I want to propose an experiment: Let's lock up notable political conservatives Wait a minute. Give me an opportunity to explain the reason. Here we go:
Let's lock up Ben Shapiro, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson (he and I graduated from the same high school), John Stossel, Clint Fargeau, Robert Jeffress, and Anne Colter. (You may have a different list; it makes no difference.) In the experiment, we're locking each one in a separate cell and we're giving each one a typewriter and reams of paper, all the paper they'll need for what we want them to do for our experiment.
The next thing we do is that we go into each cell with these instructions: "We want you to produce an essay titled, 'My Political Philosophy.' Let us know when you're finished. Have a nice day."
What do you suppose we'd find when they're all finished? We'd find fundamental disagreements on both political and ethical issues all across the board.
As we read the political treatise of each one, we'd note that Kevin Williamson wrote an article about Donald Trump titled, "Witless Ape Rides Escalator. " Jonah Goldberg wrote an article with the headline, "Our Nation is Paying for Trump's Refusal to be Presidential."
However, Fargeau wrote an article in which he said, "The president has proven himself in spades, demonstrating the courage to stand up to Democrat intimidation and frame-ups again and again." In the article, Fargeau called Kevin Williamson a "fool," citing Proverbs 18:2.
Ann Coulter wrote about a national emergency, "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.” But conservative pastor Robert Jeffress "defends President Donald Trump, . . . he doesn't simply defend
Trump—he defends him with one carefully crafted Bible-wrapped barb after another, and with more passion, more preparation, more devotion than anyone else in television interviews."
What about John Stossel's viewpoint? "When John Stossel, who interviewed Trump . . . for
ABC News accused Trump of bullying, Trump retorted, off-camera,
“Nobody talks to me that way!”
"But “someone should,” Stossel answered."
Stossel opposes laws against pornography, marijuana, recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution, polygamy, assisted suicide, and believes that most abortions should be legal. One could bet that Jeffress would beg to differ.
What's the point? Those aforementioned conservatives are contemporaneous. They have ample opportunities to discuss issues with each other and reflect on each other's viewpoint yet they contradict one another across the board, even if you let them consult with one another, the disagreements in the finished work would be ever-abounding.
Forty different authors wrote the Bible without consulting with each other while living in different places and most of them in different times, coming from different occupations which ran the gamut from a tax collector to a king, to fishermen, to being a former Pharisee and their finished product was complete, connected, and without contradiction. And to top it all off, their collected works were about the most controversial subject of them all: God. Yet, their final product was without error.
What if we asked the above contemporary conservative authors to write about God? What an unmitigated mess that would be!
Enough said!
WITHOUT COST
Friday, January 31, 2020
Friday, January 24, 2020
THAT VISIT TO DEATH ROW
THAT VISIT TO DEATH ROW
Every time he got the chance, Dr. Mike Adams used his break between semesters to take a trip through Mississippi where he was born, and then back to Texas where he grew up. Visiting friends and family and seeing his old childhood homes gave him a chance to think about where he was going by reflecting on where he’d been. That year’s road trip happened to end on December 30th, which was the 20th anniversary of an important milestone in a larger personal journey. It was the day he interviewed John Paul Penry on Texas’ death row just a few miles from his parents’ house thirteen days before his scheduled execution.
John Paul Penry was a rapist and killer. His first conviction put him in prison, but he was paroled after only two years. While on parole, he committed the same crime, which concluded with the murder of the young victim, beating her so that he burst both her kidneys. He killed her by shoving a pair of scissors into her heart. He was later convicted and sentenced to die.
After Penry’s case went through the justice system for twenty years, his execution was reset for the third and what appeared to be the final time. When Adams expressed interest in interviewing Penry prior to his execution, it wasn’t hard to make the arrangements.
His goal was simple when he arrived on death row on that second to last morning of the 20th century. He wanted to gather information so he could do a better job of teaching the case to his students. He had been teaching the Penry v. Lynaugh ruling for several years because it addressed constitutional and philosophical questions. He had no idea that the interview would affect him so personally.
After he gathered the information he was seeking, he stood up and placed his hand on the glass in order to do the death row handshake with Penry – as he placed his hand on the other side of the glass. Then something odd happened. Shortly after telling Adams he was scared of being executed, he recited John 3:16.
Adams asked Penry if he had read the Bible. He said that after learning how to read and write on death row, he had read the entire Bible over the course of his years as a condemned man.
It was difficult for Dr. Adams to feel at ease knowing that a convicted murderer and rapist had read the Bible while he had not. Adams was already a tenured professor. How could he call myself educated having not read the most important book in print?
