COEXIST

/0 Comments/in , , /by

COEXIST.

It sounds great and it’s a necessary and healthy thing to get peoples of different faiths to cooperate and to peaceably live alongside with one another and respect each other’s convictions.

As an organization, it’s a powerful force for good. But there’s an underlying message being promoted that says every religion is fundamentally the same and we’re all just travelers opting for different paths to a common destination.

That’s not true.

And while those differences don’t have to be processed as justifications to war with one another, it is important to recognize the essence of each religious school of thought, especially in those instances where the creed in question is being used to support acts of violence and terror.

I) We’re All Different

Here’s the thing: Not everybody thinks the same way. Two well read and educated individuals can look at the same issue and come up with two completely different viewpoints. We are all different. Those differences can, and should, create a dynamic where, because we’re working together, our distinctive perspectives can compliment one another and the resulting effort is far more comprehensive and effective than it would be otherwise.

That’s the premise behind the “COEXIST” organization that you can read more about at coexist.org. You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker they publish and it truly is a noble effort. There’s one particular story about how one community, racked by violence as a result of religious differences, came together in the context of a cooperative effort to produce coffee. It’s hard to argue with success, it really is. A neighborhood, that was nothing short of a war zone, has been transformed into a situation where people of different faiths are working side by side and creating a successful product.

II) Slander No One

From a Christian’s perspective, this resonates with Titus 3. The idea is that we’ve got a great Truth that we want to communicate to people and we do that by living lives that draw people in. It says in verse 2 “…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.” The process of going from a  spiritual corpse to someone with a spiritual pulse is not going to be facilitated through an argument or the tip of a sword. It’s God Who does that and our role is to be a witness to all that Solution entails and not a mere protester of all that is bad in the world.

That’s not to say there isn’t a time to take up arms and defend what is right (Ecc 3:8; Lk 22:36-38; Rom 13:4), but when it comes to championing the gospel, that’s a spiritual war and we’re obligated to use spiritual weapons if we want to be both obedient and effective (2 Cor 10:3-5).

III) Be Vigilant

The fact that it’s a spiritual battle is a cue to be that much more vigilant, as far as popping the hood on spiritual issues and ensuring that what may appear harmless and even noble, doesn’t have a sinister dynamic as its basis. That’s not being overly critical or even pessimistic, rather it’s being wise (Matt 7:15; 1 Pet 5:8). The notion of being able to peaceably coexist with people of other faiths is biblical and therefore entirely appropriate, as seen in Titus 3. But many perceive the “coexist”campaign as an encouragement to process all faiths as fundamentally the same and that’s where you get into things that are not appropriate, let alone logical. Let’s take a look at that for a minute.

IV) The Symbols of COEXIST
The “C” in COEXIST is the crescent moon that represents Islam. According to islam.about.com, the crescent moon was actually a symbol that had been adopted by the emperor of Constantinople to represent his empire. When the Seljuk Turks conquered the city in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol and, over time, the crescent moon became the symbol of Islam.
The “O” represents “peace.” In 1958, Gerald Holtom designed a symbol that was to be used as part of a march organized for the purpose of promoting nuclear disarmament. The letters “N” and “D,” which stood for “nuclear disarmament,” were superimposed on top of one another in the context of semaphore symbols. Holtom’s design would later be adopted by the anti-war movement and by the end of sixties, the “peace sign” had crossed several cultural and international boundaries and was widely recognized as an icon that stood for the promotion of a non-violent approach to conflict.
The “E” is an artistic embellishment of the letter “e” with the symbols that represent male and female. To the left, the first symbol is the female symbol which is derived from the astrological sign that represents Venus. Below that is the male symbol which, again derives from the astrological community. In this instance, it is the sign for Mars. This element symbolizes cooperation and peace between the sexes.
The “X” is the “Star of David” which represents “Judaism” The “Star of David” is not referenced in the Bible or any authoritative Jewish religious resource. But while its origins are unclear, it has been in use for centuries. Some were not especially keen on it being representative of Israel, let alone the Jewish faith, because of the way its shape has been associated with pagan religions. But its use has become cemented as a result of the things such as the Holocaust when Jews were required by their Nazi counterparts to wear a Star of David that identified them as Jews as well as the Zionist movement that established the design of the Israeli flag to be blue and white with the Star of David positioned in the middle.
The “I” is dotted with a pentagram which represents witchcraft. While the pentagram is used to represent more than just witchcraft (it’s also used as a symbol in Mormonism and the Bahai’ faith), it’s traditionally associated with magic and the occult. The five points of the star represent the five classical elements in Wicca; earth, wind, fire, air and spirit.
The “S” is the “yin-yang” symbol which comes from Chinese Philosophy that states that the universe consists of opposites that interact and compliment one another. This as opposed to the more base perception that says opposites conflict with one another. The symbol itself is difficult to define in terms of its origins in that no one has ever claimed to be the sole author. Still, there is substantial evidence that points to a classical approach to Chinese Philosophy that strove to create visual representations of fundamental patterns that govern the phenomena of the universe. It was this 15th century effort that produced the graphic that we now know as the “yin yang” symbol.
The “T” is the cross of Christ which represents Christianity. Because the cross was recognized as a gruesome form of execution and not the the sort of visual symbol that inspired pleasant thoughts, there was a fair amount of hesitation on the part of early Christians to adopt the crucifix as an icon. But by the second century the symbol of the cross was so associated with followers of Christ that Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, could use the phrase “the sign of the cross” without fear of ambiguity. ✟

The “O,” the “E” and the “S” are not necessarily religions per se. While Chinese Philosophy does include Buddhism, the “yin-yang” dynamic isn’t really emphasized as something that is central to their doctrine. So, for the most part, those three letters are symbolic of different types of cooperation and coexisting peaceably.

Islam, Judaism, Witchcraft and Christianity, however, are religions and when you pop the hood on these three doctrines you have three very different ideologies serving as the foundation for each of these creeds. Getting the followers of these different religious schools of thought to cooperate with one another is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to suggest that the fundamentals of what they believe are the same.

V) Islam
A) Unstable Eternity – the Nature of Allah

What separates these three religions right away is the nature of the “god” that serves as the principle deity. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of tawhid. It is documented in Quran 112:1-4 and basically means that Allah is one. He is one, central god that cannot be known and is completely distinct from all that’s been created. That in and of itself is distinct from Christianity where God is a personal God and desires a personal relationship with His creation (Is 43:1; Rev 3:20).

Allah is just (Quran 4:40) but it’s here where things get a little confusing. While Allah is just and is therefore obligated to punish all sin, he is also forgiving, but his forgiveness is reserved for those who ask (Quran 4:110). On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad, but should you die before you’ve sought forgiveness for all your sins, you have a potential problem on your hands. In addition, Christianity doesn’t simply advocate an increased effort being put forth on the part of the believer in order to avoid wrongful behavior. Instead, God offers His Holy Spirit to teach and to guide (Jn 14:26). You are made new when you accept His gift of Redemption and it is through the Strength He provides that you’re able to think and perform in a manner that’s pleasing to Him (Jn 14:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 2:13)

In short, your status in the eyes of Allah fluctuates according to your behavior. You’re responsible for seeking the grace of Allah. Should you have anything outstanding at the moment of your death, your eternal security is unstable. In addition, your earthly existence is unassisted. It’s not Allah working in and through you, as is the case with a follower of Christ. Rather, it’s you laboring to please Allah according to your own sense of resolve and discipline.      

B) Who is Christ?

A good Muslim is going to discipline himself to be moral by keeping the Quran on his lips and and his behavior in check. It’s entirely up to him, as far as how he appears before Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on God sending His Son to atone for the shortcomings of humanity and making available His Holy Spirit to strengthen an otherwise weak and uninformed resolve (Is 41:10; Jn 14:26; Phil 4:13; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Jn 4:4). It’s not so much you working to get to God, rather it’s God pursing you and equipping you with what you need to access Him.

This is all represented in the Person and the Ministry of Christ. It is the Identity of Christ that defines Christianity and if any religion claims to be similar than it will follow that their regard for Jesus will be the same. If, on the other hand, they deny Christ as being God Incarnate, than you have all that you need in order to conclude that their doctrine is distinct from a Christian creed (1 Jn 4:3). Islam regards Jesus as a good Muslim and nothing more. The Qur’an doesn’t record the words of acts of Christ, it simply attempts to assert that Scripture is corrupted by saying that: Jesus was never crucified…

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (sura 4:157)

Jesus was / is not the Son of God…

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (sura 5:75)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (sura 9:30)

The Identity of Christ, as far as Him being the Son of God, is central to the Christian faith and it is the resurrection that Christ Himself identified as proof of Who He was.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:39-41)

H.P. Liddon, an accomplished British theologian who lived during the 19th century said:

Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.1

Should you deny the resurrection, then you’re denying the fact of Christ’s deity and you’re reducing Him to a mere teacher that died a tragic death. By doing so, you categorize yourself under the heading of 1 John 2:22 where the apostle John says:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.     (1 Jn 2:22)

In other words, you can’t be more at odds with the Christian doctrine than by declaring that Jesus didn’t rise from the grave. It’s not a matter of simply questioning a historical occurrence as much as it’s denouncing His being God Incarnate.

VI) Judaism

While Jews and Christians share a great deal in terms of the Old Testament, the similarities cease after the book of Malachi. The deal breaking issue is the Identity of Jesus as being the Messiah. Jews do not subscribe to the Truth that Christ is the “Anointed One.”

The reasons behind the Jewish platform for not believing in Jesus as the Son of God are varied, but the one thing they conveniently sidestep is the Resurrection of Christ. This is, and always will be, the bottom line as far as whether or not Christ was all that He claimed to be.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-20:

If we hoped in Messiah in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:19-20)

In effect, what he’s saying is that if Christ didn’t rise from the grave, all Christians are pathetically deluded and are clinging to a school of thought that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Jews and Christians have disagreed since the very beginning, starting with Christ Himself who infuriated the Jewish religions authorities with His claim to be God Incarnate (Jn 10:33). In Acts 4, Peter and John are brought before some of the same authorities that had condemned Christ to death (Annas and Caiaphas [Matt:26:57; John 18:13; | Acts 4:5-6]) and with several threats demanded that they stop speaking about Jesus despite the fact that they themselves could not deny that Jesus had risen from the grave (Acts 4:16).

The resolve of the Hebrew nation continues to this day, as far as insisting that the Messiah has yet to arrive. It’s because of their unwillingness to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they fall under the heading of 1 John 2:22 and their doctrine is totally different from that of the Christian creed where it matters most.

VII) Wicca

Thus far we’ve been able to determine that, despite some harmless sounding similarities, Islam and Judaism differs dramatically from Christianity in that their view of Christ falls short of His being Divine.

The same thing applies with Wicca. While Wicca doesn’t claim to be a religion, it references religious ceremonies in its “13 Principles of Wiccan Belief.” Their ceremonies and rites involve a poly-theistic approach in that there’s not one God, but rather multiple gods.

Portraying them as sinister looking people dressed in black clothing with pointy hats is neither appropriate nor accurate. Their “Rule of Three” encourages the idea of reciprocity. In other words, what you contribute, be it positive or negative, will be returned to you three fold. Hence, being kind and friendly is encouraged.

Where Wicca differs from Christianity is in the way Jesus is marginalized as a great teacher and an extraordinary human being. He is not the “Son of God” and any notion that He represents the only way to God is dismissed as absolutely wrong.

Here again, you see a dramatic fork in the road as far as two religions being revealed as very distinct from one another. While you can compare and contrast the details of Christianity with different religions to the point of mental exhaustion, the bottom line is and always will be, “Who is Jesus?” If the answer to that question is anything other than God Incarnate, you’ve got something that is totally distinct from the Christian doctrine.

VIII) Sanctified Violence

Depending on what resource you reference, Islam is touted as being the fastest growing religion in the USA. Given the Islamic foundation for the acts of terror that have been perpetuated around the world for last three decades, it’s difficult to understand how a creed that is apparently so supportive of violence against “infidels” can resonate so strongly among so many.

A) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Yes?

Some will say that Islam is generally a peaceful religion that doesn’t seek to promote violence and they’re correct as long as they restrict their intake of the Quran to specific verses, such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

B) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Not So Much…

The problem is that these verses were written before other texts which, in the minds of some Muslims, nullify their relevance. In other words, the texts you need to revere are the ones that were “revealed” most recently. That being the case, you how have a different approach to violence as seen in verses from the Quran such as:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

and..

