Josiah Concept Ministries

The three siblings of Madeline Neumann, the young lady who died tragically as a result of her parents praying instead of seeking medical attention, have been removed from their parents’ custody.

In the original article, the authorities had not made that decision yet since there were no signs of abuse or neglect.  I’m very glad that those kids were removed.

While I agree with the principle that all healing comes from God, as Leilani Neumann told the press, I don’t believe that prayer is the sole vehicle by which God works.  I believe that He works through the competent doctors and nurses, all of whom He calls to do that work.  No legitimate church would see seeking medical attention as a sign of unbelief or as having a lack of faith.

God is not a gumball machine–you can’t just pop in a prayer, turn a cosmic crank, and expect God to answer the prayer in exactly the way that you expected Him to.

God promises to listen to prayer, and listen only. Despite the dramatic hyperbolic language (such as Mark 11:24 and others) used by Jesus, each and every prayer is not going to be answered affirmatively. It will be answered in God’s way and in His time.

So, if you’re sick, seek help from a doctor. Don’t shy away from praying for health or gathering the elders of your church to anoint the sick (Jms 5:14). But don’t expect that God will automatically reach down and heal the sick person. A prayer is only a request, not a demand and it will not always be answered affirmatively.

That means that I think Dale and Leilani Neumann of Weston, WI are guilty of negligent homicide, a statement which will undoubtedly surprise many people generally acquainted with my position that prayer is a very powerful thing. It is. But I believe that prayer is a way to offer yourself to God, not a way to get anything you want from Him.

According to a March 25th article in the Wausau Daily Herald, the Neumanns prayed for their daughter Madeline to get well, but never sought appropriate medical attention. This is just plain stupid. God doesn’t call only ministers into service, God calls people of every profession into their respective services, which includes doctors. He uses doctors as instruments of His healing. How did they expect their daughter to get better if they gave her no help whatsoever?

God’s preferred method of operation is to work through people. So don’t stop going to doctors when you’re sick, Christians! And as for the rest of the children in the Neumann household, GET THEM OUT OF THAT SITUATION FAST!

Liberal scholarship has agreed on one point and one point alone: the Jesus of history is not the Jesus presented in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rook Hawkins, co-founder and self-styled ancient texts expert of the Rational Response Squad, has utilized this as the starting point for his article, “Which Jesus: A Legend with a Multiple Personality Disorder?” The foundation of this article is a prior article in which Rook examines the genre of the gospels and concludes that they were never intended to be read as biographies. It is with that article that I will start, because if an argument is based on a faulty premise, then its conclusion is nothing more than fruit from a poisoned tree.

Are the gospels ancient biographies or not? Apologist J.P. Holding asserts the fact that they are is “beyond dispute.” Rook disagrees, with the following three objections: Read more »

I would have to say that talking to people about Hell is one of the worst ways to evangelize people.  We live in a society that is very, very uncomfortable with the idea of judgment and even less comfortable with the idea of having to serve a sentence.  The “sentence” in this case is eternity and the crime is living life the way that you always do (Rom 3:23).

Therefore, people have invented a comfortable reality for themselves where God doesn’t exist.  For those that simply can’t fathom the universe without a creator, they have watered down the judgment aspect of God and favor only the loving aspects of God.  To them, a God who would consign someone to Hell for eternity is cruel.  Either way, the person who ascribes to these worldviews can live life the way they choose, since God either encourages and loves them as-is or doesn’t exist.

The problem is that God does exist, and as Creator and Lawgiver, has set forth certain rules and regulations for how we must live.  Living any other way is rebellion, which is sin.