He decided that he was going to go home, buy a Bible, and read it from cover to cover in the coming year, taking 6 months off to read six apologetic books as he worked his way through the KJV. When he finished, he was convinced of its truth, converted, and became the only Christian in a department full of tenured Marxists. He had gone there on a mission to help save John Penry from death but ended up being the one who had his death sentence commuted.
He concluded that if John Paul Penry can be used by God, then so can we. He advises other believers: "Don’t wallow in self-pity. Get over yourself, and get to work. Know that you are still valuable, and you are still needed in doing the work of reaching lost souls."
Every time he got the chance, Dr. Mike Adams used his break between semesters to take a trip through Mississippi where he was born, and then back to Texas where he grew up. Visiting friends and family and seeing his old childhood homes gave him a chance to think about where he was going by reflecting on where he’d been. That year’s road trip happened to end on December 30th, which was the 20th anniversary of an important milestone in a larger personal journey. It was the day he interviewed John Paul Penry on Texas’ death row just a few miles from his parents’ house thirteen days before his scheduled execution.
John Paul Penry was a rapist and killer. His first conviction put him in prison, but he was paroled after only two years. While on parole, he committed the same crime, which concluded with the murder of the young victim, beating her so that he burst both her kidneys. He killed her by shoving a pair of scissors into her heart. He was later convicted and sentenced to die.
After Penry’s case went through the justice system for twenty years, his execution was reset for the third and what appeared to be the final time. When Adams expressed interest in interviewing Penry prior to his execution, it wasn’t hard to make the arrangements.
His goal was simple when he arrived on death row on that second to last morning of the 20th century. He wanted to gather information so he could do a better job of teaching the case to his students. He had been teaching the Penry v. Lynaugh ruling for several years because it addressed constitutional and philosophical questions. He had no idea that the interview would affect him so personally.
After he gathered the information he was seeking, he stood up and placed his hand on the glass in order to do the death row handshake with Penry – as he placed his hand on the other side of the glass. Then something odd happened. Shortly after telling Adams he was scared of being executed, he recited John 3:16.
Adams asked Penry if he had read the Bible. He said that after learning how to read and write on death row, he had read the entire Bible over the course of his years as a condemned man.
It was difficult for Dr. Adams to feel at ease knowing that a convicted murderer and rapist had read the Bible while he had not. Adams was already a tenured professor. How could he call myself educated having not read the most important book in print?
He decided that he was going to go home, buy a Bible, and read it from cover to cover in the coming year, taking 6 months off to read six apologetic books as he worked his way through the KJV. When he finished, he was convinced of its truth, converted, and became the only Christian in a department full of tenured Marxists. He had gone there on a mission to help save John Penry from death but ended up being the one who had his death sentence commuted.
He concluded that if John Paul Penry can be used by God, then so can we. He advises other believers: "Don’t wallow in self-pity. Get over yourself, and get to work. Know that you are still valuable, and you are still needed in doing the work of reaching lost souls."
Friday, January 17, 2020
THE ANGRY PROFESSOR
THE ANGRY PROFESSOR
On November 10, 2010, Professor Richard Quinn stands before his class in the School of Business Administration at the University of Central Florida. The students had previously finished their midterm exams and they're expecting to hear a lecture that day. But such is not to be.
Quinn began by saying that he’d taught for 20 years and that today, he was going to give a lecture he’d hoped he would never have to give. He said that a student had anonymously notified him that there had been cheating on the midterm exam, that students had gotten the questions prior to taking the test. (As Professor Quinn had graded the tests, he’d become suspicious that something was wrong because the grades were one and one-half times higher than the midterms of all previous years.)
He estimated that 200 students in the class were involved in the scandal. Not only that, but reports had also come to him that students were bragging about having advance knowledge of the exam and of the high scores they made. He told the class, “We know who you are and we know where you are. The midterm exam will be tossed; everyone in the class will retake it.”
He gave a time period that the students would have--a fifty-hour time period to come in and take the exam. He said, "There would be no excuses for not taking the exam except a note from God. Even if you have to give birth during the exam, you are still required to be present and accounted for and take it."
Quinn told them that he’d notified the ethics committee, the Business Administration faculty, the dean, and 20 other universities as to the cheating. He went on to tell them that the university was going to protect its integrity; that such behavior would not be tolerated.
Then, speaking personally, he told the students, “To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement. I’m physically ill. I’m disillusioned. I’m disgusted. I’m trying to figure out what my last 20 years [of teaching] were for.”
Then, in the strongest words of them all, he was so offended by their cheating, he slowly said, “To those of you who cheated . . . don’t call me . . . don’t ask me to do anything for you . . . ever.”
