Josiah Concept Ministries

I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read more »

It seems as though my writing has come to the attention of Jeff Haws, webmaster of the Atheocracy.  Jeff has used a quote from this article to highlight the mindset of Christians in regard to origins.  While I’m flattered that my writing would be used at all, I’m certainly not flattered that Jeff has represented the “typical Christian fundamentalist” mindset and has failed to interact with either the writing itself or my specific view of atheists.

Jeff says:

But this is how they [Christians] think of atheists, as amoral, selfish people because they either can’t fathom how someone could behave in a moral fashion without some supernatural being holding them accountable, or they want people to think they can’t fathom this. (source)

Some Christians, perhaps, think that.  I, however, do not.  And I would like to see where I have ever represented atheists as amoral and selfish.  Indeed, some atheists are more moral and far less selfish than Christians–and one in particular, who goes by PariahJane at the RRS boards, has done at least one good deed that I would never even consider.  Many atheists are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians, which I’ve seen proven time and again on the RRS discussion boards.

We can compare and contrast, but without God and without Scriptural authority, we are still left in a lurch as to who decides what is good and what is evil.  Before he became emperor, Palpatine described moral goodness as a “point of view.”  Is that what it is?  Or is moral goodness something objective, something that we can point to and recognize?  If the latter, then we are still left with the question, “Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?”

Jeff actually proves this point himself.  One commenter, HarveyOne, said that atheists lead less sexually moral lives than Christians.  Jeff responds first with this question:

I’m not sure about that, harvey. First, I think you have to determine what amounts to “sexually immoral.” I honestly don’t know. Having sex outside of marriage? Infidelity? Unprotected sex? Massive orgies? Beastiality? I don’t think it’s fair to judge non-Christians by Christian definitions of “immoral,” i.e. sex before marriage. (emphasis added)

Make no mistake: I’m not saying that atheists are immoral.  I really can’t make that assessment; I’m not claiming omnipotence.  All I’m saying is that without God, the definition of morality is left open to the individual.  And the postmodern mindset becomes a serious barrier: what is moral for me is not moral for you.  Now we’re in a mess.

Jeff shows his misunderstanding of Christian teachings later in the combox:

It’s just, while Christians’ consequences come in a theoretical “afterlife,” our consequences come in this one. There are major problems involved in basing your moral compass on what might happen to you after your death, chief among them that no one really knows what is involved in the afterlife, and even many Christians say “Heaven is whatever you want it to be.”

Atheists seem to think that we place more emphasis on the afterlife than the present life.  While we look forward to the afterlife, we certainly have much work to do in this present life.  The Bible places all of its emphasis on the here and now, and very little mind is paid to Heaven.  Although Hell is described pretty clearly as a place that is best avoided.

Maybe to a certain extent, Christians do place much emphasis on the afterlife.  But what is it about this present life that many of us want to ignore?  There really are severe consequences in this life should we ignore the moral precepts given us by God.  I think that Jeff says this better than any Christian writings on the topic: “This moment is all we’re guaranteed. Nothing more. Live it to its fullest.”  Beautiful sentiment, but it lacks definition: How do we live life to the fullest?  Are we back to defining all of this for ourselves, or is there an objective definition?

I encourage everyone to read the full story, linked below, but this excerpt is touching:

We prayed during our family devotions. Talitha (11 years old) and Noel and I prayed earnestly for the families affected by the calamity and for the others in our city. Talitha prayed “Please don’t let anyone blame God for this but give thanks that they were saved.” When I sat on her bed and tucked her in and blessed her and sang over her a few minutes ago, I said, “You know, Talitha, that was a good prayer, because when people ‘blame’ God for something, they are angry with him, and they are saying that he has done something wrong. That’s what “blame” means: accuse somebody of wrongdoing. But you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.” (source)

The bridge tragedy could easily be evidence of God’s judgment and wrath outpouring on mankind. Instead, John Piper focuses on divining the purpose in the tragedy; the message God intends to send the survivors of the incident.