We often overlook the holiness of God.  God is pure and holy, and cannot stand the sight of sin.  Read the Law of Moses: the penalty for even minor sins is death.  Paul echoes the sentiment that sin equals death in his letter to the Romans (6:23a).  The message is clear–God cannot be near sin, and cannot simply overlook sin.  Fortunately, as the rest of the passage in Romans 6:23 states, “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

By placing our faith in Christ, we need not fear the holy judgment of God.  But that God judges at all seems to make many people uncomfortable, to the point of physical illness.  Here is a story that I found on Atheist Revolution from a reader named Angela:

My family recently moved to a rural community near Tulsa, OK. My 11 year old daughter previously lived in Morocco for seven years with her loving, muslim relatives. Everything was going very well at her new school until a couple of weeks ago. During recess, her two very, sweet friends tried to save her soul. They informed her that the “rapture” was coming in five years and everyone that wasn’t a christian were going to hell.

My daughter came home from school in tears, telling me she was afraid her family in Morocco were all going to hell. She became violently ill and spent two days in bed without eating or drinking. I took her to a local Unitarian church in Tulsa last Sunday hoping to surround her with some open minded people. She loved it. In fact, there was a female speaker from the local Islam society explaining her religion to the congregation.

We will be attending every Sunday because she loved it so much. My problem is that I don’t. The people were very sweet but the chairs in the worship room were uncomfortable and I can’t stand the boring hymns everyone sang.

I believe in evolution and really feel uncomfortable in the belief of an all-knowing God. She wants to go to church so she can be “normal” like everyone else. We’re stuck between church and social rejection.

Pay attention to the boldfaced portions of this letter; I believe that it shows the real problem that the author has with Hell–God’s judgment.  That thought terrifies her to her very core.

But it need not terrify anyone.  This judgment is reserved only for the folks that do not place their faith in Christ, as John 3:17 states: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

If you are like this girl, and spend two days in bed without food or water because you believe that you’re going to Hell, repent and place your faith in Jesus.  That would be the first step.  The next step is to get your hands on a Bible (BibleGateway has several versions online for free; E-sword is the best free Bible study software around) and study it.  Join a Bible study group; there is very likely one at your local church.  Speaking of church, you should attend one regularly.  Find one that you feel comfortable at.

Since placing my faith in Jesus, I have never looked back nor regretted the decision.  My only desire is to serve Him better and to lift myself up as a Christian example to all.  I fall far short of where I want to be, but I work hard each day to make my life my witness to Him.  I firmly believe that giving your life to God will be the greatest thing that you can ever do, and the best decision you can make.

Hell isn’t the best way to evangelize.  In fact, I think that mentioning it in evangelism is just counterproductive.  I think that the best way to evangelize is to live a life that is exemplary of Christ.  In other words, as St. Francis of Assisi put it: “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”

Five Roman Catholic Cardinals have written a letter to the other members of the College of Cardinals urging additional support in the form of signatures asking Pope Benedict XVI to define the fifth and final Marian dogma.  The suggested wording is thus:

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.

Let’s back up a second.  The four Marian dogmas that are already defined are the Divine Motherhood, the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.  The Divine Motherhood means Mary is called the Mother of God, or theotokos in the Greek.  The Perpetual Virginity means that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.  The Immaculate Conception means she was born without sin.  And the Assumption means that she was taken into heaven body and soul.

Now the Cardinals wish to define Mary as Co-redemptrix, which recognizes the unique role that she plays in the salvation of man.  Many people think that this a new teaching of the Catholic Church, but in reality it isn’t.  Dave Armstrong obligingly demonstrates that for us in this article.  This, in fact, has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for a very long time.

As Mediatrix of all graces, the Church will recognize that God’s grace flows to man through Mary.  She will also be defined as Advocate, which means that she presents the prayers of the faithful to her Son.   Armstrong argues that the world isn’t ready for these titles to be dogmatically defined because of the misunderstanding that they wrought.  I agree that they shouldn’t be defined, but for far different reasons than DA has given.

These titles detract from the singular glory of Jesus Christ.  Let’s look first at Mediatrix of all graces.  Grace flows not from Mary, but from God.  Not from God then to Mary then to us, but from God to us.  The Scriptures are very clear on this point: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (2 Cor 9: and “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).  Grace is God’s gift to us.  Period.

