THE DISEMBODIED VOICE THAT CHANGED HISTORY

President George Washington had said, "No." President Thomas Jefferson had said, "No." Every American President elected to a second term had said, "No way" to a third term. Every President that is, until 1940, when Franklin Roosevelt broke the hallowed tradition and said, "Yes." But there is, as is always the case, a back story to history.

FDR wanted to run for another four years, however, it must appear that it wasn't his idea, but a demand of the American people to go against the hallowed precedent set by George Washington. To go against the examples of Washington, Jefferson, and all the other two-term presidents would smack of presumption. As the July 15-18 Democratic Convention drew near, the time when the delegates would nominate their standard bearer, there was much speculation about Roosevelt as to whether he would break the tradition. All the while, Roosevelt and his team were working away, concocting a plan to do just that.

THE SET UP

The first part of the plan consisted of a statement that Senator Alben Barkley was to read to the delegates. FDR got on the phone, prior to the convention, and dictated to Barkley the letter he was to read, the conclusion of which would be:

"The President has never had, and has not today, any desire or purpose to continue in the office of President, to be a candidate for that office, or to be nominated by the convention for that office. He wishes in earnestness and sincerity to make it clear that all of the delegates in this convention are free to vote for any candidate."

There were many candidates for the nomination that summer: James Farley and John Nance Garner (the VP at the time) were two who had a shot at the Oval Office, if nominated. The statement Barkley read dripped with insincerity with its use of the words, "The President has never had, and has not today, any desire or purpose to continue in the office of President to be a candidate for that office, or to be nominated by the convention for that office."

THE SET UP COMPLETE

The delegates have now been set up. When Barkley finishes reading, the delegates sit silently for a few seconds until a mysterious, disembodied voice rings out over the loudspeakers saying, "We want Roosevelt! We want Roosevelt!" Within a few seconds, hundreds of chanting delegates join in, pouring into the aisles, carrying state delegation standards in impromptu demonstrations. Whenever the chant begins to die down, state chairmen, who also have microphones connected to the loudspeakers, chant: "New Jersey wants Roosevelt! Arizona wants Roosevelt! Iowa wants Roosevelt!"

The delegates have spoken in a spontaneous outpouring of support for a third term for "that man in the White House" the Republicans had called him, so bitter and angry were they that they couldn't even say his name.

Or had the delegates spoken? Spontaneous? No way. It was all rigged. The disembodied voice wasn't in the hall at all, but  was the voice of Thomas D. Garry, Superintendent of Chicago's Department of Sanitation (think, sewers), a trusted friend of Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly. Garry was stationed in a basement room with a microphone, waiting for that moment. Those who immediately picked up the chant weren't spontaneous either; Mayor Kelly had seen to that. He'd stationed hundreds of Chicago city workers and precinct captains around the hall; other Democratic bosses had brought followers from their home territories. All of them joined Garry's chant. It was as spontaneous as a NASA shuttle launch.

ONE MORE THING

The convention storms on and nominates FDR for a third term on the first ballot by an 86% majority the next day. Then Roosevelt puts the name of Henry Wallace up for Vice President. The delegates bolt. FDR says he won't accept the nomination if they don't choose Wallace. Stalemate? Ah, but the masterful manipulation was not yet ended.

Enter Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the President. She flies to the convention to give a speech advocating her husband's desire for Wallace as his running mate. As she rises to speak, the first woman ever to address a national presidential convention, the giant auditorium falls silent; such was the reverence and love they have for Mrs. Roosevelt. Such blind love and unrestrained respect are the fodder for more manipulation.

Her speech turns the tide. The delegates choose Wallace. After she speaks, she says to a friend, "They were just like lambs."

They first manipulated the lambs by that disembodied voice emanating from the basement to nominate FDR for a third term. Then, when the lambs assembled to hear the Mrs., the lambs voted for Wallace, just as she asked. The disembodied voice, the men stationed in the auditorium to amplify the chant coming from the basement over the loudspeakers, the First Lady, all were there to convince the sheep to do what they didn't want to do. It was easy.

GEORGE ORWELL WARNED US

In Orwell's "Animal Farm," Napoleon is the pig who emerges as the leader after the rebellion against the farmer. (Orwell modeled him after Joseph Stalin, the ruthless Russian.) Napoleon notices that the sheep are dumb followers who go along with the crowd. He learns that chanting makes everything easy for the leaders. A chant is simple for the sheep; it's repeatable by the sheep; it can be manipulated. Orwell is saying, "Beware simplistic slogans." Whatever side you're on: if you can chant it, it's not a well-thought out philosophy. Instead of thinking for themselves, the sheep only repeat slogans over and over.