Jesus was brought news that people were suffering and dying even in His time. His response? Repent, or else you will face the same thing.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)

Jesus tells us that the purpose behind these seemingly senseless acts of God is to simply call the world to repentance.

And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’” (Luke 13:5-9)

This parable seems to imply a limit to the number of chances we get to repent. Bad news for many people I know, good news for others. But a call to Christians everywhere: take each witness opportunity that God grants you and use it to its fullest! You never know if this chance is that person’s last.

I asuume that everyone is familiar with the Geico commercials that tout Geico’s website as “So easy, even a caveman could do it.”  A church right down the road from the Burger King where I toil to earn a living decided to make a readerboard message that capitialized on the success of that particular insurance ad.  They proclaimed: “Pray.  Even a Caveman Could Do It.”

They wisely changed it the next day.  Did they perhaps realize the plethora of theological problems that it creates?

I’m still back and forth with the 6,000 year old earth versus the 4.6 billion year old earth.  I don’t think that it truly matters how old our planet is–this issue is merely a distraction from the real problem.  Did we evolve, or are we special creations of God?

Obviously, this church’s bulletin board proclaims the evolutionary side of it is true.  Cavemen, after all, aren’t human according to the evolutionary paradigm, but are the (perhaps inevitable) result of millions of years of slow change, descent with modification, over generations and generations.  Our friendly neighborhood church announced that they believe this to be true.

Probably without realizing it.  All the same I’m happy that they changed it.

The new message reads “Smile.  Even a caveman can do it.”  I think that if we all just smiled today instead of blowing up at somebody, then maybe the world would be just a little bit better today.

There are many conversations in the blogosphere that happen to be going on at the moment that I would like to join, but find myself without the time to do so.  Therefore, I just decided to do a round up of the best that’s out there, and add a few imperfect thoughts to the mix.

First, for those unaware,  Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog.  It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend.  As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness.

I know I sometimes feel like the adulterous woman in John 8:3-11.  Except that I’m a man.  And I haven’t committed adultery.  That aside, I feel like I’ve laid before God, all my sins and iniquities there for Him to see.  And He says to me what Jesus said: “I don’t condemn you.  Go, and sin no more.”

It’s so powerful, the grace of God.  That He is willing to forgive those children of His who, like me, lay their sins before Him and repent–and then just say to us simply, “Go, and sin no more.”  How many times will He forgive us?  I assume the same number of times that Jesus told Peter to forgive a brother that wronged him: “Seventy times seven times.”  That’s a Hebrew idiom that means “infinity.”

All of this because of Christ’s death on the cross.

Rome doesn’t preach that.  In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation.  Of course, we can never know for sure if we have earned our salvation; that’s the sin of presumption.  Instead, we have to trust  in a repeating sacrifice of the Mass, the “infallible” interpretations offered by the church hierarchy, the sacraments, and (of course) an indeterminate stay in purgatory.  Those may cleanse us of our sins.

Of course, the real gospel message is one of simple repentance and preparedness to do the good works of God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added).  The Jesus of the gospel saves perfectly, every time (Heb 10:14).  We need no other imperfect sacrifice, offered repeatedly on the altars of Roman Catholic churches everywhere, we only need Jesus (Heb 10:1).

Yet, Dr. Beckwith appears to believe otherwise.  I suppose we should pray that God will reveal His truth to Dr. Beckwith in His time, and that this move will demonstrate God’s glory in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  God does make all things work together for the sake of His people (Rom 8:28).

DefCon–an organization for the Defense of the Constitution–is taking on Dr. Ken Ham’s upcoming Creation Museum by circulating two petitions, one for academics and one for ordinary citizens, but to what purpose I cannot ascertain by reading the petition.  It only calls for opposition to the Creation Museum, not to shut it down.  It doesn’t even ask us to boycott it.