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (sura 2:193)

So while some Muslims can accurately say that Islam is a religion of peace, they can only say that if they ignore other verses in the Quran which are passionately embraced as justification for the outrageous acts of terror  perpetuated by organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

These organizations are not having to engage in a series of theological calisthenics in order to arrive at a “holy” foundation upon which to build their zeal and depravity.

C) The Reality of “Abrogation”

Muhammad ash-Shawkani was a respected Islamic cleric who lived from 1759 to 1834 who is considered an authority on Islamic doctrine and law. Among his writings is a book entitled, “Alsaylu Jarar” which states:

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.   [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case. (“Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam” [p63])

THE FATWAH’S OF AL-QAEDA

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” (click here to view entire text)

Given that sort of disposition, the directive authored by Osama bin Laden and endorsed by five Islamic caliphates which ordered the killing of all Americans, is not a nonsensical interpretation of Islamic thought. It’s simply a practical application of the Quran.

D) The Violence of Christianity

Some critics will assert that Christianity is just as violent as Islam as demonstrated by the Crusades and the military campaigns of Charlemagne.

Rome was not very accommodating when it came to Christianity prior to February 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the “Edict of Milan” which ordered all of Rome to treat Christians benevolently. Up to that point, Christians were viewed as enemies of the state because of the way their creed directed worship towards God as opposed to Caesar. Under Constantine, that dynamic was eliminated and while it allowed Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution, it introduced the idea that heads of state were also leaders in the church and were responsible for the spiritual health of their subjects.

1) Wealth and Power Over Truth and Worship

This deteriorated into a situation where an accurate interpretation of Christian doctrine gave way to political agendas and economic strategies. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the only “legal” religion. In 785, Charlemagne issued a decree that dealt with the way in which his administration was to handle the conquered Saxons by saying:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.2

And then of course, was the Crusades. The thing that’s significant about the Crusades is that while you had knights brandishing shields emblazoned with the symbol of the cross, it’s wrong to assume that their inspiration was nothing other than the liberation of the Holy Land in that it ignores the fact that the Muslims had occupied Jerusalem for almost 400 years prior to the first Crusade.

Consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it.

The Pope’s Call to Arms

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Fulcher of Chartres recollection of Pope Urban II’s call to arms)

But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the RomanCatholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3 This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of  European soldiers.

In order to accurately determine what the true Christian disposition is towards combat, it’s not the way Scripture has been abused that needs to be considered as much as it’s Scripture itself. In other words, before you take up arms against an enemy because a church leader states that “Christ commands it,” you need to be able to locate the verse in the Bible that says as much.

The Old Testament contains a number of military campaigns, the most notable being the conquest of the Promised Land and the battles fought by King David. The question on the table is whether or not these scenarios constitute a biblical justification for the way in which certain historical figures have exacted acts of violence on their fellow man. The short answer is “No.” Whether the personality in question is Charlemagne, Pope Urban II, Alexis the First or Emperor Theodosius, the common denominator is a quest for control and power. The wars fought in Scripture were founded on God’s Purpose and were manifestions of His Justice.

2) The Difference Between a Cause and an Excuse

The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham in Genesis 17:8. The Canaanites were a vile people and engaged in the kind of idolatry that was nothing short of heinous and profoundly offensive in the eyes of God (Dt 18:9-12). It was because of the Canaanites’ outrageous immorality that they were singled out for punishment and it was that verdict that translated to the Israelites being empowered to utterly destroy them (Dt 9:5).

David’s exploits were similar. In his day, it was the Philistines that represented Israel’s most signficant threat. The Philistines were descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons who distinguished himself by being especially disgraceful (Gen 9:18-25). Throughout the Philistines’ history, they were enemies of Israel and thus enemies of God. Jeremiah 47 details God’s final interaction with them in the form of total and complete destruction.

David’s successes were not merely the triumphs of a military tactitian. Rather, they were the manifestation of God’s Justice facilitated through a man who was humble and courageous enough to be obedient in the face of overwhelming odds (1 Sam 17:45-47; 23:1-6). 2 Samuel 8:6 sums it up best by saying “The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.” The point is that the victories that the Israelites won were not merely military triumphs as much as they were Divine Judgments exacted on those who chose to oppose God.

That is the litmus test for truly sanctified violence and unless an individual’s or a nation’s actions can line up with said test, theirs is an enterprise that cannot be cateogrized as holy let alone right. And that is the difference between a legitimate cause worth fighting for as opposed to a mere excuse to justify a violent pursuit of a self-serving agenda.

So, all that to say, that a proper interpretation of God’s Word does not result in a creed that’s even remotely similar to the Isalmic deployment of violence and prejudice. Islam is very distinct in that way and while it is our Christian duty to accommodate those of differing beliefs as articulated in Titus 3, it is just as important to be discerning and recognize what is true as opposed to what is false (1 Chron 12:32; 2 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 4:1).

IX) Conclusion: The Bottom Line

Coexist? Absolutely! But do so beneath the umbrella of Truth. Otherwise, it’s not coexisting as much as it’s compromising things that cannot and should not be ignored let alone dilluted.

1. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972 1979, Josh McDowell, p181
2. Munro, Dana Carleton (Trans.) (2004). Selections from the Laws of Charles the Great. ISBN 978-1-4179-6511-3
3. Williams, Paul (2002), Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Kindle DX Version) retrieved from amazon.com

The Accuracy of Scripture: Part Two – The New Testament

/0 Comments/in , /by

I) Introduction

We looked at prophecies that were fulfilled to the letter, the scientifically accurate observations being made by inspired individuals that were way ahead of their time and also the way in which contemporary archaeological finds have validated the claims of Scripture. The conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence that is readily available are as certain as they are substantive. Bottom line: The Old Testament can be embraced as, literally, the Word of God. This week we look at the New Testament using the same approach. We’ll look at its content, we’ll consider the way it was assembled and finally, examine its consistency – the way in which the manuscripts we have available to us today match up with each other thus resulting in a text we can revere as truly Inspired.

II) The New Testament
A) Content

It’s appropriate to rehearse what it is that we’re actually trying to deduce from the evidence that is available to us, as far as, not only the accuracy of Scripture, but the reasonableness of the Bible’s claim about itself to be the Word of God:

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. (2 Sam 22:31)

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. (Ps 19:7)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Prov 30:5)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:20-21 [2 Sam 23:2] )

Given Scripture’s Divine Audacity, as far as it refusing to accept the label of “accurate,” but instead insists on it being Inerrant, let’s start with the content of the New Testament and look at it in terms of being historically accurate.

1) Archaeology

Pontius Pilate Inscription

In 1961 the archaeological world was taken back to the first century Roman province of Judea. A group of archaeologists, led by Dr. Antonio Frova were excavating an ancient Roman theater near Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea was a leading city in the first century located on the Mediterranean Sea. A limestone block was found there with a surprising inscription. The inscription, on three lines, reads:

…]S TIBERIVM…PON]TIVS PILATVS…PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EA]

The inscription is believed to be part of a larger inscription dedicating a temple in Caesarea to the emperor Tiberius. The inscription clearly states, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”1

Heel of Yehohanan The practice of crucifixion in antiquity was brought to life as never before when the heel bones of a young man named Yehohanan were found in a Jerusalem tomb, pierced by an iron nail. The discovery shed new light on Roman crucifixion methods and began to rewrite the history of crucifixion in antiquity.2

siloam
“In the plaster of this pool were found coins that establish the date of the pool to the years before and after Jesus. There is little question that this is in fact the pool of Siloam, to which Jesus sent the blind man in John 9.”3

Pool of Siloam

In 2004, some repairs were being done on a large pipe in Jerusalem when engineers stumbled upon a series of steps that led to a first century pool. By the end of 2005, archaeologists were able to confirm that this was the Pool of Siloam referenced in John 9. Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD In the book of Matthew, not long before He was put to death, Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matt 24:1-2)

Today you can look at an area in Jerusalem that was originally unearthed in the 1838. As the area was further excavated, you could see the massive stones that had at one point been part of the Temple’s structure that had been pushed over by the Romans when they destroyed in 70 AD. To summarize, Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has every controverted a biblical reference.” He continued his assertion of “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particular so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.”4 What makes the New Testament such a standout, however, is not so much the way in which it can be validated from an archaeological standpoint, as much as it’s the narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection.          

2) The Resurrection

While the Resurrection can’t be proven via footage and voice recordings of eyewitnesses, the Biblical record can be substantiated by using other historically credible resources.

Josephus was a Jewish historian that lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He was employed by the Romans and he mentions this about Jesus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”:

youtube
Site of “Robinson’s Arch,” originally discovered in 1838 where you can now see the massive stones amidst the rubble left over from the Romans’ destruction of the Temple in 70 AD

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.5

Another example that demonstrates the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection that comes from a secular source would be the account of Ignatius who lived from 50-115 A.D. He was the Bishop of Antioch, a native of Syria and a pupil of the apostle John. Enroute to a martyr’s death, he wrote his “Epistles,” and this is what he said of Christ:

He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He also rose again in three days…”6

Something else that’s interesting about the historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection is the eclipse and the earthquake that’s referenced in Luke 23:44 and Matthew 27:54.

Greek historian Phlegon wrote: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an eclipse of the Sun which was greater than any known before and in the sixth hour of the day it became night; so that stars appeared in the heaven; and a great Earthquake that broke out in Bithynia destroyed the greatest part of Nicaea.”7

These accounts don’t necessarily prove that the Resurrection did occur, but what they do provide is an objective and historical reinforcement of the Biblical record.     

B) Construction
1) Apostolic Origin
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

In the last session, we showed how some doubt the content of Scripture, believing it to be a patchwork of judiciously selected writings that happened to corroborate a message that could be used to manipulate the masses. But when you look at the criteria that was used to identify the books of the Bible, the end result is a very, very short list because of the required prophetic credential as well as the necessary fulfillment of any prophecy that was articulated. The Old Testament is what it is, not because of preferences or subjective rulings, but because of the substance of the content and the proven credibility of the human author. The New Testament is no different. The criteria used to determine what book qualified as Scriptural was whether or not it was “apostolic” in origin. So, if the book in question was either written by an apostle or with the endorsement of an apostle, it was considered Authoritative. Otherwise, it was discarded. An “apostle,” in the broadest sense of the word, is someone who had seen Christ alive after He had been crucified. That included more than the original Twelve. Paul had his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19) and James, the brother of Jesus, saw Him alive according to 1 Corinthians 15:7. Luke, John Mark and Barnabas were close associates of Paul and Jude, being the brother of Christ, while they weren’t apostles, because of their association with those who were, were recognized as credible representations of apostolic credibility. Given that dynamic, consider the books of the New Testament:

Book(s) / Author Bio
Matthew
Matthew One of the original 12 disciples (Lk 6:15)
Mark
John Mark Close associate of Peter and Paul (2 Tim 4:11)
Luke
Luke Paul’s associate & physician (Col 4:14; Phil 1:24)
John; 1-3 John; Revelation
John One of the original 12 disciples (Matt 10:2)
Acts
Luke Paul’s associate & physician (Col 4:14; Phil 1:24)
Romans; 1-2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1-2 Thessalonians; 1-2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon
Paul Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19)
Hebrews
Barnabas Associate of Paul and cousin to John Mark (Acts 12:25; Col 4:10)3
James
James Brother of Christ and referred to as an apostle by Paul (Gal 1:19).
1-2 Peter
Peter One of the original 12 disciples (Matt 10:2)
Jude
 Jude Brother of Christ (Jude 1:7 [describes himself as a brother of James, which is most likely the author of the book of James)

In A.D. 393, a Church Council was convened called the “Synod of Hippo.” “Synod,” (pronounced “SIN-ed”) comes from a Greek word that means, “assembly.” Hippo is the city of Hippo Regius, which is the ancient name of the modern city of Annaba, in Algeria. Their purpose for meeting was to officially define the books of the New Testament. You can see how most of their work had already been done simply by filtering everything through the qualifier of “apostolic origin.” When we read the New Testament, we’re reading the Inspired words of God written by people who had either seen the risen Christ personally or were close associates of those who had. Bear in mind, too, that most gave their lives in defense of what they believed and what had been written through them. That’s strong!

2) Textual Criticism

The evidence to support the authenticity of the Scriptures, as far as them being an accurate rendering of what was originally written, is more than adequate. When evaluating works of antiquity from a textual perspective, you’re looking at two things:

  • How many original manuscripts (MSS) do we have today?
  • How long was it before the first copy and the initial writing of the text in question?