THE NEW MAN

But enter the man with the Bible. You can't manipulate him; chants and slogans don't work with him. He sees through them to the bottom of their shallow pool. Slogans are out, biblical thinking is in.

For example, he hears the slogan, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone," and he sees right through its logical fallacy--how can faith (or anything else) be "alone" and at the same time, "never alone."

When someone warns, "Don't miss heaven by 18 inches," he rejects its flawed premise, that of making a false distinction between a "head and a heart belief." Someone tells him, "God wants a tenth of your money and a seventh of your time," and he scoffs at that bromide because he knows II Cor. 3, Heb. 7, and Acts 15 which tell him that the Mosaic Law is gone with the wind.

Music (loud or soft) doesn't manipulate him; he's immune. He's not some teenager going berserk at a punk rock concert or a mindless mass of Nazis worshiping Hitler in a stadium in Berlin, Nazis prepped by the pulsating prelude of martial music.

The Bible has inoculated him against emotionalism as a tactic to use him, to enslave his time, and to take his money. The oft-used tactic of tears, that is, tears for dramatic effect to get one's way over the Bible's way, disgusts him.

FDR wasn't the first to manipulate the people, Marc Antony, would be emperor of Rome, comes to mind along with the first master manipulator, Satan in Eden. But the person no one has been able to manipulate yet is the biblicist, the man with an open Bible.

____________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, and the author of Truthspeak, available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing sue.bove@gmail.com and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99"There is

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

 

 

 

DOUBLETHINK

There are at least two books you ought to have read, and if you haven't, shame on you. But your oversight can be easily corrected by getting "Animal Farm" and "1984," both by George Orwell. "Animal Farm" is a fable that's stinging rebuke of socialism and contains the famous line, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." "1984" is a tale of a dictator state and how it controls its citizens. One way it does this is by what Orwell calls, "Doublethink."

Doublethink is the word in "1984" for the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. Examples of doublethink in the book are the slogans, "War is peace." "Freedom is slavery." 

DOUBLETHINK IN D. C.

What's the official name of Obamacare, the name the powers that be want us to call the newly enacted national healthcare plan? That's easy, it's "The Affordable Health Care Act." But I would submit that's an example of doublethink. Historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson asks, 
 
"Does anyone remember that the Affordable Care Act was sold on the premise that it would            guarantee retention of existing health plans and doctors, create 4 million new jobs and save families $2,500 a year in premiums, all while extending expanded coverage to more people at a lower cost?
Only in Orwell's world of doublespeak [to say one thing while you mean another, a companion of doublethink] could raising taxes, while the costs of millions of health plans soars, be called 'affordable.' "

DOUBLETHINK IN THE CHURCH

Let's go to a typical Sunday morning service in many churches. We sit and listen as the pastor says, [from hereon, I'll be quoting directly from an actual sermon] "Let it be clear--salvation comes by the grace of God alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. No amount of gold, no amount of good works, no amount of anything can earn your way to heaven. We are justified by faith alone, and it is only by the righteousness of Jesus Christ that we gain access to the Father in heaven. . . . . God transferred our sins to the innocent Lamb of God and God crushed His own Son under His wrath. Jesus Christ atoned for our sin through His shed blood on the cross, and God showed the world He accepted this as payment in full by raising Him from the dead three days later. There is nothing more we can contribute. It is finished. He has already paid the price for you. It is free"

A round of applause, please, for such a clear and concise statement that salvation is apart from works. You're sitting there thinking, "At last, I've found a church with a consistent grace message. I think I'll join up."

But I invite you, as you sit in the pew of this church, to listen to the rest of this sermon. Don't let your mind wander because, the speaker, immediately after saying, "It is finished. He has already paid the price for you. It is free," says, "But it will cost you everything." (Wait. It's free, but it will cost you everything? How can something "free" to me have a "cost" for me? Does "free" no longer mean "free?")