Ham has answered the critics on his blog several times by repeatedly using the catch phrase “They haven’t even visited it.”  Yeah, Doc, but they already know our arguments as literal-Genesis guys, same as we know their arguments as evolutionary biologists, right?  So they can guess what is in there.  Same as I can hazard a guess as to what would be in an evolutionary museum.

Aren’t both of us just yammering away the same way?  I mean, evolutionists say that evolution must be true because God didn’t create it, look at the similarities between species, look at the evolutionary tree, etc., etc.  It must be true because the alternative is God!

The creationists do the same thing.  It must be true because the Bible says so, we can explain similarities between species by common design, God’s law and judgment doesn’t exist with 4.6 billion year old Earth, etc. etc.  It must be true, because the alternative is evolution!

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King.  So what?  I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe.  I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, but perhaps in the case of Young vs. Old, we just don’t have enough evidence from either side to rule out any possibilities.

Logic forces me to believe in a Creator simply because an infinity of past events leading to the present isn’t possible.  “Infinity” is a concept, not a number to be used in equations.  Time is merely the result of this universe, specifically, planetary bodies orbiting large centers of gravity create what we know as “time.”  Before that, there was no duration, aging, or anything else associated with the passing of time.  God, existing in this eternity, created the universe (and with it, time).  It only makes sense that the Creator of something was never subject to it, since “it” didn’t exist before the Creator created it.

The challenge as a Christian becomes preaching sin, death, and judgment when we know that these concepts are tied to the Fall, but (in an Old Earth model) not unique to the Fall.  The position of Ken Ham and the entire AiG crew is to teach a literal account of Genesis, support a Young Earth model, and thus maintain the integrity of God’s Word.

I, as a Young Earth creationist, believe that some room must exist for science to work its wonders.  Why can’t there be a reconciliation between what one teaches, and the other says?  Many Old Earth creationists believe in the tenets of sin and judgment, and know why death occurs in relation to the Fall, just fine and dandy without having to be Young Earth creationists.

Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.  Of course, being an apologist, I hate wavering on any Biblical issue.  As the defender of God’s truth, I should have a position to defend.  Wavering doesn’t bode well for me.

Of course, I think it does if my motive is to come to the truth of what God is teaching.  I believe that the Christians out there will sympathize with that, but the atheists will see this as a weak point and fire both barrels at it.

And on a weird note, Westboro Baptist Church is getting sued for having a parody video on their website of “We are the World.”  That was such a cheesy song, but it did so much good for the world.  And, of course, that was back when Michael Jackson was cool.  Westboro is now using it to spread their message of hate.

The parody version, “God Hates the World,” is still available on the cult’s web page and the lawyers have issued statements that say it won’t come down.  Let the pissing contest begin!

Hmmm… Interesting title for a worship song.  Do their Bibles not have John 3:16 in it?  That is assuming they actually read the Bible, of course.

I’m writing this entry because a lot of what is contained herein needs to be said, and it needs to be heard by Christians who are confused by the whole issue of homosexuality. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. It is quite the hot potato within the church today, and I have made it perfectly clear that I believe with all of my heart that the church is handling this issue in the worst possible way. What I have not made clear is the appropriate way to handle this issue, because a way to handle the issue never presented itself.

First, let me make it clear that I do not accept that homosexuality is “normal.” I do not believe that it is inborn, either: we are not born gay, nor are we born straight. I will cover that momentarily. I believe that it is a perversion of the plan God has set forth in marriage, and I believe that the Scriptures that condemn it are quite clear on this fact. There have been many attempts by gay theologians and “gay Christian” activists to muddy the clear teaching of Scripture in this regard.

Some people may not be familiar with the Scriptural arguments in favor of homosexuality, so I will pause here to briefly explain them. There are six main Scriptures to which the gay community refers to as the “clobber passages.” They are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Pro-gay theologians have argued that these passages don’t really condemn gays, and that modern people are misinterpreting them.