The Iliad, by Homer is considered to be classic and was a standard in intellectual circles for centuries. Look at how the two works compare with one another in terms of textual integrity:

Textual Integrity of the New Testament
work when written earliest copy time span # of copies
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 1,757
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years 23,769
originally quoted from “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and since updated according to “The Bibliographical Test Updated“

Dr F.F Bruce was the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at Manchester University after having served in various posts where he taught Greek after having served as head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947.He says:

 “Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.8

 Dr. Dan Wallace is Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written, co-authored, edited, or contributed to more than two dozen books and is internationally known as a Greek New Testament scholar. He says:

The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high! This is indeed an embarrassment of riches.9

C) Consistency

Dr. John MacArthur is a pastor as well as a prolific author and renowned theologian. He’s authored more the 150 books including the “MacArthur Study Bible.” He’s been the pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California since 1969 and is the current president of the Master’s University in Newhall, California as well as the Master’s Seminary in Los Angeles, California. In one of his sermons, he said this:

What you hold in your hand right now, your Bible, I can tell you is an accurate, English translation of the original manuscripts written by the authors of the Bible. It is accurate. If I didn’t believe that we had an accurate translation of the original text of Holy Scripture, why would I endeavor to explain it verse-by-verse and word-by word? It’s very, very essential and very foundational to understand that what you have in your hand in a twentieth century, if you had the NAS, or twenty-first century if you have the ESV, English translation is an accurate translation of texts that originated thousands of years ago. And the reason that I can say that is true is because I understand the science and the history of manuscripts and the passing down of Holy Scripture. That is one of the most important things you learn in seminary because if you have any wavering in your confidence about the integrity of your translation of the Bible, it will suck the conviction right out of your heart. That is why those who attack the truth, attack first the veracity of Scripture. Because if the Bible can be shown to be inaccurate, or an inadequate translation, or wrong, then we have no assurance of anything.10

He goes on to say that there are errors were made in the copying of Scripture…

One of the scholars that I’ve studied in years past, is a man named A.T. Robertson. You’ll see his name connected to matters regarding biblical scholarship. A.T. Robertson says, “The vast array of manuscripts has enabled textual scholars to accurately reconstruct the original text with…listen to this…more than 99.9 percent accuracy.” That’s pretty good. More than 99.9 percent accuracy.

What’s so amazing about this, these are all hand copies…hand copies. Now you say, “You mean, in all of that there are no errors?” Oh, I didn’t say that. They made errors. They put in a wrong word, put in a wrong spelling, left something out, occasionally they even tried to clarify something, some of these scribes. But guess what, we have so many manuscripts, we know when they’re doing that. We know when we’re doing that. Plus, if something shows up in a later manuscript, and it’s not in any of the earlier ones, we know it was added later. It isn’t brain surgery.11

God is not only the Author of Scripture, He’s also the “preserver.” Because we have access to so many hand written manuscripts, we can easily identify where there are differences and stay on course with what represents the obvious text. Bear in mind, we’re not talking about passages that serve as foundational Truths upon which our creed is based. You won’t find any discrepancies when it comes to the virgin birth or the Resurrection of Christ. But passages such as verses 9-20 in the last chapter of Mark are speculative. The content isn’t inconsistent with the whole of Scripture, but there are some manuscripts that don’t have those verses. Another example is the number 666. Revelation 13:18, in the more reliable manuscripts documents it as 666, but a papyrus about the size of a postage stamp discovered recently had the number written as 616. In the second century, Iranaeus, an early church father, wrote a commentary acknowledging his awareness of the number, but went on to say that the more reliable manuscripts had the number written as 666. That’s significant because Iraneus mentor was Polycarp who was a disciple of John. The bottom line is: God works through seemingly commonplace processes to accomplish His Purpose. In the instance of a manuscript that documents something distinct.

III) Conclusion

The following quotes were referenced in Part I of this discussion, but they’re worth repeating:

You have searched the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. (Clement of Rome)12

The Scriptures are indeed perfect. (Iraneus)13

The Scriptures have never erred…The Scriptures cannot err. (Martin Luther)14

The statements of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (Tertullian)15

The Scriptures are holy, they are truthful, they are blameless. (Augustine)16

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning his church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. (Augustine) 17

For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold that opinion. (Anselm of Canterbury)18

When one insists that the Bible is flawed, they don’t merely undermine contemporary scholarship, they refute the assertions of the early church fathers – some of whom gave their lives rather than recant their convictions.

There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of God’s Word – specifically in the way it presents itself as the inerrant Word of God. Some will try to dismiss the testimony of Scripture when it comes to the way some will try to use the Bible as way to certify itself. They label it as a circular argument and therefore inadmissible in the court of public opinion. But the Bible is not merely one book, nor is it one voice. Yes, it is the Word of God, but it’s expressed through over 40 different authors writing over a 1,500 year time span and distributed over three different continents.

The Bible doesn’t represent one witness, but many witnesses scattered over several centuries. Dr. MacArthur highlights the importance of a healthy regard for Scripture by saying:

It was A.W. Tozer who famously stated, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” The reason for this, Tozer went on to explain, is that deficient vies of God are idolatrous and ultimately damning: “Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them.” And again, “Perverse notions about God soon rot the religion in which they appear…the first step down for any church is taken when it surrenders its opinion of God.” As Tozer insightfully observed, the abandonment of a right view of God inevitably results in theological collapse and moral ruin.

Because God has made himself known in his Word, a commitment to a high view of Scripture is of paramount importance. The Bible both reflects and reveals the character of its Author. Consequently, those who deny its veracity do so at their peril. If the most important thing about us is how we think about God, then what we think about his self-revelation in Scripture is of the utmost consequence. Those who have a high view of Scripture will have a high view of God. And vice versa – those who treat the Word of God with disdain and contempt possess no real appreciation for the God of the Word. Put simply, it is impossible to accurately understand who God is while simultaneously rejecting the truthfulness of the Bible.19

Archeology, Science, Textual Attestation – it’s all there. There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the Old Testament.

Still, to accept the Bible as Divine requires more than just what can be gauged by the senses. To embrace something as supernatural, you have to deploy the same kind of intellectual extrapolation that scientists do when confronted with things such as the boundary of the cosmos or the origin of gravity. Some things we are just not capable of quantifying simply because it lies beyond the human capacity to measure or observe.

That’s not to say we can’t make intelligent assessments, but there is, in some instances, an empirical certainty that exists beyond the limitations of the human paradigm. The empirical dots that can be connected are those that exist in terms of that which happened in the past. Our perspective is that of a rear view mirror. We can’t stop the car and witness those events in the present and build our convictions on having personally witnessed the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection. It’s in those moments when we have to place our trust in something we cannot see.

The Bible calls this faith. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Not because He expects you to disengage your intellect when surmising the evidence that validates His Identity and His Word, but because there are historical realities that cannot be observed today, only accepted as fact based on the evidence those events have left in their wake.

In other words, we have to be willing to go forward in our convictions based on what we cannot see. To embrace the Bible as nothing more than a fascinating text is to strip it of the Role it asserts as the Word of God. And it’s not just for the sake of information as much as it’s about the supernatural transformation that occurs when you realize that His Word is His Message to you personally (1 Cor 13:12; Jas 1:23).

God, through the Scriptures, requires a response beyond a positive intellectual endorsement. It asks for the kind of obedience that God Himself facilitates through you by His Spirit (Phil 2:13). You become the permanent home for His Holy Spirit by accepting the Message He proclaims in His Word (Rom 10:17) and that ultimately requires faith.

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:17) Not a blind faith, but faith nonetheless. Faith in Him, what He can do and… …the Integrity, the Substance and the Truth of His Inerrant Word.

Click  here  to go to “The Accuracy of Scripture: Part I – The Old Testament”

1. Credo House, http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/07/top-ten-biblical-discoveries-in-archaeology-–-6-pontius-pilate-inscription/, accessed April 23, 2017
2. Bible History Daily, “A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods”, http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals-the-history-of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/, accessed April 23, 2017
3. Premier Christianity, “9 Archaeology Finds that Confirm the New Testament”, https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2017/March-2017/9-archaeology-finds-that-confirm-the-New-Testament, accessed April 23, 2017
4. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p65
5. Ibid, p82
6. Ibid, p185
7. Astronomy Today, “Eclipses from Ancient Times – Part Three, http://www.astronomytoday.com/eclipses/ancient-part3.html, accessed April 23, 2017
8. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972, p45
9. “Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture”, J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Kregal Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2006 p82
10. “Grace To You”, “The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel”, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/41-85/the-fitting-end-to-marks-gospel, accessed April 23, 2017
11. Ibid
12. “Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?”, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2007, p140
13. Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p252
14. “Evangelical Lutheran Synod”, “Luther and the Word of God’, http://els.org/resources/document-archive/convention-essays/essay1964-kuster/, accessed April 25, 2017
15. “The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”, John MacArthur, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2016, p124
16. Ibid, p125
17. Ibid, p126
18. Ibid, p125
19. Ibid, p12

The Accuracy of Scripture: Part One – The Old Testament

/0 Comments/in , /by

I) Introduction

What makes evaluating the accuracy of the Scriptures so significant is that you’re not merely gauging the accuracy of the content, you’re having to answer the question, “Did God write the Bible?” While you can certify the Word of God as being credible from the standpoint of archeology and the tests you utilize in the verification of works of antiquity, the Bible doesn’t claim to be merely “accurate.” Rather, it asserts its content as having the ability to supernaturally transform lives as a result of being “God breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17). In other words, it’s the origin of the Bible that makes it significant and not only its credibility. How can you be certain that the Bible is the inerrant, Word of God? What prevents a person from either dismissing it as a pointless work of antiquity or an infallible text, but only in the context of theological matters? How can you know that the Bible, as we have it today, is precisely what was dictated by God and its Message is totally correct, complete and without error? It boils down to two different disciplines: Academia and Faith. One is purely empirical, the other requires an acknowledgement of the fact that some things cannot be quantified due to the limitations of the human paradigm. Scientists refer to it as intellectual extrapolation, those who consider themselves religious call it faith. Either way, it is the aligning of the readily accessible facts and following their trajectory beyond that which can be known experientially. From an academic perspective, you look at Scripture from the standpoint of three dynamics:

  • Content – is the content accurate? Do the prophecies recorded in Daniel actually describe what happened several hundred years later? Can the claims of Scripture be validated scientifically?
  • Construction – how was the Bible compiled and preserved? What was the criteria used to define a particular writing as sacred?
  • Consistency – do the copies we have today match up with the early manuscripts?

Let’s start with the Old Testament.

II) The Old Testament      

A) Content
1) Fulfilled Prophecy

Deuteronomy 18:19-22 says:

I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. (Dt 18:19-22)

Scripture cuts itself absolutely no slack. It’s almost foolhardy in the way it sets its own guidelines when it comes to foretelling the future.

Bottom line: If it doesn’t happen, that prophet is to be put to death.

The book of Daniel contains one of the most detailed prophetic messages that deal with the future of Israel in the context of world events. Specifically, it outlines how the then Persian government would be absorbed into the Grecian Empire which would then be divided into four main kingdoms. While some want to doubt the authenticity of Daniel as being legitimately prophetic, the language of Daniel argues for a date earlier than the second century. There’s no good reason to doubt that Daniel was written around 530 B.C. and the events described in Daniel 11 – specifically the Greek victory over Persia which happened in 449 B.C. and the division of Alexander the Great’s kingdom in 323 B.C.

You can read more about this in the sidebar to the right.

The Prophecy of Daniel

The prophecy of Daniel 11 begins with the prediction that “three more kings will arise in Persia” followed by a fourth who would “stir up all against the realm of Greece” (verse 2).

Biblical resources, such as The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, provide the historical explanations for this prophecy. Regarding this verse, Expositor’s states,

“The Persian king who invaded Greece was, of course, Xerxes, who reigned 485-464 B.C.”

Daniel 11:3-4 speaks of the appearance of “a mighty king,” whose kingdom would “be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven.” Expositor’s explains,

“Verse 3 introduces us to the next phase in world empires: the rise of Alexander the Great. Although this verse does not make it altogether clear that this ‘mighty king’ would inaugurate a new empire in place of the Persian one, verse 4 leaves us in no doubt that he was the ruler predicted here. … “In seven or eight years he accomplished the most dazzling military conquest in human history. But he lived only four years more; and after one of his drunken bouts, he died of a fever in 323 in the imperial capital of Babylon. Verse 4 foretells the division of Alexander’s domains among four smaller and weaker empires.”

Following Alexander’s death, his empire was divided among four of his generals. These four kingdoms and their rulers were Macedonia-Greece under Antipater and his son, Thrace–Asia Minor under Lysimachus, the rest of Asia except lower Syria and Palestine under Seleucus Nicator, and Egypt and Palestine under Ptolemy.