He goes on to list what this free salvation will cost you:

"Only few are willing to forsake everything for Christ. Only few are willing to submit to the rightful rule of the Lord over their lives. Only few desire to pursue God, to be conformed to His image, to be transformed, to obey Him, and to become holy as He is holy. And Jesus knew how easy it was to just be a part of the crowd, so much so that He raised the bar by demanding total commitment. He did not manipulate decisions or induce the crowd. He did not sugar coat His message or soften the requirement.

"Only a few are willing to forsake everything for Christ. Only a few are willing to submit to the rightful rule of the Lord over their lives. Only a few desire to pursue God, to be conformed to His image, to be transformed, to obey Him, and to become holy as He is holy. And Jesus knew how easy it was to just be a part of the crowd, so much so that He raised the bar by demanding total commitment. He did not manipulate decisions or induce the crowd. He did not sugar coat His message or soften the requirement. He asked for nothing less than complete surrender.

"These terms of salvation are nonnegotiable, absolute, fixed and set, and unalterable, and they are the same for all of us. He calls for radical submission and surrender or we cannot be His disciple. Christ must be worth more to us than anything else. We must consider Him more valuable than everything else as we see in Matthew 13:44-45. We must surrender our will, and we will continue to surrender our will for the rest of our lives. He is asking for supreme devotion. We cannot serve Christ and ourselves. He calls for absolute allegiance to Himself, even though we will never hit that mark perfectly nor might we understand the full implications of this surrender on the day of salvation.
surrender."

In  this confusing use of doublethink, the speaker, pointing out that that what Jesus demands is total, radical, absolute, fixed, set, and unalterable, then he says, "We will never hit that mark perfectly." He's right, there's never been a day when I've "hit that mark perfectly." I can't even finish breakfast, and I've already not "hit that mark perfectly." All these demands for salvation, these things we must do, yet he says, "We will never hit that mark perfectly." He earlier said, "[We must] become holy as He is holy."

There are more payments for this free salvation: "It will cost you popularity and maybe even promotion. It will cost you an easy life and you will have to discipline yourself. You will have to say no to temptation, no to the world, and break from the crowd – even if no one else follows. You will have to be willing to suffer persecution, and it may even cost your life.

"You must transfer ownership of all that you are and all that you have to all that He is…your life is no longer your life, it is His life. Your time is no longer your time, it is now His time. Your possessions are no longer your possessions, they are His possessions. Your future is no longer your future, it is His future. Your treasure is no longer your treasure, it is His treasure. And you have transferred all that you are and all that you have to all that He is. That’s what it means to meet His terms of peace."

Did you pick up on that last sentence? This free salvation has "terms?" He's piling these payments one on top of the other. Can you imagine going out to witness to the unbeliever, telling him salvation is free, and then going into all these payments, terms, and conditions? Did Paul answer the jailer's question, "What must I do to be saved" with a list of all these payments and then say, "But I know you'll never hit the mark perfectly?" Does John enumerate these payments in John 3:16?

IT IS WHAT IT IS

Such will be the typical sermon in many conservative, Bible-believing churches this coming Sunday. If you find yourself sitting in one, vacate the premises immediately, stand in the parking lot, and shake the dust off your feet, get in your car, and break the speed limit going home.

"I'M GETTING ARRESTED TONIGHT"

America is football hungry. During the season, television treats us to Sunday games, Monday night games, a Thursday game, and then we finish the week with Saturday games. Television delivers hours and hours of pre-game prognostications and hours and hours of highlights, lowlights, then we get the post postmortems of games played, strategies employed or ignored. When mid-February rolls around we listen to experts discussing what players will be playing for what teams, what players got traded and what players signed up or quit. Football is a year-round billion dollar beast.

HECTOR AND ACHILLES

Then, there's that football related elevator video which shows a player, in the off-season, throwing a left hook which sent his finance crashing to the floor unconscious, so coma-like that he dragged her by the hair from the elevator in a tawdry imitation of Achilles' mockery of the defeated (and dead) Trojan hero, Hector.

Television made sure we all saw it. Over and over again.

After the knock-out blow, the football player dialed a number, roused somebody from bed, and said, "I'm getting arrested tonight." Police arrived in 10 to 15 minutes and the player proved himself to be a prophet.

This was no 15 round, heavy weight fight between Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney; the fisticuffs lasted all of 30 seconds. It was no contest; in that pugilistic encounter, the "winner" was a forgone conclusion. (If pastors could bet, I'd bet on any football player over any female any time.) Prior to the left hook seen round the world, the two engaged in a spitting contest, which was a draw with no declared winner. There was a prelude to all this.