Gay theologians say that the passages in Leviticus merely refer to temple prostitution and ritual sodomy, not the loving relationship shared by modern gay couples. This is probably going to surprise many people, but I’m actually not going to argue with that statement. The book of Leviticus was devised as a holiness code for priests, and it is only fitting that such a statement is referring specifically to that practice, and not to a loving relationship between people. I therefore agree that this is misused to clobber gays.

Deuteronomy is a suzerainty treaty between God and the nation of Israel. Between God and a specific nation that existed in a specific time–the physical descendants of Abraham, not the spiritual ones. Modern Christians, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, can refer to this book to identify the sorts of practices that God disapproves of, such as homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc., but also can reason that some of these things are not applicable today. There is much theological debate about what parts are still applicable and what parts not, so we cannot say for certain here that we should condemn homosexual behavior on the basis of Deuteronomy.

I can say, with a degree of certainty, that it stands up to reason on the basis of this passage and of the account of marriage between one man and one woman (Gen 2:23-24) that a strong case against homosexuality can be made. The honest gay theologian should at least be able to agree with me on that point.

Leviticus, a holiness code for priests, and Deuteronomy, a suzerainty treaty that is no longer in effect because of the disobedience of Israel, are hardly the most appropriate books of the Bible to use to condemn this behavior. They are important to discern which behaviors are acceptable to God and which are not, but they cannot be used the way that many Christians today try in regard to homosexuality. It then becomes open season for the detractors to throw out the ridiculous rules contained in these books, pointing out (rightly) that if we have dispensed with those rules, why not this one? I’ll cover why we should not soon, but for now, let’s look at the Pauline passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy as a group, because the same primary argument is used in an attempt to toss both of them out wholesale: the Greek words μαλακός (malakos) and ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs).

The pro-gay argument is that latter word has an unclear meaning, and that it is only ignorance that would have us translate the word as “homosexuals.” But this translation really isn’t far off if one pays close attention to the context:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Cor 6:9-10]

What is translated “men who practice homosexuality” here in the ESV are two Greek terms, μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης. The former literally means “soft,” and the latter is subject to much etymological debate. Can we ever know what Paul meant by these words, or is the meaning obscured by time?

Pay attention to the list itself: notice that it is divided into categories: sexual sins, covetousness, and finally, “white collar.” We have good reason, therefore, to believe that ἀρσενοκοίτης has a sexual connotation, since it follows sexual sins. It precedes sins of coveting, which could imply some sort of envy.

This fits homosexuality perfectly: they envy the rights granted heterosexual couples who marry, especially in today’s society. Therefore, putting this sin between sexual sins and sins of coveting is a nice fit. But this still doesn’t address another concern of the gay community: why did Paul use these terms instead of the most common Greek term describing homosexuality?

I believe that there are two reasons. First, the common term would have brought to mind the common practice of the day: an older man taking a young boy under his wing (among other things) to educate him and “make him a man.” Essentially, that term would condemn only this practice, not homosexuality in general. Paul wanted to use language that would have condemned all homosexuality, not just the practice of the day. He wanted terms that were more generic, terms that would survive the times. Why those particular words were chosen leads me to the second point.

The second reason is that Paul was trying to be descriptive of how a homosexual couple actually works. This way, he condemns both parties in the couple, not just one or the other. Nowadays (and I can assume in Paul’s day as well), gay couples consist of a “top” and a “bottom.” The top fills the role of the man, he is the one that “goes into” or “knows” the other, to put it King James language (ἀρσενοκοίτης implies a strong man and a marriage bed). By contrast, the bottom fulfills the role of the woman; he is “went into,” so to speak (the literal translation of μαλακός is “soft,” which fits the implied meaning nicely). Put another way, had Paul been writing today, he may have written “neither the sexually immoral, people who worship things of this world, cheats, homosexual ‘tops’ and ‘bottoms,’ thieves, money grubbers, drunks, crooks, nor embezzlers will inherit the Kingdom.”

This same argument works for the translation of 1 Timothy 1:10.

