:11)
The Head (Eph. 4:15; Col. 2:19)
The last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
The life (John 14:6)
The Living One (Rev. 1:18)
The living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
The LORD Our Righteousness (Jer. 23:6)
The man from heaven (1 Cor. 15:49)
The man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)
The most holy (Dan. 9:24)
The One and Only (John 1:14, 18)
The only God our Savior (Jude 1:25)
The radiance of God's glory (Heb. 1:3)
The rising of the sun (Isa. 59:19)
The stone the builders rejected (1 Pet. 2:7)
The testimony given in its proper time (1 Tim. 2:6)
The true light (John 1:9)
The true vine (John 15:1)
The truth (John 14:6)
The way (John 14:6)
The Word (logos; John 1:1)
True bread from heaven (John 6:32)
Wisdom from God (1 Cor. 1:30)
Wonderful Counselor (Isa. 9:6)
Word of God (Rev. 19:13)
Word of life (1 John 1:1)
Your life (Col. 3:3)
Your salvation (Isa. 30:15; Eph. 1:13)

Names, Titles and Descriptions of the Holy Spirit

2008-11-11T14:11:00.000-08:00

A deposit (earnest; 2 Cor. 5:5)
Another Counselor (John 14:16; 26)
Breath of the Almighty (Job 32:8)
Holy One (1 John 2:20)
Holy Spirit (John 1:33)
Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 4:30)
Seal (2 Cor. 1:22)
Spirit of Christ (1 Pet. 1:11)
Spirit of counsel and of power (Isa. 11:2)
Spirit of faith (2 Cor. 4:13)
Spirit of fire (Isa. 4:4)
Spirit of glory (1 Pet. 4:14)
Spirit grace and supplication (Zech. 12:10)
Spirit of his Son (Gal. 4:6)
Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4)
Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19)
Spirit of judgement (Isa. 4:4)
Spirit of justice (Isa. 28:6)
Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Isa. 11:2)
Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2)
Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11)
Spirit of sonship (adoption; Rom. 8:15)
Spirit of the living God (2 Cor. 3:3)
Spirit of the LORD (Isa. 63:14; Luke 4:18)
Spirit of the Soverign LORD (Isa. 61:1)
Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 1 John 4:6)
Spirit of wisdom and understanding (Isa. 11:2)
The gift (Acts. 2:38; 10:45)
The promised Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33)
The same gift (Acts 11:17)
Voice of the Almighty (Ezek. 1:24)
Voice of the LORD (Hag. 1:12; Isa. 30:31)

(Taken from Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God workbook.)

God of Love or God of Wrath?

2008-11-02T22:43:00.001-08:00

[This topic was written and posted in response to a request made by a reader. Thanks, Vince! To ask a question or suggest a topic of your own, click here.]

Why do we so often think of the God of the New Testament as a God of LOVE and the God of the Old Testament as a God of WRATH, and yet insist they are one and the same? Going even further, doesn't the Bible claim that God never changes? ("I the LORD do not change." Malachi 3:6, and see also James 1:17.) So, why does a changeless God appear wrathful and angry in the Old Testament, but loving and patient in the New Testament? Is this the same God?

I think the answers to these questions lie in developing a better understanding of God's nature--not an easy or simple thing, but a very worthy pursuit, all the same. I don't have time to delineate ALL of God's characteristics--indeed, no one even knows all of them!--but for the purpose of answering this question, I think we can focus on five major ones: God's Holiness, God's Love, God's Justice, God's Mercy and God's Jealousy. (This post also assumes that God is also all-knowing, all-present and all-powerful, as well as the Creator of the universe and the Triune God--God the Father, God the Son [Jesus] and God the Holy Spirit.)

I will first briefly describe each characteristic individually and then I will compare the Old Testament with the New Testament to see if all three of these characteristics appear within them. Finally, I will address some of the major biblical examples for why God seems to have "gone soft" in the New Testament as compared to the Old and explain the real change that has taken place within how we now relate to God.

God's Holiness

Though some may disagree, I believe Holiness, not love is God's primary characteristic (if one could be chosen above the others). As defined by the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Holiness is: "Chief attribute of God and a quality to be developed in his people. 'Holiness' and the adjective 'holy' occur more than 900 times in the Bible. The primary OT word for 'holiness' means 'to cut' or 'to separate'. Fundamentally, holiness is a cutting off or separation from what is unclean, and consecration to what is pure."

God's Love

Though God is primarily holy, it was His characteristic of love that motivated Him to create man and woman, to initiate an intimate relationship with them (and us) and then, even after they (and we) turned their backs on Him in favor of becoming enslaved to sin and forfeit to Satan, to offer a means by which they might be rescued and returned into a harmonious & pure relationship with Him--by coming as Jesus Christ to give His life as a ransom for them and bridge the gap between a holy God and a sinful people. Godly love is perhaps best described in I Corinthians 13, but there are many, many passages in both the Old and New Testaments that praise God's loving nature.

God's Justice

Webster says that "Just" means: 1. adhering to what is fair, honest and moral, 2. rational and informed, 3. in accordance with correct principles, 4. agreeable to truth or fact, 5. given or awarded rightly, and 6. proper or right. The Bible describes God's justice as the quality that causes Him to be a righteous judge--rewarding righteousness and never allowing evil to go unpunished. To understand, then, how we--who are evil--can ever be forgiven instead of simply receiving his just punishment, we need to understand God's mercy:

God's Mercy

Webster says of mercy: "1. compassion shown toward an offender or an enemy, 2. a disposition to forgive or forbear..." Though God's characteristics of holiness and justice require that all sin be punished, His love and His mercy caused Him to provide a way for us to escape destruction and be reunited with Him, while still dealing with the issue of our sinfulness. In the Old Testament this was done through the sacrifice of an animal or through a scapegoat. In the New Testament this was done once and for all by Jesus Christ--God in the flesh--who willingly allowed Himself to be crucified in our place and then rose from the grave, evidencing God's power over both sin and the death penalty sin demands.

God's Jealousy

Though we often think of jealousy as an unfavorable quality, God exhibits a righteous jealousy--and a very active one, at that. Webster says that jealous means: 1. resentful and envious, as of someone's attainments, 2. fearful of losing another's affection, 3. troubled by suspicions of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., and 4. vigilant in guarding something. My favorite is the last definition, though the others could apply as well. God, like a man desperately in love with his wife, becomes very jealous when our affection--due rightfully to Him--strays onto other things, people or gods. He responds by being "vigilant in guarding" us from those things that would draw our love from Him--through warnings, punishments and great displays of His love and power. Eventually, though, we must choose: God's salvation or our own lusts?

Characteristic	Old Testament Example*	New Testament Example*
Holiness	"...'Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy." (Lev. 19:2)	"...'Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.'" (Rev. 4:8)
Love	"I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness." (Jer. 31:3)	"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (I John 4:8)
Justice	"Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free." (Prov. 11:21)	"God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well." (2 Thes. 1:6-7a)
Mercy	"Remember, O LORD, your great mercy and love, for they are from old." (Psalm 25:6)	"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (Eph. 2:4-5)
Jealousy	"You shall not bow down to them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God...." (Exodus 20:5)	"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons too: you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. Are you trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy?" (I Cor. 10:21-22a)

* There are many more references in both the Old and New Testaments for these characteristics. I am providing only one example of each, though some of these verses mention more than one of these characteristics.

Has the God of the Old Testament Gone Soft?

As you can see from the above comparisons of God's primary characteristics, both the Old and the New Testaments describe God in very similar terms. Obviously, this is the same God--so why does He seem to act differently in the Old Testament than He does in the New? It kind-of reminds me of parenting--with the first kid, you're on top of everything, but by the time you have the fourth or fifth, you tend to not care so much whether they eat a cookie before dinner or not. Is this what happened with God? Has He gotten tired and resigned Himself to "picking His battles"? Has God gone soft?

Here are some prime examples of God's wrath as displayed in the Old Testament:

The Flood:

In Genesis 6-8, God got so fed up with mankind that He decided to wipe them all out and start over, sparing only one family. Everyone died--men, women, children and all the animals of the land or air. (If that's not wrath, I don't know what is!)

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed:

In Genesis 19, God got so sick of the stench of the sinfulness in these two cities that He rained down burning sulfur on them. (FYI: Burning sulfur will easily burn through metal. Yep! That would do it!)

The 10 Plagues on Egypt:

Exodus 7-11 describes some pretty horrible plagues God sent on the Egyptians to persuade them to free the Israelites from bondage, culminating in the deaths of all the firstborn sons of any family that didn't mark their door frames with the blood of a sacrificed lamb. But, wait... is this an example of His wrath toward the Egyptians or His great love and deliverance of the Hebrew people? Hmmm....

Destruction of the Canaanites:

Much of the Old Testament describes various ways the Canaanites and the other people groups of that region were attacked by the Hebrew people. In fact, God told them to wipe these people out completely—down to the last child and to even kill all their animals, though the Hebrews didn't completely obey this command.

After reading through all of that, anyone might tremble at the thought of this God who often seems content to heartlessly order the destruction of many. But, if one is willing to read further, he comes to the New Testament and it's like a breath of fresh air.

Here are some contrasting examples of how God appears loving in the New Testament:

Jesus' Miracles:

Jesus healed the sick, lame and the blind, fed hungry multitudes, cast out demons, and even raised the dead. (Ex.: man with leprosy: Matt. 8:1-4; sick and demon-possessed: Matt. 8:14-17 & 28-34; paralytic man: Matt. 9:1-8; a dead girl and a sick woman: Matt. 9:18-26; a two blind men and a mute/demon-possessed man: Matt. 9:27-33; fed 5,000: Matt. 14:13-21, etc.)

Jesus with the Children:

Jesus allowed the children to come to Him when the disciples were trying to shoo them away. (Matt. 19:14)

Jesus facing his enemies in the Garden of Gethsemane:

When Peter cut off a soldier's ear with his sword, Jesus told Peter to knock it off and healed the man. (Luke 22:49-51)

Jesus on the cross:

Not only did Jesus show mercy to one of the thieves being crucified along with him (despite His own enormous agony), He also asked God to forgive those who were crucifying Him. (Luke 23:26-43)

When recalling such stories to mind, the God of the Old Testament certainly seems much harsher than how God acted in the Person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. However, I think we are forgetting two very important things. 1. There are some very fine, but often overlooked, examples of God's love in the Old Testament as well as His wrath in the New Testament (some of these are outlined below.) AND, 2. The way God interacted with those before Christ's death and resurrection was in accordance with the Old Covenant, while the way He interacted with them after Christ's resurrection was in accordance with the New Covenant--which we are currently enjoying. (Comparison to follow.)

God's Love in the Old Testament

Contrary to how we normally think of the Old Testament God, the most harmonious relationship God has ever had with man is described not in the New Testament, but in the Old. This was the relationship God had with man and woman (Adam and Eve) before they sinned. In that relationship, they actually walked in the Garden with God, spoke to Him face to face, conversed freely with Him and were naked before Him without feeling ashamed. (Genesis 2 & 3) Never again has man had such a free and open relationship with God. Not only does this picture show us something about humanity, but it shows us about God's original design--that of an intimate, open and free relationship between Himself and us--and of His inclination toward open revelation and communication, not the image of separation between God and man as shown through the rest of the Old Testament. In other words, God's natural inclination and desire is for an intimate, loving relationship with us--not a relationship of disunity, anger and wrath. Yet because of the Fall--the event in which dominion of this earth, first given to us by God, was handed over to Satan when in our free will we chose to disobey God--a chasm opened up between God and man. This chasm was not closed until Jesus came to pay the cost of our disobedience through His death and resurrection.

God's Wrath in the New Testament

Though Jesus has ushered in a new era of openness between God and man, we often make the mistake of thinking He has lightened up when it comes to the issue of sin. I can assure you that in this regard God has not changed! God is still holy! God is still just! Sin will still be punished! If you take a good look at Jesus and His teachings throughout the Gospels, you will find that never does He gloss over the issue of sin. In fact, He goes even deeper, requires even more and demands higher standards than even the religious zealots and legalists of the day. No, He does not require legalistic ritual, but rather purity of heart--something the Law cannot govern--something that is between God and man alone. For example, the Law said "Do not commit adultery", but Jesus said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28) The Law requires action, but God requires a loving heart, for God knows that if you love Him, you will obey Him. (John 14:23-24) Another good example of God's wrath in the New Testament is in the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11 who were struck dead by God when they lied to God. So, no! God has certainly NOT gone soft!

NOTE: God's wrath, when shown in either New or Old Testaments, is always in response to at least one of the following: a form of idolatry (putting self or something else above God), willful sin or hypocrisy. His wrath is triggered when His desire for a love relationship with a pure people is thwarted by sin, thus igniting His righteous jealousy.

Below is a very basic outline of the differences between the Old and New Covenants. (Hebrews 8-11 describes it better.)

	Old Covenant	New Covenant
Given Through	Abraham	Jesus Christ
When	Abraham to the Messiah	For all time.
What	The Law given to the Jews by God that told them how to set themselves apart in obedience to Him.	Grace given to men through the death and resurrection of Jesus through which they might be reconciled to God.
Ramifications	Was only for the Jews.	Was for all men.
	Had to make animal sacrifices.	Jesus was the ultimate, once and for all sacrifice for yesterday, today and forever.
	Life under the Law. (Cleanliness rituals, circumcision, etc.)	Live under grace. (Jesus didn't revoke the law; He fulfilled the Law.)
	Were separated from God while awaiting the Messiah to bridge the gap between them and God's presence.	Jesus, the Messiah, had come! He bridged the gap; the curtain was torn in two (symbolizing that man and God no longer had to remain separated. Mark 15:38)
	External influence only of the Holy Spirit.	The Holy Spirit actually indwells the believer, allowing Christ to live through him or her and granting them access to Christ's righteousness and power.

As you can see, the relationship between man and God seems much more strained in the Old Testament because they were still covered in their sin. God and man were still separated by the sinfulness--the uncovered impurity of their hearts. They were under the Old Covenant--under the Law, not under grace. Remember, God is holy--"separated" or "cut off" from anything impure. It is His nature--His primary characteristic and thus He cannot go against His own holiness or He wouldn't be God! But, because of His great love--described first and best in the Old Testament--He decided to make a way for us to again be reconciled to Him--through Jesus Christ.

The God of the Old Testament--complete with vengeful wrath and fists full of destruction--is the SAME God as the God of the New Testament, who laid His life down as a ransom for many. His holiness, love, justice, mercy and jealousy are fully intact today.

Perhaps the best picture of both God's holy wrath and His love is this one, which appears in the Old Testament:

"For this is what the high and lofty One says--he who lives forever, whose name is holy: 'I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me--the breath of man that I have created. I was enraged by his sinful greed; I punished him, and hid my face in anger, yet he kept on in his willful ways. I have seen his ways, but I will heal him; I will guide him and restore comfort to him..." (Isaiah 57:15-18)

Is Belief in Hell Damaging to Our Children’s Psyches?

2008-10-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

Hell is not a popular topic today—not even among Christians. Nobody likes to consider this unsavory—even terrifying—prospect. Death is scary enough in its inevitability. Do we really have to add to it the fear of an eternity of burning damnation—to be the object of torture by demons without any possibility of release? In fact, such beliefs are not only unpopular, they are coming under serious attack. Some believe that religious freedom should be limited to only those beliefs which meet with a general, national consensus as to what is considered psychologically benign and beneficial (which, of course, is no religious freedom at all). In fact, some religious beliefs are considered psychological abuse and are being compared to some of the worst crimes against humanity ever committed. For example, Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, speaker and author said:

"Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?"

Let me respond with a true story:

Ken, a friend of mine, once told me that although he had grown up as a confirmed atheist and refused to even consider if Christ's life and death had any impact on today's reality, as a child he would often go to bed at night in absolute terror that he might die and go to hell. "What if?" he would ask himself in the dark recesses of his mind. "What if there is something horrible awaiting me after this life?" Ken said he often cried himself to sleep because of this terror that he simply couldn't avoid. When I heard that story (and although this man had long since become a Christian and was secure in his eternity with Christ) I felt such sorrow for that little boy. My heart ached for what he had experienced and my eyes were opened to the pain that so many people—young and old—face on a regular basis. What a horrible way to go to sleep at night! What a horrible thing it is to live in such fear!

Interestingly, though I was raised in a Christian home where the idea of hell was quite prevalent, I never experienced what Ken did. I never worried about going to hell. I never cried myself to sleep over it. I never really gave it much thought. Furthermore, my own children (ages 11, 8 & 5) have not once seemed the least bit concerned about hell. We've talked about it from time to time and they've heard about it at church and the older ones have even encountered it in the Bible, but I've never once been awakened in the night to deal with a nightmare about hell. I've dealt with nightmares about enemies, monsters and hurt feelings, but never have I heard, "Mom, I can't sleep because I'm scared I might die and go to hell." It's simply not something I've dealt with—and here's why: when you know you have been fully forgiven and are completely loved by Jesus Christ, hell has absolutely no power over you. The only people who fear hell are those who aren't secure in their relationship with Jesus Christ. Now, I'm not saying that this lack of security is only found in non-Christian homes or among non-Christians. There are many Christians who simply haven't come to the place in their faiths where they understand what Christ's mercy and grace really is. There may also exist some psychotic parents out there (though I've not personally come across any) who might tell their children horrible lies like, "if you don't obey me, God won't like you anymore and He'll send you to hell." This, in my opinion, would be very akin to child abuse, and Mr. Dawkins would undoubtedly agree. However, I've never heard of such things happening in a Christian home and I've spent my entire life around Christians.

The fact is, the kind of fear we're talking about is not, primarily, a problem Christians struggle with. What the atheists might, therefore, accuse us of, then, is spreading it to their children. Now, I certainly can't blame them for having a problem with this—I would if I were in their shoes; however, due to the nature of our basic disagreement (whether or not God exists and has a beneficial interest in our lives) we may not be able to find much more common ground. Still, let me provide an approximate example:

Let's say my child came home one day in near hysterics over something she had heard at school. "Teacher says that there is a meteorite heading for earth and if we don't get into a bomb shelter quick, we're all going to die!"

"Nonsense!" I tell her, trying to calm her fears—absolutely livid with that monster of a teacher for causing such trauma. "There is no meteorite heading for earth! That's just silly! Look up into the sky. Do you see a meteorite? No? Then, you don't have to worry about it. Run along and play."

Now… that would be fine, except for one small detail. What if there really was a meteorite heading for earth? What if I'd actually already heard about it on news reports and from friends, but had refused to listen? What if I had been offered a secure place in a bomb shelter with some friends, but had vehemently turned them down? Who is the monster now? Obviously, diagnosing "psychological damage" is dependent upon the reasons for its appearance. Some psychological stress is merited; some is not. What we need to determine, then, is this: "Is Hell real?" (See: Is There a Hell?)

Do I Have to Believe in the Bible to Accept Jesus?

2008-10-12T14:49:00.000-07:00

A think a common misconception among Christians and non-Christians alike, is that one must accept the entire Bible as true and reliable before one is able to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. And, since I personally uphold the Bible as fully reliable, I would like to start there to find the answer to this question. What are the "requirements" for salvation?

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

AND

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

There is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ. The Bible also makes it perfectly clear that acts of service or works cannot be used as tickets into Heaven or as payment for God's love or favor.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

The process of "being saved" is not nearly so complicated as we try to make it. It is a recognition of who Jesus is and what He has done on my behalf. It is a falling in love with Him. It is a commitment to a love relationship with Jesus. That is salvation, because all of the "work" was already done by Jesus on our behalf. The rest that we do--obedience, Scripture study and belief, acts of service--comes secondary. For though these things are pleasing to God if offered to Him from a loving heart, none of them can get you into Heaven. Only Jesus Christ can do that. (See: How Do I Accept Jesus?)