The remainder of Daniel 11:5-39 then documents the actions of the last two of these kingdoms—Egypt to the south of Jerusalem (the location of Daniel’s people, the Jews, Daniel 10:14) and Syria to the north of Jerusalem. In this section of Scripture the rulers and their successors are referred to as the “king of the North” and the “king of the South.”1

Daniel’s prophecy about Greece is one of many prophecies in the OT. You have prophetic messages being proclaimed pertaining to several cities, specific government officials and even specific military tactics. Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” devotes an entire section to Old Testament prophecy and it is a fascinating read. One prophecy that McDowell references is the prophecy made by Nahum pertaining to the city of Nineveh. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was an impregnable center of military might – the kind of stronghold you would expect to be the capital city of the most powerful empire in the ancient world at that time.

Nahum, in stark contrast, is a single individual belonging to a conquered people. For him to be proclaiming a message that translates to Nineveh’s ruin is ridiculous if not potentially lethal.

To give you an idea as to Nineveh’s size and overall presence, understand that the walls surrounding it were over a 100 feet high and wide enough to accommodate three chariots driving side by side. And this is just the first wall. You had two other walls reinforcing the first separated by a deep ditch. According to excavated remains, the distance from the inside of the inner wall to the inside of the outer wall was 2,007 feet or just under half a mile. Nahum declares that Nineveh would…

  • Be destroyed in a state of drunkenness (1:10)
  • Would be destroyed in “an overwhelming flood” (1:8; 2:6)
  • Would be burned (3:13)
  • Would be totally destroyed and become desolate (3:19)

Nineveh was attacked by a force consisting of Babylonians, Medes and Scythians. Here’s the account of the battle for Nineveh in the words of Lenormant and E. Chevallier in their book, “The Rise and Fall of Assyria:”

In 612 B.C. Nabopolassar united the Babylonian army with an army of Medes and Scythians and led a campaign which captured the Assyrian citadels in the North. The Babylonian army laid siege to Nineveh, but the walls of the city were too strong for battering rams, so they decided to try and starve the people out. A famous oracle had been given that “Nineveh should never be taken until the river became its enemy.” After a three month siege, “rain fell in such abundance that the waters of the Tigris inundated part of the city and overturned one of its walls for a distance of twenty stades. Then the King, convinced that the oracle was accomplished and despairing of any means of escape, to avoid falling alive into the enemy’s hands constructed in his palace an immense funeral pyre, placed on it his gold and silver and his royal robes, and then, shutting himself up with his wives and eunuchs in a chamber formed in the midst of the pile, disappeared in the flames. Nineveh opened its gates to the besiegers, but this tardy submission did not save the proud city. It was pillaged and burned, and then razed to the ground so completely as to evidence the implacable hatred enkindled in the minds of subject nations by the fierce and cruel Assyrian government.2

And in an account from “Diodorus of Sicily II,” we read of how the king of Assyria was overly confident in his city’s defenses, despite the presence of an enemy force camped just outside its walls. He began to indulge with his soldiers and in a feast that included a significant amount of food and alcohol. News of this reached the ears of Arbaces, the enemy general through deserts and a night attack was scheduled. Not long after, thanks to the walls that were now vulnerable as a result of the rain, Arbaces was able to take the city of Nineveh.3          

2) Scientifically Validated

It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that the inerrant dynamic of Scripture was questioned.4 Independent thinking evolved into a scenario where the Authority of Scripture was cast off should its content prove to be inconsistent with current scientific trends or even personal preferences. Darwinism took it a step further by providing a scientific sounding platform that gave atheists more reason to dismiss God from their thinking as well as their lives. As has been mentioned earlier, Scripture doesn’t claim to merely accurate. Even in the Psalms, you hear David referring to the “law of the Lord” as perfect (Ps 19:7 [see sidebar]). That includes theological matters as well as scientific. Consider some of what the Bible has to say about the physical world:

ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).

ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.5

3) Archeology

In addition to the archaeological finds that have validated the prophecies made by Daniel and Nahum, you can find several other examples of the historical accuracy represented by the Old Testament.

William F. Albright, known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, states, “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”6

There have been a number of discoveries that not only validated the Old Testament, but corrected the disposition of critics who insisted that the Bible was flawed:

  • Isaiah 20:1 was challenged by critics because they knew of no king named Sargon in lists of Assyrian kings. Now Sargon’s palace has been recovered at Khorsabad, including a wall inscription and a library record endorsing the battle against the Philistine city of Ashdod (mentioned in Isaiah 20:1).
  • Nebuchadnezzar was a fictional character in the minds of some until his palace and library were uncovered.
  • Sanballat was, as the Bible says, the Governor of Samaria (Nehemiah 4 and 6), though it was claimed by many writers that Sanballat was much later than Nehemiah. Several Sanballats are now known, and recovered letters even refer to Johanan (Nehemiah 12:13). Geshem the Arab (Nehemiah 6) is also known. Despite longstanding criticisms, Ezra and Nehemiah are accurate records of an actual historical situation.7

You can read more about the discoveries that have been unearthed that reiterate what is documented at websites like “AnswersInGenesis.com.”

B) Construction – a Very Short List

The word, “Canon” literally means “reed.” In the ancient world, the reed was used as a measuring tool and it came to mean “standard.”

There were a great number of writings during Israel’s history, but not all of them were regarded as sacred. It’s interesting to note the centuries of silence that occurred between the timeframe addressed in the book of Malachi and the birth of Christ. In some ways, this highlights the credibility of Scripture in that while you still have authors publishing content, because of it being devoid of Inspiration expressed in the “voice of the prophets,” the Hebrews refused to accept it as Divine.

You see this reflected in the Babylonian Talmud which is a record of discussions between prominent Jewish religious authorities pertaining to all things spiritual (see sidebar). In the context of those conversations, they state that it was during this time that no Divinely Inspired individual had surfaced, thus rendering all documentation that was common during this time to be purely human in origin and substance.

The Babylonian Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud – By the middle of the Fourth Century, Christian persecution in Eretz Israel caused the remainder of the sages to immigrate to Babylonia. For the first time since the Babylonian Exile nearly 800 years previously, all Torah scholarship was concentrated in one area. Led by Abaye and Rava, this august assembly debated new cases, analyzing decisions and explanations of earlier Amoraim, checking them for inconsistencies, and provided explanatory comments on the Mishnah. These discussions were fixed in a formalized lexicon, and form the bulk of the Babylonian Talmud (Chabad.org, “The Babylonian Talmud”, accessed April 8, 2017, [click here to view link])

Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachai, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel; yet they were still able to avail themselves of the Bath-kol.8

In the Apocrypha itself, written in the “Prayer of Azariah,” chapter 1, verse 15:

And at this time there is no prince, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before thee to find mercy. (Prayer of Azariah 1:15)

A reference to the fact that nothing “prophetic” was being documented, let alone spoken. You see this referenced also in the words of Josephus, a Jewish historian that lived between 37 and 100 AD:

We have not myriads of books, disagreeing and conflicting with one another, but only twenty-two, containing the record of all time, and justly accredited. Of these, five are the books of Moses, containing the laws and the history handed down from the creation of the human race right to his own death. This period falls a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have written down in thirteen books the things that were done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and principles of life for human beings. From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.9

He mentions 22 books. That’s significant. The twenty-two that he’s referring to are the books that both Jews and Christians regard as Canonical (the Jews group the books of the OT differently). The Apocrypha – that section of Scripture you find in Bibles belonging to Roman Catholics – is not considered Inspired. And it’s not just because of the historical and geographical inaccuracies that compromise its substance. Despite the fact that Jesus and the New Testament writers prolifically quote from the canonical Old Testament, never once do they quote from the Apocrypha. In the end, it is a collection of writings that come from a perspective other than the Inspired View and Mindset of a prophet – and that is what defines a particular book in Scripture as Divine. Some doubt the content of Scripture, believing it to be a patchwork of judiciously selected writings that happened to corroborate a message that could be used to manipulate the masses. But when you look at the criteria that was used to identify the books of the Bible, the end result is a very, very short list because of the required prophetic credential as well as the necessary fulfillment of any prophecy that was articulated. The Old Testament is what it is, not because of preferences or subjective rulings, but because of the substance of the content and the proven credibility of the human author.

From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. (Josephus)10
C) Consistency

Up to this point we’ve discussed things pertaining to the OT’s content and construction that provide a compelling collection of facts and information that reinforce the “logic” behind one’s belief that the Bible is everything it claims to be. But what about the notion that while the OId Testament was accurate when it was first documented, it has since been corrupted and edited to the point where it’s doubtful we have an accurate copy of what was originally drafted. That disposition is laid to rest conclusively once you take a look at the precision and the diligence that was used by the Talmudists and the Massoretes when it came to the copying of the Old Testament. After the Fall of Jerusalem, the Jews were especially adamant about preserving the Word of God. It was during this time that the Council of Jamnia was convened where some questions as to the Inspired dynamic of some of the books in the “Writings” category (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther and Song of Songs) were finally settled. There wasn’t that much to discuss, but what makes the Council significant is that many of the conversations were recorded and the Canon of the Old Testament is documented as final and complete at that that time. Beginning shortly thereafter, the Talmudists became responsible for the preservation of the Old Testament. They followed a number of rules in the context of discharging their duties which were nothing short of intensely detailed.

The Talmudists had seventeen precise rules which had to be followed in copying the scriptures; some of which were: A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, cut to a specific length and tied together with string taken from clean animals. The length of each column could not be over 60 lines and the breadth had to be 30 letters. There were precise rules about the ink. Not one word or even accent could be written from memory. Between every consonant there had to be a space the width of a thread. Between each parashah (paragraph?) there had to be the space of 9 consonants. The 5th book of Moses had to terminate precisely at the end of the line. The copyist had to have bathed that day and be wearing his full Jewish attire. If while writing the tetragramaton a king should speak to him, he must not take notice of him.11

From 500-900 A.D. the Massoretes (pronounced “MASS-oh-reets”) took over the copying of the text and standardizing it. It is the text used today. Their attention to detail was no less intense than their Talmudist counterparts.

Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them ; and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text ; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle — not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter — of the Law should pass away or be lost.12

While the passion of the Talmudists and the Massoretes is admirable, it’s not necessarily conclusive as far as proving that what we have today is an accurate copy of the original given the fact that up until 1947, the oldest handwritten copy of the Old Testament was 900 A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, experts and scholars were thrilled to learn that the scrolls had been dated to around 125 B.C.. When the two manuscripts were compared to one another, the consistency was nothing short of noteworthy. This is why the Dead Sea Scroll discovery is so significant – because of the way in which the Old Testament was validated by comparing two manuscripts that were written 1,000 years apart and still matched almost word or word. The discrepancies were differences in spelling and nothing more:

Gleason Archer (noted author and scholar) states that the Isaiah copies of the Qumran community “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.13

III) Construction

Inerrancy is not a new issue. Several of the early church fathers mention the flawlessness of Scripture:

You have searched the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. (Clement of Rome)14

The Scriptures are indeed perfect. (Iraneus)15

The Scriptures have never erred…The Scriptures cannot err. (Martin Luther)16

The statements of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (Tertullian)17

The Scriptures are holy, they are truthful, they are blameless. (Augustine)18

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning his church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. (Augustine) 19

For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold that opinion. (Anselm of Canterbury) 20

Archeology, Science, Textual Attestation – it’s all there. There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the Old Testament. Still, to accept the Bible as Divine requires more than just what can be gauged by the senses. To embrace something as supernatural, you have to deploy the same kind of intellectual extrapolation that scientists do when confronted with things such as the boundary of the cosmos or the origin of gravity. Some things we are just not capable of quantifying simply because it lies beyond the human capacity to measure or observe. That’s not to say we can’t make intelligent assessments, but there is, in some instances, an empirical certainty that exists beyond the limitations of the human paradigm. The empirical dots that can be connected are those that exist in terms of that which happened in the past. Our perspective is that of a rear view mirror. We can’t stop the car and witness those events in the present and build our convictions on having personally witnessed the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection. It’s in those moments when we have to place our trust in something we cannot see. The Bible calls this faith. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Not because He expects you to disengage your intellect when surmising the evidence that validates His Identity and His Word, but because there are historical realities that cannot be observed today, only accepted as fact based on the evidence those events have left in their wake. In other words, we have to be willing to go forward in our convictions based on what we cannot see. To embrace the Bible as nothing more than a fascinating text is to strip it of the Role it asserts as the Word of God. And it’s not just for the sake of information as much as it’s about the supernatural transformation that occurs when you realize that His Word is His Message to you personally (1 Cor 13:12; Jas 1:23). God, through the Scriptures, requires a response beyond a positive intellectual endorsement. It asks for the kind of obedience that God Himself facilitates through you by His Spirit (Phil 2:13). You become the permanent home for His Holy Spirit by accepting the Message He proclaims in His Word (Rom 10:17) and that ultimately requires faith.