The pro-gay argument against the passage in Romans is that this refers to lustful relationships, not pure loving relationships. While I can’t disagree with this argument in spirit, since it does match the context of Romans 1, there is one flaw in this reasoning. Everything mentioned in Romans is going against God’s plan, God’s natural order of things. This implies that the gay theologian understands that God has the right to order creation as He sees fit. The gay theologian must also accept the Bible as the Word of God, the same way I do. It is standard practice to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. So, are there any Scriptures that set a natural order to sexual relationships?

Of course there are! Genesis 2:21-24 tells us that God took a part of man to make woman, and that in order for a man to be whole again requires a woman, not another man. The same is also true for women. This account is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew, when the Pharisees ask about divorce laws. We can then assume that Jesus also intended marriage to be between a male and a female, not between members of the same sex.

I think that I have established that homosexuality is, indeed, a sin. It violates God’s natural order and has been consistently taught against in crystal clear Bible passages. The issue here is not weather a gay person is born or made, nor weather God still loves them or not; the bottom line is “According to the Bible, is homosexuality a sin?” I don’t think that any reasonable argument can be proposed contrary: homosexuality is a sin.

The problem I have lies in articles like this, from Dr. James White yesterday:

Homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives. It is a difficult thing to wrestle constantly with your conscience, to put out so much effort into convincing yourself that your sin is good, to call light darkness and darkness light. It is toilsome. Because of their state, homosexuals are particularly angered by anyone who would say “homosexuality is unnatural; it is directly opposed to God’s creative order, it is sinful, life-destroying, and God demands you repent from it.” And so, they are willing to lend their considerable financial (and hence politically powerful) support to any politician who will help them to suppress such speech, or to put it bluntly, to give them super-rights. They wish to be able to say, and do, anything at all: but, at the same time, they are willing to see the rights of others, especially their free-speech rights, denied. [source]

Again, I agree with Dr. White’s statements here. But the last statement ignores the fact that Christians, despite having God’s truth on our side, are no better than the homosexuals in our treatment of them. We somehow act like homosexuality is some kind of unforgivable sin, when some of us are guilty of it (and worse) in our lives. We treated these people, who want nothing more than equal rights with everyone, like dirt–as if their sin is somehow contagious. Adulterers, drug addicts, gamblers, and even child molesters are given second chances in church without batting an eyelash. Why not homosexuals? Why are they treated as some sort of heart-hardened unrepentant group that is seeking to destroy us?

To that end, I can’t say that I disagree with Lynette1977 in this post, where she asks the ultimate question: Why do gays stay in a religion that calls for their persecution? Christianity doesn’t call for the persecution of gays, but is it any wonder Lynette and others believe that it does? Look at the way Christians–even prominent apologists like Dr. White–behave toward gays!

The problem is that we’re putting the cart before the horse. The only existing condemnation for homosexuality is the Bible. I’m not denigrating the Bible’s importance, but I am trying to point out that fewer and fewer people are accepting it as a source for morals. This is the real problem that we, as Christians, must address first. We need to call for society to come back to a Biblical understanding of morals and creation first, then we can reason with them from Scripture to understand why something like that is wrong through God’s eyes.

To that end, organizations like Answers in Genesis are very worthwhile causes to support. Dr. Ham works tirelessly to promote a better and more Biblical understanding of the world.

Christians have lost the focus we once had on discipleship: building relationships with people without judging their lifestyle, and leading them to God’s truth through the Bible rather than trying to slap their faces with it.

So what’s my recommendation for dealing with the homosexual? Well, evangelize him or her the way you would anyone else, and then live your life according to God’s commands. Talk about it. Show them from the Bible why you do what you do. Let the Word of God speak for itself. If that person is truly motivated to shed the harmful behavior out of reverence for a new faith in Jesus, then great! You won a convert, you have a new disciple, and you didn’t even have to give away a new car to do it!