Once you have begun on that journey of getting to know Jesus, then take a look at how He used and relied on Scripture. As you allow Him to be your guide in life, allow Him to be your guide in your attitudes toward Scripture. It may be a long process. The key is to keep moving forward with Christ as your Guide.

The Battleground of the Mind

2008-10-01T10:42:00.000-07:00

"Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.” (Ps. 19:14)

I love this verse. I love it because it is a prayer. It is a request of God to guard those things which are sometimes the most difficult for us to control--our tongue and our thoughts. What's the difference between a sincere follower of Christ and a hypocrite? Often there is nothing outwardly visible that one can point out to expose a hypocrite. Often, the difference is in our heart and in our thoughts. The only one who can know these things, other than ourselves, is God.

“…for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts...” (1 Chron. 28:9)

We might be able to fool other people--even people who are close to us--but we cannot fool God. He knows the motives of our heart. He sees the mental battles we wage against hatred and bitterness and envy. He hears the unspoken curses we hurl at those around us. God knows that faith and love and obedience begin in the heart and in the mind... deep within those secret, hidden places, where only we and God can reside. Satan knows this, too, and he is desperate to conquer your mind. He will wage war against you in every way in order to gain control of that vital piece of territory--your thought life.

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:13-15)

But we do not have to relinquish ground to the enemy. The Bible tells us: If God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31) and "You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world." (I John 4:4)

It is so important for us to preserve our thoughts for things that are worthy of God. It is our first act of worship each day and our first line of defense against temptation. When we are tempted to let our thoughts linger on impure ideas or on unkind thoughts, we should instead say, "I refuse to let my mind go there. Instead, I will think of a way to offer God praise at this moment." And then, let the praises flow. Your thoughts are your own. You must learn to take them captive if you ever want to develop self-control in other areas of your life. God offers His help.

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:5)

Would God Forgive a Sinner Like Me?

2008-09-16T14:16:00.000-07:00

Have you struggled with the fear that you are already too far down the wrong road to ever turn back? Have you doubted that God would be willing to save you after all the wrong you have done?

Paul, the writer of most of the New Testament, wrote:
"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life." (I Timothy 1:15-16)

And Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17)

As He said, Jesus did not come for perfect people, but for flawed people. He does not expect us to clean ourselves up first, because that would be impossible. For how can we be made clean unless we have the Cleaner? Jesus is the Cleaner and His forgiveness is available to anyone who will believe in Him and accept that forgiveness. Jesus will take us just as we are, but He will not leave us that way. God takes a very dim view of sin. (See this post.) Accepting Christ's forgiveness is not simply a claim to fire insurance, it is entering into a relationship with God--a relationship that will change and grow over time.

So, no matter who you are or what you've done, forgiveness is yours for the taking and the Bible promises, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

Need a little help with that first step? Go to this post: How Do I Accept Jesus?

Then, the next time such things worry you, consider this passage:

This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. (I John 3:19-20)

Is There a Hell?

2008-09-05T13:31:00.000-07:00

Do people still really believe in Hell?
Is there really a place where damned souls will go? Is life really some ambiguous test to see who’s good and who’s bad? People throughout history have disagreed about the nature of hell, its existence and its purpose. However, in this post, I will deal with the biblical explanation and illuminate some of the misconceptions, both within secular society and Christian tradition.

What is the biblical origination of hell?
The first time Hell is mentioned in the (KJV) Bible is in Deuteronomy 32:22. The Hebrew word is “lwaX” and its English equivalent is “sheol”, meaning, “sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit, Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead: place of no return, without praise of God, wicked sent there for punishment, righteous not abandoned to it, of the place of exile, of extreme degradation in sin” (Strong’s).

In the New Testament, Jesus used the Greek word, “gevenna” when speaking of spiritual hell; however, the word also referred to an actual place on earth. Gehenna is the English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which, in turn, is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom”. (Baker Ency. Of the Bible, v.1) Strong’s tells us: “Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.” Additionally, the Valley of Hinnom was used for ritual infant sacrifice to the pagan god, Molech. Later, after King Josiah rid the region of such practices, the valley was used, as Strong’s tells us, for burning of refuse and dead animals. Interestingly, it was also used as a place to burn the dead bodies of criminals.

Unfortunately, both terms—sheol and gehenna—have been mistakenly considered to be synonymous with “hell” and are translated the same in some English versions of the Bible—hence, the confusion among Christians as to their real meaning. It is important to note that “sheol” in the Old Testament refers to a temporary abode of the lost between death and their final resurrection unto judgment. “Gehenna” is the place of ultimate and everlasting punishment where Satan, his demons and the wicked will be cast (Matthew 10:28). Additionally, “Tartarus” (used only once in 2 Peter 2:4) designates the place where the angels who fell during the original satanic revolt are imprisoned.

What is Hell like?
Hell (Gehenna) is described by Jesus as “a fire that shall never be quenched” in Mark 9:43 & 45, which seems to be a reference to Isaiah 66:24. Other terms associated with Hell include “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:46), “torments” (Luke 16:23), “…kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” (Revelations 6:8), “Lake of Fire” & “second death” (Revelations 20:14), “burning brimstone” (Revelations 19:20), “…tormented day and night forever” (Revelations 20:10), and “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12, 22:13 & 25:30). Pretty much, this isn’t somewhere you want to go, and if you believe that going to hell is inevitable for you, you are believing a lie.

Did God create Hell?
I don’t think the Bible is especially clear on this subject. We know that it was “prepared” (Matthew 25:41), but it does not specifically state who created it or how Hell was created. It is certainly possible that it was prepared by God; however, one idea is that Hell is not so much a place as it is a state of being (which would make sense given the fact that souls exist in a spiritual rather than physical form). This state of being is eternal separation from God, which by its very definition could be a place of torment. In other words, it is possible that Hell is not so much a created place as it is a place/state from which God has removed His presence, His protection and His glory (all things which both the lost and the saved alike enjoy here on earth). Could it be that when God leaves, hell is simply the natural result? This concept, I believe, is more in line with the nature of God as I see it described in the Bible. God desires that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and neither does He delight even in the destruction of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23), but instead desires that all would live (John 3:16,17).

Who is Hell for?
Matthew 25:41 specifically states that hell was “prepared for the devil and his angels”. God has absolutely no desire that any man or woman go to Hell. He did not prepare Hell for us, but for Satan and his followers. In fact the Bible says, 1Thessalonians 5:9 - "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." God has only ever wanted us to spend eternity with Him in heaven. God has chosen us for paradise; however, He is not going to force us to choose Him. To be with God means to be reconciled to God, made pure and brought into a love relationship with Him. He offers this freely, but He will not force it on us. We must love Him back—and love demanded is no love at all.

Does God send people to Hell?
Matthew 25:31-46 seems to be the best description of the way in which people end up in Hell. When Christ “sends” people to Hell in this passage, it’s not so much “sending” as it is directing souls toward the only available alternative for those who can not enter into Heaven. It’s either-or, not both, and there’s no middle ground or third option. Either you get into Heaven through Christ’s payment or you don’t because you have rejected His sacrifice on your behalf. The choice, then, is entirely ours. In that sense, Christ does not “send” anyone to Hell. However, we might choose to send ourselves. This passage shows how the decision had been made long before these people stood before Christ—a decision made only by them.

Who will go to Hell?
Revelations 20:15 Though God desires that no human man or woman go to Hell, the Bible is clear that some will end up there. This verse shows that only those whose name is not found in the Book of Life, will go to Hell. The Book of Life is a record of all those who have accepted Christ’s substitutional payment for sin. If your name is written in this book, then you have nothing to worry about.

How can I escape Hell?
I’m not big on selling Christ as a form of fire insurance; however, neither can I deny that escaping Hell is a big bonus to getting to know the only One who holds the keys to Heaven. The fact is Jesus Christ—fully God, fully man, a member of the Triune God—came to earth in human form so that He might live a perfect life and die in our place. Only a perfect sacrifice can negate the hold Satan has on our souls. By rights, we belong to Satan, thanks to our long legacy of being in sin; however, if a payment is made on our behalf—the blood of a perfect sacrifice—we have the right to accept that payment and enter into God’s presence in Heaven. Through that payment our sin is covered, our guilt is released and our righteousness in God’s eyes secured. We are made “perfect” as Christ is perfect. (That is not to say that we will never again sin, but that our souls have been purchased by God through Jesus Christ and we now belong to Him and are freed from our bondage to Satan.)

Now, that’s the math, so to speak, but here’s the heart of the issue: Jesus longs for us to be present in Heaven with Him one day, yes—but more importantly, He longs for our love. He wants to enter into a harmonious, intimate love relationship with Him. He wants to be present in our lives from this moment until we draw our dying breath. He wants to be our strength and our joy and our confidence in times of trouble. And, when hard times come we know that we have nothing to fear, for God is true to His promises and once we are in His loving hands, nothing can snatch us out of His grasp. Psalm 49:15, 16 & John 10:28 See also How Do I Accept Jesus?

Should Experience or Feelings be a Basis for Faith?

2008-08-12T16:13:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you have come across religions who say something like this: "If you have a question about our faith and aren't sure it's really true or not, just pray and ask God to give you assurance. If you experience a burning in your chest through His Holy Spirit, then you know that these things can be trusted."

Or, perhaps, you have had some kind of hightened emotional experience connected with a religious belief and, though certain aspects of that belief seem to be contradictory, you are hesitant to question them because you do not want to dismiss the validity of that experience or admit that you could have been emotionally misled in some way.

Let me offer you these words of encouragement from the Bible: Test everything. Hold on to the good. I Thessalonians 5:21

God is a mysterious Being, to be sure;, and our interactions with Him will undoubtedly be quite emotional from time to time; however, He wants us to have a faith based on knowledge, wisdom and committed love, not simply emotion. Psalms 119:66 tells says, Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I believe in your commands. And, Proverbs 2:6 says, For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. (See also: Proverbs 8:10, Proverbs 11:9, Proverbs 20:15, Proverbs 23:12, Proverbs 24:3-4, Isaiah 33:6, Phillipians 1:9-11, Colossians 1:9, 2 Peter 1:5-11)

It's important to note that, while emotion itself is not a bad thing (it was given to us by God, after all), it was never intended as a means by which to determine truth. Why? Because emotions are deceptive and can be easily swayed and manipulated by various outside forces, not the least of which is Satan himself. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us, The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

So, if our own heart (i.e. our emotions) can be deceptive, how do we know if what the man behind the pulpit is saying is true or not? How do we know if someone is trying to deceive us? How do we know if our past emotional experiences were based on truth or on lies? We do some digging! We study and pray and then study some more. Then, once we determine that the Bible can be trusted, we use it as a lens through which we can test everything else. The Bible itself actually tells us to do so through the example of the Bereans: Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

You may have also noticed that these same religions that encourage a reliance on emotion, rarely encourage deep, personal study of the Bible--even if they claim that the Bible is one of their accepted religious texts. Much more emphasis is given to other, extra-biblical writings, which invariably contradict the Bible (and, hence, lead to this need for emotional validation, since intellectual validation is unobtainable.) However, the Bible welcomes deep study and is fully capable of standing up under scrutiny. God also warns us in I John 4:1-3 to be wary of those who would seek to mislead us:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ [as defined in the Bible--added by author] has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Remember, don't trust in your emotions or in your own reason, but search out these things in God's Word. Proverbs 28:26 reminds us, He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be kept safe. And Proverbs 3:5-6 says, Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Also, II Corinthians 13:5 gives us some good advice: Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

Let me also share one more short passage with you, which is one of my personal favorites:

James 1:5-6

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask of God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.

Remember, God desires to speak to us--to our hearts, yes, but also to our minds. God, who created us, including every aspect of our beings--our emotions, our intellect, our sexuality, our spirits, our bodies, etc.--can, therefore, speak to every part of us, fill every part of us and fully sustain every part of us. We don't have to close off our minds in order to experience God--quite the opposite! And, when things don't make sense, He wants us to ask for wisdom--which He promises to give to us in abundance without finding any fault in us for needing it. What a wonderful promise!

Why Doesn't God Just Come Down and Speak to Me Himself?

2008-07-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

"If God wants me to believe in Him, believe in Jesus and believe in the Bible as His Word, why doesn't He just come down and speak to me face to face and tell me so?"

A friend of mine has just such a complaint. He insists that, although, belief in Jesus seems to be the least flawed system around, he just can't accept Jesus and God's Son/God Incarnate or the Bible as God's Word unless God Himself comes down in bodily form, stands in his livingroom and tells him to. Basically, what my friend wants is direct, miraculous proof. Apparently, he saw this happen to a guy in a movie once, and now will have it no other way. His wife, a Christian, has tried talking to him, I've tried talking to him, a myriad of pastors and Christian friends have tried, but he won't budge. If God won't come down and do things his way, he's not playing.

Jesus faced the exact kind of demands while He was here on the earth. Everyone loves to see the miracles, but faith is much less forthcoming once the flair is over than we might think. Apparently the large, one-for-all miracles aren't enough. Now we want something special, just for us. But the fact is, Jesus has already shown us a myriad of miracles--creation, the fulfillment of prophesy, Jesus' life, death and resurrection, the inerrancy of Scripture--all of which can be studied and tested and tried and found to be accurate; however, so many of us still don't beleive. Why? Because it takes more than miracles for most people to develop faith in Christ Jesus. Faith is not simply belief in a set of theological principles; faith is falling in love with a BEING--with Jesus. (See: The Nature of Faith.)

For example, consider this passage:

Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:22-33)

Jesus' disciples, too, asked for a special message or sign from God just for them as evidence of Christ's identity and divine authority:

Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered, "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father , and that the Father is in me? The words I say are not my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." (John 14: 6-11)

His own brothers needled Him to show off His miracles, but their hearts were not right, either. "But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, 'You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his own brothers did not believe in him. Therefore Jesus told them, 'The right time for me has not yet come; for you anytime is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.'"

In another instance, of Jesus visiting his hometown, we see this statement: "And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." (Matthew 13:58) Faith was a prerequisite for the performance of miracles, not the result.

Perhaps the most convicting passage on this issue are these words of Jesus as He spoke to His disciples:

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'" (John 15:22-25)

In other words, Jesus is saying here that if He hadn't come to us, revealed God to us in bodily form and in fulfillement of prophesy and performed miracles among us that were recorded for posterity in Scripture, we could not be held by God to be guilty of our sin because we would not have received any kind of recourse. Now, through Jesus Christ, we have. Salvation has been made abundantly available to us. Our Savior has come. He has died on the cross in our place. He has given us the Truth that will set us free from the bondage of impurity so that we can again become sons of God and enter into His presence as righteous in His sight. However, if we reject belief in Christ and along with it, His offer, we have no excuse for our sinful, impure, lost state. Futhermore, if we hate Jesus--and with Him, God, the Father--it will be purely without reason. The Bible also tells us, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20) (See context.)

According to the biblical stories of miraculous events, the only people who benefited from these miracles--either physically or spiritually--had already welcomed Jesus into their midst through open minds and humble spirits. When miracles were performed, those who had not originally welcomed Christ still did not believe. Miracles alone are simply not enough evidence to convince a skeptic of Christ's divinity and power. (For examples of this, see: Acts 4:15-22, Matthew 11:16-24, Mark 6:1-6, Luke 19:36-40, Luke 10:2-16)

The question, "God, why can't you just come down and show me who you are, yourself?" is a very arrogant one. It is not a question of welcome, but of exclusion. It is not an offer of faith, but a demand for a show. It is not a request from a humble heart, but a demand for control over God. Basically, what is really being said is this: "God, I reject all the ways you have tried to show yourself to mankind and I demand a particular kind of theatrics that is just for me. If you humble yourself to me and do things my way, I might consider believing in you." However, God knows that such a pitiful excuse for faith is no faith at all. For one thing, God has already come down (as Jesus) and shown us Who He is (through His life, His miracles, His death and His resurrection), but many of us continue to reject Him. God knows that one more "show" isn't going to work. What we need is a humble heart and a willingness to ask instead of demand. Here is an example of just such a prayer:

"Dear God, I am having trouble believing in You, in Jesus and in the truth of the Bible. If You and Jesus are one, as the Bible says, please give me the faith to believe. Lead me to the place where I will see Your Truth for myself--in whatever way will speak most swiftly and tenderly to my heart. I don't want to waste any more of my life not knowing the Truth. Unite my heart and my mind as I seek to know You, and protect me from those who would seek to lead me into the bondage of lies. Open my eyes to see what You have already done to show me Who You are and open my heart to understand that it is You Who are leading me toward You. Please don't let my desire for You slip away, but continue to draw me toward closer. Amen."

Do you see the difference of the above prayer to the demand for a performance? The difference is humility. God is not a trained dog who will jump through a firey ring on demand; He is a God of power and love Who has already given us everything--even His life--and now has nothing more to prove. (See: Why Humility is Absolutely Essential.) Ask from your heart, don't demand. And, then, search the Scriptures to see what He has already said. If you're not sure if the Sciptures can be trusted, do a little research into their validity. Some of your questions might even be answered on this site. Leave a comment and ask. I'd be happy to help you find the answers you're looking for. If you are hurt or angry about some issue concerning the Bible or Christianity, please share that with me and we'll deal with it together. But, whatever you do, try to consider your spiritual needs and questions in light of a powerful, all-knowing, holy God and give Him the honor of recognizing these traits when you appraoch Him. He longs to hear from you, but you need to speak to Him and listen to Him with humility or your heart will simply not be capable of understanding His reply.

My Prayer for You

2008-06-26T13:10:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 3:14-21

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

Will I Feel Differently When I Accept Jesus?

2008-06-18T00:50:00.000-07:00

When some people accept Christ's forgiveness for their sin and enter into a relationship with Him for the first time, they experience a rush of emotion. Some weep for joy at what God has done for them. But what if there is no rush of emotion? What if you feel pretty much the same afterwards? Does that mean your conversion "didn't take"?

No. God's promises remain true regardless of any emotion we may or may not feel. God's truth is not reliant on any feelings we may experience and our salvation is not reliant upon an emotional response. Think of it like this: some people meet, fall in love and get married. At the time of their wedding they are often consumed with emotion--love, excitement and joy. Other people enter into arranged marriages. They may experience very different emotions, or possibly very few. They are simply making a decision to make a commitment to a relationship that they, as of yet, may know little about. Now, which of these couples is more married? Neither, of course. They are both just as married and both have a good chance of it being a successful, loving relationship. So, even though the experiences were very different, both marriages are equally valid.

No matter what our emotional response may be, we need to realize that accepting Christ's offer of salvation is not simply saying a prayer. We are entering into a lifelong relationship with God. We are recognizing that God Himself, as Jesus Christ, paid the penalty for our sinfulness by His death. We are recognizing that He did this willingly—a sacrifice made so that we would not have to die for our own sins and, thereby, never be able to have a relationship with a perfect God. We are recognizing our need, His payment and our new identity in Christ, as a child of God.

The Bible says,

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:16-17)

And,

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." (John 1:12-13)

What Is the Bible?

2008-06-12T13:37:00.000-07:00

The Bible is a collection of 66 ancient documents, letters and histories. The earliest record dates to as early as 2500 B.C. (possibly even earlier) and the latest to no later than 100 A.D. Approximately 44 different people authored these books. As you can see, the Bible is not one source but many. (See: Using the Bible to Verify Itself)

The Bible is broken up into the Old Testament (the first 39 books) and the New Testament (the last 27 books). The Old Testament is comprised of 4 basic parts:

* The Book of the Law

The first five books (Genesis-Deuteronomy) are called the Pentateuch, or "five scrolls". This is actually one book broken up into five parts. In it you will find the history of God's people from Adam to Moses. The Ten Commandments and very detailed instructions on early Judaic living are also included. The Jews call this section "The Torah" or "The Book of the Law".