That was some strong statement, something the students needed to hear. But what he said raises a serious issue. Those students, when they leave his class, will attend other classes, many of them in the Department of Arts and Sciences, courses like English, epistemology, and philosophy. In those classes, their professors will teach them that absolute truth doesn’t exist, yet in the School of Business Administration, Professor Quinn and all the other faculty members proceeded to punish them as if absolute truth does exist, that cheating will not be tolerated at their institution because cheating is wrong.
But if truth is relative depending on the person, the culture, and the times, who’s to say what’s right and wrong? Who is to punish students if absolute right and absolute wrong do not exist? Their other classes will teach them that each individual has “his truth,” that "You have your truth and I have mine, all is relative," they learn.
The denial of absolute truth catches fallen man in a trap: logically, according to his denial, he should make no moral judgments, because a moral judgment of what’s right and what’s wrong can’t be based on “That’s the way I feel about it.” The next person could say, “I feel exactly the opposite.”
The trap is sprung: he can’t make judgment calls on the basis of relativism, but he has to do just that. He can't live without doing so.
On November 10, 2010, Professor Richard Quinn stands before his class in the School of Business Administration at the University of Central Florida. The students had previously finished their midterm exams and they're expecting to hear a lecture that day. But such is not to be.
Quinn began by saying that he’d taught for 20 years and that today, he was going to give a lecture he’d hoped he would never have to give. He said that a student had anonymously notified him that there had been cheating on the midterm exam, that students had gotten the questions prior to taking the test. (As Professor Quinn had graded the tests, he’d become suspicious that something was wrong because the grades were one and one-half times higher than the midterms of all previous years.)
He estimated that 200 students in the class were involved in the scandal. Not only that, but reports had also come to him that students were bragging about having advance knowledge of the exam and of the high scores they made. He told the class, “We know who you are and we know where you are. The midterm exam will be tossed; everyone in the class will retake it.”
He gave a time period that the students would have--a fifty-hour time period to come in and take the exam. He said, "There would be no excuses for not taking the exam except a note from God. Even if you have to give birth during the exam, you are still required to be present and accounted for and take it."
Quinn told them that he’d notified the ethics committee, the Business Administration faculty, the dean, and 20 other universities as to the cheating. He went on to tell them that the university was going to protect its integrity; that such behavior would not be tolerated.
Then, speaking personally, he told the students, “To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement. I’m physically ill. I’m disillusioned. I’m disgusted. I’m trying to figure out what my last 20 years [of teaching] were for.”
Then, in the strongest words of them all, he was so offended by their cheating, he slowly said, “To those of you who cheated . . . don’t call me . . . don’t ask me to do anything for you . . . ever.”
That was some strong statement, something the students needed to hear. But what he said raises a serious issue. Those students, when they leave his class, will attend other classes, many of them in the Department of Arts and Sciences, courses like English, epistemology, and philosophy. In those classes, their professors will teach them that absolute truth doesn’t exist, yet in the School of Business Administration, Professor Quinn and all the other faculty members proceeded to punish them as if absolute truth does exist, that cheating will not be tolerated at their institution because cheating is wrong.
But if truth is relative depending on the person, the culture, and the times, who’s to say what’s right and wrong? Who is to punish students if absolute right and absolute wrong do not exist? Their other classes will teach them that each individual has “his truth,” that "You have your truth and I have mine, all is relative," they learn.
The denial of absolute truth catches fallen man in a trap: logically, according to his denial, he should make no moral judgments, because a moral judgment of what’s right and what’s wrong can’t be based on “That’s the way I feel about it.” The next person could say, “I feel exactly the opposite.”
The trap is sprung: he can’t make judgment calls on the basis of relativism, but he has to do just that. He can't live without doing so.
Friday, January 10, 2020
WHO ARE YOU?
“I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.”
―
Francois Mauriac wrote, "Tell me what you read and I’ll tell you who you are is true enough, but I’d know you better if you told me what you reread.”
When we spend 20 minutes scrolling down our Facebook feed, we’re reading. When we choose to click on an enticing title from a questionable news source, we’re reading. When we browse without reason, we’re reading. The only difference is that that kind of reading isn’t intentional. Reading shouldn’t be something that happens to us. It should be something that we actively do. It should be done with intent."
Then there's this study:
"Readers who identify with fictional characters [in a book] are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, new data shows. Researchers at Ohio State University say bookworms have been shown to adopt the feelings, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses of fictional characters they relate to in a phenomenon called 'experience-taking'." (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)
―
Francois Mauriac wrote, "Tell me what you read and I’ll tell you who you are is true enough, but I’d know you better if you told me what you reread.”
