Josiah Concept Ministries

I may have misjudged VJack from Atheist Revolution. I thought that his true motive behind reading the Bible from cover to cover was to poke fun at it. But it seems that the convicting power of the Holy Spirit may be at work in his heart, as he now seems to actually want to understand what he is reading with more clarity:

When confronted with scriptural evidence that there are many laws, clearly stated as such, for which the penalties are often banishment or death, which virtually no modern Christian even attempts to follow, one should expect a predictable Christian response. The wording will vary, but the response will be along the lines of how the Old Testament no longer applies because god’s covenant with Moses and his predecessors was replaced by Jesus and the New Testament.

Fair enough. I’ll ask two things of the Christian making this claim, and I’ll ask them not in a challenging manner but as a plea for assistance. (source)

I’ll answer his questions in a moment. But first, let’s understand why there are no more animal sacrifices.

First off, we have to understand that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23a). Calling death a “wage” implies that we earn it through our sins. All have sinned (Rom 3:23), so all have earned death by their sin. This means that every human being on this planet deserves to die because we all sin. Everyone.

With that in mind, is it so terrible that God demands the death penalty for some sins that we consider relatively minor? Of course not–it is all sin, which is paid for by death. “[W]ithout the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22)–either our own blood or someone else’s. Up to this point, the blood of animals had been used to cleanse and purify us from our sins (Heb 9:13). Now, the precious blood of Christ purifies us (Heb 9:14).

Christ offered Himself to the Father, perfect and without blemish (Heb 9:14), as propitiation for our sins once for all (Heb 9:26b). Throughout the book of Hebrews, the author argues that the tabernacle and Tent of Meeting described in the Book of the Law is an imperfect copy of heaven (Heb 9:1-12). Jesus has entered into the real thing–heaven–and is seated at the right hand of the Father, making intersession for us in a way that no high priest ever could (Heb 1:3b, Heb 7:11-28).

The prophets predict an end to animal sacrifices. Malachi predicts that a new type of sacrifice will be offered:

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (1:11)

This is fulfilled by Christians living by the word of God, everyday and in every place:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:1-2)

Christ’s sacrifice perfects us. We no longer need animal blood to do so.

I will address VJack’s specific questions in my next post. Stay tuned.

My good friend Jeff Haws, as well as Rev. Dan from OutChurched and VJack from Atheist Revolution have posted on this little news item about Christians handling snakes. With this seemingly insignificant news item gathering a firestorm of attention from atheists, I thought it would be a good idea to address the issue from a Biblical perspective.

I consider myself a reasonable man of faith.  I believe in God’s Word as it espoused in the Bible.  I ascribe inerrancy only to the autographs–that is, the original manuscripts.  I believe that the Bible is written in clear, everyday language and doesn’t require a Master’s degree from seminary to interpret the myriad of passages within it.  This clear, everyday language must be considered for the use of literary devices–such as similies, metaphors, hyperbole, and others–as well as for context.

Part of context would be understanding that “you” in a direct quotation would apply in a general sense only to those people present when the quotation was uttered.

As a reasonable man of faith, I believe that if I were to handle a poisonous snake, that it would bite me, and without proper medical attention, I would die.  No big surprise there.  I believe that despite this promise in the Bible:

Go everywhere in the world, and tell the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved, but anyone who does not believe will be punished. And those who believe will be able to do these things as proof: They will use my name to force out demons. They will speak in new languages. They will pick up snakes and drink poison without being hurt. They will touch the sick, and the sick will be healed.  (Mk 16:15-18, emphasis added)

Earlier I spoke of context.  In context, Jesus said this to the eleven apostles (v. 14).  He did not give this statement as a general instruction to all of His followers.  That means that these are signs and wonders that accompany apostles.

Elsewhere, I’ve defended this passage by saying that promises made to the apostles are fulfilled by the church.  The church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit disseminates spiritual gifts to people as He sees fit (1 Cor 12:11).  This means that gifts such as those are given to the church, not to individuals.  Among the gifts mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the the entire passage from Corinthians 12 (vv. 7-11), snake charming and poison drinking are conspicous by absence.

I’m not going back on that stance.  But, I am going back on one thing: Mark 16:9-20 is not found in the early Greek MSS.  That means that this promise was likely not part of the autograph–which means that I cannot wholeheartedly ascribe inerrancy to it.