* Old Testament History

The next twelve books (Joshua-Esther) are history texts. They start at the story of Joshua as he led the Israelites into battle to gain possession of the Promised Land (Canaan) and end with their defeat at the hands of the Babylonians and their eventual return from exile.

* Poetry & Wisdom

The next five books (Job-Song of Songs) contain drama, poetry, worship songs, wise sayings and even a racy love poem.

* The Prophets

The last seventeen books (Isaiah-Malachi) record important messages from God to His people. The prophets encouraged the people to worship and obey God and warned them of the dangers of turning to idols. God enabled some of them to see and record future events. These prophesies are astounding in their detail and many of them were written a full 1000 years before the fulfillment of the event. To date none of the prophesies of the Bible have been shown to be in error.

The New Testament is comprised of 3 basic parts:

* New Testament History

The first five books (Matthew-Acts) comprise this section. The first four (Matthew-John) are the first-hand, eye-witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are called the "gospels", meaning "good news". The book of Acts relays Paul's missionary journeys, the coming of the Holy Spirit and the Church's early history. A great deal of fulfilled prophesy is contained within these first five books.

* The Letters

The next 21 books (Romans-Jude) are a collection of letters (a.k.a.: epistles). They were written by Christian leaders to the early churches throughout the Middle East. They contain teaching, encouragement and even rebukes to Christians who were acting in ungodly ways.

* Revelation

This book is a book of prophesy written in poetry and word pictures. It is a series of visions of the future and of the end times.

The Bible stands out among all other books because it is also a book of great truth and great mystery. (See: Why is the Bible So Confusing?) The Bible is God's Word to mankind—written by many men and by God Himself. That is not to say that God dictated the Bible word for word, but rather, He inspired the men to write the truth. God then miraculously preserved the Bible throughout history, despite many attempts to rid the world of His message. (See: How Has the Bible Survived?)

For more detailed descriptions of the individual books of the Bible, go to Overview of the Old Testament & Overview of the New Testament. (Links to be added soon.)

Who Are the Demons?

2008-06-05T11:29:00.000-07:00

The identity of demons has been in question throughout history. The Bible does not specifically explain the origins of demons, though there is a passage that I believe indirectly gives us that information. The fact is, the purpose of the Bible is not to focus on evil, but to express to mankind the nature of God, to relate to mankind what God has done on our behalf due to His great love for us and to show us the Way (Jesus Christ) to be reconciled back to Him. Demons and cosmic battles, naturally, take a second seat to that message. However, the Bible isn't exactly silent on the existence and activity of demons, either.

There are three basic schools of thought as to the identity of demons:

Demons are fallen angels.
Demons are an unknown race of beings that at some point were condemned by God and now follow Satan.
Demons are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim, a race of giants who were part angel and part human. (Genesis 6:4)

Now, although most Christians today would choose option number 1, they might be surprised to know that there is absolutely no verse in the Bible that suggests such a thing. The Bible never says that the angels that followed Satan became the demons. In fact, it speaks of angels and demons in very different terms. Here are some basic biblical differences between angelic beings and demonic beings:

Angels	Demons
One angel can destroy an entire city. (II Sam. 24:16 & 17, I Chron. 21:16)	There is no evidence that demons have this kind of power.
One angel can destroy an entire army. (II Kings 19:35, II Chron. 32:21, Isa. 37:36)	There is no evidence that demons have this kind of power.
There is no evidence that angels ever possess people.	Demons do possess people. (Mt. 8:16, 15:22, Mark, 1:32, Luke 8:27)
Angels control animals outwardly, not through possession. (Dan. 6:22, Num. 22:21-33)	Demons possess animals in order to control them. (Mt. 8:28-32)
Angels speak with authority and confidence on all things and in all situations. (Gen. 16:9, Zec. 6:5, Luke 1:13 & 19, Acts 7:53 & 8:26, Rev. 11:15, 14:18 & 18:1etc.)	Demons snivel and whine when confronted with opposition. (Mt. 8:28-31)
Angels have great power over the elements. (Ex. 3:2, Jud. 13:20, Acts 7:30, 10:22, 12:8, Heb. 1:7, Dan. 3:16-28, Rev. 7:2)	There is no evidence that demons have this kind of power.
Angels have an awesome, overwhelming appearance. (Gen. 19:1, Jud. 13:6, I Chron. 21:20, Acts 6:15, Rev. 10:1, 18:1)	There is no evidence that demons can be seen.
Angels are beings of light. (Acts 12:7, Rev. 10:1)	Demons crave the darkness.
Angels preside over cities. (Dan. 10:12-13, 10:20-11:1, 12:1, Rev. 2:8 & 12, 3:1, 7 & 14)	There is no evidence that demons preside over anything.
Angels have great wisdom and extensive knowledge. (II Sam. 14:17, 14:20)	There is no evidence that demons are so well informed or so wise.
Angels can assume physical human form at will. (Gen. 19:1, I Chron. 21:20, Mt. 28:5, Luke 1:11, 1:28, 2:9 & 13, John 1:51, 20:12, Acts 10:3, 27:23, Heb. 13:2)	Demons must possess a human in order to have a physical form. (Mt. 4:24, 8:16, 28)
Angels have great, awesome power over physical matter and human life. (I Chron. 21:11-12, Psalm 78:49, Acts 5:19, 12:7 &23, I Cor. 10:10, Dan. 10:4-9 & 18, Rev. 7:2, 8:7-9:1, Rev. 15:1, 6 & 8, 16:2, 4, 8 & 12)	Demons have limited power over physical matter and human life. (Mt. 4:24, 8:33, 9:32, 12:22, Luke 4:35, 9:42, Acts 19:13 & 16)
Angels can fly. (Rev. 14:6)	There is no evidence that demons can fly.
Angels serve one master (either God or Satan). There is no evidence that an angel has ever bowed in obedience to a human or to a demon. (I Chron. 21:27, Ps. 103:20, Mt. 26:53, I Pet. 3:22, Rev. 22:6)	Demons will flee from anyone (including angels and humans) who exhibit power over them. (Mt. 10:1, Mark 1:34, 3:15, 7:29-30, 9:38, 16:9 & 17, Luke 4:35 & 41, 8:29, 10:17, etc.)
Satan is described as an angelic being who fell from grace, not just a big, powerful demon. Even after his fall, he remains an angelic being, able to command his angels. (II Cor. 11:14, Jude 1:9, Rev. 12:7)	Demons are never described as angelic beings or as ever having existed as angelic beings.
Hell was created specifically for Satan and his angels. (Mt. 25:41)	There is no evidence to suggest that Hell was ever intended for either demons or humans.
Fallen angels are generally bound or imprisoned by God, not free to roam the earth on their own (with the possible exception of Satan and certain key points in history and the future). (II Pet. 2:4, Jude 1:6, Rev. 9:14, 20:1)	Demons seem to have free reign to create havoc on earth. Their only fear is that they might one day be thrown into the Abyss. (Luke 8:31)
Angels can appear to people through dreams. (Mt. 1:20, 2:13 & 19)	There is no evidence of demons appearing in dreams.

Option number 2, that demons are some unknown, condemned race of beings, is also without biblical support. This is nothing more than a made-up explanation to make up for a perceived lack of explanation.

Option number 3, that demons are the spirits of the dead, half-breed Nephilim, is rejected by most modern Christians, primarily on the grounds that it seems too fantastical (as if Creation, angelic wars, the parting of the Red Sea and the miracles of the New Testament aren't!). However, when we take a deeper look at Scripture and the other historical evidence, we may see that this is the only logical explanation. Here is my defense of this less traditional, though more ancient way of thinking:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children with them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

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. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Genesis 6:1-8 (NIV)

1. Let me first unequivocally state that I hold the Bible as my primary source and the only one that is fully reliable—down to "every jot and tiddle". Naturally, my studies have been extensive and have brought me to various sources, but I always judge their validity through the lens of God's Holy Scriptures.

2. Let me explain why I have rejected the idea that the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 were merely the descendents of the godly Seth and the "daughters of men" were the children of the condemned line of Cain, as most commentators maintain.

a. The most literal and consistent translation of the text itself seems to be saying that the sons of God were angelic beings and the daughters of men were human. Basically, that's the first idea that comes to mind when the text is read. So, the back-flips the commentators go through to explain it away seem not only counterproductive, but contrary to the intended sentiment of God's Word.

b. Though the term "sons of God" (or "b'nei Elohim", the "divine beings", in the Hebrew) is used in some biblical passages to refer to men, it is used in Job to refer to angelic beings (Job 1:6, 38:7), setting a biblical validation for its use in that sense. Also, when one considers that Job is thought by many to have lived before the Flood, this may even be a contemporary usage of the term.

c. Modern biblical scholars reject the idea of angels marrying humans for two main reasons, both of which are unsatisfactory. The first is simply that they find such an event too fantastic to be believed. One commentator simply dismissed it as "ridiculous" and left it at that. Yet, isn't this the same grounds by which many reject the miracles of the Bible or even the existence of God? This is a very narrow-minded, faithless position to take, in my opinion. God is far bigger than our ideas of Him; therefore, much more is possible in this life than we may want to believe.

d. The second reason cited by commentators is a bit more grounded, yet one which I still find lacking. Luke 20:34-36 (NIV) states: Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." Some take this passage to mean that angels do not marry, have never married and do not procreate. However, to apply this passage to Genesis 6 would be taking it out of context. Jesus was speaking primarily about humans and what it would be like for us in heaven, not giving a lecture about angelic activities. The passage, obviously speaking of the angels in heaven, cannot be applied to the fallen angels, who no longer reside with God. Marrying and procreation for angels may be aberrant behavior—something not covered in the verse above. Furthermore, to state what angels do or do not do in this present age (or at the time Luke was written), cannot be taken to apply to what a different group of angels might have done at one time in a far distant past. So, while the angels now residing in God's heaven do not marry and never have, it is possible they were at one time given a choice, which some of their angelic siblings miserably failed, causing their fall from grace. The verse above is referring to the angels who reside in heaven with God, not fallen angels.

3. The Genesis 6 passage, if taken at face value, explains many of the mysteries of the Bible—such as, how did the angels fall from grace? And, where did the demons come from? The Nephilim—as half-breed offspring of angels and humans—would, at their deaths, have no place to go and would be bound to this world—condemned to wander the spiritual realm on earth until Judgment Day. The demonic characteristics of desiring to possess a human body and their fascination with sexual perversions, drugs, deceptions, and evil of every kind, also mirror how the Nephilim are described in the Bible.

4. Lastly, let us consider the ancient, extra-biblical writings concerning Genesis 6. If one reads the apocryphal books, the works of the ancient historians, such as Josephus, and the vast amount of ancient mythology that mentions such occurrences, one will begin to realize that the beliefs of the people (including pious Jews) who lived more closely to the time this event actually occurred, had no problem at all accepting that angels did indeed cause their fall from grace by engaging in forbidden relationships with humans—even to the point of bearing offspring with them. They believed this as strongly as any Sunday school child believes that a youth named David killed the giant Goliath with only a sling and a stone. It is only in fairly recent years that this belief has come under scrutiny and has been subsequently squelched by modern biblical scholars. Let us remember that ancient people were not as unintelligent as many of us modern thinkers would like to believe. Though they lacked some amount of scientific explanation for what they observed, they were perfectly capable of communicating what they witnessed—often by memorizing long narratives—a practice that, as we know, greatly sharpens the mind, unlike the hours we spend dulling our senses in front of a television set.

But, despite the vast amount of debate this issue has caused, let us remember that our opinions on this matter have absolutely no bearing on Christ's offer of salvation nor on our ability to believe in Him and accept His mercy. It would be foolish to argue about such piddly matters, and this is why I don't bring it up at parties. Still, I find it beneficial to delve deeper into the Scriptures and meditate on the mysteries of God. There is so much to learn from God's Word, if we only take the time to look!

Abortion: A Choice Forced By Fear

2008-05-30T16:44:00.001-07:00

The pro-life vs. pro-choice debate has churned on and on for decades now. Just the phrase "Roe vs. Wade" makes people on both sides of the issue wrankle, or at best, feel a dark weight on their shoulders. I've heard just about every argument for and against. Here are the basic ones outlined below:

Pro-Choice Arguments	Pro-Life Arguments
A woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body.	A pregnancy is not simply "part of the woman's body". It is a new life of a new individual and, therefore, the woman should not legally have life and death power over it.
No one can prove at what stage an embryo or fetus becomes a viable, human life.	Every human life should be protected, even in its earliest stages. At conception we have the inalienable rights that any other human being has. (In this country those are clearly defined as: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) Furthermore, a baby's heart starts beating at 18 days (when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period), and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type may be different from that of the mother. (Click HERE for more information about the developing unborn baby.)
In cases of incest and rape, a woman should be seen as the victim and should be given extra rights over any pregnancy that may have resulted.	While rape can be a horrible experience, so is abortion. A rape victim can find great healing through either providing a child to a couple who cannot have their own or by learning to love and raise the child herself. In this way, beauty can come from ashes. Abortion, on the other hand, will not solve the problems of a rape victim. It will be only one more traumatic experience for her to deal with. Most cases of incest—particularly those that result in pregnancy—are those where a father, older brother or uncle impregnates a young girl in his family. This is often a result of on-going sexual abuse. By allowing abortion in these cases, the victim of the crime is not being protected—only the criminal. An abortion will simply allow the abuse to continue. A pregnancy and delivery will force the truth into the open, force the laws of the country to take notice, punish the culprit and liberate the victim.
In cases where the mother's life might be threatened, she should have the right to choose between her life and the life of the baby/fetus.	As difficult as this situation is, one person should not have the legal right to choose his or her life over the life of another. (The laws about self-defense are specifically about cases where the attacker has an intent to inflict life-threatening harm. Of course, an unborn baby has no such intent.) Furthermore, medical science is advancing rapidly and what might seem like a hopeless situation one month, might be a solved the next. There have also been many cases where the perceived danger to the mother ended up being much less than originally diagnosed.
In cases where the baby/fetus is believed to be unhealthy, the woman should have the right to decide whether or not she wants to or is able to care for a possibly handicapped child.	The right to life of the individual does not diminish based on their health, either physical or mental. One person should not have the right to determine another's value. Such power is arbitrary and easily abused. (In China males are valued more than females and since they are only allowed one child by law, vast numbers of female babies are aborted every day.) We are each "created equal".
If abortions are legalized, there will be fewer illegal botched abortion attempts that will result in more deaths of women of childbearing age.	Since abortion has become legalized, many, many women have died on the doctor's table (often going unreported). Abortion is in no way a safe procedure for any woman. Moreover, at least one death occurs from every one performed—that of the child. Therefore, the actual fatality rate has skyrocketed since abortions have been legalized, not decreased. Furthermore, the cultural atmosphere has changed to such an extent crisis pregnancies are being handled much more lovingly and there are many, many resources available.
If abortions are made to be illegal, there will more people trying to raise children they don't want and don't love.	This idea cannot be proven. This idea is based in the fear that a woman might not be able to love her own child. There are some extreme cases where this might happen; however, most people naturally grow to love their unexpected children and this love quickly becomes fierce and protective. It simply takes a little time to get to know one another. Furthermore, for the woman who is certain she is unwilling or unable to raise a child, there are many good, kind people waiting to adopt.

My intent is not to get into a heated political debate. My intent is not to cause guilt or pain or anger. I simply want to ask you to do something: As you glance over those many arguments, which ones are based on love and which ones are based on fear? You see, it is my belief that it is fear that drives so many women to give up their babies—the fear that they aren't old enough, wise enough or wealthy enough to care for a child, the fear that others will disapprove of them and relationships will be strained or broken, the fear that they simply won't be a good mom, the fear that the experience of delivery will be too painful and, yes, frightening for them to face and the fear of going through this experience alone. Fear after fear arises—even in the best of situations for a new mom—but the unexpected pregnancy brings its own variety of hopelessness and desperation. I know what I'm talking about, my friends, as I have gone through a crisis pregnancy myself. It is absolutely terrifying.

The abortion industry and organizations like Planned Parenthood thrive on the fear of young women. They are not interested in your wellbeing or your mental health or, surprisingly, even your physical health. They are interested in your money, and that alone. Don't be fooled. They do not care about women one iota. It is a business. They are not in the business of protecting women; they are in the business of making money. So, when it comes to pro-choice, the fact is, they don't want you to have a real choice at all, despite all of their propaganda. They want you to feel as if your only choice is to have an abortion. They want you to believe that abortion is the safest, wisest and most logical route, and they don't want you to learn about the amazing development of the unborn child, or about the many resources that are available to you. They want you to feel trapped, isolated and frightened by the prospects of bringing a new life into the world. But most of all, they don't want you to come to love that little, precious life growing inside of you.

The Watchmaker

2008-05-20T09:43:00.000-07:00

Watch this video: The Watchmaker.

Our world is far more complex and amazing than we can imagine. But evolutionists insist that all of these complexities have evovled simply by chance and random selection. Could the watch on your arm come into existence through natural selection? What about something even simpler, like a coke can or a coin or a comb? When we look at these simple objects, don't we know by common sense that they must have had a creator? And, yet, we look at the eye or the banana or the chimpanzee and see chance. Such thinking makes no sense at all.

Consider the banana--it has a natural flip top--an easy open section at the top. It fits neatly into our hands--even with five natural ridges so that our fingers can grip it just right. It has an appealing color, grows in large bunches and is the perfect size to fit in your mouth--like a pre-wrapped treat. The banana also tastes quite good--either fresh or cooked and can be added to many other foods to create something delicious to eat--such as cereals, creams, pastries, tarts, breads, milkshakes, etc. It not only tastes great, it is quite healthy for you. It is a valuable source of Vitamin C, Vitamin B6 and Potassium and it is good for digestive health. Obviously, the banana was created to be just right for us--perfect in every way. And this is only one of the many foods we have.

Imprisoned or Pardoned?

2008-05-10T14:19:00.000-07:00

The dark, damp cell smelled of mold and human waste. Rats scurried from one shadowed corner to another with no one to hinder them, and the lice and fleas mingled liberally on the feverish flesh of their human hosts. The prisoners received one meal a day—stale and wiggling with vermin—which they could barely reach for the thick iron shackles on arms and legs which anchored them securely to the brick wall. Life—if one could call it that—limped on hour after hour in this dark, putrid hell.

It had been a long time since any of them had seen a clear shaft of light, but as the thick prison doors swung open, their cell was suddenly bathed in clarity—a clarity that illuminated the horrors around them. All four inmates immediately covered their eyes at the sight of their condition. The first prisoner screamed out in anger, “Shut the door! Shut the door!” He couldn’t bear to see the roaches swarming his food dish or the brown smears on the wall next to his head. It was too much to bear and he desperately sought the relief of darkness.

But the light didn’t go away. It lingered and, though it caused pain to some, it was a miracle in itself. How long had they existed without the light? How long had they wallowed in darkness? How long had it been since their skin had felt warmth? Slowly, the light grew brighter. It was nearing them and bit by bit they could see it was coming from a lantern carried by a man. Was it the jailer—that despicable monster who from time to time dropped in to torture and accuse? No. It was someone they had never seen before. Someone from the outside. A stranger.
“Who’s there?” One of the prisoners whimpered.

“I have come to set you free,” the man said and the tinkling sound of keys reached their ears as he lifted a hand. “I have the key. Lift up your shackles that I might unlock them.”

The first prisoner cried out, “It’s too much! Stay away! The light is too much!”

“But you no longer have to live in darkness,” the Rescuer said. “I offer you freedom.”