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:17)

Not a blind faith, but faith nonetheless. Faith in Him, what He can do and… …the Integrity, the Substance and the Truth of His Inerrant Word.

Click  here  to go to “The Accuracy of Scripture | Part II – The New Testament”

 

1. “Life, Hope and Truth”, “Daniel 11: The Most Detailed Prophecy in the Bible”, https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-11/, accessed April 8, 2017

2. “The Rise and Fall of Assyria”, Lenormant and E. Chevallier, LM Publishers

3. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p299

4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Enlightenment” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/, accessed April 8, 2017

5. AnswersInGenesis, “Scientific Accuracy”, https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/5-scientific-accuracy/, accessed April 8, 2017

6. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p65

7.  AnswersInGenesis, “Does Archaeology Support the Bible”, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/, accessed April 8, 2017

8. Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_11.html, accessed April 8, 2017

9. F. F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture (Kindle Locations 218-223). Kindle Edition.

10. Ibid, Kindle Locations 212-214

11.Calvary Independent Baptist Church, “Is the Old Testament Reliable?”, http://www.idahobaptist.com/apologetics/apo-7.htm, accessed April 8, 2017 [see also “Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p53

12. “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts”, Fredrick George Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, England, 1897, p33

13. 10. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p58

14. “The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations”, Michael W. Holmes, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2007, p104

15. “Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?”, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2007, p140

16. Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p252

17. “The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”, John MacArthur Crossway,

18. Ibid

19. Ibid

20. Ibid

Either God is God or Man is God

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Here’s the Problem…

Truth is offensive. It just is. No one likes to be told they’re wrong. It’s a lot easier to believe that you are your own bottom line or pretend that there is no bottom line and believe we can all be our own absolute and just live and let live. But it all comes down to this: Either God is God or man is god.

Every religion save Christianity provides a way in which you merit the favor of your preferred deity. With Islam you’ve got Jihad, as a Buddhist you’ve got Nirvana. Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to be among the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:4 , Hindus pursue Moksha in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth. Mormons believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354) . In each scenario, while you have a supernatural element, you have the ability as a human being to tip the scales in your favor through some kind of action or mindset.

Christianity, on the other hand, says that you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6). That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. You are not in a position where you can facilitate your own salvation.

You are not your own god…

Let’s Pause for a Moment

Everything that is being asserted at this point, as far as the fundamentals of the gospel, are coming from the Bible. Some will attempt to dismiss the Scriptures as being corrupted and it sounds reasonable given the capacity of man to make mistakes or intentionally edit the text in order to promote a self serving agenda.

But in order for the Scriptures to be less than the Word of God, God Himself has to be willing to allow the text to be distorted. In other words, those who would criticize the Bible as being corrupted aren’t merely accusing various individuals throughout history of being either careless or sinister as much as they’re accusing God of being inept and irresponsible.

You can validate the substance of Scripture in the context of textual criticism and archaeology. You can look at the evidence that supports the historical reality of the empty tomb. You’re not limited to that scenario where the only witness that can testify to the accuracy of the Bible is the Bible itself. You can kick the tires from both an academic and practical perspective and conclude that the text of the Bible is more than reliable.

Pause for a moment… This is important.

If you’re going to go as far as embracing the notion that there is a God and He does use the Scriptures to communicate Who He is, than you can’t pick and choose what you want to believe based solely on your philosophical preferences and justify your edits by suggesting that anything you don’t like is the result of the text being corrupted. There are those who will accept the Bible as being a sacred text, but they’ll assert the caveat that there are probably some flaws in the manuscripts so while it’s worthy of being revered, it doesn’t necessarily rate as the “Word of God” due to the mistakes that likely occurred over the centuries.

Do you understand why that’s a nonsensical approach?

You’re saying “Yes” to certain parts of the Canon, but then when you encounter a verse that that makes you feel uncomfortable, suddenly the Canon is a bogus standard and it’s nothing more than a flawed institution that can be subordinated to whatever it is you want to believe.

There’s too many examples of God identifying false prophets and condemning false doctrine for that approach to be valid let alone logical (Is 44:24-26; Ez 13:9; 1 Jn 4:1). God doesn’t allow His Word to be falsified and whatever human mechanisms He uses to document and preserve His Word, it is still a Divine enterprise. Either you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God authored and preserved by God Himself, or… …you subscribe to a religious sounding creed that can’t be embraced with any real certainty because if your text is questionable in certain aspects, there’s no reason to not doubt the text as a whole.

The Bottom Line

It’s no coincidence that a lot of the skepticism pertaining to Scripture is directed towards the miracles of Christ. Thomas Jefferson is a great example:

He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. 1

Jefferson created his own New Testament which consisted of the original text sans anything referencing the miracles of Christ:

Using his clippings, the aging third president created a New Testament of his own—one that most Christians would hardly recognize. This Bible was focused only on Jesus, but none of his mystical works. It didn’t include major scenes like the resurrection or ascension to heaven, or miracles like turning water into wine or walking on water. Instead, Jefferson’s Bible focused on Jesus as a man of morals, a teacher whose truths were expressed without the help of miracles or the supernatural powers of God.2

This is often the targeted intellectual destination of those who doubt the authenticity of Scripture. They’re looking for a way to eliminate any semblance of a deity from the human experience in order to reduce the universe down to something that can be wholly contained within the shallow and fragile box of human reason.

A moral guide? Sure. A Resurrected Savior? No.

And here’s the thing:  When we’re talking about the cross and the resurrection, we’re not talking about a minor point of doctrine. We’re talking about about the one credential that Jesus identified as that which validated His Identity (Matt 12:40). Furthermore, it’s what Jesus taught as being the singular event that could serve as the mechanism by which an individual’s sin could be completely forgiven to the point where they were seen as morally perfect in the sight of God (Matt 5:20; 26:28 [see also Is 1:18; 1 Cor 15:3; Titus 3:5; 1 Jn 2:2]).

In addition, Jesus accepted the Law and the Prophets as being absolutely true (Matt 5:17). The prophet Isaiah at one point said,

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (Is 64:6).

It’s our sinful status that makes the New Covenant referenced in Jeremiah 31:31-34) as both necessary and something to celebrate and it’s the New Covenant that Jesus referenced at the Last Supper when He identified His blood as that which was being poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28). Moreover, it’s referenced in the Old Testament beginning in the book of Exodus (the Passover Lamb [Ex 12:21; 1 Cor 5:7]).

Jesus is referred to in the book of Isaiah as the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. Matthew 1:1 identifies Him as both a son of David, who is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant in 2 Sam 7:11-13 as well as a son of Abraham which means that the gospel applies to all nations and not just Israel (Gen 12:2-3). And the common thread throughout all of the Bible is the fact that sin constitutes a toxic barrier between humanity and God that constitutes a debt that has to be paid – it’s not something that can be glossed over. Hence the Old Testament system of sacrifices that was instituted to accomplish a temporary fix (Heb 9:11-14), but it’s the New Covenant that solved the problem of sin in a permanent fashion and, according to Christ, it’s the gospel that serves as the underlying theme for the whole of God’s Word (Lk 24:7).

Do you smell what we’re cooking here?

If you want to strip the Bible of any an all miracles, you inevitably deny that Jesus is the Son of God based on the virgin birth, a sinless life and His Resurrection. And when you deny the Truth of Jesus having risen from the grave, you’re not merely dismissing the corresponding passages in the gospel, you’re gutting the entire Bible of God’s Principal Message. You’re not saying, “No” to what you perceive to be a “troubling” collection of verses, you’re denying the deity of Christ (1 Jn 4:3) and you’re saying, “No” to God Himself.

Frank Peretti is a prolific author and an engaging speaker. He’s the one who I first heard coin the phrase, “Either God is God or man is god.” He makes a great case by saying how it all boils down to those two categories. You can listen to him elaborate on this by clicking here.

Either God is God or Man is God

Either you believe yourself to be loved enough by your King to justify an excruciating sacrifice that redeemed you to the point where you can now face every nuance of the human experience from a position of strength, or…

…you believe yourself to be your own deity.

Your shortcomings are incidental, you’re goodness is sufficient, Christ is a noble personality but certainly not a Redeemer because, since sin is not acknowledged in your personal sanctuary, hell is a cruel invention and the cross is a dark piece of propaganda.

If you want to believe that, don’t make the mistake of failing to appreciate exactly what it is you’re subscribing to. However you may have been wounded by a toxic individual who insisted his words and actions were validated by the Bible, denying the Resurrection of Christ and insisting that you’re good enough to the point where you have no need of a Redeemer is not a departure from “organized religion” nor is it a more enlightened perspective on the teachings of Jesus. Either God is God or man is god. Should you choose to strip Christ of His Resurrected status then you’ve made yourself into your own religion.

1. “Religious Views of Thomas Jefferson”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson#:~:text=Though%20he%20had%20a%20lifelong,early%20part%20of%20my%20life%22, accessed January 30, 2022
2. “Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus’ Miracles and Resurrection”, history.com, https://www.history.com/news/thomas-jefferson-bible-religious-beliefs, accessed January 30, 2022

The Truth | Part One: The Right Questions

/0 Comments/in , /by

That’s Your Opinion

You can’t expect someone to admit that they’re wrong if they’re unwilling to acknowledge a standard beyond themselves. And because they see themselves as their own absolute, they don’t hear your corrections or criticisms as anything other than a form of oppression. To their way of thinking, you’re not questioning their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

You’re not championing what’s true as much as you’re promoting what you prefer. Should you be a politician,  you’re not a leader as much as you are a fascist and a dictator.

Regardless of how many facts you’ve compiled or however compelling the evidence may be, when there are no standards and only situations in the mind of the person you’re conversing with, your entire platform can be dismissed simply by them saying, “That’s your opinion.”

Christ Asked Them the Right Questions

When confronted with that kind of approach, you want to use the same tactic that Christ used when He was talking with the Pharisees in the way He asked them questions.

  • “Whose image is this…?” (Mk 12:16)
  • “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” (Mk 2:9)
  • “If I’m telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?” (Jn 8:46)

When you ask a question, in that moment, you control the conversation and you compel an answer that prevents certain assumptions from going unchallenged. At the same time, you’re able to ensure certain realities are acknowledged that might otherwise be intentionally ignored. With the right question, you can reveal the Truth as well as those who are opposed to it because of how the only logical answer forces them to admit that they’re wrong.

What qualifies my belief system as both logical and accurate is the extent to which my thought process is consistent with reality. I demonstrate my perspective’s consistency with reality by producing evidence that proves what I believe is correct. That’s how you distinguish a preference from a principle and that is how you reveal someone who doesn’t want to know what’s true as much as they simply want to be told they’re right.

But you can’t always introduce evidence into a conversation because of the way some will try to categorize even the most compelling proof as subjective and therefore no more significant than an irrelevant observation.

But when you ask the right question…

You’re able to proceed directly to that place where there’s either an answer or an excuse.

Conclusion: A Reality Greater Than Themselves

When Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was inscribed on Roman currency, He was forcing the Pharisees to acknowledge how God commands obedience to the authorities that He Himself has instituted, while simultaneously articulating the greater Truth of how we are to render obedience and surrender our lives to the the One Whose Image we bear. (Jer 29:4-10; Rom 13:1-14; 1 Pet 2:13-17 [see also Acts 5:29]).

That’s the approach you want to use when it comes to defending your convictions about the Reality of the empty tomb, moral absolutes, the spiritual heritage of our country, and even your political convictions.

1 Peter 3:15 says:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

Your “answer” needs to include questions that you can ask should you be confronted with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to be confirmed as their own judge and jury. As long as they maintain themselves as the gauge by which the accuracy of all things are measured, the only thing that will allow for the truth to be revealed is a question that cannot be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than themselves.

 

I Dare You | Part III: Ambition

/0 Comments/in /by

IV) Ambition    

A) Two Words

My Dad loved to debate. Give him a topic that he could sink his teeth to and buckle up because it was like drinking from a fire hydrant – just a barrage of verbiage. That’s what made his response to a question I posed to him so significant and so memorable to me. I asked him, “How do you know Christianity is true?” His answer: “It works.” Two words! And yet, within those two words you have the bottom line that characterizes any truism. Does it work? Does it make sense and does it resonate practically?    

