tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51181465361193640432024-03-05T18:37:25.234-05:00Cross TrainersAnswering questions from within and without the Church, always seeking to maintain intellectual honesty and most importantly, a strong adherence to Biblical truth.Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-30337182744616820252013-05-03T14:35:00.000-04:002013-07-14T15:33:02.772-04:00Should Christians vote for Democrats?<h4>
by Chad Miller</h4>
In my writing, I typically focus on Christian apologetics but lately my thoughts have been consumed with the worldview war being raged in the political arena. While I still believe focusing on apologetics in Churches is absolutely essential, I am beginning to think the Church is losing its focus on important political issues. This apathetic approach to politics is having a serious impact on the culture and meanwhile there are innocent lives at stake.<br />
<br />
Make no mistake about it, I have been 100% guilty of this in my own life. I have always voted and done my due diligence in that regard, especially on the abortion issue. However, I haven't always been quite as keen on watching the news, paying close attention to what was happening in government, and doing my best to inform others - even though the political arena directly impacts not only my life in the present, but more importantly my children in the future. I've known many Christians with presumably good intentions who vote for liberal politicians and because they have either been musicians I liked, authors who made good points in other areas, or friends whom I love, I was always willing to give them "Christian liberty" license. After all, we're all Christians and how we vote is up to our own conscience, right?<br />
<br />
Well... <br />
<br />
I'm not so sure about that...<br />
<br />
When one considers everything at stake and how our votes truly impact human lives, our votes are tied directly to our accountability to God. How we vote is an integral part of our Christian stewardship. God in His sovereignty has chosen to allow American Christians to live in a culture much different than when the authors of Scripture lived. We are allowed to vote, run for office, campaign, and be actively involved in the direction of our country, provided we operate within the well placed restrictions of our Constitution. For Christians, we should first and foremost operate within the well placed restrictions of Scripture (which not coincidentally heavily influenced our founding fathers in framing our Constitution and Republic).<br />
<br />
So what is the responsibility of the Christian voter? Does it matter which party we vote for? My contention is what party we vote for <i><b>does</b></i> matter. It matters a great deal. So is a vote for a Republican always a vote for Christian values? Unfortunately not. There are many Republicans who not only ignore Biblical principles, but even shun the conservative principles their own Party is supposed to uphold. There are many sharp divisions within the Republican Party on a lot of issues, but the Democrats seems to avoid this. While there are many issues the Democratic Party agrees on which are contrary to a Christian worldview, the only one I want to address in this post is the most blatant offense; abortion.<br />
<br />
I knew about Barack Obama's stance on abortion before both elections and implored as many Christians as possible to NOT vote for him because of this (and a host of other anti-Christian, anti-constitutional, anti-liberty stances). I ran across this meme yesterday, and while many memes are clever ways at communicating a message without actually providing substance (or facts - be careful about sharing memes with quotes without fact checking them first), this meme is horrifying and accurate:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/942162_366956356757969_854971378_n.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/942162_366956356757969_854971378_n.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
For anyone who is pro-life and to Christians in particular; if you find abortion and/or partial birth abortion morally repugnant, how can a vote for Obama or other Democrats be squared with that conviction? If you believe infants born alive during a botched abortion should receive immediate medical attention, how could you vote for Obama when he voted AGAINST that every time it passed his desk?<br />
<br />
Make no mistake about it. This is what the Democratic platform is all about and not just President Obama. No matter how much a specific Democrat may profess to be pro life, they have to tow the Party line and cave to their supposed personal convictions, and the Party line on the abortion issue is 100% clear. The 2012 <a href="http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf" target="_blank">Democratic Party Platform</a> states:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Protecting a Woman’s Right to Choose: The Democratic Party <b>strongly and unequivocally</b> supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, <b>including a safe and le</b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>gal abortion, regardless of ability to pay</b>. We oppose <b>any</b> and <b>all</b> efforts to weaken or undermine tha</span></i></span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 21px;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">t right.</span></i></span><br />
<br />
There's so much wrong there I could write a thesis on it. For brevity's sake, just contrast that with the 2012 <a href="http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/" target="_blank">Republican Party Platform</a> on abortion:<br />
<br />