Advocate also detracts from the singular glory of Christ, for it is He that mediates prayers, not Mary to Him.  “[T]here is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

Finally, the letter to the Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that only one person could have made the ultimate sacrifice that pleased God and made atonement for the sins of mankind.  Only one person could “save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him” (Heb 7:25)

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Heb 7:26-2

Mary can’t do this for us.  Only Jesus can be this high priest, superior to the earthly priests, who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”  Mary is not that high priest, nor indeed can she be.

In a previous post, I made the following claim:

Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics believe that God should still be doing large and visible miracles every day so that we can see and believe that He exists. Most deny any miracles occurred in the past. So I’m left to wonder if it would make any difference if God were to perform a miracle before their eyes. I don’t think that it would; they’d probably run to the comforts of science to try to explain the miracle rather than believing in God. (source)

What I didn’t know is that Hemnant the Friendly Atheist was going to prove my point dramatically in his post, “If a Miracle Came, Would it Convince You?“  Go ahead.  Read the comments.  You’ll see such gems as this:

To convince me that God existed, you’d not only have to show me something I couldn’t explain, you’d have to prove to me that the force behind it was a sentient being. Even then, I’d only know that a powerful being exists who can do things I can’t explain.

And this:

It [rearranging the stars in the sky to spell a message] would not convince me that anything “supernatural” is going on. For all I know, the entity is just a super-advanced extraterrestrial with nothing better to do than supervise my life. Again, for all practical purposes, that’s a god. But it’s not necessarily “supernatural,” and I’m not even sure that’s a meaningful concept in the first place. If you can provide evidence in the natural world for the existence of a supernatural world, can there really be a separation between them? Likewise, I can’t possibly tell you what supernatural evidence would change my mind, because if I could describe it, it wouldn’t be supernatural, now, would it? Even if this being does something that defies all known laws of nature, I will just assume there must be other laws yet unknown, and as a scientist I’d probably try to use this opportunity to learn more about them.

And this:

. . . I categorically deny the very concept of supernatural. That is, if something exists, it is — by definition and by its very existence — natural.

If the stars rearranged themselves, I would look for a natural explaination [sic].

Here is a true skeptic:

Moving stars is certainly impressive. Unfortunately, it only serves as evidence for something that can move stars.

In response to the true skeptic, someone said:

Well, it serves as evidence for something that can move stars and claims to be God. Given that it’s moving stars, I’d take the claim seriously, though I wouldn’t believe it at face value.

Another scientist weighs in:

To that, I’d be convinced if a theist could tell me what they mean by “god”, what predictions could confirm and disconfirm their hypothesis, and hopefully some reason to think that a god could exist. These are pretty basic, fundamental questions, but I don’t think any theist at any point in history has ever met even a single one of these point.

You can’t test the supernatural with natural sciences.  Someone hasn’t done his critical thinking for the day.

Finally, in the “Theology Matters” column:

And as for a miracle that would make me believe? That’s easy. The being in question (supernatural or otherwise) would merely need to change my brain, my thought processes, so that I would believe. I would automatically accept that as proof, wouldn’t I?

Mankind is dead in sin.  We are unable to come to God on our own.  The very work of God is to do just what would prove to this atheist that God exists.  God can and does change the hearts of people to believe in Him.

The logical problem is that God isn’t going to appear in front of this dude and work His heart over.  It is a process that comes by time and discipline.  It occurs over the natural course of a person’s life–God uses His elect and even the non-elect for this work.  His Spirit convicts the person of his sin, and the person becomes willing to repent as a result of God drawing this person to Himself.  This atheist, however, doesn’t want any of that–he wants God to appear in front of him and do that work Himself, right now.  Presumably so that he knows that it is God and not just some “feeling.”

Another fulfillment of Romans 1?  You decide.