When we spend 20 minutes scrolling down our Facebook feed, we’re reading. When we choose to click on an enticing title from a questionable news source, we’re reading. When we browse without reason, we’re reading. The only difference is that that kind of reading isn’t intentional. Reading shouldn’t be something that happens to us. It should be something that we actively do. It should be done with intent."
Then there's this study:
"Readers who identify with fictional characters [in a book] are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, new data shows. Researchers at Ohio State University say bookworms have been shown to adopt the feelings, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses of fictional characters they relate to in a phenomenon called 'experience-taking'." (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)
THE GENERAL, THE PRIESTS, AND PAUL
What does the Bible say about reading? God commanded Joshua to be a reader: Joshua 1:8: "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate
on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all
that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and
then you will have success." We see in that command that a result of reading is "doing." What we read influences what we do.
When Israel comes to have a monarchy, the king had these specific instructions: "Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes."
And there were these instructions from Moses to the priests: "When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing."
Paul instructed Timothy: "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching." To the Thessalonicans, Paul wrote, "I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren."
YEAH, YEAH . . . BUT
"Yeah, yeah, yeah," someone may be thinking, as if reading and you-are-what-you-read are of no consequence to him, to his kith, or to his kin. But he's tragically mistaken. Look no further than our universities and ask, "Who's the most frequently assigned author in books on philosophy in American college classrooms?' The answer . . . Karl Marx.
Wait. What? Karl Marx the author of a philosophical movement that killed 100 million people in the 20th century? By such an assignment, we see that there's no stigma attached to Marx; in fact, his philosophy holds "a position of high esteem in academic, journalistic, and intellectual circles." (Philip W. Magness) This helps explain, in part, why socialism has gained such standing among students today--they have become what they're reading. No surprise there. And what they're reading is dangerous to themselves and others, others such as us.
Thus the question: "What are you reading?"
Friday, January 3, 2020
TAKE GLENN BECK, PLEASE!
There was once a comedian who was famous for his one-liners, many of them aimed at his wife Sadie (but all in good fun). For example, Henny Youngman would say, "My wife
said to me, 'For our anniversary I want to go somewhere I've never been
before.' I said, 'Try the kitchen!'", or, "Last night my wife said the weather outside was fit for
neither man nor beast, so we both stayed home." But the joke he's most remembered for is, "Take my wife, please!" It was said of Youngman, "He could make the Sphinx crack a smile.
But it's no joke when we say, "Take Glenn Beck, please!" Why do we say that and what do we mean? We see Bible-believing Christians rallying around Glenn Beck because of his politics. But before we get to the Bible and its statements on that subject, let's look at the man himself.
"As a prerequisite for his second marriage, his wife-to-be insisted that they find a church they could attend as a family, and so they embarked on a church [I use the word advisedly] tour. That landed them at the Church [I use the word advisedly] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Beck gets teary when he talks about his baptism and how joining the church turned his life and his career around, and it’s clearly a huge part of his life.
"In at least one segment on his Fox News show, he attempted to prove the Book of Mormon true through scientific evidence. And in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, he spent an episode on his online video show dispelling common Mormon myths and attempting to show that his faith–and that of the Republican nominee and Mormon Mitt Romney–was just as normal and mainstream as any other common sect of Christianity." (Caitlyn Frye)
Sandra Tanner, who left the Latter Day Saints and became a Christian and is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second prophet [I use the word advisedly] of the Mormon Church, said, "In June of 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the president of the church at that time, said, 'The traditional Christ of whom they, meaning the Christians, speak, is not the Christ of whom I speak.'
"Now, why isn’t it the same Christ? Because the Christ of the Bible has eternally been God. He’s never been less than He is today. And yet Jesus of Mormonism is one of a whole string of gods. His father, Heavenly Father, had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus in Mormonism has not always been God. This is something he achieved. It is the goal of every Mormon man to someday achieve godhood the same as Jesus did, the same as Jesus’ father did."
Therefore Mormonism is not Christianity; it is opposed to Christianity's fundamental doctrine of who Jesus is and what He did. Yet, in April 2014, Liberty University invited Mormon Glenn Beck to preach to its students at its compulsory convocation, handing out $10 fines to residential students who didn’t have a good reason for not attending. (During his speech to the students, he talked about his and their joint reverence for the "Scriptures." Notice that he said, "the Scriptures," plural," a statement that most would think, "He's talking about the Bible." But he wasn't because by "the Scriptures," he meant the Bible AND the Book of Mormon, AND the Doctrine and Covenants, AND the Pearl of Great Price. No wonder he used the plural. But that's being deceptive because Christianity's definition of "the Scriptures" differs from his definition.)