<i>Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, <b>we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. </b>We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections <b>apply to unborn children</b>. We <b>oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion</b> or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.</i><br />
<br />
Fiscal policy, immigration, foreign aid, healthcare, military, gender equality, gun control and many other issues are all important, and there can be disagreements between Christians on how to handle some of those issues without necessarily compromising Biblical integrity (though I believe strong <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/is-the-bible-socialist-manifesto/" target="_blank">Biblical arguments</a> can be made <a href="http://americanvision.org/1888/socialism-biblical/" target="_blank">against socialism</a>)... but this is a <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/slavery-abortion-and-inalienable-rights#.UYLHv7X_mSo" target="_blank">human rights issue</a> with no Biblical or moral ambiguity whatsoever, mdo different than slavery or human trafficking. Simply put, a vote for a Democrat is ultimately voting against the human rights of the most defenseless people one can find.<br />
<br />
Even though the Bible is clear about where Christians should stand on the importance of the inherent <a href="http://www.openbible.info/topics/human_dignity" target="_blank">value of human life</a>, we have Christians who fill the voting booths to vote for their favorite Democratic candidate, presumably because they believe the greater good can be accomplished <span id="goog_270697874"></span>through the government<span id="goog_270697875"></span>. I've also heard "there was no solid conservative candidate on the ticket", though I can't imagine a situation where I would be forced to vote for Obama or other pro-choice Democrats. Romney was clearly not the most conservative candidate the Republicans could have chosen last year, and don't get me started on McCain in 2008. That is a separate issue and I'll merely say "shame on the Republican Party for continuing to advance candidates who don't stand for true constitutional principles".<br />
<br />
However, I can still think of no valid excuse for the Christian to vote for a Democrat who as mentioned above will with very, <b>very</b> rare exception, cave on the abortion issue. Most Democrats simply do everything they can to radically advance the pro-choice cause while the very few pro-life Democrats will compromise their views for the sake of the Party. The Party not only advances abortion, but many other issues which run completely contrary to a Biblical worldview. For the sake of avoiding a full out manifesto, I'm not addressing those specifically at this time but instead focusing on abortion due to the importance of it specifically, as well as the major happenings in society right now (<a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/04/11/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-gosnell-infanticide-and-murder-trial/" target="_blank">Kermit Gosnell case</a>, <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/our-president-blesses-sin-god-help-us-95131/cpf" target="_blank">Obama speaking at Planned Parenthood</a>, <a href="http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/" target="_blank">undercover videos exposing the abortion industry</a>, and many more).<br />
<br />
Christians need to seriously think about this for 2014 when the elections come up and truly be aware of what is happening. Whether you live in a red state and your (D) vote may not seem to count for much, or live in a blue state where your vote for the pro-life candidate won't seem to matter... we need to understand it absolutely does. We are responsible and accountable to God for how we vote. We have a responsibility to do whatever we can to protect the least among us. If you are a Christian reading this and voted for Obama or other Democrats, I can't put it any way other than there is blood on your hands for those votes...<br />
<br />
If you thought voting for Obama was a better overall pro-life vote (like the very confused Christian "progressive" <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/why-progressive-christians-should-care-about-abortion-gosnell" target="_blank">Rachel Held Evans</a>), how is that vote looking now, considering we're still at war, soldiers are still dying, unemployment is skyrocketing, we're drone bombing innocent people, we're steadily losing our civil liberties. and our President is the first sitting President to ever speak at a Planned Parenthood event (or any pro-choice organization)? It seems like the Democratic Party might not offer the utopia so-called Christian progressives are looking for. In fact, electing Democrats is consistently worse for the overall "culture of life" message since millions more are killed under Democratic policies than any other, as long as we can agree about the aborted babies being part of those killed. It seems most Christian liberals would at least acquiesce that abortion kills a child, but again, the focus of the left is not typically on the child at all (and I wonder why).<br />
<br />
Make no mistake about it, I am NOT claiming the Republican Party offers this utopia either. That will only come when Christ comes to set things right once and for all. I'm simply asking anyone with intellectual integrity to compare the platforms of the two parties on the abortion issue and the overall culture of life. Who is more consistently pro-life? Who is making attempts to overturn Roe V Wade and making legislative moves which will dramatically reduce abortions? Fortunately many conservatives are beginning to line up with other culture of life issues (and conservative values) and not wanting the US entangled in foreign wars where we have no business being involved. Is supporting those politicians a valid option for the Christian liberal?<br />