Half a minute is a short time, but those 30 seconds have wreaked wreckage of biblical proportions in private and corporate lives. The aftermath is an on-going hell for the two, for the image of the NFL, and for a commissioner who may have to resign a $40,000,000 a year job. That's no fun. All because of those 30 seconds in an elevator. Or is it all because of a thirty second elevator ride?

THE UNMENTIONABLE

In all of the TV reportage, in all of the commentators who have commented with comments on and on, have you heard one, just one, say that all this wreckage could have been avoided by reading and heeding the Bible? I haven't. But what we have here is an avoidable 30 second soap opera preformed in an elevator from which we all can learn. That elevator wasn't a boxing ring; it was a stage, a stage for a graphic morality play.

PRELUDE: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Where is this elevator? It's in an Atlantic City casino, hardly a place of wholesome morality or righteousness. They chose to put themselves in a place which isn't conducive to "walking by means of the Spirit," to "setting one's affections in the heavenlies," and to thinking about those things which are "true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, and of good repute." If someone wants to quit smoking, the enclosed designated area for smokers at an airport isn't the wisest place for him to sit.

PRELUDE: ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL

According to the winner of the fight, we learn that, before they entered the elevator, they'd been "drinking heavily," and he emphasized "heavily." Solomon talked to his readers about alcohol: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler. And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise."

Now we have a compounding problem--being in a casino in which the "strong drink" is flowing. This is like nitro and glycerine combining and waiting to explode, which it did in the elevator.

LOCATION + ALCOHOL + ANGER = ?

Add the choice of location and the choice of what to drink to anger, and the morality play begins. Without those elements, there would have been no explosion. Are these two basically angry people? I don't know, but Solomon has a warning for us about those who are and we need to read and heed:

"An angry man stirs up strife,
And a hot-tempered man abounds in transgression."

Oh, man, is that ever true! Ever been around a hot-head, a basically angry person? They make your life miserable, don't they, as they stir up one needless argument and altercation after another, and heaven help you if they get on the board of your church. They cause one explosion after another for others to clean up. Yet, in spite of that fact, we ignore what Solomon tells:

"Do not associate with a man given to anger;
Or go with a hot-tempered man,"

If you're in single bliss, you need to heed this bit of godly wisdom--do not, I repeat, do not, marry a man or a woman "given to anger." To do so is to ask for a marriage of walking on egg shells, innumerable arguments, daily or weekly screaming matches, the risk of blows to the head and shoulders, and maybe even homicide and you're the victim. To disregard Solomon is to bring on disaster.

THE END OF THE MATTER

To date, those short 30 seconds have cost the couple at least $4,000,000, the right to ply his trade, public shame, and videoed humiliation. Who knows what else will come? But, in retrospect, it all started long before they entered the elevator. It began when they decided to ignore the Bible, and when they or you or I do that, the price is always more than we want to pay.

 

EULOGY FOR MICHAEL BROWN, FERGUSON, MO

To wade into waters fraught with political agendas, racial overtones, and high emotions may bring the wader angry reactions and charges of insensitivity, racism, and who knows what else. That's why, for what it's worth, I make no assumptions of guilt or innocence in the Michael Brown case which has been inflammatory, to say the least. Such judicial pronouncements are not the content of this essay.

It's the use of the Bible during the eulogy for Michael Brown that concerns me and is therefore the content of this presentation. So, with that in mind, read on.

The uncle of Michael Brown spoke at the funeral service for his nephew and it serves as a premier example of twisting the Scriptures beyond recognition, using them in ways that are far, far from the authors' intent and far, far from the AUTHOR'S intent.

Let's read what his uncle, Rev. Charles Ewing, said. He will be speaking for himself, his words, according to the transcript of the service, are in italics.

"Michael Brown was 18 years old.  He was shot around noon.  Our Lord and Savior hung on the cross — now compare our time frame 12 o’clock to the Jewish time frame which is at the sixth hour.  Michael Brown died on August the 9th.  Jesus hung on the cross between the sixth and the 9th hour.”

In this statement, the pastor has discovered that a time of day reference from Matthew 27:45 has a hidden meaning that has to do with someone's being "shot around noon." Then he finds a hidden reference in "the ninth hour" as having to do with August 9, 2014, the number of the day in August on which the person who was shot died. In his eulogy, because of Matthew 27:45, an hour of a day and a day of the month have a hidden meaning concerning a shooting in St. Louis, Missouri, in August 2014.