All said, I too can marvel with my atheist friends at the sheer stupidity of someone who would handle a poisonous snake as part of a worship service.  Even if I believed that the signs and wonders that accompanied apostles would be apportioned by the Holy Spirit to every Christian and was able to ascribe inerrancy to Mark 16:9-20, I still wouldn’t be surprised if this happened.  Ultimately, we should follow Jesus’ example and not test God (Mat 4:1-11; cf. Deut 6:16).

I know that I have promised this and promised this. I’m sorry it has taken so long. New parents and anyone who has suffered depression in their lives will totally understand. I’m sure that many of you have doubted that it would ever arrive. But here it is, in PDF format. I hope that it was worth the wait. Enjoy!

A reader identifying himself as Dan writes in hope that I will swim back across the Tiber. He says:

I’m also glad that you’re on fire for the Lord. But I am sorry that you misunderstand the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, you’re not alone — the late Bishop Sheen, as I’m sure you’ve heard, said that ‘there are probably a hundred people in the U.S. who disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches, but thousands upon thousands who disagree with what they wrongly think the Church teaches. . . .’ I prayed and listened and read and thought and found that, yes, the Catholic Church is the true Church established by our Lord. Catholics don’t worship Mary. Catholics don’t resacrifice Christ on the altar. Catholics don’t violate Scripture by calling our priests “Father.” Catholics don’t believe that they can earn their way to heaven. . . . I will suggest that you check out the folks at “Catholic Answers,” including catholic.com, as well as at chnetwork.com; I think you’ll find — after more prayer and thought — more of value and truth at those sites than at the site of Mr. White. The objections I’ve seen on your blog entries are all answerable at these sites.

All right, where to begin? I’m familiar with the quote from Bishop Sheen, but I don’t believe I have misrepresented the Catholic faith. I grew up in the Catholic faith. I’ve seen the evidence of the Mary worship. Like Dr. White, I disagree that hyperdulia, dulia, and latria are fundamentally different things, which is the general explanation behind Mary worship. I addressed that topic in this article.

As to Catholics and the Eucharist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, says that the Eucharist “is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.“  Continuing in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

I’m sorry, but to say that Catholics are not re-sacrificing Christ on that altar is using the same trick of language that I refused to accept for worship (veneration) of Mary.  More on that here.

Catholics believe the necessity of the sacraments for the dispensing of God’s grace, which means that you actually have to do something–participate in the sacraments–for salvation.  That, to me, is the same as a works-based salvation.

I have never said that Catholics sin by calling their priests “Father.”  That you included that tells me that you haven’t read my position on those matters.  No one, in fact, has read either of those essays I linked to for quite a while.

Dan, I am aware of the sites that you link to.  As to whether they or Dr. White are more truthful, I suggest that you check out Dr. White’s recent blog entry on this unfortunate example of dishonesty from one of your own apologists, Dave Armstrong.  According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vicars are representatives with the same authority and powers granted to the ordinary in their diocese.  This means that the Pope is claiming the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy.   Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would fill that office, not a mere man.  This article explains it in greater detail.

Armstrong quotes the dictionary definition of a vicar, but he knows full well that this is not the definition of vicar that is implied by the Pope’s Vicar of Christ title.  That is blatant dishonesty on his part.

On which bank of the Tiber will I remain?  The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty to try to call someone a non-Trinitarian.  James White has undoubtedly done more to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity than any of the Roman Catholic apologists who would be his detractors.  This is the side of the river you’re trying to entice me to?  No, thank you.  I will stay put.

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.

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?

This is why I wanted to break away from the Buddy Christ icon most of all: the creed written by Bishop Pat Buckley that has become the statement of faith for the International Church of Buddy Christ. Bishop Buckley was consecrated a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, but is not legally a bishop, so to speak. His ordination was valid, but unlawful since it lacked a papal mandate.

I thought I’d analyze the creed here.

I believe that in this world it is impossible to understand God.
I believe that God made this wonderful universe and all that exists.
I can find God in nature, in animals, in birds and the environment.
I believe that God made all men and women,
That He made them all equal,
And that He loves and cherishes them all equally.
I believe that the whole human race is the family of God.

We are good right up to “He cherishes them all equally.” See, the problem with this statement is that it denies simple truth of Holy Scripture. It is impossible to meaningfully interpret texts like “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom 9:13) if you believe that God loves all His creation equally. Same with believing that the whole human race is the family of God.

I believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets
And if so, they too are part of God’s family.

No comment.

I hold that religion and faith are two different things,
That religion can be both good and bad
And that it is spirituality that counts.

Good, good, bad. Spirituality fails to define what feeds the spirit, it leaves you open to find your own path. That helps Satan more than it helps God; for God very narrowly defined how to feed your spirit for a reason.

For me your religion is an accident of your birth
Or a gift of God’s great providential diversity.
There is no one true church.
All churches and all religions contain aspects of the truth.

I can’t believe that your religion is an accident, since God chose the place and time of your birth. He would have also known what religion you would be born into. This means that He intended that from the beginning for His glory. I don’t think that accidents and coincidences are part of God’s plan.

Not all religions contain aspects of the truth. Some are very dangerous.

But only God is truth.
No man is infallible.
A Buddhist or a good atheist is as acceptable to God as a good Catholic.

The problem is the Bible clearly states that there is no one that is good. No one seeks after God, we humans only do evil without the grace of God. So I disagree that there is anyone acceptable to God who is not in Christ.

“No man is infallible” certainly is true, but it puts Bishop Pat square out of the Catholic Church since the Pope is supposedly infallible.

I believe that sex is good and so is the body.

Of course sex is good. If you’re doing it right (as my wife and I are), it is more than good–it is great!!! However, the body we now possess is tainted by sin. The fact that this creed never seems to address sin, man’s fallen nature, or any sort of need for restoration to God’s grace means that the Holy Spirit doesn’t have to enter us and restore our original goodness. Obviously, this is a necessary step in sanctification that is glossed over by Bishop Pat.

The only sexual act that is sinful is the one that uses or abuses.

Disagree. God defined sexual morality the way He did for a very important reason, and we should obey His rules. They aren’t mean or spiteful, they are there for our protection.

I believe in people, especially suffering people.
I believe in the power of weakness.
I believe that all men and women will be saved.
I believe in a packed Heaven and an empty Hell.
And even Satan might get another chance.

Where do we begin on the errors in this section? Well, for starters, any casual reading of the Bible, with a little bit of common sense, would indicate that not everyone is going to get saved. God never intended that. How could He grant us free will unless there was a way to make a bad choice?

Packed Heaven and empty Hell? I think Bishop Pat got it backwards. Jesus Himself said as much (Mt 7:14).

Satan won’t accept another chance; his pride is too overpowering for that. He needs only to believe on Jesus as the Savior, but he won’t do that.

I believe in the freedom of God’s sons and daughters.

To do what, exactly? Could this statement be more vague?

I believe that dogma is often evil.

Loaded statement.

I believe that life is a journey towards God
And that no one has the right to insist that you go a certain road.

Not even God? He has insisted that we travel a certain path: “I am the way, the truth the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me” (Jn 14:6). God insists that we must believe in Jesus as Lord and that He rose again from the dead in order to complete the journey to Him (Rom 10:9)!

I believe that God and reality are too big for my poor words.
I believe therefore that I am only at a beginning.
Only knocking at a door.
And I believe that the best is yet to come.

I agree, but I’m not so sure that Bishop Pat will get anything better than this life. But, I guess I can’t judge a man’s heart, that is only for God.

This article scares me beyond words.

It’s scary because I know that it is true.  No one wants to be told that he is a sinner: that we humans just are not nice creatures by nature.  But that statement is not only 100% true, it is absolutely necessary for one’s own salvation to admit this, if only to yourself and God.

First, we must understand that when Adam took the fruit of the forbidden tree, he became like God in his understanding of good and evil.  This necessitated punishment, as God had ordered that this tree be left alone.  Eating this fruit gave knowledge of good and evil; and of course, evil is much more attractive to creatures such as ourselves with our decidedly self-serving natures.  The attractiveness of doing evil, the desire to be like God, and master of own destiny has been passed from Adam down through the generations.  This sinful nature is what prompts us to do evil, and without Christ, we shall always do that evil.

By this sinful nature, this flesh, we are separated from God.  Our only hope for unity with Him again is Jesus Christ.  As a just and holy God, God cannot simply ignore the sins that we continue to commit each and every day.  He must require punishment.  It is Christ who took that punishment willingly in our stead when He died upon that cross, rending the curtain that separates the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple and granting us personal access to God the Father, our Creator.  Jesus took the punishment that should have been ours.