Let's take another example of Bible-believing Christians rallying around various national heroes because of their political philosophy, i. e. the consequentialist. A consequentialist "believes that what matters is not the truth or falsehood of Christianity but the consequences of Christian belief — that those consequences will make people happier, make them better citizens, making them more likely to lead moral lives, making for happier families, etc." (Definition from Kevin Williamson)
One of the problems with the consequentialist view is that what they're advocating, according to their logic, is to believe a lie so you can be a better person, a better citizen, and so you can vote like they do. But that's neither internally consistent nor sustainable.
What's needed is the biblical perspective. To have that, we ask the question, "What does the Bible say is our first priority, the most important information there is? We don't have to look very hard to find the answer. It's in I Corinthians 15: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, . . ."
Paul also instructs us that anyone who does not declare the good news he preached is to be considered "anathema." Instead, we find Bible-believing Christians allying themselves about whom Christ said, "He that is not with Me is against Me."
Paul says, "he [the one preaching a different gospel is to be accursed." As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" To give such ones a platform on which to speak, to give such ones a standing ovation, to punish those who refuse to listen is to marginalize the importance of the gospel. (Cf. Titus 1: "For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach . . ." Such a one isn't to be rallied around, supported, nor given a platform in our churches.
Dr. J. B. Hixson put it this way during an interview with "The Berean Call:" "We need to ask ourselves, 'Is this person really promoting the good news about Jesus Christ and how a person can have eternal life or are they undermining the gospel?' And one of the biggest problems with working together and sort of—you know, ecumenical movements, or working together for the well-being of all is that it marginalizes what really matters the most.
Dr. Hixson went on to say, "I can give an example: people will say, 'This guy is great—he’s written a great book about how to manage your money,' or, 'He’s written a great, fantastic book about marriage,' or, 'This guy’s written a great book about how to have your best life now,' but they’re wrong when it comes to the gospel."
"They’re wrong when it comes to what matters most. People have been conditioned to compartmentalize and say, 'Oh, well, that doesn’t matter. This is still really good stuff.' But I go back to what Paul said in Galatians 1, 'If you’re not preaching the right gospel, you’re anathema!'
"Anathema – literally, 'comes under strict judgment.' We need to be honest when we talk about these people that are promoting so-called good causes but they’re wrong on the gospel, I think we should say, 'Hey, I’ve got a great book to recommend for you. This guy has a lot to say about how to have your best life now. The Bible calls him ‘anathema,’ but other than that, he’s pretty good!' It just doesn’t make sense."
The question is, what is to be our first priority, political philosophy to the point it becomes our religion or the gospel? The answer is in I Corinthians 15.
But it's no joke when we say, "Take Glenn Beck, please!" Why do we say that and what do we mean? We see Bible-believing Christians rallying around Glenn Beck because of his politics. But before we get to the Bible and its statements on that subject, let's look at the man himself.
"As a prerequisite for his second marriage, his wife-to-be insisted that they find a church they could attend as a family, and so they embarked on a church [I use the word advisedly] tour. That landed them at the Church [I use the word advisedly] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Beck gets teary when he talks about his baptism and how joining the church turned his life and his career around, and it’s clearly a huge part of his life.
'I do what I do because of my faith. I say the things I do. . . because of my faith. Because of my faith I am not afraid. It’s why I do have hope.'"He claims he didn’t talk about his faith on his shows for a long time, and still doesn’t talk about it much, because he’s not the model Mormon. But when it comes down to it, he talks about it quite a bit.
"In at least one segment on his Fox News show, he attempted to prove the Book of Mormon true through scientific evidence. And in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, he spent an episode on his online video show dispelling common Mormon myths and attempting to show that his faith–and that of the Republican nominee and Mormon Mitt Romney–was just as normal and mainstream as any other common sect of Christianity." (Caitlyn Frye)
Sandra Tanner, who left the Latter Day Saints and became a Christian and is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second prophet [I use the word advisedly] of the Mormon Church, said, "In June of 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the president of the church at that time, said, 'The traditional Christ of whom they, meaning the Christians, speak, is not the Christ of whom I speak.'
"Now, why isn’t it the same Christ? Because the Christ of the Bible has eternally been God. He’s never been less than He is today. And yet Jesus of Mormonism is one of a whole string of gods. His father, Heavenly Father, had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus in Mormonism has not always been God. This is something he achieved. It is the goal of every Mormon man to someday achieve godhood the same as Jesus did, the same as Jesus’ father did."