Pastor Ewing continued his Jesus comparison by tying the St. Louis area’s geography to biblical numbers.

If you look at the demographics of St. Louis, Missouri, we are known for the Gateway to the West. Now [the] Holy Spirit said ‘Well, look at 12 gates of Israel.’ The East gate that Jesus is going to walk to is shaped like an arch. Look at Interstate 70 rides 2,153 miles from Maryland to all the way to Utah. Jesus spent 70 hours. Israel went into captivity for 70 years.

Aside from the fact that he misuses the word "demographics," this statement is even more bizarre than the earlier one. The famous St. Louis Arch, he says, has biblical connections. The "twelve gates of Israel" somehow speak of the nickname of St. Louis according to the Holy Spirit. Then he tells the congregation that the Holy Spirit also said to "Look at Interstate 70 [which] rides 2,153 miles from Maryland all the way to Utah."

 What does Interstate 70 have to do with all this? He explains, taking "Interstate 70" and connecting it into the fact that "Jesus spent 70 hours." Jesus spent 70 hours where, doing what? And when did this occur? To what does this refer? He doesn't say. Then we read that Interstate 70 somehow has something to do with Israel's going into captivity for 70 years.

What in the world is going on here?

What's going on--interpreting the Bible allegorically--has a hoary history. The Church Fathers brought this method of "understanding" the Bible into the church and we've been suffering ever since. It's a method by which the interpreter can make the Bible say anything he wants it to say. But Jesus and the Apostles never used the method, instead, they used the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpreting the Old Testament.

The woods are full of allegorists. Rev. Charles Ewing isn't the Lone Ranger; there are many a pulpit Tonto who do the same thing Sunday after Sunday. One preacher writes:

"In Genesis 6:14 God commanded Noah to build an ark made of cypress wood and to coat both the inside and the outside with pitch. . . the pitch represents sin in our lives."

Here's another example: a pastor who is speaking on Jesus’ resurrection from the grave. Regarding the stone rolled over the mouth of the tomb, he says, "Many of us have a stone rolled across our hearts and for a true living faith the stone needs to be rolled away from our heart."

Another Tonto found a hidden meaning in the account of the thugs making fun of Elisha. Elisha had just picked up Elijah’s mantle after witnessing his being taken up to heaven, and was on his way up a mountain. On the way, they came up to confront him saying, “Go up you bald head." The pastor said that's a reference to the world's making fun of those who believe in the Rapture. What? He's "found" the rapture in II Kings 2?



But how about giving the prize for the most fanciful and far-fetched allegory in our hit parade to Augustine ((354-430AD) who read the story of The Good Samaritan and concluded, "The main character is Adam, that being set on the animal is a belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travelers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is Paul, the promise to pay for future expenses is Paul’s vow of celibacy, and Jericho is the moon and represents our mortality [because it waxes and wanes]." 

Reading that hermeneutic circus wore me out. Just for grins, read many an author's understanding of Nehemiah 3 and their finding all the hidden meanings to the "gates" in the text.

Allegorizing a text in the Bible is not Bible teaching and never was. It sets loose a virus in the auditorium. Next time you hear the beginning of an allegorical sermon, head for the exit. Fast.

BOND, HELEN BOND

If you were to go back and look at the early James Bond movies, you'd think, "How quaint. How dated they appear. People liked this silliness?" It was in those movies, that when James Bond introduced himself, he'd always say his name as, "Bond, James Bond." I thought this strange because his name is "James Bond," not "Bond, James Bond," just as my name is "Mike Halsey," not "Halsey, Mike Halsey." I know that's a lame joke, so we'll move on.

Keeping the Bondian motif, last week I introduced you to Bond, Helen Bond, a respected professor and scholar at Edinburgh University. (It's a world class university, a highly respected one, although it has no football team.) Dr. Helen Bond has taught courses in the Divinity School of the U of E in the following: Biblical Studies, New Testament (particularly Gospels), Women in the New Testament, Jewish and Roman world of the first century, Historical Jesus studies, and Josephus.

That's an impressive line-up, but it contains a tip-off: when someone advocates or teaches anything positive having to do with "The Historical Jesus," run as fast as you can and as far as you can. It's a sure-fire clue that you're in the clutches of liberal scholarship.