It’s interesting how God defines himself. He told Moses that he is the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He did not define himself by his omnipotence or his omniscience but by his personal relationships with these common men. (source)

So reflects Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, leader of the Roman Curia’s Lenten retreat.  I think that is absolutely fascinating because for many skeptics, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are not only God’s defining characteristics, but the logical basis by which many of them reject Him.  The presence of an omnipotent and omniscient being can only lead to fatalism in their minds, regardless of the number of times that I’ve seen Christians refute this notion.

This is the ontological argument in reverse.  Because the skeptic cannot conceive of how an omnipotent and omniscient being could exist within the framework of this universe, no such being can exist.  Since God would be such a being, God does not exist.

But God doesn’t identify Himself on the basis of these characteristics.  He identifies Himself on the basis of His relationship to His creation.  How much more should we, then, identify ourselves on the basis of our relationship to Him.  I think that the real problem is that the skeptic is ruled by his sin–and his sin is how he defines “fun.”  Drinking, gambling, drugs, premarital sex–all of these things are “fun,” but all of these things have consequences.

Defining oneself on the basis of one’s relationship to God will have consequences, too.  One must focus his thoughts on what is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable  (Phil 4:8)–and it is easy to conclude even without a Bible (cf. Gal 5:16-24) that those things I just defined as “fun” from a secular point of view do not fit with that mode of thinking.

Defining oneself on the basis of a relationship with God brings with it freedom from sin (cf. Rom 6:14).  Paul exhorts us not to use that freedom for sin, “but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:13-14).

So, brothers and sisters in Christ, if God identifies Himself on the basis of a relationship to His creatures, why do the creatures not identify themselves on basis of a relationship to Him?

Both Frank Walton and J.P. Holding have used what I have come to call the “Brood of Vipers” defense when someone tells them that their tactics are not Christian. Essentially, it goes a little like this:

I say:

I realize now that Frank has never fully risen above the evil he seeks to defend Christianity from. Not only does Frank fall short of answering any of the charges of the RRS make against Christianity, but he also reposts their God-denigrating material with only a few weak ad hominem attacks as a reply.

Referring to Sapient by his real name, or pointing out “enhancements” to Kelly in a derogatory way are not answers to the RRS. They only serve as more ammunition the Squad can utilize to attack Christianity. It makes us all look like hypocrites.

Walton’s “Brood of Vipers” reply: “I won’t apologize for using rather extreme words. When Jesus called the Pharisees and Scribes a brood of vipers was that sinful?”

J.P. Holding has a lengthy discussion of the “Brood of Vipers” defense here.

The purpose of this post is not to attack Frank Walton again. As Brian Sapient has stated, Frank’s tactics speak for themselves and I don’t need to delve any further. What I am doing with this post is to consider the “Brood of Vipers” defense itself, and whether it is a valid defense for conducting a ministry in the fashion that Walton does and Holding did once upon a time. Read more »

Sometimes, I do work that doesn’t require a lot of mental engagement.  While I’m doing that, I come up with some weird thoughts and those can occasionally turn into blog entries.  This is one of those times.

Let me back up to when I was a manager at Wendy’s.  I had purchased a lot of books that showed how to build a team by tactics mined from Scripture.  These included The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell and Teach Your Team to Fish by Laurie Beth Jones.  I used a lot of the tactics I learned, but one thing I never did was give Christ the credit.  Neither in prayer nor to the people I managed.

I think that that was a very bad move.  Scripture says that “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).  I was a coward; I thought it was more important to not offend people by bringing religion into the issue than to give any credit to where the techniques I was using came from.

And so I met with little success.

Now, I’m using the same techniques at Burger King, but I’m acknowledging their source–God–proud and loud.  Not surprisingly, I’m meeting with much more success.