In short, I believe in relationships being the key to solving this problem, changing it one heart at a time, not proselytizing the entire group. As individuals accept Christ, Christ will motivate them to change in His time. Meanwhile, as for legislative measures to legalize gay marriages, I don’t see that we have other choice: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” [Mat 5:39]. It is obvious that God is sending our gay brothers and sisters a powerful delusion, so let’s not resist that overall. Let’s instead fight it by living the lives Jesus called us to live, and show the ones God draws to Himself how to do the same. Just like Proverbs also states. Pray for the wisdom to discern the difference.

I had the privilege of reading this item on the Rational Response Squad website:

MAY 9th 1:00 pm EST, Rational Response Squad responds to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron as they try to prove scientifically without invoking the Bible or faith that their god exists. Martin Bashir will moderate. View the entire discussion at ABC.com website! May 9th, 11:35 pm (check local listings) ABC Nightline will recap the entire discussion!

Well, I’m pretty geeked about this. This may surprise people, but I’m personally looking forward to the RRS tearing Cameron and Comfort a new one. I’ll probably have to work during the live broadcast, but I’ll download the discussion, and read the analysis later on the various blogs that will undoubtedly carry the news.

After the RRS destroys these guys in the debate, hopefully they’ll realize that the deck is stacked in atheism’s favor here. Cameron and Comfort must leave the Bible and faith (and by this we probably mean “blind faith,” not saving faith; but the RRS makes no distinction I’m sure) at home. These are theism’s greatest weapons! But will the RRS leave their scientific journals and research at home? Of course not! That’s atheism’s greatest weapon!

That is why this battle is lost before it is fought. At least it will be good for a laugh and some hefty analysis on what not to do when debating atheists. Leaving your Bible and your faith at home in a debate on the existence of God is roughly the equivalent to bringing a rubber knife to a gun fight. You may as well try to stop a freight train with a toothpick.

Granted, you can’t use the Bible to prove that there is a God. Once you prove the existence of a supernatural creator, you need the Bible to contextualize this being, for it is His Word. If Cameron and Comfort succeed in proving the existence of God (which I have no doubt that they can do), they can’t succeed in proving that this god is the Christian God without using the Bible.

Hopefully, these two well-meaning folks will realize their error through this debate. That is my prayer for them.

Now all I need is an RRS hat and paint to make some cool banners:

Go Sapient! Give ‘em no Comfort!

And:

Rook takes Kirk. Checkmate!

Any chance someone’ll start the wave? (I’m such a fair-weather fan!)

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. [1 The 4:16-18]

The Rapture. It’s a nice thought, being saved from all of the horrible judgments described in Revelation. Global deception followed by war, then famine and disease, then death. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ride forth from the Scroll, when the Lamb breaks open the seals. Martyrs by the thousands follow, then a great earthquake complete with the sun being blotted out and a blood red moon with falling stars round out what are called the Seal Judgments.

That is only the beginning. The Trumpet Judgments are much worse, including and especially the Fifth Trumpet: demon locusts pouring from the Abyss, stinging all nonbelievers (Rev 9:1-11).

Things get worse as the Vial Judgments are poured out: Boils (Rev 16:2), the sun burning people’s flesh (Rev 16:8-9), and darkness over the throne of the Antichrist (Rev 16:10-11).

It is extremely comforting for the Christian to hear of the Rapture: the catching up of all the faithful souls, first the dead and then the living, to meet with Christ in the sky and be with Him forever.

The predominant eschatology we see today makes no attempt to interpret the prophecies of Revelation. Instead, it looks to their literal fulfillment in a seven-year timespan at some point in the near future. This will be preceded by the Rapture of all the faithful Christians.

It’s convenient. Christians won’t share in the judgment of mankind. That’s always nice to hear. But who are these martyrs in Revelation 6:9-11, who were yet to join the others under the altar?

I’m afraid that Christians are to share in these terrible judgments. Am I scared? You bet I am; we all should be scared. I’m not comforted by the Rapture, since I believe that it will follow at the end of the judgments. I am, however, comforted by two things related to the end times.