<br />
Sorry about that.. I meant Christian Progressive.<br />
<br />
Instead of voting for a party who openly professes to be against the rights of the unborn, why not examine making inroads within the Republican Party? Which is more likely; to get the Democratic Party to overturn its longstanding and increasingly aggressive support for abortion, or get the Republican Party to examine its views on internventionist wars and other supposed life issues? Is it a possibility for Roe V Wade to be overturned and more pro-life legislation be put in place if all the professing Christians voted for actual pro life candidates? While we have our thinking caps on, is it possible government is not the be all/end all cure for poverty, disease, and starvation? Will wars cease and peace be achieved by any political means?<br />
<br />
What the US government is supposed to do is protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. This especially includes protecting the lives of innocent children, and as Christians, this is of utmost importance and should eclipse any other soapbox we may have. Think about the millions of American babies being murdered. Think about what the Lord would have you do when you're in the voting booth. One of these days the ideas and thoughts of our hearts will be naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account. If we don't think our votes will be held under the same scrutiny, we're in big trouble.<br />
<br />
Chad MillerChad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-74356148111614254482012-10-04T17:35:00.004-04:002012-10-04T18:03:16.144-04:00 Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. Sermon: Almighty Over All<object data="http://s3.amazonaws.com/ligonier-static-media/swf/player/player.swf?06d1ad962ea8bfdfb93b" height="332" id="ligonier-embed-player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="580">
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<param name="wmode" value="opaque">
<param name="scale" value="noscale">
<param name="flashvars" value="skin=http://s3.amazonaws.com/ligonier-static-media/swf/player/bekle.ligonier.zip?06d1ad962ea8bfdfb93b&file=series/orl11/browser_mediumq/ORL11.06.mp4&image=http://s3.amazonaws.com/ligonier-public-media/learn/series_images/ORL11_LightAndHeat.jpg&plugins=share&controlbar=over&streamer=rtmp://mediastream.ligonier.org/cfx/st&autostart=false&skin=https://s3.amazonaws.com/ligonier-static-media/swf/overlay.swf?0136459029164bb97355&id=media-player-embeded&">
</object>
<a href="http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/light-heat-2011-national-conference/almighty-over-all/">Click Here if you have trouble viewing...</a>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-51894700647401688672012-09-05T11:58:00.000-04:002013-05-22T12:30:59.838-04:00Issue with Answers in Genesis<h4>
by Chad Miller </h4>
When I say I have issues with Answers in Genesis (AiG), I'm not referring to their Young Earth Creation (YEC) interpretation of Genesis 1-11. My issues are with the considerable amount of time and effort they spend leveling false accusations against those who believe in Old Earth Creationism (OEC). AiG is the most widely followed YEC ministry, and unfortunately their divisive tactics have a significant impact on the Christian community, thus my focus on their ministry specifically. I’m not making the case for OEC or refuting YEC arguments on this post. Those arguments are handled elsewhere and there are plenty of good resources available.<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" data-mce-src="http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" src="http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" title="More..." /><br />
*OEC and YEC throughout this post refer to Creation-ism and Creation-ist interchangeably*<br />
<br />
I (like many OEC's) have YEC friends. The vast majority of my friends are YEC. Fortunately this is not a point of division or conflict and we're able to lock arms together to serve the Lord in ministry. We all understand we're not differing on our interpretation of passages related to the deity of Christ, the resurrection, or other first tier issues, but rather a <a data-mce-href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/" href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/" target="_blank">third tier issue</a>. Most importantly we understand this is an issue of <em>interpretation; </em>not inerrancy. That’s a very important distinction worth repeating:<br />
<br />
<strong>This is an issue of <em>interpretation; </em>not inerrancy.</strong><br />
<br />
I’m not sure how many different ways this message can be communicated by various OEC's, yet AIG continues to falsely accuse OEC's of undermining inerrancy as well as <a data-mce-href="http://www.creationtoday.org/ham-and-hovind-get-sparks-to-fly-on-tbn/" href="http://www.creationtoday.org/ham-and-hovind-get-sparks-to-fly-on-tbn/" target="_blank">attacking the cross, the Word of Christ, and the person of Christ Himself</a>.<br />
<br />
Those are extremely serious accusations... and this is coming from brothers in Christ toward other brothers in Christ.<br />
<br />