“It can’t be,” the poor man replied. “This squalor is too great. I don’t believe you can free us. You came only to taunt us and to show us how horrible we are! Get away!”

No matter how hard the Rescuer tried to reassure the first prisoner, he would not listen. He closed his eyes tightly and turned his face to the wall. Eventually, the Rescuer moved on to the second man.

“Let me free you from your chains,” he said, his voice full of love.

“It sounds good…” the man answered slowly, “and I’ve heard that you have rescued others… but how do I know you’re not here to trick me? How do I know you won’t take me to a worse place than this?”

“Because I am the Rescuer. I hold the keys in my hand and all I ask is that you allow me to unlock your chains. Then you may follow me and see freedom for yourself.”

The second prisoner extended his arms for a moment, but then withdrew them quickly before his shackles could be loosed.

“It’s simply too difficult to trust you,” he confessed. “I think I would rather stay here—in a place I know rather than go with you.”

“Please,” the Rescuer pleaded. “I promise I’ll be with you every step of the way. Please. Step into the light of freedom with me.”

“No,” the second prisoner said with conviction. “I admit it’s tempting, but the light can be a hard place to be—always seeing the ugliness that surrounds you, always aware of the filth that is life. It’s too difficult a path for me. Thanks, but no thanks.”

With sorrow, the Rescuer moved to the next prisoner. “Accept the freedom I offer you,” he said, his voice sounding grainy. “Please. I came a long way to set you free. Don’t stay in these miserable conditions any longer.”

To his great relief, the third prisoner extended his arms eagerly. “Yes! Set me free! You have no idea how much these shackles weigh and how my skin has chaffed and broken beneath them! I want to be able to move about in freedom!”

The Rescuer quickly unlocked the shackles and there was a rewarding, echoing clank as the iron hit the stone floor. The third prisoner smiled broadly as he stretched, feeling the freedom of movement return to him.

“Let me lead you out of this place,” the Rescuer said. “We have much to do and see.”

Suddenly, the smile left the third man’s face. “Leave?” he asked. “To go where?”

“I will take you to my home where you will have a comfortable place to sleep, good food to eat and friends who love you. You will work for me by helping to free others like yourself.”

“But I can’t leave the only home I’ve ever known,” he protested. “I know this place isn’t much, but it’s comfortable to me. And these people,” he gestured to the first two prisoners, “well, they’ve become my friends. I can’t leave them. No. I’m thankful to you for letting me out of my shackles, but I have no desire to leave this cell. I’m satisfied with what I have.”

Again, though he begged the third prisoner to reconsider, the Rescuer was flatly refused.

There was only one prisoner left in the cell who had not yet received the Rescuer’s invitation. He was smaller than the others and his clothes even more ragged and foul smelling. When the light came near, he crouched a bit lower, but his eyes followed the stranger with deep interest.

“I offer you freedom from the things that keep you captive,” the Rescuer’s gentle voice urged. “Extend your arms that I might release your chains.”

“But, Master,” the prisoner wept. “Of all the criminals in this place, I am the worst. Why would you want to free someone like me? I deserve to be here.”

“Because your debt has already been paid. I have already taken your place.” To the prisoner’s surprise, the Rescuer extended his own arms and the light revealed deep welts on his wrists that could only have been caused by thick, iron shackles like the ones he was wearing. “My father—the king of this land—has freed me, and now I am here to free you. If you come with me, your sins will be fully pardoned and my father will adopt you as a son. Together we will inherit a wonderful kingdom.”

With tears of joy in his eyes, the last prisoner extended his arms to the prince and allowed his shackles to be removed. Then, taking the hand of his Savior, he was led from the darkness of the prison cell into the light of a new life.

By S. E. Thomas
© May 2008

Laminin: Jesus Holds Us Together

2008-05-07T10:36:00.000-07:00

I just watched the You Tube video where Louie Giglio discusses the importance of laminin--a cell adhesion protein. To watch this clip, click here. Basically, laminin is the protein that holds all of our cells together. It keeps us functioning normally and protects us from degenerative diseases such as muscular dystrophy or progeria. Laminin is also made up of three parts--three in one, just like our triune God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.)

Amazing, isn't it? Laminin--called the "basement membrane" without which we would literally fall apart--is in the exact shape of the cross.

The Bible says: "For by him [Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)

How Has the Bible Survived?

2008-05-04T14:06:00.000-07:00

If you have done much searching for ancient literature, you will quickly discover that there simply aren't many available that were written before 500 B.C. which still exist in their entirety--even less which have been preserved in the original form. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh--perhaps the best known ancient text, dating to 2150-2000 BC--exists in both the Sumerian and Akkadian versions and is missing sections. Much of this loss of our ancient literature is, naturally, due to the corrosion or destruction of the materials on which they were preserved--such as stone stella, clay tablets, ostraca, papyrus, copper sheets, etc... Another reason for their disappearance is the disastrous event of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in Egypt when is it believed that approximately 40,000 ancient books and texts were either burned or lost within the first several centuries A.D., though there is disagreement as to the culpable party.

Keeping this in mind, I find it very interesting that we have retained so little of our extra-biblical recorded past--despite our decided efforts to preserve it. Even more amazing, is that the Bible, which dates from as early as 2,000 B.C. to about the first century A.D., exists not only in its entirety, but in a startlelingly well-preserved form, with its original language, format and wording, despite many decided efforts to destroy it.

Here are some very interesting facts about the miraculous survival of the Bible:

1. Late 7th Century B.C.--King Johioakim of Judah threw the scoll of Jeremiah's prophecy into the fire; however, God simply had his prophet write the same words again with additional material (Jeremiah 36:21-32).

2. 200 A.D.--During the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, the Pentateuch was torn up and burned. "...anyone found possessing the book of the covenant was condemned to death by the decree of the King." (I Maccabees 1:56-57)

3. Early 4th century A.D.--Diocletian attempted to rid the Roman Empire of the Bible, only to have it reinstated by Constantine a few years later. (Reference.)

4. 19th century--The government of Korea outlawed and tried to keep the Bible out of the land... of course, that failed, as evidenced by the Church's presence there today.

5. The Soviet Union also tried to outlaw the Bible; now it is wide open to the Word and is flourishing.

6. Mid-20th century--A patient in an American hospital in Turkey was given a Bible. When dismissed from the hospital, he took the Bible back to his hometown in Turkey and proudly showed it to his friends. A muslim teacher* snatched it from him, tore out its pages and threw them into the street. The young man was afriad to pick them up. A passing grocer, however, did and took them and used them for wrapping paper. Before long, they were scattered all over the town. His costumers read the pages and returned to him for more. In a few days the entire Bible was distributed to interested readers. When a Bible salesman came to town, he was surprised to find a hundred people eager to purchase the Word of God! (Reference.)

7. The church itself, thinking it was doing the right thing, attempted to keep the Bible out of the hands of "ordinary people".

a. Jerome (405 A.D.) completed his translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin so the ordinary people could read it. He was condemned by the bishop and accused of tampering with God's word. Still, his Latin version became the Bible of Europe. (Reference.)

b. John Wycliffe (1320) sought to give the English people a Bible they could read, but the church fought him severely. The Archbishop described him as "that Pestilent wretch, John Wycliffe, the son of the old Serpent, forerunner of the anti-Christ who has completed his inequity by inventing a new translation of the scriptures." He was eventually hunted down and burned at the stake. Those who possessed copies of the Wycliffe Bible were also hunted down and burned at the stake with the scriptures hung about their necks.... but despite all of this, the English Bible spread like wildfire throughout Europe. (Reference.)

c. William Tyndale (1500), after the invention of the printing press, put the Bible in his common language. Priests and bishops burned thousands of copies of his translation as a "burnt offering most pleasing to the Almighty God". He too was burned at the stake. His last words were, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!" Less than three years after that, King Henry VIII authorized the publication of the Great Bible. This version was a combination of the Tyndale Bible and that of Miles Coverdale. A copy was chained to every pulpit in England so that everyone could read it. (Reference.)

8. French humanist, Voltaire, (1700) boastfully proclaimed, "one hundred years from now the world will hear no more of the Bible." Yet, in the year of his boast, the British museum purchased a manuscript of the Greek New Testament for $500,000 while the first edition of Voltaire's new book sold for eight cents a copy! Furthermore, fifty years after the death of Voltaire, Bibles were being printed by the Geneva Bible Society in the very house where Voltaire lived and on his own printing press! (Reference.)

9. It was during the Council of Toulouse that the religious leaders made their decision to outlaw God’s word. "We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament...We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular." "The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out." Concil Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX, in the year 1229. (Reference.)

10. It was again reiterated at the Council of Tarragona that "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned." Histoire de la Bible en France, D.D. Lortsch, 1910, p.14. (Reference.)

11. Even after the Reformation commenced and Bible societies were formed the Catholic Church classified them with Socialism and Communism. On December 8, 1866, Pope Pius IX made this amazing statement: "Socialism, Communism, clandestine societies, Bible societies....pests of this sort must be destroyed by all means." Encyclical Quanta Cura (Reference.)

Other interesting facts:

1. The Bible has been translated into over 1,400 languages. No other book even comes close.

2. As evidence to support the facts that early manuscripts tend to decay, or be lost or destroyed, consider these facts concerning the major existing manuscripts: We have only 10 records of "The Gallic Wars" by Julius Ceasar and there are 1000 years between that event to the first existing manuscript. We have only 7 records of Pliny the Younger's "History" and there are 750 years between the events he recorded and the first existing manuscript. We have only 8 early records of Thucydides "History" and there are 1300 years between those events and our first existing manuscripts. The same can be said for Herodotus's "History". Now, consider this--the second most prevalent ancient writing is Homer's "Illiad", with an impressive 643 early records with only 500 years between the events and the first existing manuscript. However, the New Testament (a collection of smaller texts) vastly surpasses them all, with 24,000+ early records and only a mere 25 years from the events of Christ's life and the early Church to those first existing manuscripts.

3. When the printing press was invented in 1450, the first book ever printed was the Bible. Since then the Bible has been printed more and read more than any other book in history.

4. "If just 10 people today were picked who were from the same place, born around the same time, spoke the same language, and made about the same amount of money, and were asked to write on just one controversial subject, they would have trouble agreeing with each other. But the Bible stands alone. It was written over a period of 1,600 years [at least, possibly much longer] by more than 40 writers from all walks of life. Some were fishermen; some were politicians. Others were generals or kings, shepherds or historians. They were from three different continents, and wrote in three different languages. They wrote on hundreds of controversial subjects yet they wrote with agreement and harmony. They wrote in dungeons, in temples, on beaches, and on hillsides, during peacetime and during war. Yet their words sound like they came from the same source. So even though 10 people today couldn’t write on one controversial subject and agree, God picked 40 different people to write the Bible—and it stands the test of time." Jordan and Justin Drake (Reference.)

5. "A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put. No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?
The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions." Dr. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Reference.)

6. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 confirmed with fascinating clarity how reliable our biblical texts are, showing that the variations are less than 2% from the texts we have and not a single doctrine nor teaching has been changed. (Reference.) (25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls)

7. In 64 A.D. Emperor Nero not only tried to wipe out the Bible, but anyone who professed Christ. He blamed them for the burning of Rome (which, he did himself) and ordered their mass execution. There are about 7 million graves in 900 miles of caves beneathe the streets of Rome which speak of his attempt to rid Rome of Christians. (Reference.)

Obviously, there is something special about this Book. No other written document or collection of documents has even come close to surviving such trials or impacting our lives to such a degree. There is a very good reason for this--the Bible is indeed "God's Word". God extended His protection over the Scriptures so that His message to us would never be lost. Despite man's many efforts to wipe out God's words, He loves us enough to preserve them so that we might know Him and love Him. Remember, the Bible is God's love letter to you.

Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

* unable to verify

The Nature of Faith

2008-04-29T15:51:00.000-07:00

Do you remember when Indiana Jones was searching for the Holy Grail? He came upon a test, called the leap of faith. In order to reach the Holy Grail, he had to cross a huge gorge--which he knew was much too wide for any man to jump. And, as always with Indiana Jones, time was running out. He had to either trust in the notes left to him by those who went before and step into what appeared to be mid-air, or face death at the hands of his enemies and allow them to capture the artifact (which, supposedly, possessed the power to grant immortality) in his place. So, at the last moment, Indiana took the leap--he stepped into mid-air, fearing in his gut that he would plummet to an ugly death upon the rocks hundreds of meters below. But, to his great surprise, he didn't fall. He was standing on an invisible bridge--an optical illusion--a plank that was painting to resemble the opposite canyon wall.

I often think of this scene when the subject of faith comes up, but I have to admit, I don't think of faith in this way. Faith was never intended to be a leap into the unknown. But before we discuss what faith is, here are some other things faith should never be:

The effort to convince ourselves to believe in something we kind-of know isn't true. Why deceive myself? Why put on an act? If there is a God and if that God is all-powerful, loving and interested in me, wouldn't He also be able to communicate with me and reveal Himself to me? So, if I want to have a relationship with this God, why should I try to believe in Him before I know Who He is? Shouldn't I first ask Him to make Himself known to me? Shouldn't I humble myself to recognizing that He is more than a belief, but a Being and may have His own way to touch my heart? Shouldn't I be more interested in sparking a relationship than in simply following a prescribed set of rules hoping He'll take notice?

A hope that when we die we'll be on the winning side. I can't imagine anything more frightening than going to my grave, hoping somehow I'd done enough good deeds to outweigh my bad deeds. If God really loves me, He would have provided a way for me to be absolutely sure about the condition of my soul--otherwise I'm simply living in fear.

A strong desire for something to be true. No matter how you slice it, I simply can't convince myself to believe that my desires have any effect on reality. I can sit here for hours, concentrating on believing that a large bar of dark chocolate will magically appear, but, sadly, it never works. I'm certainly not willing to stake my soul's eternal condition on that kind of foolishness.

The decision to follow a certain set of beliefs in exchange for some physical or spiritual pay-off. This may sound like a good thing and some might have a problem distinquishing this from any form of religion, including Christianity. However, despite the pay-offs God gives those who follow Him, our desire for these things shouldn't be the reason we decide to follow God. You see, God's desire is for us. He desires to be intimately involved in a love relationship with us. Shouldn't we also desire to be in an intimate love relationship with Him? Compared to that everything else--eternal life, Heaven, freedom, joy--fades. Faith should be more than a simple decision--a cognitive function which weighs the sacrifice vs. the pay-off.

The decision to follow a certain set of beliefs until they prove themselves false or useless and then to emplement plan B. This is not faith; this is a trial run. There is nothing real about this kind of belief system. It's like a marriage that can only take place if there is a signed, iron-clad pre-nuptial agreement in place, surrounded by a team of beady-eyed lawyers. Not for me, thanks. I want something real.

Alligning ourselves with a belief system in order to please someone else. As much as I love my mother or my husband or my pastor or the people in my community, I'm not willing to stake my eternal soul on what they expect from me. I doubt that when I stand before God on the day of my death that any of them will be there to put in a good word for me. No. If the truth really is out there, it's up to me to find it for myself. Once I'm dead it will be too late and relying on anyone else in the meantime is one risk I'm not willing to take.

Looking back over that list, I see that these ideas of the nature of faith are nothing more than self-deception, fear and foolishness.

So, what is faith?

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith is "being sure"? Faith is being "certain"? How can that be? You know, I've searched over 20 different translations of the Bible and didn't find the phrase "leap of faith" in any of them. In fact, I'm not even sure where that phrase origniated or how it ever got applied to Christianity. Faith is not a leap! Faith is taking the hand of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

When I married my husband, that was not a leap of faith. It was the decision to continue and deepen the love relationship we had already begun. I didn't marry him for his money (which wasn't much). I didn't marry him so that I would have security or a nice home or a father for my children. I married him for him. I wanted to be with him, to experience his love for me and to express my love in return. I wanted to know him more deeply. I wanted us to share our dreams, our desires and our lives. So, when I walked down the aisle, I was walking toward someone--not toward a belief or a cognitive process or a pay-off of some kind, though all of those were invovled. I was walking toward him.

How does one describe falling in love? How does one calculate it's value or plot the mysteries of love on a graph? How does one define the steps one must take to falling in love? We cannot. It is a mystery. And yet, I knew I was in love and I knew he was in love with me. My faith in him and in his love was not a leap, it was a secure knowledge and certainty. My faith in my husband was based in my intimate relationship with him--in knowing him. In fact, anything less would be rather barbaric. What would you say if I married my husband because I believed it would make me rich someday? What would you say if I married my husband because I sort-of hoped it would work out, but really believed it wouldn't. What would you say if I married my husband because my sister had assured me he was the right one for me? Obvsiously, none of these reasons is good enough to enter into that kind of binding relationship.

Yet, marriage is much less binding than death, is it not? What kind of relationship would it take to carry me through my final journey? It would take a deeply committed relationship to and with the only One Who has power over the grave--God.

So, how does one obtain this kind of faith? If it is falling in love, how does one go about falling in love with God? Well, that's not something that can be defined exactly; however, if you were to hear of a wonderful person who you knew was deeply interested in knowing you, too, wouldn't you go out of your way to meet him or her? Wouldn't you read the letters they send you? Wouldn't you answer their emails and send them messages of your own?

God has given you all you need to learn about Him in nature, in the Bible, in the councel of wise people--but He's willing to do more. He's willing to meet you exactly where you are, if you are willing to humble yourself enough to make yourself available. He's willing to speak to you and answer your questions, if you are willing to listen for His voice. He's willing to touch your heart, if you are willing to open yourself to His love.

Why Humility is Absolutely Essential

2008-04-24T09:51:00.001-07:00

"I've tried everything," he said. "I said the prayer, I went to church, I believed, but nothing ever made a difference. Finally, I decided religion doesn't work."

Have you ever heard statements like this one or, perhaps, made them yourself? When I hear this kind of thing, it breaks my heart--every time. I deeply sympathize with the first statements and would even go so far as to agree with the last one. Religion doesn't work.

I have had discussions with people and have heard these sentiments voiced. I have tried to explain how faith in Christ is not a religion, but a relationship. It is not a formula; it is falling in love. And, through all of these conversations, I have tried to figure out what exactly happens to make such a thing possible. How much do we do? How much does God do? What role do we play in that process of our own salvation? Surely, if we indeed have free will, we must do something. So, in thinking of this over the last year and in searching my Bible, I've made a few discoveries that I would like to share with you:

God has given us free will--a choice between life and death--and He greatly desires that we choose life through Him:
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him...." (Dueteronomy 30:19)

We cannot understand nor accept Christ's sacrifice unless He reveals Himself to us through His Holy Spirit:
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, becasue they are spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians 2:14)

God is trying to reveal Himself to all of us:
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

God's gift of salvation is available to all of us:
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (John 1:12-13)

Faith Comes from God:
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)

In fact, the rest of this stuff (and more) comes from God:

Salvation: Psalm 61:2 & Acts 4:12
Love: I John 4:7-8
Wisdom: James 1:5
Hope: Psalm 62:5
Joy: Psalm 16:11
Competence: 2 Corinthians 3:5
Righteousness: Romans 10:3
Peace: Psalm 29:11
Strength: Exodus 15:2
Perseverance: 2 Thessalonians 3:5

But there is something vital that we must do--We must humble ourselves:
"...if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Why is that such an important first step? Why is humility so essential? Why is it that a person can seemingly go through all the steps, say the right prayers and attend church for a lifetime but never really experience a personal relationship with God? I think it is because in order to have a relationship with God, we must allow ourselves (or force ourselves) to recognize Who He is. If we do not humble ourselves, we will never admit that God is above us and is soveriegn over us. We will never submit ourselves to His will. We will never truly exalt His name over our own. We will never recognize His Truth, His Person, His majesty, His glory, His holiness or His power. In fact, we will never move from the concept that we are following a "belief system" into the concept that we are following a Being.