B) Yardage Versus Touchdowns

Christianity does work and it makes a substantial difference at every level of the human experience. One area in particular is ambition – the desire to succeed and the fulfillment that comes from accomplishing something significant. Left unchecked by something profound, ambition can consume a person and reduce them to something either pathologically selfish or utterly disillusioned to the point of despair. Money and other apparent indicators of success is a lot like yardage.

On September 13,th, 2009, the Denver Broncos squared off against the Cincinnati Bengals. When it was all said and done, the Bengals had gained a total of 307 yards, the Broncos, 302. Yet, the Broncos won.17 While the Bengals had more in the way of total net yards, it was the Broncos that came out on top. It’s almost exasperating, isn’t it? Sometimes it seems that no matter how hard you work, the prize you’re pursuing seems perpetually out of reach and in those rare moments where you’re able to achieve the thing that you’ve been working towards, by the following day another goal has taken its place.    

C) Solomon’s Essay – The Whole Duty of Man

King Solomon was king of the Jews and reigned for approximately 40 years.18 At one point he wrote an essay that elaborated on the plight of human beings as far as what it is that drives them and produces lasting fulfillment. What makes his writing so compelling is that he had the resources necessary to conduct the kind of experiments that he did. By virtue of his immense wealth and intelligence, he could test the empirical power of different stimuli to produce true satisfaction. He reflected on the allure of riches and accomplishment as well as the pursuit of knowledge, pleasure and power. In the end he concludes that the only thing that truly matters is your relationship with God and the sense of significance that you enjoy is directly related to the degree of obedience you render to your Heavenly Father:

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecc 12:13)

To go back to our initial illustration, while yardage is an indicator of sorts, in the end the only thing that really counts is the scoreboard. And the scoreboard, in this instance, is what you’re able to do that endures beyond today and echoes through all eternity. In other words, it’s only your obedience to God that produces the lasting impact and fulfillment we desire. In some ways, this might seem overly philosophical and not especially practical. But Solomon is not alone in his recognition of the mirage that is represented by believing that the acquisition of power and success will satisfy our need for fulfillment.

In June of 2005, Tom Brady was the quarterback for the New England Patriots. He was 27 at the time and had recently won his third Superbowl. Those victories combined with his other accomplishments represented what most would define as a legitimate reason to feel like they had arrived and were now basking in the light of a fulfilling and problem-free existence.

But that wasn’t the case.

At one point, Tom said: “Why do I have three Super Bowl rings, and still think there’s something greater out there for me? I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, ‘Hey man, this is what is.’ I reached my goal, my dream, my life. Me, I think: God, it’s gotta be more than this. I mean this can’t be what it’s all cracked up to be. I mean I’ve done it. I’m 27. And what else is there for me?”19

Compare that to some of the observations Solomon made:

4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me. 10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil.11Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun. (Ecc 2:4-11)

It’s appropriate at this point to underscore the fact that Solomon wasn’t some dark and depressed personality who was incapable of enjoying anything. At one point he says:

I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly – my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives. (Ecc 2:3)

Solomon is maintaining a sound perspective throughout all his experiments and observations. He’s not melancholy, he’s simply observing the hollowness of the human experience regardless of how embellished it may be with those things that supposedly provide a sense of worth and satisfaction, In a similar way, Tom Brady is not clinically depressed when he takes a step back and observes the way in which material things and human accomplishments – regardless of their substance and significance – fail in providing true and enduring satisfaction. The fact of the matter is the goal posts never stop moving. There is never a place where another level of accomplishment isn’t apparent. And in the same way, there’s no earthly prize that cannot either be taken away or stripped of its luster with the passage of time. Regardless of how you attempt to evaluate it, the very nature of our world is transient and it is therefore foolish to define ourselves according to a paradigm that is neither durable nor stable. To use Solomon’s phrase, it is “meaningless.”    

D) All Your Might

Still, this is not our cue to refrain from being excellent at what we do or less than aggressive in the marketplace. In the same Divinely inspired text authored by Solomon he says:

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might…(Ecc 9:10)

In a similar vein, Colossians 3:17 says:

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3:17 [see also Prov 22:29; 2 Thess 3:10])

Cloaking a bad work ethic or veiling laziness by holding up a Bible and insisting that your being a slacker is justified in that you’re refraining from being materialistic is a distortion of Scripture. You are commanded to work hard and strive for excellence in whatever you set your mind to do. But you don’t do so in a way where your activity defines who you are. It’s there where your identity and your overall perspective is dictated by your status in the marketplace that you consign yourself to a life of yardage rather than touchdowns.    

E) The Validation of Obedience

So here is yet another reason to recognize the Bible as being the Word of God and to accept it as True from cover to cover. The life that is characterized by a relentless pursuit of that which God would do through your obedience to Him produces a sense of purpose and fulfillment that is enduring. It’s not just “noble,” it’s the most reasonable approach that one can take in light of the alternative being an existence founded on temporary plateaus and insatiable appetites.    

F) Spiritual Commodities

Another way to look at it is to consider that everything we pine for is a spiritual commodity. While we desire wealth, it’s not the mere accumulation of money, it’s the sense of peace that financial security provides. We want a particular thing because of the joy it produces when we have it in our possession. We seek to be accepted and loved by those we admire. It’s not just a physical exchange, it’s an emotional craving. At every turn, the “thing” we want is something intangible and therefore a spiritual article. Now look at Galatians 5:22-23:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)

The “fruit” of the Spirit is the result of the Spirit’s activity within you. If you go down the list of the qualities that are produced as a result of Christ living in and through you, you recognize them as the very things that we as human beings desire to have and experience. Yet, if we attempt to realize those things through any means other than that which is founded upon one’s relationship with Christ, the end result is less than fulfilling. If you want peace and you determine that its finances that will deliver that sense of well being you’re looking for, go back to Tom Brady’s interview and revisit his sense of disillusion when contemplating his achievements and resources. If you want something more authoritative, consider Solomon’s comments in Ecclesiastes 5:10:

Whoever loves money, never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. (Ecc 5:10)

If its joy you want and you’re determined that what you seek is best experienced in the context of the amusements and pleasures that lie before you, you’re obligated to an existence that is forever frustrated by the fact that you continually need more in order to enjoy the same level of fulfillment. There’s always a bigger flat screen to possess, a bigger boat, a faster car – there’s no one thrill that produces an enduring sense of satisfaction. While we as human beings crave love, many will seek to satisfy that longing by defaulting to the self- absorbed facsimile of love otherwise known as lust. The difference being that love is all about giving and lust is all about getting. If your approach to romance and intimacy is based on a self serving premise, the level of fulfillment you’re destined to experience is extremely limited compared to the alternative where you’re consistently focused on the gratification of your sweetheart. And it’s not just about sex and marriage. In Acts 20:35, it says:

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:35)

With that as a backdrop, look at what Mental Health America’s “Live Your Life Well” website says about people who are focused on the well being of others rather than themselves:

Research indicates that those who consistently help other people experience less depression, greater calm, fewer pains and better health. They may even live longer.20

While there is a tendency to regulate Biblical admonishments to serve others as being noble but not always practical, the truth is it’s not only practical, it’s very healthy. So by approaching relationships using the Truth of Scripture as your guide, you’re not only experiencing the kind of enduring love you need, but you’re also healthier than what is yielded by a more secular approach.

   G) Who He Is Not What He Gives

We are driven to quench our thirst for substance and significance. We long for success in our endeavors, but if we want to secure points and not just “yardage,” we need to focus on that which goes beyond the transient environment we exist in and instead concentrate on the eternal domain that we truly live in. And when we determine to qualify our ambitions according to God’s Power and Direction working through us, we don’t do so for a particular result, as much as we surrender to Christ simply to gain Him. The blessings He provides are secondary to the Lord and Savior that He is. It’s not the trappings of life that we’re going for, it’s the definition of life – the Life that is only available in and through Him.

This can be a tough pill to swallow and it’s one of the reasons that so many opt for either a diluted form of Christianity or a perspective intentionally devoid of a Christian perspective altogether. But it’s only hard if you overlook the foundational realities of the world we live in. While the Fruit of the Spirit is appealing and it makes sense to perceive it as the core of what we all as human beings desire, it is realized only through denying yourself as opposed to gratifying yourself.

This lands in a good place.

Go with me, here…      

1) The Inner Man

Luke 9:23 says:

23 Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. 25 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? (Lk 9:23-25)

Some will interpret this passage to be a call to asceticism or an extreme form of self-denial. But here’s the thing: It’s not what you give or what you possess that defines you, your identity is defined according to what is in your heart. Look at Proverbs 4:23:

Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. (Prov4:23)

…and also Luke 6:45:

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks                                    what the heart is full of. (Lk 6:45)

The heart, according to Scripture, is who you truly are and it’s the heart that is reviewed by God as He considers your thoughts, your words and your actions. While we as human beings might be overly impressed with what can be seen on the outside, God is able to see deeper and clearer by being able to peer into the inner man.

then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive, and deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know the human heart),                          (2 Chron 6:30)
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.” (Jer 17:9-10)

The heart is where we experience the tension that occurs when our desires are not being addressed the way we want them to be (see Ecc 2:20). It’s here where it’s determined how we will quench our thirst for fulfillment and significance (see Lk 12:34). And it’s here that God needs to be positioned as the Supreme Manager over the entire process because it’s when He’s in charge that you’re able to get beyond the kiddie rides and experience the big roller coasters. You’re now into what is truly substantial as opposed to what is ultimately revealed as trivial. You’re scoring points rather than accumulating yardage! You can see this Ephesians 3:16-21.

Take a look:

“… that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height– 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. 20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen”(Eph 3:16-21 [NKJV]).

   H) The Fullness of God

You don’t want to gloss over this verse as nothing more than a collection of “churchy” sounding clichés that don’t resonate with any meaning in the secular marketplace. Throughout the entire book of Ephesians, Paul uses a phrase: “for this reason.” It’s a continual progression of Truths that crescendo into a logical conclusion that is downright motivating. In chapter three, we’re a little more than half way through His treatise. But even within the above five verses we have a motivating picture of what can result when Christ is given control over our inner man. Picking up with verse 17, if Christ is occupying a position of Absolute Leadership in your heart as a result of your having accepted Him as your Lord and Savior, you’re now able to “get” just how freakishly amazing His Love is. And it’s a result of catching a glimpse of that Love that you’re filled with the fullness of God. It’s that “fullness” that translates into the Fruits of the Spirit.

The things that you and I want are all bound up in what we have access to when we’re overwhelmed by the fullness of God. The “fullness of God” is simply a term referring to the fact that you’re firing on all cylinders. All that God would offer, all that God would do in and through you, all that you would do, feel and experience as a result of God’s Presence dominating your existence – that is the fullness of God and friend, that’s what you and I want even when we think we want something else. Remember, the “thing” we want is ultimately a spiritual commodity. The only True Source for love, joy, peace etc. is the Author of those things. If you’ve caught a glimpse of God’s Love for you, then:

  • you’re perpetually amazed at what He’s done on your behalf (1 Jn 3:1)
  • your disposition tends to be continually enthusiastic because you’re aware of His Power and Purpose animating your actions and future (Psalm 139:16; Phil 3:14; Col 1:29)
  • you’re able to process both the triumphs and the trials that come your way from a position of strength (Ps 18:32, 40, 43-49; Phil 4:12-13; Col 1:10-11)

In short, you know who you are because you’re convinced of Whose you are. And with that as a foundation, your sense of self is no longer inextricably linked to your accomplishments as much as it is based on the Author of those accomplishments Who’s working in and through you (see Phil 2:13). You’re no longer gauging your worth according to the substance of your resume, nor are you dependent on the transient trophies offered by the marketplace for the sense of fulfillment that we all seek. Instead you commit to the Lord whatever it is you’re working towards and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from obedience rather than clinging to the temporary validation of a successful enterprise.

Moreover, your gaze is constantly fixed on what’s next. Not because you’re dissatisfied with your current status, but because you’re constantly being beckoned forward by your Heavenly Father. Take a look at the way Paul describes it:

Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:13-14)

So here’s the bottom line: Rather than settling for a sense of ambition that produces nothing more than an insatiable desire for more, the Biblical approach is to instead recognize that what you want is ultimately a spiritual commodity that is experienced only by engaging the Author of those commodities in the context of obedience.

To remain perpetually overwhelmed by Who He is and to base your definition of success on the degree to which you do as He directs results in an energized disposition, an enthusiastic outlook and a confident regard for who you are and where you’re headed because your eyes are fixed on a prize that doesn’t deteriorate and never fails to satisfy. That’s the kind of ambition that transforms the daily grind into something inspiring, that’s a life worth living and that’s one more reason to embrace the Gospel as the Absolute Truth because “it works.”