If you're an avid watcher of TBN like I am (sarcasm font not available), you may have seen a recent <a data-mce-href="http://www.creationconversations.com/video/ken-han-ray-comfort-hugh-ross-debate-on-tbn" href="http://www.creationconversations.com/video/ken-han-ray-comfort-hugh-ross-debate-on-tbn" target="_blank">roundtable discussion</a> with <a data-mce-href="http://www.wayofthemaster.com/" href="http://www.wayofthemaster.com/" target="_blank">Ray Comfort</a> (YEC), <a data-mce-href="http://seanmcdowell.org/about/sean_mcdowell_bio.asp" href="http://seanmcdowell.org/about/sean_mcdowell_bio.asp" target="_blank">Sean McDowell</a> (OEC), <a data-mce-href="http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/hugh-ross" href="http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/hugh-ross" target="_blank">Hugh Ross</a> (OEC), <a data-mce-href="http://www.creationtoday.org/about/eric-hovind/" href="http://www.creationtoday.org/about/eric-hovind/" target="_blank">Eric Hovind</a> (YEC), <a data-mce-href="http://faculty.biola.edu/john_bloom/" href="http://faculty.biola.edu/john_bloom/" target="_blank">John Bloom</a> (OEC), and <a data-mce-href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/ken-ham/" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/ken-ham/" target="_blank">Ken Ham</a> (YEC) discussing creation and evolution. One need only see the opening remarks of the discussion to quickly see the problem with the approach Ken Ham takes. He is not focused on coming together with other Christians to counter the secular worldview being forced upon us and our children. Rather, his sights are set squarely on his fellow brothers in Christ who do not agree with his interpretation of Genesis 1-11, accusing them of being compromisers and actual partakers of the secular worldview itself.<br />
<br />
Everyone else on the panel opens up by standing together against the atheistic/Darwinistic worldview (though it eventually does turn into a YEC vs OEC debate - thanks Brother Ken). He opens up by stating his big issue is one of Biblical authority. A noble issue to be sure and one everyone on the panel would agree with, but his aim immediately focuses on the wrong target; other Christians. He accuses those who disagree with him of "allowing the culture to invade the Church" and quickly draws a direct comparison from those who attack the resurrection of Christ to those who question his YEC view. He accuses OEC’s of "unlocking the door to Biblical authority" and places the blame for "losing Biblical authority, losing the culture, and losing 2/3 of the young generation" squarely at their feet. Yet again, VERY serious charges!<br />
and this is just in his opening remarks…<br />
<br />
Elsewhere <a data-mce-href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n4/oldearth" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n4/oldearth">he has said</a>:<br />
<em>"Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth — it is <strong>not</strong> the loving God of the Bible."</em><br />
<em>"The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death."</em><br />
<em>"There’s no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel"</em><br />
<br />
I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but sadly it’s par for the course. The common themes of compromise, undermining Biblical authority, forcing false interpretations, and many other untrue charges are thick in AiG articles, publications, curriculum, speeches, etc. Unfortunately this mindset overflows into many of the Christians who follow their ministry.<br />
<br />
<br />
Even in <a data-mce-href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/06/22/feedback-old-earth-god" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/06/22/feedback-old-earth-god">this recent "clarifying" post by AIG </a>(not Ken Ham directly), they claim many of the statements above are taken out of context.<br />
<br />
<em>"Most old-earth creationists either do not recognize this truth or have chosen to ignore the dichotomy their belief creates. Also, theistic evolutionists generally accept the big bang theory, which creates additional problems."</em><br />
<br />
AiG has a habit of lumping all OEC interpretations in with Theistic Evolution (TE) despite the fact this is clearly not the case. Ministries such as <a data-mce-href="http://reasons.org" href="http://reasons.org/" target="_blank">Reasons to Believe</a> are very clear on their stance against Darwinian evolution and <a data-mce-href="http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/theisticevolution" href="http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/theisticevolution" target="_blank">reject TE</a>, yet AiG consistently goes after all shades of OEC with the ferocity of the Spanish Inquisition... except unlike the Spanish Inquisition, <em>everyone</em> expects the AiG Inquisition.<br />
<a data-mce-href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o"><img alt="" class="alignnone" data-mce-src="http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/080127/images/issueart/080127/SpanishInquisition.png" height="239" src="http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/080127/images/issueart/080127/SpanishInquisition.png" width="300" /></a><br />
<br />
The author also claims adherents to an OEC view are in sin and need to be corrected by their YEC brothers:<br />
<br />
<em>"Consider the final words of the book of James. “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (<a data-mce-href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/James%205.19%E2%80%9320" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/James%205.19%E2%80%9320" target="_blank">James 5:19–20</a>). Of course, this must be handled with gentleness and respect. Paul wrote, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (<a data-mce-href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Galatians%206.1" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Galatians%206.1" target="_blank">Galatians 6:1</a>)."</em><br />