Humbling Ourselves is Very Difficult:
The kind of "humbling" we experience on earth is incredibly debilitating and hurtful. Most of us can recall a time we were embarrased--perhaps in school--when our friends pointed out our faults and laughed. Naturally, we will want to run from anything that seems to threaten such an experience. But this is not humility. This is humiliation and is completely different from what God wants from us.

So, what kind of humilty does God desire?
"Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the Lord. "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." (Isaiah 66:2)

In fact, Jesus Himself, modeled for us the kind of humility we should have:
"Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matthew 11:29

Furthermore, God promises,
"Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up." (James 4:10)

When you humble yourself before God, He does not set your sins and faults up before you so He can accuse you and to mock you with them!
"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thessalonians 5:9)

&

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17)

When you humble yourself before God, recognize His offer of salvation and accept His payment through Christ for your shortcomings, God brings you into His loving arms of forgiveness! And, let me tell you, there is nowhere else a sinner like me would rather be!

How Do I Accept Jesus?

2008-04-09T13:11:00.000-07:00

So, you've discovered Jesus' offer of forgiveness! You've realized He is the most amazing person who ever lived! You believe He was Who He said He was (God), died in your place and came back to life and now you're ready to ask Him to extend that payment over your life and take the lead!

How do you go about that? You tell Him and you commit your heart, your life and your trust to Him. Basically, you do this the same way you would enter a marriage. You fall in love, you declare your love and you commit yourself and your future to the One you love--in this case, Jesus.

The Bible says, "...if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

Remember, you can talk to God at any time and in any way. He, being all-knowing, can hear your most secret thoughts. You don't have to say anything aloud or stand on your roof and shout. He hears you. In fact, He can read your heart even when you can't come up with the words. In this case, however, it's important that you make a conscious decision and tell Him that you are accepting Him into your heart and your life. Remember, this isn't a magical formula. Your conversation and relationship with God is a private, intimate communication between the two of you and if you really want Him to be your Savior, Lord and Friend, you're not going to botch it by saying the wrong thing. If, however, you aren't sure how to start or what to say, I have written a prayer below:

Dearest Lord Jesus,

Thank you so much for loving me and coming to die on the cross for my sins. I know I have sinned and that my sin has separated me from having an intimate relationship with You. I no longer want to face my future alone. Please come into my heart and into my life. I accept Your sacrifice and Your forgiveness from this moment forward. Please teach me to love You, trust You and follow You. Draw me into a close love relationship with You. I love you, Jesus, and I thank you.

Amen

Welcome to God's family! If you prayed this prayer today and entered into a relationship with Jesus, I would certainly LOVE to hear from you! I would love to celebrate with you and encourage you and answer any questions you might have.

In the meantime, here are some verses to encourage you in your new life in Christ Jesus:

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (See Context.)

John 1:12-13 “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (See Context.)

Ephesians 1:13-14 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”

Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.”

Psalm 118:6 “The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”

James 1:5 “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.”

Jeremiah 31:3 "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness."

Psalm 55:22 "Cast your cares on the Lord and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous fall."

Isaiah 43:1b "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine."

The Nature of Sin

2008-04-07T14:00:00.000-07:00

The word "sin" in the Hebrew Bible is: "chatta'ah", which is an archery term. When the archer took aim and missed the bull's eye, the instructor would yell, "Sin!" I have also heard that each ring on the target, as seen below, represented one "sin". So, the further away from the bull's eye your arrow landed, the higher the number of "sins" acrued. In this competition, like in golf, the lower the final score, the better off you are. Now, let's say you're an archer, and your arrow falls short of the bull's eye. What do you do? Do you give up, throw your bow to the ground and give up? No. You take aim and try again. Taking this analogy a little further, would a good archer ever try to hit something other than the target during practice, like, say a tree, a rock or one of the other students? No. He does his best to aim at the bull's eye and only the bull's eye.

Sin, then, is missing the mark. It is falling short, making a mistake and revealing our imperfections. The Bible says, "...For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23) & "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (Isaiah 64:6)

I've never spoken to anyone who would disagree with the above verses--at least in that everyone has sinned. We may disagree about how or why that happened and we may disagree as to the degree of our "lostness" or about what should be done about it, but we all agree that we are a broken people. There is something missing--a hole that needs to be filled. Most willingly admit that they have made some kind of blunder or mistake. In fact, the only people who deny to have ever sinned are those most of us would consider fit only for one place--the asylum. Ask any phsychologist and they will tell you that the inability or the refusal to admit guilt of any kind is indicative of a severe personality disorder. To be able to admit our own sinfulness is a vital part of our character, but hardly an extraordinary one. More importantly, we must decide what should be done about it... and here begins a journey.

Let me ask: Who sets the standard for good behavior? While each of us will adopt a code of behavior we endeavor to follow, none of us actually came up with it. Why is it wrong to steal or lie or gossip? Why is it wrong to commit murder or have an affair or manipulate others for our own self-interests? And, these questions naturally lead to others, such as: Why are these actions considered "wrong"? Why do I have to abide by these rules or any rules? Where did the concept of morality originate? Why is one person's concept of morality any better than another's?

Obviously, the concept of morality came from somewhere. I believe it came from a perfect and holy God. And, herein lies the problem. If there is a God who is holy and perfect and if we, as we all admit, are flawed and imperfect, how can there be any communion between us?

Most religions of the world say something like the following: "If God (or, the gods) loves me and sees that I am trying my best, He'll understand and let me into heaven." This is the "weights and balance" argument at work. In other words, if my good deeds outweigh my bad deeds, I'll get into heaven (or to the next life, or whatever.) There are several problems with this belief system:

1. There is no committment required from us. In fact, I don't even have to believe in a supernatural being at all. I can live my life, just doing my best, and let this be my fall-back hope for those times I start to fear death. This is why there are so many people who claim a religion but in the same breath say they are "non-practicing".

2. There is no relationship available. If you are trying hard to be good enough, all the attention from you is on you. A holy God? What in the world would He want to have to do with me? Wait! Maybe if I clean myself up just a little more, we can talk. ...No. I'll never work hard enough or clean myself up enough to get that far, let alone have a real and dynamic relationship with Him.

3. This is a system that promotes fear. I'm not a gambling person. I don't have the nerves for it, but I'd much rather gamble with my money or my car or my home than with my soul. When I die I want to KNOW where I'm going. I refuse to live my life in the constant fear of what is to come.

4. You make yourself vulnerable to human manipulation. If you are afraid of death because you think you might not be good enough for whatever awaits you, what do you do? You try to be as good as you can be while you can. And, if someone offers to show you how to do this more effectively, you follow them. What if that person tells you, a woman, to obey your husband's every whim, no matter how cruel or humiliating, to stay in the home, never have any unapproved friends and to allow your children to be sexually abused by this "prophet of god"? What if, as a man, you are told to work your fingers to the bone only to see most or all of your wages stolen away, to force your wife and children into submission without regard to their emotional or intellectual needs, and to devote vast amounts of time to free labor or required missionary efforts? And, after all of this, what evidence is there that any of this sacrifice is going noticed by God? Well, they tell you it is. (Sound unrealistic? This kind of thing has gone on for a millenia and continues today, and there is nothing these people would like better than to add you to their number.)

5. There is no assurance of salvation. No matter how hard you work, how many old ladies you escort safely through traffic, how much money you give to starving children around the world and how many hours you donate at the local soup kitchen, you will never, never, never know for sure if it was enough.

6. It is a cosmically flawed game of comparisons. If I am worried about whether or not I'm good enough, I always have one fall-back--to find someone who I think is worse than I am. "Well," I comfort myself, "I know I'm not perfect, but I'm not nearly as bad as that guy!" We can always find someone who appears worse than we are. But is that what God is going to be doing? No. When He makes the comparisons, He's going to be comparing us with Himself--with absolute perfection. Now where do we stand?

Sin is not something you can undo. We are linear and no matter how much we would like to, we can't go back and fix our mistakes. We can pay for the window we broke, ask forgiveness for the lie we told and make amends the best we can for the friend we betrayed, but the past remains unaltered. The man who cheats on his wife may say, "I'm sorry", but is that enough to make it all go away? No. Our guilt is eternal and unchanging. More depressing still, no matter how hard we try to be good, we fail. Even our best efforts aren't good enough to make us worthy to enter the presence of a holy God.

Does God love me? Yes.
Does His love mean He's going to let me in? No.

Regardless of His great love for us, God still remains holy. God cannot change His character. He cannot be less than He is. He cannot align Himself with imperfection. Some people think this means God isn't good or isn't as powerful as some claim. They reason, "Well, if He is Who He says He is and if He wanted to let me in, He could." No. Why? Because of what would happen to us anyway. The Bible describes what happens when anything or anyone who isn't perfectly holy comes anywhere close to God's presence. They die. His glory would destroy us unless we are made perfectly clean and righteous first.

Sin is a very devisive thing. You've seen its destructive power in your life and in the lives of everyone around you. It humiliates, separates and destroys. Sin is catching. It is taught and it is learned. Parents pass ugly behaviors and attitudes on to their children and grandparents to their grandchildren. And sin touches the innocent. It's devastating effects spread from the one who commits the act to the victims until we shake our fists at heaven and cry out, "WHY HAVE YOU LET THIS HAPPEN TO ME?!"

The Bible has this to say:

"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (James 1:13-15)

Sin is an incredibly dangerous disease and, unfortunately, none of us are imune to it. We have all been infected and our deaths are imminent. But that is not the end of the story. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son [Jesus] sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:34-36) (See Context.)

Life After Death: What If?

2008-04-04T19:21:00.000-07:00

A too-brief flame
Grzegorz Wojcik (Wojnicz, Poland)
Photographed March 2006, Wojnicz, Poland

I found that picture at the Smithsonian website. They were having a contest and I really liked this one. It made me realize again how much we don't know about what lies beyond our deaths. Even as a Christian and having the Bible to shed some light on the hearafter, it is still a great mystery. Yet, many people don't believe in life after death and I can see why. To my knowledge there is absolutely no physical or scientific evidence for such a thing. The only "evidences" (to use the term loosely) we have are deathbed accounts of what is being seen or felt or heard--just before the light goes out of their eyes and they leave this world. I find it interesting that these deathbed murmerings tend to be bright and joyful when Christians die and full of fear and sorrow when non-Christians die. Overall, though, these stories are much less frequent these days since most are doped up on pain-killers during those final moments (for humanitarian reasons, of course.)

(Of course, I don't think we really need evidence for life after death to believe in it since we have so much other evidence to believe in Jesus. Since He said so, I believe it because I believe in Him.)

It is frightening, though, to recognize our own mortality--the fragility of our existence on this earth--especially if we believe that our existence will come to an abrupt and bitter end when that last breath escapes our lips. I think this thought is what atheists try most to avoid. It's an ugly, hopeless end, to be sure. No wonder so many try so hard to make a name for themselves on this earth--desperately hoping that maybe, and at least, they won't be forgotten.

Of course, there is the possibility that some things may be very real but invisible and undetectable to us. The fact remains we can only know what exists, not what doesn't exist. Confused? Let me explain: If I wanted to know if there was gold in China, made a search and found some, I would know gold existed in China. If, however, I spent a great deal of time searching and didn't find any gold in China, would that mean it didn't exist there? No. I would literally have to search every single molecule in China, including those that come into the country every second. Only then, would I be able to difinitively proove that there was no gold in China. So, in order to know for certain that there is no God and no spiritual presence, I would have to search the world, the galaxy and the cosmos. I would have to know everything. It's just not possible, so if we truly want to be open to truth we must leave that door open. (This is why there are so many more agnostics than atheists. They have wisely recognized this truth.)

So, what if? What if we do have a spirit? What if there is a God? What if, after death, we must make an account to that Being of our existence on earth? Is being a good person enough? And, if it is, how much good do I have to do to outweigh the bad? Are we trapped in some cosmic guessing game? And, what if, after doing my very best my whole life, I come face to face with the Creator only to realize it wasn't enough? I fell short. I am forever lost because although I tried my hardest, there was still sin in my life and perfect holiness cannot coexist with sinfulness. What if, though that Being loved me and offered me a way out, I passed up His plan for salvation in favor of my own miniscule and jaded efforts?

What if?

What if you're right? What do you get? You get to close your eyes and let every thought and memory and desire completely cease to exist. You get a cold grave. You get to decompose until nothing is left.

But, what if you're wrong? You can spend your whole life hoping that the grave will be your final resting place. You can bank your eternal soul on the hope there is no afterlife, for to be sure, if there is and you're not ready... well... who knows what could happen? As ugly as the grave sounds, a cessation of existence would be vastly preferable to what might await a corrupt, unforgiven soul. Isn't it, at least, worth another look? For, if you find Truth, you know it's there. If you don't find Truth, it could very well be out there waiting for you. What do you have to lose if you were to keep searching and keep yourself open to finding Truth?

Here's a great song by Nicole Nordeman called, "What If?"

(To be honest, I don't usually like this argument--the "what if you're wrong" argument, not because it isn't true or worth serious thought, but because it often ignores the basic truth of God's deep love and sacrifice for us. My reason for accepting Jesus' offer of forgiveness and payment for my sin had nothing to do with trying to escape hell, and everything to do with falling in love with Him and desiring to be in an intimate relationship with my Creator, Father, Savior and Friend. "Becoming a Christian" isn't spiritual fire insurance. Repeating a prayer on the back of a Christian pamphlet won't get you into heaven. Spending time warming a bench in church or giving 10% of your income to charity won't do it, either. This is something that happens in your heart and only you can govern whether or not you will open your heart to falling head over heals in love with Him and make the decision to trust Him with that love and with your life.)

Don't let the flame of your life be snuffed out in the face of uncertainty.

When Prayer Doesn't Work

2008-04-01T17:11:00.000-07:00

I've heard phrases like this often: "I tried praying, but it didn't work." Mostly, I hear this from atheists, agnostics and those who once claimed some faith or other, but sometimes from struggling Christians. I wonder, have you ever felt that way? Have you "cast your burdens on God" only to be met with silence? Have you cried out into the night sky but heard only the echo of your own voice? Have you pled with Someone to hear you only to experience aloneness, smallness and feelings of rejection--or worse--the sinking feeling you have never been thought of at all?

Sometimes we experience struggles that cause us to question even our earliest beliefs. When those struggles come we reach out for help. But if God is silent, what then? I've spoken to former Christians (now atheist or agnostic) who cite this as one of the reasons for their ultimate rejection of Christ. "Prayer never worked," they tell me--and I can't help but wonder: How were you expecting prayer to "work"?

Disappointment--and, in this case, accute disillusionment--is the result of one's expectations or wishes going unfulfilled (thanks to Webster's deffinition). We have certain ideas about what God will do or say when we ask something of Him. Then, when those things don't happen, our hopes are dashed, our fears are realized and our faith falters or even fails altogether. We feel cast aside, unimportant or foolish for believing at all. "My prayers aren't working," we reason, and, in a sense, that may be true. But the next supposition, "God must not care about me" or "God must not exist", is a rather large and unfounded leap. You see, perhaps our prayers aren't supposed to "work" at all--at least, not in the way we are expecting or wishing. Perhaps our entire concept of prayer is wrong--or, at best, confused.

"Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." (Ecclesiastes 5:2)

Wait a minute! This sounds nothing like prayer to me! I mean, if we're supposed to keep silent, how is God going to know how I feel and what I want? What kind of "prayer" is this anyway, if I can't even let Him know how rotten it's gotten down here on this "earth" that He seems so eager to ignore? ...Perhaps you've had such thoughts before, but if we really think about God, His character and what prayer is designed to be, doesn't this make perfect sense? How am I--a created being--supposed to approach my Creator? Should I pepper Him with requests, supplications and demands? Should I start right off whining about what rotten luck I've had and demanding He take notice, step in and fix everything, like some genie in a bottle? Or, maybe, the real point of prayer isn't to have an ear for my complaints or to get stuff, but to get to know Who God is--His character.

Let's say I made a date to go out with a friend for lunch. The point of the outing is to get to know each other better, but I end up talking non-stop for the entire two hours. My buddy can hardly get a word in edgewise. Then, when it's time to go home, I find myself feeling strangely unfulfilled. I was hoping to get a lot off my chest, and I did... sort of... but now that I think about it, I'm not even sure I was heard because my friend made hardly a sound at all. Did he even understand? Was he listening? Did he care? I don't know because I never gave him the chance to respond. Now, I bet if this happened to you or me in real life, we would recognize our error and decide to be a better listener next time. Afterall, we've had many relationships in our lives and we know that it's just as important to listen as it is to share our thoughts. So, why, when it comes to our relationship with God, do we treat Him like a slot machine--putting in request after request, hoping He'll eventually pay off and being disappointed when He remains silent? We don't treat our fallible human friends that way; it would be terribly rude! But God? Well, maybe we do that because we aren't really thinking of Him as a Being, but rather as a belief.

God is not a belief! God is real! He has real emotions, real desires and a real personality. He also happens to be incredibly powerful, perfectly holy and exceedingly loving.

Job (despite the fact he was perhaps the most godly man in all Scripture) said, "Teach me, and I will be quiet; show me where I have been wrong." (Job 6:24) This is the correct attitude we must have when we approach God. It is an attitude of humility.

God said, "...if my people humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14) We want God to hear us and forgive us and heal us... we just don't want to comply with the first part--the part that begins, "if my people humble themselves".

When we think about how to pray, most of us think of The Lord's Prayer Jesus taught in Matthew 6:9-13. It reads:

"...Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

You may notice that the first half of that short prayer is the humbling of the speaker before God. Most of us like to skip that first part and dive directly into the "give us" parts, and while it's perfectly okay to ask God for things, it's absolutely necessary that we humble ourselves first. We must recognize that God is not obligated to do anything we ask. God has a set of plans that may or may not include what we have in mind. God's purposes are not only greater than ours, but His wisdom, forsight and knowledge far exceed our own. Finally, if we want to have a relationship with God and have a part in His kingdom and in His work, we must be aligned with Him, not the other way around. The only way to do this, of course, is for Him to do it for us. He must align us--but He won't do it unless we ask ...and we must be humble enough to ask.

So, if our prayers aren't "working", maybe it's because we have forgotten that prayer isn't just a means to get God to do something--it is a way for us to get to know Him. And if we have refused to be silent, to open our ears and hearts to listen to His voice and recognize Him not as a slot-machine god or a genie in a bottle, but as a Person, a Being, a Personality, then our prayers will always seem to fall on deaf ears. You see, that's because, although God is still listening, you are not.