Therefore Mormonism is not Christianity; it is opposed to Christianity's fundamental doctrine of who Jesus is and what He did. Yet, in April 2014, Liberty University invited Mormon Glenn Beck to preach to its students at its compulsory convocation, handing out $10 fines to residential students who didn’t have a good reason for not attending. (During his speech to the students, he talked about his and their joint reverence for the "Scriptures." Notice that he said, "the Scriptures," plural," a statement that most would think, "He's talking about the Bible." But he wasn't because by "the Scriptures," he meant the Bible AND the Book of Mormon, AND the Doctrine and Covenants, AND the Pearl of Great Price. No wonder he used the plural. But that's being deceptive because Christianity's definition of "the Scriptures" differs from his definition.)
Let's take another example of Bible-believing Christians rallying around various national heroes because of their political philosophy, i. e. the consequentialist. A consequentialist "believes that what matters is not the truth or falsehood of Christianity but the consequences of Christian belief — that those consequences will make people happier, make them better citizens, making them more likely to lead moral lives, making for happier families, etc." (Definition from Kevin Williamson)
One of the problems with the consequentialist view is that what they're advocating, according to their logic, is to believe a lie so you can be a better person, a better citizen, and so you can vote like they do. But that's neither internally consistent nor sustainable.
What's needed is the biblical perspective. To have that, we ask the question, "What does the Bible say is our first priority, the most important information there is? We don't have to look very hard to find the answer. It's in I Corinthians 15: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, . . ."
Paul also instructs us that anyone who does not declare the good news he preached is to be considered "anathema." Instead, we find Bible-believing Christians allying themselves about whom Christ said, "He that is not with Me is against Me."
Paul says, "he [the one preaching a different gospel is to be accursed." As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" To give such ones a platform on which to speak, to give such ones a standing ovation, to punish those who refuse to listen is to marginalize the importance of the gospel. (Cf. Titus 1: "For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach . . ." Such a one isn't to be rallied around, supported, nor given a platform in our churches.
Dr. J. B. Hixson put it this way during an interview with "The Berean Call:" "We need to ask ourselves, 'Is this person really promoting the good news about Jesus Christ and how a person can have eternal life or are they undermining the gospel?' And one of the biggest problems with working together and sort of—you know, ecumenical movements, or working together for the well-being of all is that it marginalizes what really matters the most.
Dr. Hixson went on to say, "I can give an example: people will say, 'This guy is great—he’s written a great book about how to manage your money,' or, 'He’s written a great, fantastic book about marriage,' or, 'This guy’s written a great book about how to have your best life now,' but they’re wrong when it comes to the gospel."
"They’re wrong when it comes to what matters most. People have been conditioned to compartmentalize and say, 'Oh, well, that doesn’t matter. This is still really good stuff.' But I go back to what Paul said in Galatians 1, 'If you’re not preaching the right gospel, you’re anathema!'
"Anathema – literally, 'comes under strict judgment.' We need to be honest when we talk about these people that are promoting so-called good causes but they’re wrong on the gospel, I think we should say, 'Hey, I’ve got a great book to recommend for you. This guy has a lot to say about how to have your best life now. The Bible calls him ‘anathema,’ but other than that, he’s pretty good!' It just doesn’t make sense."
The question is, what is to be our first priority, political philosophy to the point it becomes our religion or the gospel? The answer is in I Corinthians 15.
Friday, December 27, 2019
A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION
A professor of theology made an astute observation when he said that Calvinists read only their own books and works, but don't read the opposition's. If they did, they'd run into questions that are very difficult, albeit it, impossible to answer. Before we get to one of those questions, let's back up.
WAIT. WHAT?
The Calvinist says that fallen man is so depraved that he has to 1) be regenerated by God, and then 2) be given the gift of faith by God to believe in Christ. That's what R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries says: "Where does that faith come from? And this question probably more than any other is what defines the essence of reformed theology. If there’s one phrase that captures the essence of reformed theology, it is the little phrase, regeneration precedes faith."
To the Calvinist's way of thinking, God chose to regenerate you, but you have no idea why; He chose you as one of the ones He regenerated and to whom He gave the faith to believe, that leaves billions and billions He chose not to regenerate and therefore, to be consigned to the Lake of Fire.
HOLD ON!
Yet, we read of God's desire: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9) Yet, according to the Calvinist, in spite of His desire that none should perish, He deliberately chose billions to do just that, perish. This means that God chose to do something against His will. What?
Gordon Olson, a non-Calvinistic scholar, writes: ". . . Calvinists put the new birth before faith, since they believe that spiritually dead humans cannot exercise faith and, therefore, need to be born again before they can believe.”
There are (at least) two Scriptures which rise up to smite this teaching that regeneration precedes faith: Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Faith comes by hearing; faith does not therefore, come by being regenerated.
We find the second text in Acts 16:29-31: "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
"And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your house.'"
Paul's answer was not, "Be regenerated and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ."
HOW DID THEY GET THERE?