<br />
Is that really what James and Paul had in mind in their epistles? Are OEC's in need of being saved from a multitude of sins and death of the soul as James mentions here? One need only read Galatians 5 and the rest of 6 to see this is clearly not applicable for Paul's admonition either. He continues...<br />
<br />
<em>"Our goal in pointing out the error of old-earth creationism is driven by a love for Christ’s church. We do not want to see them led into a serious error, and we desire to see our brothers and sisters remove the “high places” of old-earth beliefs. Still, we realize we are sinful and fallible. If our actions are ever motivated by our own pride instead of love for God and for fellow believers, then we would be in the wrong. If such a case arises, we hope someone would love us enough to respectfully point out these faults."</em><br />
<br />
I'm not judging the motives of AiG, but I can judge their clear statements which cause division in the body of Christ. While they claim it is possible for an OEC to be a true Christian, their actions and even their words clearly say otherwise. If their motive is indeed love for their brothers, I can say as an OEC I feel zero love from Ken Ham or AiG in their attempts to save my soul from destruction... and as we all know, feelings are important, especially mine. (I really do need a sarcasm font)<br />
<br />
Continuing on:<br />
<em>"Think about this carefully—if we don’t correct fellow believers who are in error, then we don’t truly love them. No sane parents would fail to correct their own child who runs dangerously into the street, because they love the child and don’t want harm to come to him or her. Similarly, we do not want to see our brothers and sisters led astray by worldly teachings that have done so much to undermine people’s trust in Scripture.</em><br />
<br />
<em>What we are saying to old-earth Christians is that they need to cling to the biblical view of God and jettison the faulty views of God demanded by their old-earth views. They need to accept biblical authority and all that comes with it, including the Father who loved us so much He sent His Son to die for our sins—not His own carelessness or ineptitude."</em><br />
<br />
So OEC's are being "led astray", "undermining people's trust in scripture", "need to cling to the biblical view of God and jettison the faulty views of God", and "need to accept biblical authority"? Really? Notice the intentional bridge from OEC to TE in that last statement., implying the OEC view undermines the Gospel.<br />
I do actually agree with him on approaching a brother when one believes another brother is in error, which is my motive for this post. If I ever see an OEC making any of these kinds of claims against YEC's, I will confront them in the same manner in which I am AiG in this post... probably moreso.<br />
<br />
Again, I'm not offended by the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1-11. AiG is entitled to their interpretation and I thoroughly acknowledge there is zero conflict with one holding to YEC and also maintaining strict orthodoxy (including Biblical inerrancy). What I do take issue with, and hopefully more of my YEC brothers and sisters will as well, are the extremely divisive tactics used by Ken Ham and AIG against their brothers and sisters in Christ. Hold fast to a YEC interpretation, but can we please stop this business of implying OEC's are out to destroy the Bible?<br />
<br />
<br />
To continue reading this article, please <a href="http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/2012/09/03/issues-with-answers-in-genesis/" target="_blank">click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-30520944018022560962012-08-02T22:08:00.000-04:002012-08-02T22:08:29.494-04:00What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?<em><em>Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was the most extensive judgment found anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation actually for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality?</em></em><br />
<h4><br />
</h4><h4>by Greg Koukl</h4><br />
<div>People find what they want in the Bible. If one looks hard enough, he can find "biblical" support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every cult of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims and so does some of the occult. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg/300px-John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg/300px-John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg" /></a></div>It's not surprising, then, that a recent trend in biblical scholarship holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context offers no solid basis to conclude that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality. <br />
<br />
This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the rank-and-file Christian who finds in the Genesis account a straight-forward condemnation of homosexual behavior. <br />
<br />
My goal is to answer that challenge. I have no interest to malign, name-call, offend, attack, bash, belittle, or in any way demean a group of people. I want to determine one thing only: Why did God destroy these two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? In short, what was the sin—or sins—of Sodom and Gomorrah? <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Genesis 18:16-19:29</strong> <br />
Though the context of the account in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God's conversation with Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter at Sodom itself are found in Genesis 19:4-13: <br />
<blockquote>Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." <br />