Helen Bond

  

Dr. Bond has read and read and read the New Testament. She's read it so much that she knows the content of the gospel and can communicate it succinctly. Appearing on a documentary, she summarized what Paul wrote about the content of the good news--"Paul said, that you don't have to be circumcised. You didn't have to keep the Law; Paul was saying to the gentiles that all you need is to believe in what God has done through Jesus, [that is] the cross and the resurrection and faith in that is going to save you." Right on! Bond, Helen Bond adds no works, tells us to make no promises of future good behavior to God, no vows taken, say no sinner's prayer, go under no baptismal waters, and no cleaning up of our lives to be saved.

She's got the gospel nailed down, doesn't she? At last, a scholar and a Christian! But there's a problem or two. Let's let her speak for herself and we'll see the difficulties:

Take a listen: "Jesus was not unique in first century society (or other later societies, for that matter)." Say what? 2,000 years later, we're still writing about, talking about, arguing about, teaching about, preaching about this Person, and meeting once a week (or more) to honor Him who was "not unique" in her opinion. We could also add that people are still getting killed for His sake, losing their jobs for His sake, being arrested and fined for living by the words of this person who wasn't unique then or now. I might point out that Dr. Bond has devoted her adult life to the study of the Book that tells all we need to know about Him, yet she says, "He's not unique today and wasn't unique back then."

How about trying this on for size; she writes, "It is important to remember that not a single author of any of the New Testament ever met Jesus in person. Not one."  And, "All the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek and with the exception of Paul, likely never set foot in the Holy Land."

She offers no proof for such a statement and doesn't mention the fact that the authors, like say, John, give evidence of someone who knew Jerusalem and Samaria quite well because he gives place names such as the Pool of Siloam, the Mt. of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, plus he mentions that Jews didn't like to go through Samaria because of their racism.

Then there's the matter of her saying that none of the authors of the Bible ever met Jesus in person.

Dr. Bond writes about the virgin birth:

"We will never know the precise details surrounding Jesus's nativity. Yet our best historical guess is that Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth. Significant strands of the New Testament - Paul's letters, for example, and the gospels of Mark and John - know nothing of either the virginal conception [Wait a minute, how about Galatians 4:4?], any need for a room at an inn, or any trip to Bethlehem. In this case, Mary would have had little idea of her son's destiny, and little warning of what she herself would have to suffer on his account."

See one of the problems? She knows the gospel, but she isn't putting her faith in Christ to be saved. To her, the Bible is a flawed book. [She even says that we have no way of knowing what Jesus really said and it's useless to try to find out.] We might add, "She hasn't put her faith in Christ to save her, yet." Perhaps she will one day come to see Jesus as her Savior. She's devoted so many years to studying His Book, maybe so.

But, in the meantime, look at what she's written: "We will never know the precise details surrounding Jesus's nativity." It's amazing that such scholars as Bond can make such flat-out statements as she does. She's only right about the above IF we reject the New Testament. We can know all the precise details we need to know, if we believe the Bible to be our highest authority, not some "quest for the historical Jesus."

I wonder if those reading what she says picked up on something she said? I know you did, but would an average reader note that she writes, "Yet our best historical guess is that Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth." You picked up on it, didn't you--her choice of the word, "guess." She's saying, "We scholars, we academics, as smart as we are in rejecting the New Testament as the Word of God, we're "guessing," and what I'm telling you about the birth of Christ is our best guess."

A guess? A guess is "arriving at or committing oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully." The Person and work of Jesus comprise the most important events in the world, and we're supposed to put our faith in her "best guess?" But, in fairness to Dr. Bond, isn't that what the human race is left with, if they reject the Bible--only what they classify as "best guesses?"


But the Apostles John and Peter weren't guessing they had met Jesus in person and knew what He said and did, up close and personal. Read I John 1: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life." 

Listen to Peter ^"and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— ³ what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you . . . " "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. ¹⁷ For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— ¹⁸ and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."



And I know you caught the last thing Bond, Dr. Helen Bond, slipped in, "Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth." In Nazareth? It's interesting, isn't it; she just says it and moves on, citing no proof of her statement and the average reader would think, "She's smart, so it must be true," whereas she just said, "I'm just guessing my best guesses here."

How about the other matter she brought up? "Paul's letters, for example, and the gospels of Mark and John - know nothing of either the virginal conception." Yet Galatians 4:4 points to the virgin birth, but she's right, neither John nor Mark relate the nativity narrative. Why?