Nietzsche's Misunderstanding

2008-03-26T14:43:00.000-07:00

"I go back, I tell the genuine history of Christianity. The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding: in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "evangel" died on the cross. What has been called "evangel" from that moment was actually the opposite of that which he had lived: "ill tidings," a dysangel. It is false to the point of nonsense to find the mark of the Christian in a "faith," for instance, in the faith in redemption through Christ: only Christian practice, a life such as he lived who died on the cross, is Christian.Such a life is still possible today, for certain people even necessary: genuine, original Christianity will be possible at all times.Not a faith, but a doing; above all, a not doing of many things, another state of being. States of consciousness, any faith, considering something true, for example—every psychologist knows this—are fifth-rank matters of complete indifference compared to the value of the instincts: speaking more strictly, the whole concept of spiritual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, Christianism, to a matter of considering something true, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to negate Christianism. In fact, there have been no Christians at all. The "Christian," that which for the last two thousand years has been called a Christian, is mere a psychological self-misunderstanding. If one looks more closely, it was, in spite of all "faith," only the instincts that ruled in him—and what instincts!"Faith" was at all times, for example, in Luther, only a cloak, a pretext, a screen behind which the instincts played their game—a shrewd blindness about the dominance of certain instincts. "Faith"—I have already called it the characteristic Christian shrewdness—one always spoke of faith, but one always acted from instinct alone.In the Christian world of ideas there is nothing that has the least contact with reality—and it is in the instinctive hatred of reality that we have recognized the only motivating force at the root of Christianity. What follows from this? That in psychologicis too, the error here is radical, that it is that which determines the very essence, that it is the substance. One concept less, one single reality in its place—and the whole of Christianity hurtles down into nothing.Viewed from high above, this strangest of all facts—a religion which is not only dependent on errors but which has its inventiveness and even its genius only in harmful errors, only in errors which poison life and the heart—is really a spectacle for gods, for those gods who are at the same time philosophers and whom I have encountered, for example, at those famous dialogues on Naxos [1]. The moment nausea leaves them (and us!), they become grateful for the spectacle of the Christian: perhaps the miserable little star that is called earth deserves a divine glance, a divine sympathy, just because of this curious case. For let us not underestimate the Christian: the Christian, false to the point of innocence, is far above the ape—regarding Christians, a well-known theory of descent becomes a mere compliment." Friedrich Nietzsche.

“To reduce being a Christian, Christianism, to a matter of considering something true, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to negate Christianism.” Friedrich Nietzsche

You know, I don’t think Nietzsche had an accurate understanding of what Christianity is. First, he complains that people call themselves “Christians” and emphatically states that such a claim can only be false unless that person lives and dies in exactly the same manner Christ did. (Which is kind-of ridiculous because the term “Christian” means “follower of Christ”, not “another Christ”.) And, secondly, he makes the above statement—which I happen to agree with as it is written—but makes me think Nietzsche thought Christianity was only “considering something true”. In fact, it is much more. It is the entering into and the commitment to an intimate relationship with another being—Jesus Christ. And, while that would be impossible without a certain set of beliefs, the act of “becoming a Christian” is not subscribing to doctrine, but rather surrendering to Christ, learning to love Him, accepting His love and forgiveness in return and committing your life to Him because you know and trust Him. It is a relationship, not a “phenomenon of consciousness”. So, as you see, there is much more going on here than what Nietzsche seems to imply.

The reason I think Nietzsche was confused can be shown in this further quote of his regarding faith:

"Faith" was at all times, for example, in Luther, only a cloak, a pretext, a screen behind which the instincts played their game—a shrewd blindness about the dominance of certain instincts. "Faith"—I have already called it the characteristic Christian shrewdness—one always spoke of faith, but one always acted from instinct alone.

The kind of “faith” Nietzsche describes in words such as “a cloak, a pretext, a screen” and “a shrewd blindness” in no way define the kind of faith I have in Jesus Christ. That kind of faith is when someone says, “I like what I’m hearing, so I’m going to make myself believe in it even though I kind-of know it isn’t true” or “I really want this to be true, so I’ll buy into it for now—after all, I can always leave it behind later if it turns out to be false.” I’m sorry, but that kind of “faith” isn’t the kind of faith required by Jesus. That is the “back-up plan” and the “I really wish it was true” variety, and there’s a big difference between that and what Jesus requires of us.

Let me explain:

When I got to know Aaron, who has now been my husband for over 10 years, I gradually came to recognize the sound of his voice and learn what his mannerisms signified. Over time I learned that he was honest—I could trust what he said because he never lied to me or anyone else. I learned about his favorite foods, his pet peeves and his moods, and in time we developed a loving, trusting friendship and romantic attachment. When he said, “I love you,” I believed him. Then, on our wedding day, I walked down that aisle under the full assurance of his love. No one had to push me or pump me full of anti-anxiety medications. I knew. I had faith in his love and in his continued love because I knew him. Now, that isn’t to say I believed nothing bad would ever happen. It has and I’m sure more bad stuff is yet to come. But I believed—and still believe—that no matter what happens, his love and commitment to me will remain. I know that when bumps come along, he’ll put in the effort required to smooth them out. How do I know this? Because I know him. He’s done it before and he’ll do it again. It is in his character and I know his character. This is a relationship, not a mathematical, nor even a philosophical, formula.

Nietzsche further exposes his misunderstanding when he states:

“In the Christian world of ideas there is nothing that has the least contact with reality—and it is in the instinctive hatred of reality that we have recognized the only motivating force at the root of Christianity.”

If Christians were afraid of reality, why are so many of them scientists? Why are so many of the Nobel prizes in science fields granted to Christians? Why, when it comes to Nobel prizes, were the vast majority of them granted to us Americans who have built our society on Christian ethics and the desire to find out the truth? I think, if you do a little digging, you’ll find that some of the biggest supporters of scientific study and research are, in fact, Christians. Christians have absolutely nothing to fear from science or any other proven fact out there. Some of the less studied Christians in the ranks are, understandably, timid in the face of the vast amount of bashing they have withstood at the hands of the evolutionists, but those—Christian and non-Christian alike—who are willing to do the research into both science and biblical teaching will find that there is no proven scientific fact that is refuted by the original Scriptures. In fact, both the Old and New Testaments continue to astound scientists of all backgrounds in their continued tested and proven accuracy.

Now, that being said, I don’t really blame Nietzsche for his lack of understanding. The truth is, he simply wasn’t capable of understanding what the Christians understood because he had never entered into that relationship. The Bible says:

"Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will perish." (Isaiah 29:14, NIV)

And,

“…‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’ –but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” (I Cor. 2:9-13)

Now, don’t miss this next part; it’s important:

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (I Cor. 2: 14)

Get that? People—all of us—are simply not capable of understanding the things of God unless God Himself reveals it to us. It was never revealed to Nietzsche, so he couldn’t understand it. Why wasn’t it revealed, despite his lifetime of searching for truth? Because he never humbled himself enough to enter into the one relationship that would answer all his questions—a relationship with Jesus Christ. Please, don't make the same mistake.

The Love Letter

2008-03-18T01:05:00.000-07:00

A young girl sat in a coffee shop, dreaming of what the perfect guy might be like. He would love her, respect her, know her intimately and always have only her very best in mind. His words would be always encouraging--even when she had somehow disappointed him, for such things were bound to happen from time to time. Even still, he would never stop loving her or persevering on her behalf, and he would never make fun or her or get rough with her. He would be committed to her... and she would love him back.

Just as she was thinking these thoughts, a handsome young man entered the coffee shop. Their eyes met and she was instantly drawn to him. She had seen him before, she realized. Her friends had even said some very good things about him. She had been intrigued at the time, but unsure of how to approach him. And now, there he was--looking right at her.

Her heart skipped a beat. He was coming toward her! Oh, no! Suddenly, she was very self-conscious. If only I had worn some nicer clothes, she thought in horror, as she glimpsed the coffee stain on her t-shirt and the snaggly cuffs of her jeans. He's so handsome and I didn't even comb my hair this morning! And what about the extra 15 --okay, 20-- pounds I'm carrying around in all the wrong places! He'd never want to be with someone like me! But he was still headed her way. She glanced behind her to check to see if, perhaps, he was really headed toward another, prettier girl, but there was no one there. No. He was deffinitely heading right toward her.

"Hello," he said in the smoothest, gentlest and manliest voice she had ever heard.

"Hi," she squeaked, very aware of the violent thudding in her chest and the moistness creeping into her palms.

"I'm Joshua and I'd very much like for us to get to know each other."

"OK," she croaked, wondering vaguely if one of her friends hadn't set this up as a cruel joke.

"I have a letter here for you," he said, extending a thick envelope.

She took it timidly, and through the thin paper could see that it contained several sheets of hand-written pages. He had gone to a lot of trouble, it seemed.

"What is this?" She managed to ask in a semi-normal voice.

"Well, I've been trying to get in touch with you for a long time," he began, "but you always seem to be heading the other way. So, this is a letter explaining who I am, what I've done and what I have in store for us."

He said "us"!

"Everything you need to know about me is in this letter. ...It's a love letter, actually... from me to you. Won't you read it and get back to me?"

With that, he squeezed her hand and smiled at her. In his eyes she could see the longing--not a base, lustful longing--but pure, honest affection. Then he stood and left, glancing back once over his shoulder before disappearing out the door.

Wow! Could this really be happening? Was this some kind of wonderful, amazing dream?! If so, she wished she would never wake up! For, there--in her sweaty, little hands--was the most precious letter she had ever received--and all she had to do was read it.

***

You have that same letter in your hands today, my friend. God has written you a love letter. It is called the Bible. All you have to do is read it and open your heart to Him. Start with the book of John.

The Problem With Works-Based Religion

2008-03-17T23:28:00.000-07:00

Every single religious belief system, other than Christianity, is a works-based religion by design, and Christianity can easily become one if you aren't careful. Here is why that is bad:

Works-based, monotheistic religions (that is, the belief in only one God) teach: I must do something to make myself good enough for God to accept me. Most of these religions believe that God is perfectly good. Now, if God is good and I, quite obviously, am not, how could I ever hope to make myself good enough to be with Him? Evil, as we all know, contaminates good. The two cannot co-exist without the evil eventually overtaking the good--hence the need for me to make myself good enough... except that this is impossible. I've already sinned--darn!--and since I don't have the power to reverse time and undo what I've already done, I'm pretty much doomed before I even start thinking about such things. Then, once I did start thinking about them, I still struggle with impurity--even my thoughts would have to be completely holy at all times for me to measure up. --Whoops! There they go again! Now what? So, the result of all this is work, work, work--try to please a god that will never accept me anyway--and die still wondering if I was good enough to tip the scale that has perfection on one end and me on the other.

Works-based, polytheistic religions (the belief in multiple gods) teach: I must do something to please the gods in order that they will bless me instead of curse me. This belief system exists almost entirely on fear. (Actually, so do the others, now that I think of it.) There is absolutely no eternal security. The most I could hope for is to please as many of the gods as possible and not tick off any too badly so that I have a good life on earth. Then, if I am really, really good, I might actually become a god later to stalk around instilling fear in everyone left on earth. Of course, it's far more likely that I will tick off a god or two (there being so many of them and none of them completely good nor very understanding) and I might be cursed to a miserable life on earth and maybe even be forced to come back as a flea or a slug. Another problem with this belief system is that the only appealing part is that so many people follow it. Try to find some hard, factual evidence to support this and you might as well search the bottom of the ocean for a live racoon.

Works-based, pantheistic religions (the belief that god is abstract and/or present in everything) teach: I must make myself as enlightened as possible, melding myself with the "god" or "goddess" in everything. Ah! If only we could all be gods someday! Hey, maybe we are already! --That is pretty much where this kind of belief system leads. Evil becomes very relative when no one good defines what "good" is. I could be a murdering child molester, but--hey!--if I'm a god, who's to say I'm doing anything wrong? And, if--as this belief system teaches--"god" is in everything, isn't "god" also in me? Of course, if you're a little more grounded, as most people are, then there is the fear of what happens after you die. In this system there is little chance that your psyche--your spirit--what makes you "you"--continues to exist once you're gone. You either get reincarnated and forget everything--until some guru charms you into remembering bits and pieces as if it was some dream of long ago (how many Pocahontases could there have been, anyway?)--or, you join the mass conciousness of all the other spirits that have gone before you, becoming just a single, indistinguishable drop in the sea. Again, try to find some hard evidence for any this.

Other: I am, obviously, leaving out several other sub-categories and being pretty general. For example, one could argue that Satanism is not a works-based religion in the way I describe above; however, you're still doing something--be it evil instead of good--in order to please some deity. Still, if you have a question about some other belief system out there and believe that, perhaps, it isn't works-based, then, by all means, drop me a note. I'd be happy to evaluate it and, if necessary, revise my very broad first statement. Do me the favor, though, of thinking it through first. You may be surprised at how cleverly disquised some of these belief systems can be.

Why Christianity is Different:
You may recall that I said that even Christianity can become a works-based religion. It certainly can; however, it is not designed as such. Anyone who claims a different way to have a relationship with God is not proclaiming Christ, but themselves. Here's why: When Jesus (God) died on the cross as a payment for all evil ever thought, spoken or acted out by us humans, He made that bridge for us--as sinful as we may be--to cross over into God's presence by taking on Jesus' righteousness as our own. It was something God had to do. We could never have paid that price (--well, that's not true. We could pay that price, only the penalty is death and separation from God. Not exactly an option I want to take.) What do we have to do? Nothing. Only believe and accept His payment on our behalf. That is not something you do. It's something you become--a new creation, created originally by God and re-made by Him.

The Bible tells us: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:9 (NIV)

How are we saved? By grace.
What is required? Faith. (Which is also given by God, by the way.)
What is it? A gift of God.
Who does it? God.
Who doesn't do it? Us.
What doesn't work? Works. (Doing stuff to please God, make ourselves good enough for Him or make Him love us more.)
Why not? So that no one cannot boast.
And, finally, why is it so important that we cannot boast? Because God went to all the trouble to love us despite our ugliness and filth, come to earth, die a horrible death for us and, thereby, make the way for us to be with Him. And, if we keep trying to earn what is given as a gift, we are not only spinning our wheels, we are slapping Him in the face and saying, "No, God. I think I would do a better job than You when it comes to making myself good enough for You--even though I am starting off from a sinful place, am not nearly so intelligent or wise as You, have no clue what the future brings and don't even know myself as well as You do, since I didn't create myself."

When I reject God's grace and try to, instead, work my way into Heaven, I take the focus off of Him and put it on myself--every single time. I suddenly become my own god. And that, my friend, is not only the most arrogant thing I could do, but also the most foolish.

Evidence For the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

2007-10-11T16:00:00.000-07:00

How important is the resurrection of Christ to the Christian faith?

I Corinthians 15:14 states, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

It would seem, from the passage above, that the doctrine of Christ's resurrection is the pinnacle on which the rest of the Christian faith rests. Interesting.... So, theoretically, if you can disprove the resurrection of Christ, you can disprove Christianity as a whole. Even we Christians would have no room to debate such a thing, seeing as how the Bible itself states how very important the resurrection is to the core of our belief.

Reading this passage, don't you think that many would try desperately to do just that? Finally! Once and for all to disprove that Christ rose from the dead! Once and for all to get all those Christians out there to shut up, for once! Once and for all to have the last word on a matter that has divided people across centuries!

Well, the truth is, many have tried. The problem with trying to disprove the resurrection is that the evidence in favor of it is incredibly overwhelming. There is better evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than there is for the existence of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. In fact, many who have set out pumped to finally get Jesus out of the picture, have instead ended up falling in love with Him. How's that for irony?

I will outline for you a few of the evidences for the resurrection:

* The earliest manuscripts in our possession today that record these events were written and circulated before those who had witnessed the execution and been impressed by the resurrection had died. In other words, the event itself and the surrounding events were still in the memories of those living in Israel at that time. If such wild accounts had been false or easily disproven by someone just saying, "Nope. I remember it all and it didn't happen that way," the movement would have met a swift end. (Matthew--within 20 years, Mark--within 30 years, Luke--within 30 or 40 years, John--within 20-30 years.)

* Jesus was medically proven to have actually, physically died. (In other words, he wasn't just in a coma or something like that.) John 19:32-37 states, "The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and foudn that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken,' and, as another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced.'" (See Context.)

* Jesus's body wasn't stolen by His followers. The religious and political leaders made sure of that by rolling a huge rock in front of Jesus's tomb, placing Pilate's seal on it and placing armed guards in front of it. (We're not sure how many guards were there. Estimates suggest between 20-100.) Matthew 27:57-66 has the full account of this. Some key verses are: "Joseph took the body, wraped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb.... The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.' 'Take a guard,' Pilate answered. 'Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on teh stone and posting the guard."

* There was a massive coverup--not by the disciples, but by the religious and political leaders who really goofed by "allowing" Jesus to, indeed, come back to life. Matthew 28:11-15 states, "...some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, 'You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.' So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed...." The trouble they spoke of was the death of any Roman soldier caught sleeping at his post. The Romans weren't exactly known for their forgiving spirit. So... if the disciples stole the body away while the soldiers slept, how did the soldiers know who had done it? Weren't they asleep? And, if they were really asleep, how did 20 or more trained guards sleep through all the noise the rolling away of that massive stone must have caused?

* Jesus's followers seemed to give up right after His death. They reacted as any one would if they believed that the one they had believed to be the Savior of the world, had suddenly met a very brutal end at the hands of the enemy. They went into hiding and with good reason, too. Now that the leader of thier revolt was dead, their lives were in danger from the relgious leaders who could kill them for being blasphemers--the same reason they used to crucify Jesus. Obviously, they weren't actively trying to fake anything or start a new religion. But then, suddenly,--upon seeing Jesus alive again and realizing that His triumph was over not only physical death, but the spiritual death of all mankind--they were so excited and zealous and outspoken that nobody could shut them up. John 20:19 states, "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' After he had said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord." (See Context.)

* Most of the disciples of Jesus and many of His followers who came later were martyred. They died still confessing that Jesus was God, the Messiah, the Savior of mankind, and that He had, indeed, conquered death by coming back to life on the third day as He had predicted. Obviously, they believed. Here's a list:

Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned and some 2,000 other Christians suffered at the time of Stephen's persecution, c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Jude was crucified.
Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.
(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

For information on later Christian martyrs, see: http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/earlmart.htm

* There were over 500 eye witnesses who saw Jesus alive after He had died on the cross. I Corinthians 15:6 states, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." Again, if these people were still alive and if this was a lie, wouldn't somebody have said something?

* If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead and if the disciples had no chance at all to steal the body, why didn't the religious and political leaders simply produce the body? They had control over the tomb. They certainly had sufficient reason to want Jesus's followers squelched and producing a Jesus's body would have quickly disproved that He'd come back to life. Why not? Because there was no body to be found. It was gone. They didn't have it.

Well, these are only a few of the evidences, as I said. There are many more; these are just the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Still, all in all, it's very unlikely the resurrection will ever be disproven. "Well, that's okay," some say, "I don't believe in Jesus or God anyway." Well, my response to that would be this: It's very easy to say something or someone "doesn't exist". It takes absolutely no work at all. You just have to sit there and turn your mind off. Easy. The work comes in when you try to discover the truth. What does the evidence tell you? And, if the character, Jesus, did, indeed, come back to life, how and why did that happen? Who was He, anyway?

A couple of verses later in the same book, the Bible has something else to say, which we should all consider:I Corinthians 15:17 states, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

That would certainly be a shame, would it not? To still be stuck in our sins while our lives are ebbing away?

The Origin of the Universe

2007-01-19T16:04:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I jumped the gun a little when I started discussing the fossil record. Perhaps I should have started at the very beginning with the origin of the universe. This may even be a good place to find some common ground with our atheist friends. Let's see:

Question #1: How did the universe come into being?

The first possibility:
The universe had no beginning. It has always existed and will always exist into the future.

The second possibility:
The universe had a beginning. It had a beginning and is, therefore, finite. This idea also implies that the universe will eventually end.

Based on scientific discoveries of the motion of the galaxies, we have learned that the universe is expanding from one central location. (i.e. the Big Bang). Everything is moving slower now than it was millions of years ago. This suggests that we are not simply in a steady-state holding pattern.

Also, consider the laws of Thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant. The second law of thermodynamics states that, though the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is steadily decreasing. It's running out. Everything is turning to disorder. Therefore, if we're running out of usable energy, it was never an infinite amount. The universe was never designed to exist forever.

Question #2: So, if the universe had a beginning, was this beginning caused or uncaused?