But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. <br />
But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. <br />
Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it." </blockquote>What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the principle offense ("Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"). <br />
Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom: <br />
<blockquote>(1) The Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels...; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn1" name="fnB1">[1]</a></span> </blockquote>John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) "is the most obvious of the four," though it's been "largely ignored by biblical scholars."<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn2" name="fnB2">[2]</a></span> Boswell expands on explanation (4), the one he seems to favor as most consistent with "modern scholarship" since 1955: <br />
<blockquote>Lot was violating the custom of Sodom...by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that they might <em>know</em> them," they meant no more than to "know" who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn3" name="fnB3">[3]</a></span> </blockquote>Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also argues this way in <em>Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition</em> (1955). The men of Sodom wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot's guests. <br />
<br />
Apparently, it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seem to be at odds. If "to know" the angels means merely to interrogate them, then there is no attempted rape, only an attempted interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men meant to have sexual relations with the visitors (the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (rendering Boswell’s above summary of the views of modern scholarship somewhat incoherent). <br />
<br />
Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) could have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4). <br />
<br />
My principle concern here is to determine if the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality factored in at all. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Clues from the Text</strong> <br />
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not just from the Genesis account, but also from the Prophets and the New Testament books 2 Peter and Jude. These give a sense of how ancient Jewish thinkers steeped in Jewish culture understood these texts. <br />
<br />
First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, "And the Lord said, 'The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.'" Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city. <br />
<br />
Second, it seems the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter." <br />
<br />
Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh."<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn4" name="fnB4">[4]</a></span> Peter wrote that Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10). <br />
<br />
Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment. <br />
<br />
Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation. <br />
<br />
What do we know about the conduct of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description? <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Just a Couple of Questions</strong> <br />
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days <u>before</u> the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn5" name="fnB5">[5]</a></span> <br />
<br />
Was this a mere interrogation? Though the Hebrew word <em>yada</em> ("to know")<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn6" name="fnB6">[6]</a></span> has a variety of nuances, it is properly translated in the NASB as "have [sexual] relations with."<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn7" name="fnB7">[7]</a></span> Though the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot's response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"—makes it clear they had other intentions. <br />
<br />
In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe the daughters who had not "known" a man and who were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying, "Please don't question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead. They've never been interviewed"? <br />
<br />
Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah for inhospitality? Is it true that God's judgment was not for homosexuality per se, but because the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors, violating sacred sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them? A couple of observations raise serious doubt. <br />
<br />
First, the suggestion itself is an odd one. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime. <br />
<br />
Second—and more to the textual evidence—it doesn't fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath: a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which the men went after strange flesh. <br />
<br />
Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There's no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense? <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>The Only One That Fits</strong> <br />
The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot's visitors violated the Mid-East's high code of hospitality (19:9). This inhospitality, however, is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself. <br />
<br />
Further, the inhospitality charge is dependent upon—and eclipsed by—the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one. <br />
<br />