Conclusion

It was a Sunday during the summer of 1981. I was at Parris Island benefiting from all the great training provided by the Drill Instructors. As was the case with every Sunday, you were given the opportunity to attend church but I had chosen to remain behind this time simply because there was so many things that needed to get done. No sooner had the group departed that I felt bad about not having gone and I made my regrets known by saying so out loud. A fellow recruit heard me and responded by saying that my remorse was based on having been “brainwashed” into thinking that church was important and I was clinging to a pointless tradition rather than a Truth that merited any real consideration.

I don’t recall my response being especially articulate, but I do remember reflecting on his accusation and deciding that he was as wrong as he could be because I had considered the substance of the Gospel Message and had determined that it was authentic. I was not brainwashed. I had measured the claims of Christ and found them to be credible. This was more than just a collection of colorful illustrations depicting charming little stories. God is real, His Son did live, die and come back to life and my existence is infused with a sense of purpose that goes beyond a holiday tradition or a weekend routine.

And as certain as I was back then, I’m even more convinced now. The ever increasing volume of evidence, logic and utility that validates and characterizes the Christian paradigm is as accessible as it is obvious and as my awareness of these things grows, so does my passion for alerting skeptics to things they may have overlooked as they consider Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, the King of kings and the Savior of all mankind. He is.

It works and I dare you not to believe!

1. Lee Strobel, The Case for Creation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 131.
2. “Creation came ‘from nothing,’ not God: Stephen Hawking”, USA Today, September 2, 2010, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
3. Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?” Discover November 2002. Also see Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe
4. Bill Bryson, A Short History Of Nearly Everything, 16.
5. Lee Strobel, The Case for Creation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 145
6. Ibid, p219
7. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc, 1972, 1979), 181 (H.P. Liddon was an English Theologian that lived between 1829 and 1890 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddon])
8. Ibid p185
9. Ibid, p 82
10. Ibid, p 187
11. Tertullian, The Apology, accessed February 13, 2013
12. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 185.
13. “Charles Colson”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson, accessed February 15, 2013
14. “Chuck Colson on the Resurrection”, Baylyblog, http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/04/chuck- colson-resurrection, accessed February 15, 2013 [From a speech delivered by Chuck Colson at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention 2/84 and reported in Religious Broadcasting 3/84.]
15. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 259
16. Billy Graham, Storm Warning, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2011), 253.
17. “Game Center”, http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009091303/2009/REG1/broncos@bengals/recap#tab:analyze,accessed June 4, 2010
18. “Solomon”, About.com, http://judaism.about.com/library/2_history/leaders/bldef-p_solomon.htm, accessed March 1, 2013
19. “Transcript: Tom Brady, Part 3”, 60 Minutes, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-1015331.html, accessed March 2, 2013
20. “Help Others”, Live Your Life Well from Mental Health America”,http://www.liveyourlifewell.org/go/live-your-life-well/others, accessed March 9, 2013

I Dare You | Part One: Creation

/0 Comments/in /by

I) Intro

As a Youth Pastor, I was always challenging my students to be able to articulate what they believe and why. It’s important to be able to clearly state what it is that shapes your perspective and determines your values, especially for a Christian. Otherwise, much of what a relationship with Christ brings to the table is never accessed due to an overly casual approach characterized by Biblical illiteracy and a secular mindset.

For me, I’ve got a collection of facts and truths that, taken together, form the basis of what compels me to embrace the cross and the efficacy of Scripture. And the more I study and the more I learn, the more compelling the substance of those Truths become. Recently, it’s gotten to the point where some things that I’ve learned about creation inspired me to put some additional thoughts down on paper. The result was a “dare,” more or less, extended to those who either discount Christianity as an ornamental inconvenience or a system of myths that have somehow endured over the last 2,000 years.

It’s broken down into three sections: Creation, the Resurrection and Ambition. Each segment brings to the surface a body of empirical evidence that makes it very hard to maintain the posture of a cynic. In short, I dare you to not believe…

II) Creation

Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” While some want to view creation as a cosmic accident that just happened to land in a good place, science and mathematics testify to something very intentional. In his book, “The Case For Creation,” Lee Strobel interviews Dr. Robin Collins, who has degrees in both mathematics and physics from Washington State University as well as a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas in Austin. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University, he has spent the last decade doing research, writing, and teaching at Messiah College where he is currently serving as an associate professor of philosophy. At one point in the interview, he says:

Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.1

An aggressive invitation to consider the practical Truth of Scripture The bottom line is that while some will theorize how life was initiated apart from an Intelligent Designer, they do so in a way that requires a certain precision to be in place that cannot be explained. While there are several examples of the “precision” that needs to be in place in order for life to exist, the cosmological constant is especially compelling.    

A) Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is a mathematical value assigned to what astronomers call “dark energy.” When you look at the universe, you see things moving in a way that doesn’t make sense in that they’re things are being pushed and pulled around despite the fact that there is nothing around them. In other words, when you see a moon orbiting a planet, that makes sense because the planet has a gravitational pull that maintains that moon’s trajectory. But there are objects in space that are moving as though they’re being influenced by a gravitational force, yet there’s nothing visible to provide that force. Hence the term “dark energy” was coined to describe the obvious force being exerted upon these objects by seemingly invisible entities.

Fact is, this dark energy accounts for over 70% of our universe. And what makes that significant is that if this dark energy was characterized by a gravitational dynamic that was pulling everything in, then the universe would ultimately collapse on itself and life in general would cease to exist. If, on the other hand, this dark energy wielded a gravitational force that was too weak to temper the way in which our universe is expanding, then our solar system would unravel as would the entire cosmos.

This, then, is the cosmological constant: The value assigned to this force that continues to allow the universe to expand and therefore not collapse on itself, yet not spin out of control. Initially, astronomers believed that the cosmological constant was very large. After all, you’re going to need a big broom to move planets around.

But that is not the case.

The cosmological constant is actually very small.

How small?

One part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten followed by fifty three zeroes. Contemplate the precision of that number. And if you move the dial or change the settings in even the most incremental way, the end result is something that no longer sustains life because of the way the universe would either collapse or unravel.    

B) These Are Not Random Processes

I’ve read several arguments proposed by people who want to eliminate the need for a Designer. They’ll argue that there are natural processes in place that allow for evolution. The problem with their argument is that they don’t attempt to explain the origin of those processes. They simply point to the way in which things could conceivably flow, without explaining how that flow was initiated.

Dr. Ian Musgrave is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He has a website called talkorigins.org and his arguments are obviously very well thought out and substantially reinforced with his academic credentials. In his article “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations” he offers a very credible sounding rebuttal to the often quoted impossibility of an enzyme forming by chance. He proposes that the theory of life being able to start by itself should not be based on the formation of enzymes; rather it should be analyzed according to the construction of much simpler life forms. He suggests that the attention should be focused on the manufacturing of monomers or polymers – something that can be arrived at in a way that doesn’t involve the sort of mind numbing probability values associated with the fortuitous appearance of an enzyme.

At the beginning of his argument, he says, “Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.”

I would agree. These are not random processes. But the fact that it’s not random necessitates structure and order – dynamics that do not and cannot appear apart from being intentionally established by a Designer. It’s almost comical that he’s so dogmatic about how a simple life form can develop as a result of the chemical and biochemical laws that naturally exist, yet he doesn’t attempt to account for how those laws came about to begin with.

Stephen Hawking is a very well known physicist and mathematician who retired in 2009 from his position as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University after 30 years. The position was once held by Sir Isaac Newton. In his most recent book, “The Grand Design” he challenges Newton’s belief that creation necessitates the work of God by saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”2

While you can’t help but be impressed with Hawking’s credentials and accomplishment, his theory seems fundamentally flawed right from the beginning in that he’s presuming the existence of gravity and from there builds his platform. But if there is no gravity, than he has no platform.

It seems to me that there are a great number of lettered individuals on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to explaining the origin of life. But the thing that tips the scales in favor of those who champion the idea of a Creator is that the individuals who passionately search for a plausible sounding explanation apart from God inevitably base their assumptions on complex processes that need to be present in order for their theories to work. It would be like me standing in front of an ATM with a random debit card attempting to determine the correct PIN in order to access the accounts associated with that card. You could only speculate how long it would take me to figure out the correct sequence of digits, but let’s suppose I did. Could I walk away with whatever cash I was able to withdrawal and say that all that was required were the four numbers I happened upon?

No.

The numbers are secondary to the technology necessary to process those numbers. Yet, in many instances, this is what some of these brilliant individuals will do when it comes to postulating their theories pertaining to the origin of life. They’ll focus on the PIN and ignore the ATM. In other words, they’ll speculate as to how certain elements came into being, but will base their models on things that, while they are foundational to their theories, are either assumed without explanation or accounted for using a level of speculation that borders on something ridiculous.

My point is that if you start with nothing, you have no gravity, you have no chemical law, you have no physical property. Your starting point consists of absolutely nothing. Scientists who assert the possibility of any kind of life form appearing as a result of random processes require the presence of these processes which, according to Dr. Musgrave, are not random in and of themselves. Hence the need for an ordered structure even in the context of the mechanisms that produce theses lucky accidents of creation.    

C) Another Set of Rules

Another example of this would be Dr. Martin Rees who is an amazingly accredited astronomer that became professor of astronomy at Cambridge when he was in his thirties and has since accumulated several prestigious honors in the fields of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics. He wrote a book entitled “Just Six Numbers” that identify six mathematical values that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe. He describes these numbers as being intricately choreographed, to the point where if they were altered “even to the tiniest degree,” he said, “there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”3 One writer summarized what Rees was saying by explaining it this way:

For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise by comparatively stately manner – specifically, in a way that converts seven one thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly – from 0.007 percent to 0.006 percent, say – and not transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly – to 0.008 percent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.4

Dr. Rees is a spiritual skeptic, so rather than allow the facts to point to the most obvious conclusion as far as they’re having been put in place by a Designer, instead he asserts that our universe is but one of many universes that have been generated through the ages, ours just happens to be the one where the settings are calibrated correctly. But even if what Dr. Rees is suggesting is true, you still have to have a process that’s producing these universes. You cannot effectively refute the need for an Intelligent Designer to explain any aspect of creation by proposing theories that necessitate an impetus that is ordered in any way, shape or form. Dr. Robin Collins elaborated on that kind of practice in Strobel’s book when he said, “…the skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physical laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or have experienced.”5    

D) Mathematical Elegance

At the end of the day, when you make these kind of assertions that are inevitably contrary to everything we can observe in the physical universe, you no longer have science as much as you have metaphysics posing as a very weak brand of science. Yet it is not uncommon among those who would diminish those physical realities that showcase God’s handiwork. Consider the words of George Sim Johnson:

Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random science.6

The bottom line is that the universe is exquisitely and intricately engineered to the point where the mere notion of it all coming together by chance is utterly ridiculous. The beauty and mathematical elegance of creation is so compelling in terms of the way it points to God, that to dismiss Him with theories that require massive probability values in order for them to be plausible is simply not reasonable.

Ten Questions for Atheists

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Here’s my thought: You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience. In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life.

Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record? When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1

He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record. “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation.

The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3 Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road. You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective. In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another.

In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound. Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes? Probably not. But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder? In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.” In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions. Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one. When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable. Why? If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture? If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions? Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8 Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16). In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters. But… The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5).

The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity. To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences. What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science? Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought: I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction. I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time. And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250

2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61

3. Ibid, p57

4. Ibid p56

5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015

6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015

7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)

8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015

There is No Referee

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee. There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.

Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.

There is no Referee.

This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.

There is no Referee.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints.

Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.

On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions.

But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence. The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.

Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical. But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…

…there is no Referee.

Three Questions

/0 Comments/in , /by

I believe the way you answer the following three questions do an excellent job of revealing the “practical reality” of your walk with Christ (Col 3:18). By “practical reality,” I mean either those times when “ministry” includes working alongside dynamics that aren’t agreeable or safe, or… you’ll see what I mean.

Here we go:

1) If you had to create a billboard that promoted a relationship with Jesus Christ and you couldn’t mention anything about heaven or hell or how Christ helps you with your problems, what would your billboard say?

2) You’re the Good Samaritan. But instead of encountering the victim after they’ve been beaten and robbed, you encounter him as he’s being beaten and robbed. What does your ministry look like?