In order to understand the gravity of that sacrifice, and the substitutionary atonement that He undertook on our behalf, we must first realize that we are sinners and that this punishment was necessary in the first place.

Does being called a sinner offend your sensibilities?  It does mine!  The nerve of that song about God’s grace, saying that it “saved a wretch like me.”  I’m not a wretch!

Except that I am.  I am no better than a liar, cheater, adulterer, murderer, idolater, or any other sinner in the world.  I sin, too.  And so do you, dear reader.  If you are reading this, then you sin too.

The message of the cross is supposed to offend; to convict.  The preachers that are mentioned in the above article, Joel Osteen, Ken Copeland, Jerry Bakker’s son, and others are doing the gospel of Our Lord a great disservice by eliminating the message of human sinfulness.  God is, and should always be, the focus of the gospel and of our very lives that we owe to Him.  But to completely eliminate human sin from the message so as not to offend or to promote “easy-believism” is wrong.

Those who water down the gospel message are false teachers, and they will have much to answer for in the next life.  Ironically, I have few followers but I attempt to communicate a message as true to the gospel as I understand it.  These men have droves of followers and are communicating a message that will not save anyone.

End times delusion, anyone????

In the first post in this series, I discussed the significance of names to the Jesus Family Tomb. The conclusion by the producers was that it is statistically unlikely for the cluster of names to occur in any other tomb than the Jesus Family Tomb (1 in 600 that it was anyone else’s tomb).

I have already discussed that the statistics can be made to say whatever a person chooses to have them say. What is really important is the underlying assumptions that drive the statistics. I have even demonstrated that by using a different set of assumptions that a person can show that it is more likely to uncover a tomb with that cluster of names than not. Also, this pdf document discusses a correct interpretation of those statistics.

The name that the documentary made the biggest deal about was Mary Magdalene. Everyone seemed to agree that the presence of that name was a slam dunk in identifying this tomb as the tomb of Jesus Christ.

I can’t disagree with them. If they could prove that Mary Magdalene was present in this tomb, while it may not be 100% proof positive, it would certainly create a very compelling case.

While this is the strongest evidence to bolster the case, it is actually the weakest evidential link. Mary Magdalene’s presence in the tomb is based on a theory by Francois Bovon, the Frothington Professor of the History of Religion at Harvard Divinity School. This theory is pure speculation, and it fits well with the conspiracy-laden “reality” presented by the Da Vinci Code. A brief news story is presented here, outlining some of the professor’s views of the early first century church.

The Acts of Philip was discovered in 1972, and appears to be a fourteenth century manuscript. Professor Bovon claims that it was originally from the fourth century. Do I dare dispute a Harvard professor? While I can’t dismiss the possibility, I submit humbly that a story of a dragon being slain fits better with medieval literature than fourth century literature. I submit, humbly, that a quest to slay the dragon fits better with Arthurian legend than with fourth century history.

There are examples of animals talking in the Bible, so I am not going to be so bold as to claim that the leopard and the kid speaking in this manuscript automatically discount it from being authentic history. Instead, I’m going to point to the fact that worship in the Bible was reserved for God alone, and that the only Biblical person accepting worship was Jesus. Then, we’re going to look at the Acts of Philip v. 101: “And they fell and worshipped [sic] Philip and Bartholomew and Mariamne; and all set out together praising God.”

Contrast that with this from the canonical Acts of the Apostles (10:25-6), when someone tried to worship Peter: “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I too am a man.’” There was no rebuke recorded in Acts of Philip. This is a sharp contrast to the canonical books, and it seems likely to be a later work because of the Catholic practice of praying to and venerating saints (Philip and Bartholomew, as apostles, were also canonized as saints of the Church). This practice would have been unknown earlier, and manuscript support for it would have been unnecessary.

All that said, there is still no support in the Acts of Philip to tie “Mariamne” with Mary Magdalene. Mariamne is identified as Philip’s sister, but nothing in the canonical gospels identifies Mary Magdalene as Philip’s sister. An indirect tie exists, when Mariamne is called “chosen among women” (v. 95). I could believe that Jesus would call the first witness to His resurrection “chosen among women.”

If the author intended Mariamne to be Mary Magdalene, why not just call her such? It seems to me that this is just another example of the producers of this film trying to make the facts fit their conclusion, when this is so clearly not the case.

Try again!!!