The Universe is Uncaused:
Some scientists once subscribed to the steady-state theory--the theory that the universe was brought about by natural causes. This theory is a bit out-dated, though, since it calls for the universe to be constantly generating hydrogen atoms from nothing. We now know, of course, that this does not happen. This stance also violates the law of casuality, which states that nothing happens without a cause.

The Universe was Caused:
If the universe was caused, what caused the explosion--the Big Bang--that hurled everything into existence? Some believe that the Big Bang was just a series of explosions, but that still leaves us asking, What caused the first explosion?

"Logically, if we are looking for a cause which existed before the entirety of
nature (the universe) existed, we are looking for a supernatural cause.
Even Jastrow [Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies], a confirmed agnostic, has said as much: 'That
there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I
think, a scientifically proven fact.'" Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask

Just How Much Do You Know About the Fossil Record?

2007-01-12T16:11:00.000-08:00

During a discussion with an atheist, I made an off-handed remark that the theory of evolution was full of holes. They asked me to prove it and, unfortunately, it had been some time since I had actually studied it, so they challenged me to do some research into evolution. I agreed, and here's what I discovered during my search: Science has not failed us, but the scientific community has.

Let me ask you, how much you really know about the fossil record? Are you basing your faith in evolution as the origin of the species on this evidence? Here's the site I visited:

29+Evidences

The evidences I saw were quite impressive at first glance. Then I started asking questions--questions like:
So, does the collected evidence support the conclusions being drawn by whoever put this site together?
How might someone like me determine that the experiments were performed correctly or by qualified people?
What evidences are still missing that would be necessary to draw the conclusions the scientific community is pushing?
Has the scientific evidence been taken for what it is or pushed into a preconceived mold?

Frankly, the answers to these questions cast a very dim light on these "evidences". The scientific data that has been gathered was so full of holes, it was laughable. They are drawing very distinct conclusions based on the teeniest shreds of data. In fact, none of it answers any questions--it just brings up new ones. Well, I take that back--It did answer one question for me. It showed me that to believe that all of the universe, our world, our plants, our animals and humanity sprung out of nothing--or even out of random energy patterns--is just as much of a faith system as it is to believe that an intelligent God made it all. The scientific community touts, "We don't have all the answers yet, but one day we will." Do you believe them? Or, could it be possible that God is still saying, "I AM the answer."

So, what are the holes, you ask? Here’s a closer look:

Again, at first glance it is quite impressive. “Wow!”, one might think. “We really did evolve from monkeys, after all!” But, since we’re adults now and able to do some digging for ourselves, let’s do. What we are looking at is a collection of skulls that are purported to be examples of transitional forms linking chimpanzee to humans (i.e. evidence that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature). Based only on what this site said, here are a few of the holes I discovered. (The quotes were taken directly from the site mentioned.):

Skull A: A normal chimpanzee as we know them today.

Skulls B & C:

"In all, A. africanus is an enigma to paleoanthropology. Researchers are still
unsure about where A. africanus came from and which species, if any, it led to."

Skull D:

"The ER 1813 fossil is somewhat skewed on its left side, a result of the
pressures the skull experienced during the fossilization process…"

Skull E:

"The cranium was found crushed flat (hence the nickname) and cemented together
with a coating of limestone. Little value was placed on the find originally, but
after much effort, the skull was reconstructed. Despite this effort, there still
is a good deal of distortion from the fossilization process."

Skull F:

"The fossil was shown to Louis only several days before his death. But Richard
Leakey, leader of the expedition which uncovered the skull, refused to firmly
place ER 1470 into a species, listing it only as "Homo sp." or "genus Homo, but
species indeterminate." "

Skull G: Unfortunately, I didn’t have access to this item. Apparently, I had to pay $10 for a 24 hour pass to even look at it. Why? Isn’t this supposed to be public info?

Skull H:

"…ER 3733 represents a mature female of the early human species…"

My comment:
Apparently, this is the only thing available from the entire skeleton (as may be true for all of these skulls), and this is considered human. Whoa! Quite a big jump, wouldn’t you say? We’re going from “I don’t have a clue what this species is or even if it led to anything else,” to “this is an early human.” How can they possibly be sure?

Skull I:

"The braincase profile is low and slopes back from a large supraorbital torus
reminiscent of earlier H. erectus specimens."

My question: If these skulls are supposed to be showing signs of evolving—getting further away from the chimpanzee—why does this one seem to be more like the earlier skulls? Sounds like backwards evolution to me. &

"The cranium shows evidence of disease and wounds that occurred in the lifetime
of this individual. Ten of the upper teeth have cavities, and dental abscesses
of the upper jaw are clearly visible in the upper photograph (above the right
incisor/canine) and the middle photograph (above the first molar). Additionally,
a partially healed wound is visible in the bottom two photographs, above and
anterior of the hole for the ear."

Skulls J , K & L:
(A large gap in the fossil record admitted:)

"Neanderthals are known from Europe and western Asia from about 200,000 years to about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record and were
replaced in Europe by anatomically modern forms."

"However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar
anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that
Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the
two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo
sapiens sapiens."

My comment: …Or maybe they’re actually both regular humans, and this one is just an example of a person who had an abnormally shaped skull. I wonder, if we were to examine the skulls of everyone in existence today, don’t you think we’d come up with at least a few oddly shaped craniums? Also, isn’t it interesting that they’ve found four skulls that fit into this same category when (according to the theory) there must be literally thousands of other missing links in between for which they have found nothing? Could it be possible that this abnormally shaped skull isn’t so abnormal among regular humans as one might think?

Skull L:

"The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved."

My comment: The jawbone seems to be missing entirely. From all appearances, it looks just like a fairly normal human skull—what’s left of it, that is.

Skull M: A regular human being just like you or me.

Obviously, there are many gaps and unknowns here. What, at first glance, looks like solid evidence, isn’t solid at all. It’s full of holes (just like many of the skulls). These skulls don’t answer a single question. In fact, they only bring up more. All in all, my point here is to show that belief in evolutionary theory (as the means by which humanity was created) is just as much of a faith system as Christianity. In fact, I think it requires a great deal more faith.

Cutting Away the Anchor

2007-01-03T14:50:00.000-08:00

I've come across several people who, having once been a professing Christian, have since denied their belief in Christ and become atheists. Looking at this from the opposite perspective--one of confirmed belief and assurance, I have often wondered how they could possibly have made such a decision. I believe, though, that I'm beginning to understand. Here are several possibilities I see:

1. Their "Christianity" was merely a religion, with no actual relationship with God to begin with; therefore, everything they believed was based on head knowledge, rather than spirit knowledge. Understandably, they found their religion to be fruitless and empty and, finally, became disillusioned and left.

2. They were true Christians, but doubts and trials arose and, instead of relying on God to help them through, they succumbed to the world. They felt abandoned by God and faith, so they decided to abandon their faith in God. These people are still under God's grace, but are on a long journey--hopefully, one that will eventually bring them back. These people may indeed be atheists at this time. But even though we may turn our backs on God (free will), God will never turn His back on us once we have given Him the permission to save our souls.

3. Their understanding of God and Jesus was weak to begin with. They ran into some hard times that confused them. They believed some of the lies the world was telling them--such as "A good God wouldn't let anyone go to Hell." They were confronted by provocative-sounding "evidence" from the anti-God community, and eventually decided that there is no true evidence for belief in God.

Here's the problem with all of the above scenarios. Actually, there are several:

1. People tend to believe what they think is appealing, rather than what is proven to be true.

2. People tend to believe what is popular, rather than what is proven to be true.

And, most importantly:

3. Christians are most suseptible to doubt when they refuse to acknowledge or take into consideration the anchor of their faith--the hundreds of fulfilled prophesies about Jesus Christ, His death and His resurrection.

When a Christian decides to no longer be a Christian and becomes an atheist, it may feel very freeing. Suddenly the anchor is gone and you are free to live by your own rules and seek your own interests above all else. But, like a boat on a stormy sea, whenever you place your faith in yourself, you will soon discover how fallible you really are. A popular actor once said, "Christianity is only for weak people." And, yet, this actor had been through multiple divorces and addictions. Who is the weak person? Everyone. We are all weak and we all need the Savior. It simply takes a bit of humilty to admit it.

Did Jesus Actually Exist?: The Jesus Puzzle Rebuttal

2006-12-21T19:42:00.000-08:00

I was recently speaking with a gentleman who claimed not to believe Jesus existed at all--let alone did all that the Bible claims. Since most historians do not doubt Jesus' existance, even if the doubt His divinity, I found this man's point of view particularly interesting. I asked him why he held that belief and he pointed me to a website: The Jesus Puzzle. There are 12 pieces to this puzzle that, according to the site's author, add up to the conclusion that Jesus never actually existed. Here's what I thought about these claims:

Piece 1:

“The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.”

Piece 2:

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

In pieces 1 & 2, they say that Jesus wasn’t mentioned very much in other sources other than the epistles. Basically, they were looking for confirmation of Jesus’ existence and activity in sources outside of the gospels and the writings of Christ’s followers. Their claim is that the lack of extra support of these writings is evidence that Jesus never existed. However, it would seem to me that the opposite is also true. What about the lack of writings denouncing Jesus’ existence? The writings of the New Testament were being circulated back and forth across the Roman Empire within the first generation after Jesus lived. In other words, there were many, many people still alive who had known Him, known His family and had heard first-hand accounts of His life. At the time right after His ministry and His death—if it was all a giant hoax—wouldn’t you expect to see writings to that effect? –Proclaiming that such a story was untrue because Joseph’s cousin knew he’d never had a son named Jesus or something like that? These people weren’t like we are today—focused on our own petty lives. They were in everybody’s business all of the time. Oral history was huge and so news traveled very quickly by word of mouth. It would be impossible for anyone at that time and in that region to start spreading a hoax that huge without someone taking notice. It’s particularly interesting that there was no denouncement of His existence from His enemies, such as the Roman government—people who would have quite a bit to gain if they could have persuaded people not to believe in Christ. So, in my opinion, pieces 1 & 2, reason against themselves.

Piece 3:

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

I simply can’t fathom how the author can claim that the early writers of the NT didn’t speak of Jesus as if he had been a real, living person. That simply makes no sense at all to me, and here’s why: Paul did make references to Christ’s physical existence. Some of these can be found in I Corinthians 1:13, 1:23, 2:2, & 2:8, 1 Th. 4:14, and in several other places. All you have to do is look.

Here are a couple of good ones:

I Corinthians 11:23
“…The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”

So, based on the above, is there night in this spiritual realm he speaks of? Do people betray each other? Do they eat and drink? Do they partake in ritual, religious observances so as not to forget God’s blessings? Obviously, he’s speaking of something that happened here on earth—the time Jesus ate the Passover meal with His disciples.

Here’s another one:
I Corinthians 15:3-7

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Again, here he speaking of Christ’s physical death—even that He was buried. Also, it speaks of all those to whom He appeared—notice how very many people there were who saw Jesus after He had been crucified. Perhaps the most interesting phrase here, though, is the one I highlighted—“…most of whom are still living…”. If you look at the time frame when this letter was written, there’s no way Paul could have gotten away with this kind of letter and this kind of claim if anyone had evidence to the contrary. It certainly would have come out long ago if there had been any doubt—even among Jesus’ enemies—that Jesus had, indeed, existed and done what the writers of the NT claim.

Piece 4:

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

Again, it is very clear that Paul believed Christ to have existed in physical form—hence all the references to His death on the cross. They seem to be going against their argument in Piece 3 where they said, “they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history.” Obviously, if Paul did indeed discuss Christ’s crucifixion, as they now admit here, he did believe Jesus was physically crucified, and thus, physically existed. In I Cor. 2:8, the “rulers of this age” is in reference to the chief priests, Pilate and Herod Antipas, not to demonic forces as this person suggests. The passage must only be looked at in context. The Hebrews passage is talking about Jesus’ role as our High Priest and about the role of the New Covenant. It has nothing to do with the location of Christ’s sacrifice. The other passage he mentioned isn’t part of the Bible, nor has it gone through the vigorous verifications which the Bible has so long endured. Every single source he mentioned here has either been taken out of context, maligned, or is a very poor source, indeed.

Piece 5:

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

This argument is full of error. They need to reexamine true Jewish belief on this matter, because it is not adequately represented here. Neither is the understanding of the “spirit world nature” he describes (though poorly). Obviously, Jesus had human characteristics because He was human. These philosophic back-flips make no sense and would not be necessary if they would simply accept proven fact. Furthermore, this argument is based on acceptance of the earlier ones--all of which are obviously flawed.

Piece 6:

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

So, he’s saying that because there are similar events in mythical stories that the story of Jesus must also be a myth? This is not logical. Let’s say you write a true auto-biography in which you got hit by a car, you recover and then ended up getting divorced. I write a fictional story about someone who gets hit by a car, recovers and then ends up getting divorced. By this logic, because my story was fictional and had some of the same elements of your story, yours must also be fictional.

Piece 7:

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.

If God really exists, has existed forever, created us and has been in communication with us, wouldn’t it follow that we would have some kind of understanding of His nature—even if we don’t come from the same place, culture or time? The interesting thing about Plato (who came around long after Jesus’ ministry) is that in his discussions of “wisdom”, he was describing God’s character very closely. It’s as though in his searching, God had been revealing Himself to Plato, but Plato could never quite make that last jump to recognizing God for Who He was. Again, the vast similarities in thought and belief about God and His characteristics across the ages would seem more to serve the belief that God exists rather than refute it.

Piece 8:

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

The author is basing this argument on the idea that Mark was written first. However, here are the most commonly accepted dates for the gospel manuscripts:
Matthew: early part of A.D. 50.
Mark: 50s or early 60s (some suggest as late as A.D. 70)
Luke: A.D. 59-63 or 70s or 80s
John: A.D. 85 or slightly later

So, who decided that Mark was written first? Based on the actually dating for these manuscripts, it’s very likely that it was written after Matthew and Luke. So, this argument falls apart right from the very beginning with his false assumptions. Still, let’s examine this idea a bit further. Obviously, several people agreed on the events as they occurred and were told by Matthew, Mark and Luke—first-hand observers. The agreement between the gospels is further evidence that the events actually occurred, not evidence against it. All four of these people were there, witnessed the same events and wrote about them. Naturally, they’re telling basically the same story. A word about collaboration: Though there’s no conclusive proof that the writers of the gospel collaborated, let’s examine that for a moment just for argument’s sake. Let’s say you and I see someone riding by on a bicycle. We both sit down and write out a description of what we saw. I say, “A tall, African-American man with a thick mustache rode by on a ten-speed and nearly hit a dog.” You say, “A black man with a mustache, wearing a red shirt, rode by on a bike and nearly hit a dog.” If we put it together and wrote, “A tall, African-American man with a thick mustache and wearing a red shirt, rode by on a ten-speed bike and nearly hit a dog,” could either of us be accused of misrepresenting the event or of making anything up? No. We both saw it. By collaborating and reminding each other of particular details, the story had been made more detailed and accurate, not less so. Furthermore, the above statements about Acts are purely the opinion of the writer and cannot be validated nor proven.

Piece 9:

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

Can the author prove that this is how the Bible came together? No. There is no evidence to support such a wild theory. Actually, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence against it. The reason they have to attack the Bible in this way is because it’s true that there is no way Jesus could have fulfilled all of those prophesies if He were just a man. He would have to be God, and they simply can’t admit that. God’s divinity is so plain in the Bible and in how it was put together that they find it threatening, so they have to attack it—even with wild fabrications like this one. The reason there are parallels throughout Scripture is not because men re-worked it, but because God was using these repeated stories throughout history and in many different ways so that we would learn about Him and hear of His love for us and His plan for us. It’s the very evidence of God’s hand in it.

Piece 10:

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.

Even the author admits that this “Q” phenomenon is not fully understood. Furthermore, if the parallels made between the “Q” documents and the Bible are as frail and faulty as those evidenced in his earlier points, they could hardly be considered reliable. Just because someone expresses doubt, doesn’t mean his doubt is based on fact or in logical reason. He also uses the word “suggest”—certainly not a term one should put much faith in. He makes other statements as if they are fact (i.e. “the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel.”), when this has not been proven in the slightest. It is merely the opinion of a small number of liberals—a severe minority of them, actually. It would take more faith to believe these fabrications than to believe the truth of God and Jesus’ existence.

Piece 11:

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Again, as in pieces 1 & 2, he’s using a “lack of evidence” as evidence. Naturally, before Jesus came and throughout the beginning of the Christian movement after His death and resurrection, there would have continued to be a multiplicity of Jewish beliefs within the area. These had been combined with Greek mythology, Canaanite mythology and a variety of others, no doubt. However, that multiplicity of belief within the area has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Jesus existed. There is a vast amount of multiplicity within our own culture, but we all know that just because we disagree, that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as truth. Some of us are simply mistaken. Just because God provides the knowledge and the Way to salvation doesn’t mean everyone is going to accept it. In fact, one of the prophesies about Jesus and His ministry was that the Jews would reject Him—a prophesy that obviously came true.

Piece 12:

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

This argument is based on the previous, flawed arguments. It is also basing much of its argument on a “lack of evidence” as “evidence” rational. Furthermore, can the following statement be validated? “Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith.” Or, did the author read their writings with the same disregard and lack of attention with which he read Paul’s writings?

In conclusion, I'd say that overall these arguments are poor, indeed. They are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, flimsy evidence, far-fetched ideas and fabrications. The true scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, accept the fact that not only did Jesus exist, but He begs a much closer look than what these people are willing to give Him.

Are Christians Judgers and Hypocrites?

2006-11-12T16:09:00.000-08:00

If you've ever said (or heard someone say), "Christians are nothing but judgers and hypocrites", let me point out something interesting about that statement. In order to identify Christians (or any group of people) as "judgers", you would yourself be making a judgment. Also, if you think judging others is wrong and you go ahead and make such a statement, you would also be proving yourself to be a hypocrite. It's like whispering in someone's ear, "I know someone who's a terrible gossip. Guess who it is."

But are Christians judgers and hypocrites? I don't know. Possibly some of us are. I think every single person has, at some point, been guilty of judging someone else unjustly and also guilty of acting in a hypocritical way. Christians certainly haven't cornered the market on judgmentalism and hypocricy. In fact, I bet that if I asked you, my reader, if you've ever acted hypocritically (either intentionally or accidentally), there's really only one way to answer: "Yes." If you said, "No, I've never been a hypocrite," you'd most likely be lying and, thereby, proving yourself a hypocrite. Am I right?

I think, however, the main issue behind these accusations is the dissatisfaction and dissapointment so many have faced when they, in good faith, have trusted Christians with something and have been let down or mistreated in some way. The truth is this: Christians are humans and are, therefore, capable of great wrongs. If you are looking for a reason to shoot down the idea of Christian perfection, then watching the Christians would, unfortunately, give you a lot of ammunition. Why? Because Christians aren't perfect. If they claim to be, then they're lying. (For the record, I haven't, as of yet, heard any Christian claim to be perfect.) However, if you're looking to shoot down Christ and His message, don't look at Christians. Look at Christ.

Using the Bible to Verify Itself

2006-10-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

"McDowell is in fact doing nothing more than using the New Testament to confirm the New Testament; an obvious case of circular reasoning and utter sophistry." Freethnker's Textbook, pp. 193-194

I find this criticism a lot in secular circles and while I understand the concept that you can't use a single source to verify itself, let me clarify something. The Bible (or even the New or Old Testaments) is not a single source. It wasn't written by one person. It isn't even one book (although today it's bound together like one). It wasn't written within the same century or even millenium. There are an estimated 44 authors, 66 separate historical texts and it spans approximately 1500 years. Furthermore, the methods of preservation, record-keeping and maintenanc of textual accuracy far exceed those required to verify the authenticity of any other ancient historical texts. So, can it be used to verify itself? Certainly it can! There are extra-biblical records, as well, of course. Josephus is one, Pliny the Younger is another (anti-Christian, actually), and there are more.