First, I’m comforted by the fact that God is in control, and He makes all things (good and bad) work out for the faithful (Rom 8:28).

Second, I’m comforted by the fact that the prophecies given in Revelation have, for the most part, already happened.

Fans of the Left Behind series, and students of Tim LaHaye in general, are reading this post thinking, What the heck is this guy talking about? Well, that is what I hope to answer by examining, in depth, the historicist view of eschatology. It attempts to interpret the prophecies of Revelation in a similar fashion to the way that the symbolic language found in Isaiah and Daniel was interpreted. This is how students of Scripture knew to look for Jesus’ coming in the first century A.D. We will use historical events of the past 2000 years as the fulfillment of the prophecies from Revelation.

Historicism isn’t claiming to be an infallible interpretation anymore than the Left Behind novels are claiming to be prophecy. The sad truth of the matter is that only God knows the true meaning of Revelation. Historicism, unlike Futurism, is an attempt to understand 2000 years of human history from God’s point of view. This is the real meaning of the blessing promised to those who understand Revelation (1:3).

Historicism can be refined in light of new evidence. Historicism gives us an impetus to study the past and try to understand it. Futurism can only wait for fulfillment.

No matter the school of thought one subscribes to in eschatology, the urgency to disseminate God’s word is no less. Futurists, preterists, and historicists all await the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We believe that it will be soon, as some interpretations of Scripture we all agree on are coming to pass now: widespread apostasy, increased rebellion against God, religious apathy, and a veritable treasure trove of false teachers. The reconstitution of the nation of Israel was another sign all three schools of thought awaited.

The urgency created by these signs, therefore, necessitate aggressive evangelism and a continued push for God’s truth to be taught to our children. The last hours approach, quicker than anyone probably expects, and we are called to save as many as we can.

In the next series of entries, I will detail the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from a historicist perspective. I expect I’ll be very busy over the next few weeks, so I don’t know how quickly these articles will come. I will also put the finishing touches on the Jesus Tomb article.

This should prove to be an interesting few weeks for everyone concerned. Stay tuned.

Let’s face it: Everyone loves to be right. It’s a grand feeling, especially for an egomaniac like myself, to know that something is going to happen despite the optimist’s best efforts to prevent it. As the smug grin grows ever-wider upon my face, while watching the optimist failing at every turn to stop that which I knew was inevitable, I anticipate the climatic moment when the optimist knows that he cannot prevent my pessimistic prediction from coming to pass and I get to say “I told you so.”

Sometimes, I epitomize the famous movie line, “Your ego is writing checks your body can’t cash.” Now having lived on this earth for 30 years, I have a wealth of life experience to draw upon and I can foresee more things based upon that experience. This means that I’m right more times than I used to be. And, as an egomaniac, that is an exhilarating feeling. In fact, roller coasters and sex may be the only things better!

But, there are many times when I dread being right, and this is one of those times. In an earlier post, I explained why I was distancing my ministry from the Buddy Christ icon. The most compelling reason was the fact that God is not meant to be my buddy or my pal. Our relationship to God is meant to be a patron/client relationship. God, the patron, has granted us, His clients, the gifts of this planet, life, time, people, etc. We are stewards of all of these gifts. We do not own our lives, our time, our planet, our money, nor are the people in our lives accidents of existentialism. These components are all carefully designed for us by God, and He intends an outcome for each dollar He allows us to touch, each person we meet, and each second we are alive. At the end of our lives, we will have to give an account to Him for how we spent this time, our money, and how we impacted the people that we came in contact with.

This implies that He is our Lord, and that we serve Him.

I was right in that post when I said that the latest trend is downplaying any aspect of the gospel where it teaches we are meant to serve God. The new way churches are teaching their congregates is that God is right next to us, like an invisible friend, cheering us on and helping us behave. As if He doesn’t sit in judgment over His creation. One pastor had this to say:

“If God is understood and viewed as within creation, acting inside of it, loving, compassionate, hopeful, creative — all of those produce a very different way of imagining the Christian life and living it out,” he said. “If you are always calling God ‘Lord,’ you are sticking him into that outside place. It seems to me, in order to avoid doing that, one of the first things you do is call God something different.”