We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter" (19:6), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels. <br />
<br />
Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the "grave," "ungodly," "lawless," "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard" it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went after "strange flesh." <br />
<br />
In their defense, some will cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn8" name="fnB8">[8]</a></span> Therefore I removed them when I saw it." No mention of homosexuality here. <br />
<br />
Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That's not in question. Our concern here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn't contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail. <br />
<br />
Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God's wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word "abominations." This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an "abomination" in God’s eyes. <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Leviticus</strong> <br />
The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn9" name="fnB9">[9]</a></span> It is an abomination [<em>toebah</em>]<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn10" name="fnB10">[10]</a></span> ." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [<em>toebah</em>]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them." <br />
<br />
John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality: <br />
<blockquote>The Hebrew word "<em>toebah</em>," here translated "abomination," does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn11" name="fnB11">[11]</a></span> </blockquote>Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed. <br />
<br />
Others have added that many details of the Mosaic Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn't mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be punishable offenses today.<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn12" name="fnB12">[12]</a></span> <br />
<br />
This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such "diversity" as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah's proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway. <br />
<br />
Second, it's a serious error in thinking to conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed, "It is one thing not to put a Torah <em>punishment</em> into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah <em>sin</em> is no longer a sin."<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn13" name="fnB13">[13]</a></span> [emphasis in the original] <br />
<br />
Third, it's true that much of the Law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct. <br />
<br />
Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The <em>toebah</em>of homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech's altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple? <br />
<br />
More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).<br />
<br />
The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words: <br />
<blockquote>But as for you [the "sons of Israel" (v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)</blockquote>Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, <u>and even by every visitor</u>. <br />
<br />
Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews ("aliens"). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came.<br />
<br />
Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a> </div>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-57383298386396436642012-08-02T21:45:00.000-04:002012-08-02T21:45:15.921-04:00Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?<h4>by Matt Flannagan</h4><h4><br />
</h4><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/01/bible-truth-640x512.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/01/bible-truth-640x512.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In our recent discussion on the <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/sunday-study-slavery-john-locke-and-the-bible.html">Bible’s teachings on slavery</a> John Loftus asked Madeleine, “if you were raped you should marry your rapist? Get real. … Would you want to be treated the way the Bible says women and slaves should be treated?” Loftus then <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/john-loftus-on-madeleine-flannagan-and-women-and-other-red-herrings.html">dedicated a post on Debunking Christianity to Madeleine’s “stupidity</a>” for her answer where he elaborated on his interpretation of various verses on the treatment of women in the comments section. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Loftus is not alone in contending that the Bible teaches that rape victims had to marry their rapists. Michael Martin states that, </div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman’s rights and her psychological welfare are ignored.[15] For example: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29).” Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father’s property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught.[1] [sic]</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Martin is not alone is making this claim, I often hear this claim brought up in dialogues and discussions with those skeptical of the Christian faith. Not long ago a correspondent cited that most medieval commentators taught, on the basis of Deut 22:28-29, that a woman who had been raped was commanded by God to marry her rapist. In particular he referred me to Maimonides who wrote, “by this prohibition a man is forbidden to divorce a woman whom he has raped.”[2] </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