So, why does the Calvinist say, "Regeneration precedes faith?" Because the system that he's imposing on the Bible is forcing him to do it. It's not that he's found a verse that says, "Regeneration precedes faith." The part of his system that's making him do that is the first part of Calvinism, "Total Depravity," which he pushes way, way too far.
THE QUESTION
So, we proceed and pose the question: According to the Calvinist position as stated above, "How does one know if his faith is the faith given by God, or his own faith, one not given by God, which would then be a spurious faith?" How does he tell the difference?
If the reply is, "His works will show it," then "How many works, of what quality must they be, and how long must they be done?"
The result is that the believer has lost his assurance of salvation, a salvation God wants the believer to know he possesses: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that ye have eternal life . . ." (I John 5:13) He's lost his assurance because he can't know in this life if God were the One who gave him the faith, or if the faith came from himself.
WAIT. WHAT?
The Calvinist says that fallen man is so depraved that he has to 1) be regenerated by God, and then 2) be given the gift of faith by God to believe in Christ. That's what R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries says: "Where does that faith come from? And this question probably more than any other is what defines the essence of reformed theology. If there’s one phrase that captures the essence of reformed theology, it is the little phrase, regeneration precedes faith."
To the Calvinist's way of thinking, God chose to regenerate you, but you have no idea why; He chose you as one of the ones He regenerated and to whom He gave the faith to believe, that leaves billions and billions He chose not to regenerate and therefore, to be consigned to the Lake of Fire.
HOLD ON!
Yet, we read of God's desire: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9) Yet, according to the Calvinist, in spite of His desire that none should perish, He deliberately chose billions to do just that, perish. This means that God chose to do something against His will. What?
Gordon Olson, a non-Calvinistic scholar, writes: ". . . Calvinists put the new birth before faith, since they believe that spiritually dead humans cannot exercise faith and, therefore, need to be born again before they can believe.”
There are (at least) two Scriptures which rise up to smite this teaching that regeneration precedes faith: Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Faith comes by hearing; faith does not therefore, come by being regenerated.
We find the second text in Acts 16:29-31: "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
"And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your house.'"
Paul's answer was not, "Be regenerated and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ."
HOW DID THEY GET THERE?
So, why does the Calvinist say, "Regeneration precedes faith?" Because the system that he's imposing on the Bible is forcing him to do it. It's not that he's found a verse that says, "Regeneration precedes faith." The part of his system that's making him do that is the first part of Calvinism, "Total Depravity," which he pushes way, way too far.
THE QUESTION
So, we proceed and pose the question: According to the Calvinist position as stated above, "How does one know if his faith is the faith given by God, or his own faith, one not given by God, which would then be a spurious faith?" How does he tell the difference?
If the reply is, "His works will show it," then "How many works, of what quality must they be, and how long must they be done?"
The result is that the believer has lost his assurance of salvation, a salvation God wants the believer to know he possesses: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that ye have eternal life . . ." (I John 5:13) He's lost his assurance because he can't know in this life if God were the One who gave him the faith, or if the faith came from himself.
Friday, December 20, 2019
WHY PASTORS DON'T TEACH PROPHECY
Prophecy conferences? Where are they? Biblical teaching on prophecy? Why aren't we hearing it? The whole field of eschatology, where'd it go? Better yet, why did it leave the building?
Listen to one pastor when he's asked about why he doesn't say anything about prophecy: "People ask me why I don't preach more on prophecy. I say, 'Why? Nobody knows. I could get up here and make some good guesses but they'd all be speculation. Jesus said, 'Nobody knows when it's going to happen.'” (Rick Warren)
But prophecy doesn't have to be speculation. One quarter to one-third of the pages of the Bible are on prophecy; teaching prophecy is part of preaching the whole counsel of God. People who are asking about prophecy are asking about the rapture, God's future for Israel, the Great Tribulation, the anti-Christ, and the aspects of the millennial kingdom. Those knowledgable aren't asking him to set a day, month, and year for any of those.
The truth is that he, like a host of other pastors, avoid prophecy. The cause of that avoidance appears to lie deeper. Let's examine why.
To teach prophecy would mean that their sermons wouldn't lead to touchy-feely-all-is going-to-come- up-roses-presentations. That's because prophecy tells us that world conditions are going to get worse, much worse (II Tim. 3:13). Prophecy tells us that the world is going to grow progressively more and more hostile to the faith and those who hold it, hostile to the point of "If they hated Me (Christ), they will hate you." Prophecy tells us that the church will not emerge triumphant.
And to teach those things would be the death knell of what Warren has proposed in his "PEACE plan." The PEACE plan is his call for a billion people from the churches to unite to bring an end to various "giants," those problems so complex and ingrained that "even the United Nations can't solve them, but the church united can." Really?