3) Your neighbor’s house is on fire. You’re working alongside several people put out the blaze when all of a sudden you realize that among those you’re working with, there are several whose lifestyles you seriously disagree with. Do you keep working to put out the fire or do you walk away believing that it’s wrong to be a part of any effort involving people who don’t believe as you do?

If you had to create a billboard that promoted a relationship with Jesus Christ and you couldn’t mention anything about heaven or hell or how Christ helps you with your problems, what would your billboard say?

It’s not “positive thinking,” it’s “profound thinking.” And you’re not using Him or His Word to forward your agenda as much as you’re following His Lead in order to accomplish His Purpose, know His Peace and wield His Power in way that translates to a game winning strategy regardless of what race you’re running.

Pray Big!

Your “ministry” is not just what you do at church. It’s the way you excel and achieve by doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for all the right reasons regardless of where you are or what the circumstance may be. That includes the way you show up to work on time, the way you love your family, the way you vote, the way you work out and even the way you mow your lawn!

Paul says in Colossians that you need to be doing everything in a way that merits Christ’s Signature. When you make a point of doing everything “…with all your might” and couple that with the moral excellence that characterizes the believer who’s on top of his spiritual disciplines, you’re not the kind of employee that people hire, you’re the kind of person people promote (consider the story of Joseph).

Do it right and you are perpetually poised on the threshold of great things as a believer because you’re processing every moment as an ordained opportunity and not just another task to get done. He created you to make a difference and not just an appearance. Put that kind of approach into place and you won’t look at a Monday morning the way way ever again!

How does Jesus help you succeed? That’s the question you need to answer in this exercise. It’s not just how you “deal” with life, it’s how you “succeed” in life. Messages like:

  • Don’t just be smart, be wise (Jas 1:5)
  • Don’t just be happy, be fulfilled (Ecc 12:13; Jn 4:32; Gal 5:22-23)
  • Don’t just be right, be effective (Lk 12:11-12)
  • Don’t just be confident, be certain (Matt 7:24; Phil 2:13; 1 Jn 5:13)
  • Don’t just prosper, succeed (Josh 1:8)

You have the Mindset, the Manner and the emotional Muscle of God cruising through your veins. In other words, His Spirit lives in you. That’s the Divine Trademark that’s been stamped on your life (2 Cor 1:22)! You have the ball! Move it down the field and put some points on the board!

He’s not just a Divine Emergency Kit. He’s also a Divine Tool Kit. He doesn’t say you’ll never be broke, nor does He say you’ll never lose or be sad. What He does say is that if you stick with Me, I’ll make you wise (Jas 1:5). If you make Me your priority, I’ll make your Strong (Is 41:10; Phil 4:13). And if you follow My lead, I’ll make you the kind of person who lights up the room when you walk in (Job 29:11; Matt 5:16; Jn 5:35; Phil 2:15; 4:8)!

There are times where something tragic has happened or you’re up against the wall and, apart from God, you have absolutely no other options. In those times, should someone come alongside you and suggest that if you had more “faith,” you wouldn’t be as concerned or as sad, you’re not listening to someone who’s sensitive as much as you’re hearing someone whose approach to Scripture is based on a handful of verses as opposed to the Bible as a whole.

We are to, “Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.” (Rom 12:15) Denying yourself or others what amounts to a healthy emotional response to a loss or a threat is neither holy nor compassionate. We don’t grieve like those who have no hope (1 Thess 4:13), but we do grieve. Courage isn’t the absence of fear as much as it’s the strength and the confidence to do the right thing regardless of how scared you may be.

We have access to that Strength and Confidence  in Christ (Is 41:10), but Jesus wept just before He raised Lazarus from the dead and He also sweat just before Golgotha.

Yes, there’s rest and healing to be had and it’s important to remember who you are apart from Him and how utterly dependent you are on His grace (Jn 15:5). But He’s created you to make a difference and not just an appearance. Because of Who He is in you, you lack for nothing as far the resources needed to achieve and excel (1 Tim 4:8; 2 Pet 1:3).

What we’re talking about here is not the minimizing of the holy compassion and the divine charity that is needed to strengthen and comfort those who are hurting. What we’re emphasizing is the fact that you are more than your wounds and better than your sin because of Who it is that lives and moves within you. That said, yes, there is a time to hurt and a time to heal, but there’s also a time to win and you don’t want to let yourself become more preoccupied with what you can’t do instead of what it is that He can do through you. That’s motivating and that’s the kind of thing you want to have on your billboard! Things like:

Don’t Just Try. Win. Do It Right Dream Big, Pray Bigger Don’t Just Make an Appearance, Make a Difference

 

Your situation is not something to be processed merely as a random collection of walls and warnings. Rather, it’s nothing but doors and directions when you allow His Truth to shape your perspective.

Do it right and you are perpetually poised on the threshold of great things because you’re processing every moment as an ordained opportunity and not just another day to get through. Put that kind of approach into place and you won’t look at a Monday morning the same way ever again!

Go God, boo devil! Make a Difference!

For more reading on one’s “billboard,” click here.

You’re the Good Samaritan. But instead of encountering the victim after they’ve been beaten and robbed, you encounter him as he’s being beaten and robbed. What does your ministry look like?

Life isn’t always sectioned off in a way where the resulting shapes are characterized by straight and even lines. In order for the Truth to make an impact, you have to follow Christ’s example and communicate it in a way that addresses, not just the situation in general, but the unique “shape” of the situation to include the personalities that are involved, the topic being addressed and the setting that you’re in.

Rarely are you going to be in a spot where only one verse applies. Instead, there will be several verses to consider which is why it’s so important to be taking your cue from God’s Spirit and His Wisdom as opposed to a collection of guidelines and techniques that you manufacture on your own based on a portion of God’s Instructions as opposed to the whole Handbook .

Standing up for what is right is not always done in the absence of a physical / violent altercation. There is an evil out there that doesn’t respond to a gentle rebuke or even a stern warning. And to twist Christ’s admonishment to “turn the other cheek” or God’s command to not take revenge on someone for a wrong they’ve done to you in order to justify not standing up to Goliath or to insist that Jesus was talking about a pocket New Testament when He told the disciples to go purchase a sword, is an irresponsible and inaccurate application of God’s Word.

‘Turning the other cheek” is the biblical response to an offense, not an assault…

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

And to suggest that the New Testament somehow nullifies every Divinely sanctioned use of force in the Old Testament is to suggest that God changes His mind when it comes either swinging your fist or firing a weapon.

He doesn’t change His mind.

Ever (Num 23:19).

Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense, given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God.

In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.”

So, if you were to come on a scene where bandits were beating and robbing someone, you’re doing the right thing by stopping them however you need to in order to stand up for what is right and protect those who may not be able to protect themselves.

Your neighbor’s house is on fire. You’re working alongside several people put out the blaze when all of a sudden you realize that among those you’re working with, there are several whose lifestyles you seriously disagree with. Do you keep working to put out the fire or do you walk away believing that it’s wrong to be a part of any effort involving people who don’t believe as you do?

Solomon followed the example of his father in that he contracted King Hiram of the Phoenicians for laborers and building materials. David used the cedar logs, stonemasons and carpenters provided by King Hiram to build his palace (2 Sam 5:11). Solomon used the same resource for the cedar needed to build the Temple (2 Chron 2:3).

King Hiram resided in Tyre and ruled over a people who were descendants of Canaan. Canaan’s father was Ham  who was the son of Noah that had demonstrated an outrageous disregard for God in the aftermath of the flood. Noah saw the same belligerence in Canaan and rightfully prophesied that his descendants would go on to become perverse idolaters and wind up being the object of God’s Wrath in the context of the Israelites conquest of the Promised Land.

Tyre, however, was a boundary and not a target (Josh 19:29). It’s not that the Phoenicians were a God fearing people (Ezekiel 26:2; Lk 10:13). They were descendants of Canaan, but those that resided in Tyre were able to somehow distinguish themselves in the sight of God as being undeserving of the punishment that was doled out to Sidon and other neighboring Canaanite cities. Perhaps that was one of the contributing factors that allowed for a friendly relationship between Hiram and David and then, later, Solomon.

Their true, spiritual colors would be revealed later when they cheered as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Israel and for that they themselves would be destroyed, as Ezekiel prophesied in chapter 26.

The point being, however, that God can, and often does, use unconventional means and a variety of spiritual dispositions to do His work. In those moments, you want to support His efforts and not question them any more than you would refuse the cedar coming from Hiram simply because he was a Canaanite. Yes, he was an idolater, but he was used by God to do good nevertheless.

At one point, the disciples were agitated by the fact that some people were casting out demons in the Name of Christ, yet they weren’t a part of Christ’s inner circle of disciples…

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mk 9:38-40)

However petty the disciples may have appeared to be –  as far as feeling like they were only ones capable of doing any good, being that they were a part of Christ’s inner circle – it’s not an uncommon complaint.

Appearances can be distracting. A person’s manner, their background – if it doesn’t line up with tradition or convention – it can be mistaken for something sinister.

Fact is, the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Ps 24:1). Everything that was created was made by Christ and for Christ (Col :16;Rev 4:11), so however dirty or different the glove may be, it’s the Hand inside the glove that’s doing the work and you don’t want to be so preoccupied with appearances or qualifications that you fail to appreciate how God uses different people to do His bidding.

That doesn’t mean you throw caution to the wind and assume everyone is reading from the same page of music. 1 John 1:4 says to test the spirits, but that’s not always accomplished by focusing exclusively on a person’s checkered past or a vulgar outburst.

King Cyrus is a great example of how God can use someone that doesn’t have a relationship with Christ and may even be a little offensive in their manner to do God’s bidding.

The Jews were in exile and their city was a mess. The Temple was a heap of rubble and the walls were completely torn down (see 2 Chron 36:15-19). God had said that the Jews would be allowed to return, but if you were to look at an aerial photo of Jerusalem, you’d be pretty skeptical – especially given the very unlikely scenario of your enemy permitting the reconstruction of your city let alone financing it.

King Cyrus of Persia would put things in motion by paying for the rebuilding of the Temple and issuing a decree that would allow any willing Hebrew to return to Jerusalem to get it done.

Here’s the thing:

Cyrus is addressed by name in Isaiah 45. God refers to him as someone He has anointed for the sake of his people. He also says of Cyrus:

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor,  though you do not acknowledge me . I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you,  though you have not acknowledged me  so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is note beside me. I am the Lord, and there is not other. (Is 45:4-5)

Cyrus didn’t believe in God, but that didn’t change the fact that God used him to accomplish the reconstruction of Jerusalem.

The same thing applies to us be it a politician, a doctor, a contractor or any kind of service provider. No, you don’t applaud their sin but you do support them in whatever role they’re playing in accomplishing God’s Purposes. In other words, you vote for King Cyrus, you make the appointment, you go with the best option and you don’t sneer at the cedar that’s being delivered to your doorstep for the construction of whatever God is building because its being delivered by a bunch of idolaters (see sidebar).

Conclusion

There’s a difference between compromise and wisdom. Basing your convictions on personal preferences seasoned with some carefully selected Scriptures that can be taken out of context and made to sound like a solid biblical reinforcement of your prejudices is not the same thing as basing your outlook on Scripture as a whole and refusing to allow your life’s experiences to replace the Word of God simply because you’re more comfortable with your opinion than you are with the Truth.

Discipleship is not being accurately presented if it’s taught as something that only applies in the context of a crisis. Standing up for what is right is not always accomplished by a mere rebuke. David defeated Goliath with a sanctified response that included both a weapon and a word (1 Sam 17:45-47). And however rough around the edges God’s human instrument may be, Scripture proves over and over again that your focus needs to be on the Plot and not the players in order to determine who you should support and who should resist.

There is, and always has been, an aggressive campaign in place to exchange the Truth for a lie (Jn 8:44; Rom 1:25; 1 Peter 5:8). If the author of that campaign is to be defeated, not only can we not afford to be petty, we don’t have the time to watch our countermeasures fail because they were based more on tradition than they were on the Substance of God’s Word.

And even when your convictions are on point, your delivery has to be just as Inspired if the end result is going to be a legitimate win (Prov 15:23; 25:11; Mk 13:11; Titus 2:7-8).

The bottom line is this: You’re here to make a difference and not just an appearance. Christ is the Filing Cabinet and not just a file folder and to restrict His Instruction and all the advantages that accompany obedience to those times that line up with your traditions is to gut His Word, kill your witness and give the opposition all the more opportunity to do some damage.

On the other hand…

Be the kind of workman referenced in 2 Timothy 2:15 and you’ve got a winning strategy in place that will benefit you and everyone He puts in your path because instead of you working without Him, He’s now the One working through you.