My point is the Scripture I quoted above: “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

As I understand Intelligent Design, it is merely a scientific expression of the creation account of Genesis without naming the entity that created.  It acknowledges a supernatural creator without defining that creator.  Sounds an awful lot like what I did with the leadership techniques.  I acknowledged that I got them from the Bible, but did not acknowledge God.

Intelligent design does the same thing: acknowledges a creator without acknowledging God.  “[W]hoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

The problem is that God is inextricably tied to His creation.  To know His creation is to know Him: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20, emphasis added).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has been used by atheists to shoot down intelligent design.  Or has it?  Perhaps the Noodly Master has been used by God to shoot down intelligent design because God doesn’t appreciate being taken out of the equation by otherwise well-meaning scientists.

Let’s be honest: Is intelligent design really how we want to preach God?  Do we really want to leave the possibility of other creator deities open for discussion?  It doesn’t seem as though that is how God would want it.  Did He not say to Moses:

You shall have no other gods before me. . . .  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:3, 5-6)

Why on earth would we think that intelligent design is God-honoring?  Leaving open the possibility of other deities invites people to worship and serve them.  But what is the Great Commission?  Is it to get people to think that the universe has a creator, and it might be the Christian God, and you can serve Him if you think that He is the creator?

No!  It is to “Go . . . and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20, emphasis added).  Note that Jesus doesn’t talk about possibilities; He gives concrete commands.  He tells us in no uncertain terms that we are baptizing these people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the triune Christian God, the creator of the universe.  There are no maybe’s with Jesus.

There should be no maybe’s with us either.  We should be able to stand up and say what Paul said to the Ephesian elders: “Therefore^(A) I testify to you this day that^(B) I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for^(C) I did not shrink from declaring to you^(D) the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27).  We, too, should not shy away from preaching the whole counsel of God.  Like Paul, we should not be ashamed of the gospel (cf. Rom 1:16; 2 Tim 1:8-12).

Look at Ken Hamm compared to ID proponents.  I’m not saying that I agree with a 6,000 year old earth and dinosaurs living side-by-side with humans.  I’m starting to lean back toward a more scientific view, which includes evolution.  But, I admire people like Dr. Hamm much more than I admire ID proponents because Ken Hamm is preaching the whole counsel of God!  He isn’t afraid of the gospel.

ID proponents should spend more effort to put God’s name into their work.  Maybe it would become more recognized.  Maybe even accepted in scientific circles.  It doesn’t sound likely, but neither is Christianity.  Putting God’s name back into the tips and tricks I learned certainly worked for me, and I believe that it can work for ID.

Second, is the god depicted in the Old Testament books I have read so far (Genesis through Numbers) the same god that I will encounter in the New Testament, or are these two different gods? If it is the same god, then it would seem that reading the Old Testament is worthwhile because it will teach me quite a bit about the character of this god, even if the covenants change. On the other hand, if we have two different gods here, then I should probably stop reading the Old Testament, as it is really telling me nothing useful. (source)

Yes, the God from the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament.

You hit the nail on the head.  The covenants change, which is why the seeming change in character.  I assure you, however, the Father is every bit as wrathful as you see in the Old Testament (cf. Rom 9:22-24; 1 Cor 11:32b; Rev 3:19).  It is the Holy Spirit that shows the nurturing side of God’s character, and the Son who bore the Father’s wrath so that we, the elect, don’t have to.  For a good outline of the Father’s continuing wrath, see this recent post.

Because God is a Trinity–three Persons of one essence–anything spoken of one can also be spoken of the others.  So Jesus Christ–God–is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), and so is the Father.  His character has not changed, His wrath is merely sated in a different fashion.

By all means, read the Old Testament.  It will give you insight into God’s character.  He does punish, He does destroy.  He is vengeful and full of wrath when His children sin.  He smites the disobedient.  But He is more complex than righteous anger.  He loves the world so much, that He offered us the means of salvation (Jn 3:16) if we only confess faith in Christ (Rom 10:9-10).  A single confession that will change your life forever for the better.