God is more involved in our lives than we realize. However, He is not a part of His creation. He is outside it, above it, and greater than it. We, as His creation, owe our existence to Him and should be held accountable by Him for how we spent the resources He gave us. He created this universe from nothing, and molded us in His image from the very dust of the ground. He granted us a free will and gave us stewardship over His planet. This makes Him worthy of my worship, and certainly more than worthy of the title of Lord.

If you think in hierarchical terms, then yes, God would be far over and above us. We owe Him everything, and He owes us nothing. Yet, by His grace, we are able to come to Him through His Son. When we do that, He grants us the Holy Spirit, and recreates us in the Spirit, changing our lives forever for the better, and helps us improve the quality of life of those around us by granting us spiritual gifts that we can use to further His kingdom and for His glory.

Despite being worthy of our worship, worthy of being called King of kings and Lord of lords, some people say otherwise:

“We usually change ‘Lord’ to ‘love’ or ’soul’ or ‘light,’ ” [David] Wilkinson [senior pastor of St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Church] said. “It’s pretty much a hierarchical, patriarchal image we’re getting rid of.”

The article I linked to is very disturbing. The truth is that we owe God everything from our very existence to the annual salaries we earn, to the clothes on our backs and the nice blanket I’m about to crawl under after I hit the “Publish” button. The wife I cuddle with and the child she carries are all His, and He entrusts them to me for a time.

All of us have things that God has entrusted to us, and all of us must use these resources as He would have us use them. How could anyone not think that God is above us, that He is unworthy of a title of respect such as Lord?

Praise God, for He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?

The center of any worship service should be God.

How elementary is that?  Yet, churches today are missing the point by putting on an entertainment extravaganza designed to engage people and draw in ever larger crowds.  Meanwhile, no actual discipleship is taking place.  But that’s okay, because the tithes grow and the pastors get to turn in big numbers of baptisms and attendance figures to the home office.  The church is growing and everyone is happy.

But the focus on God just isn’t there.  His commandment to disciple people is swept under the rug, in favor of the command to evangelize.

I’m opposed to turning the gospel into an entertainment package, because it leads to what I described above.  But, there is a delicate balance to maintain.  God has given us incredibly diverse music styles, pronounced cultural differences, and short attention spans.  To use these things in worshiping Him would glorify Him, I believe.

To have a nontraditional worship service targeted to a specific demographic, provided it doesn’t replace the usual worship service, probably isn’t a bad thing.  So long as the focus remains on God.  The balance that one has to maintain is to design the worship service with God as the center, but design it in a way that appeals to the target audience.  A growing number of churches are doing just this for men.  I haven’t heard of any of these services in my area, so I can’t say I’ve ever been to one, that they are bad, or that the focus is off of God.

The teaching seems right on.  Men have a tendency to open up better to other men, especially about that which challenges us all: lust.  Rock music, a message that targets men, and encouragement to return to the traditional service with your family.  But the basketball theme and a “shot clock” for the sermon may be a bit much.

I used to be a “whatever works” kind of guy, but now that I’ve become a more critical theology student, I know that the axiom “What you win them with is what you win them to” is 100% true.  This is what I hate about watered-down gospel presentations, God Is My Buddy theologies, and the growing trend of not preaching about sin or judgment.  Yes, Jesus died for me, but why was that necessary?  And, how many mega-church attendees out of 100 could tell me why?

My concern is that as church services trend more toward supporting the demographics to grow numbers, will sin and judgment preaching take a further back seat to rock music and shot clocks?  Or will these things merely aid in the presentation of the gospel as outlined in Scripture?  We must pray to God that these things will aid in the preaching of His word.  We must also pray that God will limit the influence of those preachers who leave Him and His message of repentance and salvation on the back burner, favoring the love and “warm fuzzy” presentations.