What is circular reasoning then? It would be me saying something like, "I'm a lawyer because I said so," without having a diploma, educational records of any kind or any shred of evidence outside of my own word to prove it. Jesus didn't do this. He didn't say, "I'm God because I said so." He did claim to be God, but He also said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Jesus was referring to His fulfillment of prophesy. Since He fulfilled over 300 of them, I'd say that was enough extra evidence to back up His claim. Yet, still there is more.

Does Freedom Exist?

2006-10-10T13:33:00.000-07:00

Many people mistakenly think that anything that makes you experience more freedom must be a good thing. This faulty reasoning is used as the justification for all kinds of harmful practices. Unlike truth, freedom is a relative thing. There is no such thing as absolute, total freedom. People are not designed, either physically, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise, to be capable of experiencing such a thing. Let me explain why:

Freedom is not a self-defining thing, nor is it self-sustaining. In order to be free, you must be free "of something". For example, even though our country offers us many freedoms, we are still not free from our obligation to its laws. In a sense, we are held captive by the laws of this nation. If we decided we wanted to be free from the laws of America and overturned the goverment until there only anarchy remained, would we then be finally free? Certainly not! It would be then that the freedoms that matter would be stripped from us--such as the freedom to enjoy security, orderliness and a life free of fear. Freedom, then is relative. Being "captive", then is also relative. What matters most is this: To what are we being held captive?

Let's bring this onto a spiritual plane. Is spiritual freedom possible? Is it more "free" to believe in a God to whom you dedicate your entire existence, or more "free" to choose not to believe in God and lead your own life? I can certainly see the reasoning behind the argument for the latter and have heard it often. Starting from a point of non-belief, it would seem much more freeing to believe in no God. Also, if one was following a religious system and became disillusioned with it, choosing to deny God would also feel very freeing. However, again we must ask ourselves, what am I being freed from? And, having made my choice, what am I now captive to?

If God exists, made us, loves us and desires a fully, open, dynamic, growing relationship with us--one in which we give Him our complete love and trust--what would that mean? Would this be freeing or enslaving? Well, is marriage freeing or enslaving? It greatly depends on the marriage, I would say. I was once in a relationship that was all about enslaving. It was unhealthy and there was no freedom in it. Now, however, my relationship with my husband gives me a great abundance of freedom. I am free to laugh, love and be who I am--knowing that he will always love me, too. The knowledge that he is my support and my provider and my security is also greatly freeing--I am no longer captive to fear or worry about the future. The knowledge that he is my lifelong companion is also immensely freeing--I don't have to worry about loneliness or having to go through future struggles alone.

It stands to reason then, that if God made us and loves us, it would be more freeing to follow Him, rather than our own limited knowledge and corrupted reasoning. After all, if He designed our makeup--the intricasies of our thought patterns, the infinite variables of our spiritual and emotional needs, and every other minute, seemingly unimportant fraction of our essense--who better to guide us into the best path for our ultimate, holistic well-being?

How can I be sure?

2006-10-04T15:29:00.000-07:00

Atheists and Christians alike want to know how a Christian can be absolutely sure that Jesus is who He said He was, that He actually rose bodily from the dead and that He is coming again one day. We want to be sure, because, let's face it: if we're wrong, we're wasting our time, aren't we? We want to be sure because we don't want to die only to find out that some obscure cult in California had it right all along and our souls are now forever trapped in some celestial dump heap. We want to be sure because we don't want to spend our entire lives trapped in fear.

So, how can I know for sure? Does such assurance exist for the thinking, reasonable person? And if it does, how much does faith play in?

To answer these questions, here are several realities you must consider first:

1. There is such a thing as absolute truth. Truth is not relative. If something is true, it is universally true. My belief or lack of belief has no impact on what is already true (or untrue). Truth exists independently from my perceptions. Truth not only exists, it is knowable. (You will find that both Christianity and the scientific community uphold all of these statements.)

2. There are such things as right and wrong. Universally, people operate on a system of ethics/right and wrong/morality. Though there are extremes, most people can even agree on what is right and wrong. For example, is molesting a child right or wrong? How do you know it's wrong? You just know. Every fiber of your being screams against it, because you were designed to operate within a system of ethics. Even hardened criminals have ways of justifying their actions. If they didn't really operate on a system of ethics (though, granted, it could be very skewed), why bother justifying it at all? Even if they completely lost their conscience and no longer justify their actions, they still believe they are doing right by serving the highest "good" they know--themselves. All people are driven by this internal moral indicator. It can be skewed; it can even be reversed, but it cannot be escaped.

3. If God is a reality, He would control what information about Himself is available to me. In other words, He would reveal spiritual truth according to His own standards. Therefore, any spiritual truth I know and believe must have come from God. Therefore, if I desire spiritual truth, I should seek God for it.

4. If God is a reality, He defines Himself. In other words, His existence, His nature and His message to me must come from Him. I'm not going to be able to figure it out on my own. If I look for God based on my limited perceptions, I'll never find Him. God is a Being who's identity is not up to my choosing.

If you want to look at some other areas of philosophical interst along these lines, go to my earlier blog entry: 10 Theoretical Statements Christians and Atheists Can Agree On.

But for now let's get back to the main question: How Can I Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Is True?

There is something called Spiral Reasoning. The idea is that you start with a knowable bit of information and you use philosophy, history, physical evidence, testimonial evidence, archaelogical evidence, etc... --always building on what you already know, one step at a time, until you reach the point where you are convinced of the truth. This will take time, mental energy and emotional energy, but the reward far outweighs the cost. I have included a diagram below that shows the steps that one might follow toward compelete assurance of Christ's existence, His sacrifice and His offer to you. It also shows the steps one takes to establish biblical reliability and the accuracy of historical records. (Unfortunately, it is pretty small on-screen, so you may have to download it or print it in order to read it properly. Sorry about that--but it's just another step in your search, right?)

How much faith is involved? I think that's a question only you can answer. Some people need more factual proofs. God knows that and made sure that there would be plenty available. Other people need very little evidence to beleive and are able to take more on faith. Regardless of where you fall within this spectrum, some amount of faith will be required. (Not, however, any more faith than is required to believe any of the alternatives.)

If you are a confirmed skeptic, it's unlikely that anyone, in a few minutes could give you everything you needed to know in order to fully believe in Jesus Christ. However, a skeptic should be a skeptic for a reason, right? If you haven't given the evidence a thorough look, how authentic would be your stance?

The fact is this: assurance--complete assurance is not only possible, it is what God desires for each of us. He made sure there was ample, abundant, over-flowing evidence to support the truth of His existence, His message and His offer to us. Won't you have a look?

Spiral Reasoning

2006-10-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

Changing Perspective

2006-09-25T16:09:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I was dressing up for some event and wanted to wear a certain pair of earrings. I went to get them from my jewelry box only to discover that one of them was missing. I looked all over the dresser and the floor, but couldn’t find the other one, so reluctantly chose a different pair. A couple of days later, I went through a similar search, but left frustrated. Later, I came back and decided to do a more thorough search. I searched the floor, felt under the cabinet and looked under the bed. I picked up everything on my dresser and looked under it. I rifled through every item there, but still couldn’t locate that crazy, rotten, little earring that now seemed to be hiding from me on purpose. I decided to give up again. I turned to go, but as I did so, took one last glance in the mirror. Suddenly, there it was! Right there, in the mirror, hanging from the backside of one of my glass candleholders, was my lost earring! How it got there, I didn’t know, nor care. I had finally found it!

Strange how we can be looking for something—even diligently searching for it—but it can still continue to elude us. I never considered using the mirror as a way to enhance my search—as a way of gaining a different perspective. And yet, even though I only changed my perspective for only a brief moment, my eyes immediately spotted the object of my search. I think our search for God can be very much like my search for my lost earring. We keep a picture in our mind of what we think He’s like, hoping that when we come across Him we’ll recognize Him. We look everywhere we think He might be hiding, only to discover He isn’t in any of those places. We become frustrated—even angry—that He is hiding from us (on purpose, of course) and decide to give up.

Consider for a moment, a different perspective on this issue. Consider the possibility that God isn’t hiding from us. Consider the possibility that God is actually trying to get our attention. Consider the possibility that the picture we have in our mind of what God is like is so flawed that we simply aren’t able to recognize Him when He shows Himself to us. I invite you to evaluate some of your ideas about God—recognizing them for what they are—and then try to think about them with me from a slightly different perspective. Perhaps, like my lost earring, God has actually been in plain sight all along.

"Don't Judge Me."

2006-09-13T13:30:00.000-07:00

I was watching a show the other day, called The Secret Lives of Women (one I probably shouldn't have been watching, truth be known) about "swingers"--couples who have sex with other couples. See, I always thought the word "swinger" meant someone who liked to dance a lot. Shows how naive I can be. Anyway, they engage in group sex, trans-gender sex, etc... I watched it until the end, waiting to see if they ever came on with a disclaimer of any sort about the ramifications of such a lifestyle. They didn't--not at all. Everything said was in full support of it. One lady actually said, "If you have a good marriage, this [having multiple sex partners] can make it stronger." (She wasn't married, by the way.) There were no warnings and barely a bit of cautionary advice. On the contrary, they were actually trying to get more people to try this lifestlye. Then, at the end, each of the three ladies got a chance to give her last little plug for swinging--and this is what one of them said, "People sometimes think what we do is immoral. It makes me sad when people judge me that way."

Whoa! Wait a minute! Since when do "thinking" and "judging" have the same definition? Who is judging her just by thinking that what she's doing is wrong? If I think murder is wrong does that mean I'm actually passing judgment over murderers? Certainly, not! What a rediculous notion! Furthermore, there are two completely different subjects here--the person and the act. She is insinuating that just because someone thinks her actions are wrong, that they are somehow passing judgement on her, the person. Nope! Two different mental functions entirely.

So, where does this idea come from? People have taken a verse out of the Bible and maligned it nearly beyond recognition. Here's the verse (in context, for a change):

Matthew 7:1-5 Jesus said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Obviously, the "judging" referred to here has absolutely nothing to do with ignoring immorality (as Miss Swinger on the show seemed to believe), or Jesus wouldn't have gone on to give the proper method for helping a brother out of immorality. In fact, He doesn't even say, "Never judge". It actually seems like He's giving us guidelines to do it in correctness of heart. Still, since we rarely have perfectly pure intentions, it's safe to assume that this kind of judging is usually not a good idea--especially in light of the warning that He gives that if we act hypocritically, it will come back to bite us on the butt. It is clear, though, that we are supposed to help each other knock bad habits and encourage each other toward right living--just making sure that what we do is out of love and from a correct perspective (i.e. not being ourselves entrapped in the sin, therefore making ourselves hypocrites.) There are many passages, actually, that discuss this.

I went ahead and looked up the word for "judge" in this passage in the original Greek. The word is κρίνω, pronounced"kree-no", meaning: "distinquish, i.e. decided (mentally or judicially); by impl. to try, condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think." Most of these words imply some kind of passing of judgement upon another person, as in condemning them, either mentally or in deed. We understand that we're not supposed to do that--that is, pass judgement upon others (the people) . This would be kind of like saying, "You're going to hell for that." Not only is such a phrase unlikely to receive any positive, healthy response, it isn't especially accurate, either.

Now that we know what we're not supposed to do, let's look and see what attitude we're suppposed to have toward the "act"--sinfulness. Notice, too, the context:

Romans 12:9-10 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves."

"Hate what is evil." Now, that's a pretty strong phrase. We're not supposed to ignore it, make excuses for it or pat it on the head. We're supposed to HATE it! Hate what is evil! How are we supposed to know right from wrong, though, if everyone around us is saying, "When you think what I'm doing is immoral, that means you're judging me"?

Here's a tip to survive this life and this century with your conscience intact: "DON'T ALLOW ANYONE TO STRIP AWAY YOUR ABILITY TO DISCERN BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG!"

I admit it: I think what these people on the show were doing is morally wrong. Not only that, it made my skin crawl; it was highly disgusting. The thought of sharing my husband with several women and a few men would be enough to make me go into a naseau coma, if there were such a thing. It's wrong; I hate it. But, I don't hate those people. Actually, quite the contrary, I wish for only their best. (Of course, my idea of what's best--a loving, open, dynamic relationship with God--and their idea of what's best--great sex with whoever walks in the door--are two different things.)

If it's wrong; it's wrong. Avoid it. You don't have to berate anyone else about it; just make sure you and those in your care avoid it. Don't apologize for your standards. Don't sacrifice your conscience on the altar of Political Correctness. Remember, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." That statement is very true. There's a trend in this nation that's telling us that truth is relative. "There's no absolute truth." Well, even that statment, "There's no abosolute truth", is an absolute statement. Recognize fraud when you see it. It's there.

Honestly, though, the only way you're going to keep a healthy conscience is to give it into the keeping of the only One who is truly good--God. We can be deceived; God can't be.

The Cost of Following Jesus Christ

2006-09-06T13:34:00.000-07:00

How much does it cost to be a Christian--a "follower of Jesus Christ"? Nothing and everything. The gift of God's forgiveness and acceptance is completely free, but also carries the highest price--your love and your trust.

This is a concept that is often misunderstood in non-Christian circles. Of course, it's not surprising, since they hear: "Jesus' love and forgiveness is a free gift", but then they see us going to church regularly, participating in all kinds of service projects, denying ourselves certain worldly pleasures and giving vast amounts of money to various Christian organizations. Sure seems like there's a price to me!

Here's an example, though, that might help clear this up a little:

We are like a baby bird in a nest. The nest is our comfort zone, where we can do whatever we like without having to believe in anything else or trust in anyone else (except for Mamma bird, but she just seems to show up at the right times and we don't know why--like our dependence on this beautiful world we live in).

However, eventually we must make a choice: leave the nest, get out on the branch where we're much less comfortable, or stay in the nest for the rest of our lives and stagnate. The choice is free to us and a relatively safe one. Yes, a great gust of wind could come up and knock us out of the tree, but while crawling out of the nest onto the branch, we're, at least, still on solid territory. This is like accepting Christ. It takes a step of faith, a risk. All we have to do, though, is to believe in Him--to accept His forgiveness for our sins, to trust in His promises to meet us where we are and to grow us in Him throughout the days, weeks and years to come--to never leave us. At that moment, sitting there on the branch, we're what Christians call "saved". All of the mysteries and promises and gifts of God are, at that moment, fully available to us. We are in His grace and in open communication with God. If we were to die at that moment, heaven would be ours, no matter what misdeeds we'd committed in the past.

But, let's say we don't die then--at the moment of belief. What happens next? Here's where the cost comes in. We're sitting on that branch, out of the nest, but very worried about what comes next. Well, then Mamma bird (God) comes up behind us and gives us a nudge. We fight back, not wanting to leave our safe perch, and we somehow manage to keep our talons securely on the branch. Being out of the nest is enough, right?

Mamma bird gives us another nudge. This time she's more insistent. We fight back and scoot farther down the branch away from her. What is she trying to do, anyway? Kill me? Hasn't she seen how far a drop it is? She must be nuts!

Again, though, here she comes! We brace ourselves, but this time she nudges us so hard that we loose our grip and start to fall. Is this why we got out of the nest? Just to fall? What a terrible trick! But then something happens that we didn't expect. We realize that we have wings. We open them and begin to fly. Suddenly, we realize that sitting in the nest and sitting on the branch were nothing compared to the miracle of flight! What glory! What exhilaration! So, this is what Mamma wanted for us all along!

Is there a cost? Certianly! It costs you everything! It costs your love, your trust and your utter dependence. What is there in life that has more value than these things? I can't think of a thing. This is what God demands from us--everything of value.

When we say that there's no cost, we mean that belief is a choice that you make. It doesn't cost you any money; it doesn't cost you and good works; it doesn't cost you any time; it doesn't cost you any fixing up of yourself beforehand. The gift is free in this regards, because love and trust are not a commodities. God will accept you exactly how you are at that moment, no matter what you've done in the past or how you are choosing to live your life today. ...But He won't leave you how He finds you. He desires so much more for your life! He wants us to fly--no, soar! Can you trust Him to guide you one step at a time?

Spiritual Thought 8: Is Freewill Possible If God Knows the Future?

2006-08-28T08:22:00.000-07:00

I've come across this discussion several times lately. I've heard people say that if God knows the future, then there couldn't be any such thing as free will. If He already knows what we're going to choose before we choose it, and bases His plan for our lives accordingly, then we didn't really have a choice at all. However, this logic is faulty, and here's why:

Consider a similar example:
I know my 9-year-old daughter very well. I know that she doesn't like gravy on her meat or mashed potatoes and she doesn't like dressing on her salads. She eats them both dry. Don't ask me why; it's strange, I know. (But it's more healthy, so I don't push it.) Still, whenever we have salad or mashed potatoes, I ask, "Do you want gravy?" or "Do you want some dressing?" It's on the table and it's available to her if she chooses to have it. I know, though, that she will say, "No, thanks." So, if she chooses against the dressing or the gravy, does that mean she wasn't excersizing free will, just because I knew in advance what she was going to do? Certainly, not! She always has the option of choosing differently than she normally does. If she, one day, said, "Yes, I think I'll try some Ranch dressing today," would I say, "Oh. Actually, you can't have any. I was just joking."? Of course, not. I would pass her the dressing with my compliments.

Knowledge does not equal choice. It never does. Can you come up with an example of when knowing something equals choosing something? I can't. They are two completely different mental functions. Even in extreme cases, they are different. If you are standing next to a bomb that is about to explode, you have a choice: run or stay put. Just because we know most people would run, doesn't mean that a choice wasn't made in that instant.

So, knowing that my daughter will turn down the dressing, does that mean I'm choosing not to allow her to have it? No. Just because God knows the future doesn't mean He's making our choices for us. Even by making a plan in accordance with our choices, He still is allowing us free will. I still have a wide variety of salad dressing choices in my frig. If she ever changes her mind, I'm prepared.

Here's another example: Let's say you are a new student looking for a college to attend. Both Yale and Harvard accept you into their schools. You have a choice to make. Let's say that God knows that you are going to choose Harvard. He also knows that there is a wonderful person there that you are going to meet and eventually marry. So, does that mean that you don't have a choice? Does that mean that if you chose Yale, that they'd say, "Oh, whoops! The letter we sent you had a typo. We meant to say, 'You're NOT accepted.' Sorry." No. So, what if you chose Yale and ended up going to Yale? Did you thwart God's plan? No. He knew you'd choose Yale, in that case, and there's probably a special person waiting for you there, instead. Just because our choices don't derail God's plan doesn't mean that we're not really choosing. Neither does it mean that God is choosing for us.

I think, possibly, one reason we don't like the idea of God's foreknowledge is because we feel trapped into a certain path--like if someone knows what we're going to choose, our choices don't really matter. This is a limited way of thinking--learned through our dependence on our linear existence. It is uncomfortable and confusing to try to think of anyone, even God, living outside of linear time. It's time, though, to stop trying to limit God. If you're going to understand anything about Him, you have to allow for His biggness--that He is not held within our limits.

I think we also don't like the idea that our poor choices rest solely on our own shoulders. We kindof like the idea that God planned for us to make the mistakes we're making, thus eliminating any personal responsibility. We think, "If God is to blame for my poor choices, then He couldn't punish me for them." Two problems here: 1, God's purpose is not to punish, but to save. 2, Freewill is possible; therefore, our choices are ours alone. No one else can be blamed for them. It's time we own up to our own failures. It's the only way we will ever learn to see our lives from a right perspective, and it's the first step towards finding forgiveness, peace and hope.