In the book, "Dallas, 1963," there is no mention of Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. John F. Walvoord, or Dr. Charles C. Ryrie who were living in Dallas at the time. Also, many a time, I've heard sermons and the speaker doesn't mentioned the virgin birth of Christ. Does that mean the authors of "Dallas, 1963" were unaware of Dallas Seminary, Walvoord, and Ryrie, both teachers a the school? How do we know they weren't?

The institution and those men weren't in the book because they weren't involved in the purpose of the book any more than the virgin is in every sermon. If we judged every book and every sermon by what they don't say, we could critique every sermon and every book to death. Just because an author doesn't mention something doesn't mean he knows nothing about it. It means that it's not in the purpose of his book to mention it.

In this article, I've not mentioned Dr. Bond's teaching methods in the classroom or what she prefers for lunch. Why not? Although her methods are important and lunch is important, they have nothing to do with the purpose of this article, even though I might know them.

Dr. Bond, it all boils down to this: what is your ultimate authority for checking the veracity of what you write? Is it the Bible? Is it anti-supernaturalism? Is it scholarship and acceptance in the academic circles in which you move, for surely if you came to faith in Christ, you'd be drummed out of the corps.

If your ultimate authority is not the Bible, then you'll have to guess and that's what you're doing.










 

BOND TO THE RESCUE, OR MAYBE NOT

Mystery writer Agatha Christie created her most famous and long-lived character in Hercule Poirot, a Belgian detective who appeared in 33 of her novels, one play, and more than 50 short stories published between 1920 and 1975. The Poirot series has been on TV, in movies, and on the radio. Numerous actors have played the famous sleuth, but the one we're most familiar with is David Suchet.







  I've tried to watch the BBC productions of Poirot's exploits, but, believe me, they're so long and boring they make reading the telephone directory a welcome respite.

Anyway, something on TV caught my short attention span one night and that was the night I almost fell out of my chair. And thereby hangs a tale.

"In the Steps of St. Paul" is the name of the two part TV series that I thought might be interesting, not only because of its subject matter, but also because the narrator and main participant of the documentary is none other than David Suchet.

As the documentary begins, Suchet tells us that he's been interested in Paul for 25 years, ever since that night in a hotel room that he picked up a Bible and read the book of Romans. From there on, he's been captivated by its author, even to the point of wanting to play him in a movie. It was because of this enchantment with Paul that he decided to go where Paul was born and where Paul traveled to see if he could learn more about "the man who changed Western Civilization."

The viewer learns that Paul, born in Tarsus in Turkey traveled 10,000 miles to evangelize and plant churches all over the place. So, we find Suchet in Jerusalem, Turkey, Tarsus, and other places Paul visited, walking on the same Roman roads Paul traveled.

Suchet says that he wants to learn why Saul became the Paul we know and admire. To do this, he doesn't go to the Bible, but to a psychologist over there who sheds his "light" on what made Saul into Paul, something like, he intoned, an identity crisis.

Of course Suchet has to bring up the subject of Saul's Damascus road experience which he calls one of the most fabulous accounts in literature--the desert, the blinding light, the conversion. But then he says, "I want to find out what really happened [on the road to Damascus]. We now know that Suchet doesn't accept the Bible's "most fabulous account" as to what really happened. He offers no evidence that the Damascus road experience didn't really happen, but just moves on to some psychological dumbo-jumbo about being out in a desert and whatnot as the reason. I guess he thinks it was the heat out there in the desert.

The thing is Suchet wasn't on the Damascus road at the time, yet he has the arrogance to say that it didn't happen. This would be like someone saying to me, "You weren't kidnapped when you were in the second grade and you, a child, certainly didn't fight off your knife-wielding kidnapper, a grown man, and escape from his car. Now tell me what really happened." My answer would start with, "You weren't there; how do you know what did and did not happen?"

Moving on into the documentary, we hear not only from psychologists, but also from learned clerics, professors, historians, and archeologists. And then it happens! Enter Dr. Helen Bond of the University of Edinborough for an interview with David Suchet. During the course of the interview, I (not literally) fell out of my chair.

Dr. Bond said, "Paul was saying, 'You don't have to be circumcised. You didn't have to keep the Law; Paul was saying to the gentiles that all you need is to believe in what God has done through Jesus, [that is] the cross and the resurrection and faith in that is going to save you."