Two of those giants the UN can't solve are poverty and ignorance. But, to borrow the words of a famous politician, "Yes, we [in this case the untied church with the PEACE plan] can!" Under the PEACE plan, the church can do eliminate those giants from the face of the earth with its billion slingshots. But check out Matthew 26:11.
But biblical prophecy says, "No you can't." Prophecy tells us that the church will sink into apostasy. Prophecy says that only the Second Advent of Jesus Christ will bring about that kind of environment, it also tells us that no human government, no election, and certainly not the church will do so.
Warren and others like him are presenting the church as the answer to solve the world's problems; the Bible tells us that without Jesus Christ's coming back to the earth there will be no answer to these problems, they'll only increase.
In spite of all the pep rallies to whip up the troops by well-known pastors, the church has no command to transform the world or even to try to transform the world Such pep rallies calling on believers to get there and change the world may get the troops all fired up for an hour or two but then, when the pulsating music and the sermons are over and the Christian is facing the fallen world, the reality hits: we're not going to reverse the curse. There's no way for the church or a government to get us back to Eden.
Now we can see why any pastor who falls in line with the PEACE plan won't teach prophecy: it doesn't fit with the plan, in fact, it's diametrically opposed to the plan. Prophecy doesn't jive with rah-rah-feel-good-and-get-out-there-and-change-the-world-sermons. One thing is for certain: if they won't listen to the Bible, they will one day have to listen to the impact of reality hitting them in the face and the PEACE plan will wither and die. And within a short time, people will be asking, "The PEACE plan, what was that?"
Listen to one pastor when he's asked about why he doesn't say anything about prophecy: "People ask me why I don't preach more on prophecy. I say, 'Why? Nobody knows. I could get up here and make some good guesses but they'd all be speculation. Jesus said, 'Nobody knows when it's going to happen.'” (Rick Warren)
But prophecy doesn't have to be speculation. One quarter to one-third of the pages of the Bible are on prophecy; teaching prophecy is part of preaching the whole counsel of God. People who are asking about prophecy are asking about the rapture, God's future for Israel, the Great Tribulation, the anti-Christ, and the aspects of the millennial kingdom. Those knowledgable aren't asking him to set a day, month, and year for any of those.
The truth is that he, like a host of other pastors, avoid prophecy. The cause of that avoidance appears to lie deeper. Let's examine why.
To teach prophecy would mean that their sermons wouldn't lead to touchy-feely-all-is going-to-come- up-roses-presentations. That's because prophecy tells us that world conditions are going to get worse, much worse (II Tim. 3:13). Prophecy tells us that the world is going to grow progressively more and more hostile to the faith and those who hold it, hostile to the point of "If they hated Me (Christ), they will hate you." Prophecy tells us that the church will not emerge triumphant.
And to teach those things would be the death knell of what Warren has proposed in his "PEACE plan." The PEACE plan is his call for a billion people from the churches to unite to bring an end to various "giants," those problems so complex and ingrained that "even the United Nations can't solve them, but the church united can." Really?
Two of those giants the UN can't solve are poverty and ignorance. But, to borrow the words of a famous politician, "Yes, we [in this case the untied church with the PEACE plan] can!" Under the PEACE plan, the church can do eliminate those giants from the face of the earth with its billion slingshots. But check out Matthew 26:11.
But biblical prophecy says, "No you can't." Prophecy tells us that the church will sink into apostasy. Prophecy says that only the Second Advent of Jesus Christ will bring about that kind of environment, it also tells us that no human government, no election, and certainly not the church will do so.
Warren and others like him are presenting the church as the answer to solve the world's problems; the Bible tells us that without Jesus Christ's coming back to the earth there will be no answer to these problems, they'll only increase.
In spite of all the pep rallies to whip up the troops by well-known pastors, the church has no command to transform the world or even to try to transform the world Such pep rallies calling on believers to get there and change the world may get the troops all fired up for an hour or two but then, when the pulsating music and the sermons are over and the Christian is facing the fallen world, the reality hits: we're not going to reverse the curse. There's no way for the church or a government to get us back to Eden.
Now we can see why any pastor who falls in line with the PEACE plan won't teach prophecy: it doesn't fit with the plan, in fact, it's diametrically opposed to the plan. Prophecy doesn't jive with rah-rah-feel-good-and-get-out-there-and-change-the-world-sermons. One thing is for certain: if they won't listen to the Bible, they will one day have to listen to the impact of reality hitting them in the face and the PEACE plan will wither and die. And within a short time, people will be asking, "The PEACE plan, what was that?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)