Josiah Concept Ministries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so I met with little success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, please help me locate the part of the New Testament that will make it clear to me that Leviticus, Numbers, and whatever other books to which this claim applies were invalidated by Jesus. I’m not saying you are wrong - I’m nowhere close to even starting the New Testament yet - I’d just like to know where I’ll find this part so I can be more careful about how I’m reading the Old Testament now. (source)

The Old Testament law is essentially divided into two basic categories.  Jewish Ceremonial Laws (which includes dietary laws) and General Moral Principles.  I would think that reading the law books, this division would be obvious to a reasonable person such as VJack.  In Romans and Galatians, Paul makes the purpose of the law clear: to teach us what sin is (Rom 3:19-31; Gal 3:10-14).  We are enslaved to sin (Eph 2:1-3).  But thanks to the grace of God that we enjoy through Christ, sin no longer has any dominion over us because Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the law (Rom 6:14).

Why do we still have the Bible?  My brother-in-law shared this in an e-mail to me, and I think it perfectly expresses what I’m trying to say:

It [the Bible] was written long ago, but it very much is valid in modern times. It is a timeless book of truths that is 100% correct. It should be our source for faith and understanding, but not the ONLY source. That is what prayer and thinking of Christ does for us. We are able to look past what the scripture says to the WHY. But without the initial scripture, we could never have anything to hold it accountable to. The Bible is the final authority. Period.

And if we are free of the letter of the law as my brother-in-law says (and Paul says in 2 Cor 3:6), then why not just live a life of sin?  We’re saved anyway, right?  We can find ways to argue that our sin is the “spirit” of the law, can’t we?  Well, the apostle Paul said it better than I could in Romans 6:1-14.  If we profess a life of righteousness by faith, we ought to live that life out rather than just talk about or think about.

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).

The Bible says this about nonbelievers:

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. (Eph 4:1

It is my sincere belief that this is a willful darkening of their own understanding.  This is ignorance by choice.  They aren’t trying to understand the Bible in its social context.  Instead, they are looking for reasons not to believe in it.

In this post from the Penitent Atheist, this ignorance becomes obvious:

As we all know, Jesus tells us to love our enemies and, if someone should strike us in the face, he commands that we invite that person to have a go at the other side. Now, as wonderful as this idea sounds in theory, most sane people understand that in practice this approach would be highly dubious. In fact, even committed Christians consider these commands to be so impractical that they willfully ignore and disobey them.

. . . Christians teach their children to defend themselves because they understand that a child who acted as Jesus commands would come home bloody and without lunch money, and even worse, without dignity. But let’s set aside the children and just talk about us adults. Jesus does not even allow us to hold up our hands in defense; we must open ourselves and invite second and third attacks. Who does that?

The PA isn’t the first person to have this type of an objection.  J.P. Holding had to answer a similar objection from the book Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith.  This is what Holding has to say:

The “slap on the cheek” is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. (source)

The PA is taking things to the height of illogic.  He starts with a complete misunderstanding of what the Bible is actually teaching.  My advice to him would be to try to learn what a problem teaching means before he posts something that looks completely ridiculous on his blog.

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.