Wow!

Right there, right smack in the middle of Episode 1 of this documentary, we've just heard a presentation of grace, a presentation of the gospel! And David Suchet doesn't even know that's what's just happened in the middle of his documentary. He just goes right on talking, zooming by Dr. Bond's remark to say, "Paul broke all the rules." He's just heard the most astounding news of grace, and it bounces off his stony heart like the seed in the parable of the Sower.

But now, here's the most interesting part of the documentary: Dr. Helen Bond doesn't believe the gospel either! She gave it so clearly, so succinctly that I can hear some pastors out there saying, "I wish those in our congregation understood the gospel as clearly as she does and I wish they could state it as well as she does."

How do we know she's lost? Read her books and you learn that she believes that Jesus' tomb was empty, but that Joseph moved the body to an unknown and unmarked location. She thinks that we don't have the words Jesus really said and we'll never have them. She thinks our Lord was only an apocalyptic prophet, mentored by John the Baptist. Where did all that come from? (Take a read of II Cor. 4:4)

The Holy Spirit was at work in Suchet's life 25 years ago when he picked up a Bible and read the book of Romans. The Holy Spirit is at work in Bond's life as she reads Paul's words and understands the gospel. Yet, thus far, they've said, "No." But the Holy Spirit has been at His John 16 task. It's for us to cooperate with Him in that task.

 

THE PARAGRAPH THAT WILL NOT DIE

Ah, history. Conservative syndicated columnist George Will said that if he ever becomes King of the United States, the first thing he'd do would be to pass a law that every one who enters college must major in history. Smart man. I'm glad I did.

Harry Truman said, "The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know." That statement takes us aback doesn't it? Worthy of food for thought. Like Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Yet a student can go through college today and never have to take a single history course and the powers that be will graduate him magna cum laude. Talk about the dumbing down of America!

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY

A case in point is historian David McCullough's story about a test given to college students in which one of the questions asked for the name of the general at a famous battle in the Revolutionary War. The question was multiple choice and the correct answer was "George Washington," but the answer most chosen by the students was "Douglas MacArthur." Good grief!

Speaking of history and the only thing that's new in this world is the history you don't know, Tacitus was an ancient Roman historian who wrote about the lives of the early Caesars in his book, the "Annals" (ca.109 AD). He's writing just after the time of the Apostles. In the paragraph below, he's talking about the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero. He's writing about the rumor in Rome that Nero set the fire. (See if you spot some names with which you're familiar.)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he had started the conflagration], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. 

"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

No doubt you noticed the names other than Nero. He wrote of "Christus," who, as the Bible reports, "suffered the extreme penalty," i. e. crucifixion. You probably noted the graphic way the early Christians suffered for the faith. We see that, just as the book of Acts says, Christianity had spread to Rome itself. We see that Christians were "hated by the populace," and as we read that statement, we remember John 15:19 (q. v.) 

THE PHOBES

Did you note that the Christians were convicted, as Tacitus said, ". . . not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." This sounds like today's newspapers, movies, TV shows, and talk shows. Is not this the very charge against Christians in the now? Christians are "homophobes," they charge. "Christians are filled with hate," they say. They charge the church with being filled with xenophobes, phobes all over the place. Name something bad and the church has a "phobe" for it.

Movies and TV shows often portray members of the clergy and Christians as hating others. One television program showed a group from a Bible study even stoning a fellow teenager to death. Come on, have you ever known or heard of a group of kids in a Bible study stoning someone? Talk about a far-fetched plot! Yet this comes close to the conception the world has of Christians, that if we could get away with it, we'd be stoning people to death.

A QUIVER FULL OF STRATEGIES

We see from Tacitus that Satan has kept this strategy of portraying Christians as haters of mankind going for a long, long time. It's the paragraph that will not die. We still hear it as it echoes from 109 AD.

BUT THIS IS WHERE YOU COME IN

But how different is the Christian filled with the Spirit, submissive to the Word! Why, he's filled with love, joy, peace,forbearance, kindness, goodness,faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. His passion is for the salvation of others through faith alone in Christ alone. His heat beat is for those with whom he comes into contact to follow Jesus after their trusting Him. 

The Bible Christian is as inclusive as the gospel--whosoever will may come, as Isaiah says, “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost." (55:1)

I don't see "hate" in there at all.