In this post I want to address this line of argument. My response is two-fold, first I will argue that Martin’s translation of Deuteronomy is mistaken, second, I will suggest that the medieval commentators my correspondent referred to actually utilised a different definition of rape to that used today. My conclusion will be that this law does not command a woman to marry her rapist; it rather commands men who have sex with women to follow their sexual advances up with marital commitment, and teaches that failure to do so is forbidden by God.<br />
<br />
<strong>Martin’s Translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29</strong><br />
Martin cites Deut 22:28-29 as dealing with a situation where “a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her.” He immediately states, without argument, that this refers to acts of rape. Although he does not say, it appears this conclusion is based on the verb “seizes” in the English version he cites. Martin imports into this word the connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape. There are several problems with this claim.<br />
<br />
First, and most obvious, the English word “seizes” is not in The Torah. The word in The Torah is <em>tabas</em>; in Hebrew, <em>tabas</em> “does not <em>in itself</em> indicate anything about the use of force.”[3] While the word can refer to the capture of a city,[4] it is also used for “handling” the harp and flute,[5] the sword,[6] a sickle,[7] a shield,<a href="https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=blogger&continue=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogger.com%2Floginz%3Fd%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.blogger.com%252Fpost-create.g%253FblogID%253D5710845602477644495%26a%3DADD_SERVICE_FLAG&passive=true&alinsu=0&aplinsu=0&alwf=true&hl=en&ltmpl=start&skipvpage=true&rm=false&showra=1&fpui=2&naui=8" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;">[8]</a> oars or a bow,[9] “taking” God’s name[10] or dealing with the law of God.[11] The word simply means to “lay hold of,” “to take hold of something” or to “grasp it in hand.” The more formal King James translation interprets the passage as, “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay <em>hold on her</em> and lie with her.”<br />
<br />
Second, there are good reasons in this context for interpreting the word in a manner where it does not have a connotation of force or violence. Here I will mention three.<br />
<br />
The first reason is that the context strongly suggests it. Had the author intended to refer to rape then he would have used the word <em>chazak</em> which does carry the connotations Martin plays on. This is reinforced by the fact that three verses earlier the author does refer to a rape. The law immediately preceding this one begins, “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her …” here the word used is <em>chazak</em>, which suggests a violent seizure is used. Bahsen notes, “Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply ‘take hold of’ her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25:25 (viz., rape).”[12]<br />
<br />
The second reason is that Deut 22:28-29 actually repeats a law which has already been laid down in the book of Exodus. When one examines this law it is clear it does not refer to rape. The word “Deuteronomy” in Greek means “second law;” throughout the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeats laws already laid down in the book of Exodus, sometimes expanding on them. The Decalogue, for example, which was delivered on Sinai in Exodus 20, is repeated again in Deuteronomy 5. The laws about releasing an <em>ebed</em> (or indentured servant) in Exodus 21:1 are repeated and expanded on in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. The same occurs with the law under discussion. Gordon Wenham points out that that Deut 22:28-29 is a repetition of a law spelled out in Exodus 22:15, which states “If a man <em>seduces</em> a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”[13] Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the <em>mohar</em> or “bride-price” to the bride’s father. A <em>mohar</em> was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children. What is important, however, is that we are left in no doubt that in Exodus 22:15 the case deals, not with rape, but with what was traditionally called seduction.<br />
<br />
The third reason is that, to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command. Martin is correct, given what we know about the psychological harm that rape inflicts upon its victims to command that a woman marry her rapist is cruel and hence clashes with strong moral intuitions. Elsewhere I have defended the claim that if one interpretation of divine commands coheres better with our moral intuitions than another then that fact constitutes evidence for the former interpretation. All else being equal, an interpretation that coheres with our pre-theoretical moral intuitions is always preferable. This hermeneutical principle applies here.<br />
<br />
The passage then does not refer to a rape. The Hebrew word does not, by itself, indicate rape and interpreting it this way both ignores the context where the word <em>chazak</em> is used to designate a rape. It also makes the second law inconsistent with the exposition of the same law in Exodus 22:15 and also with our prior moral discernment about what is right and wrong. Seduction, however, is consistent with the meaning of <em>tabas</em>, the context it is used in, the original law it was derived from and it coheres with our moral intuitions. These factors, to me, provide decisive reasons for rejecting Martin’s interpretation.<br />
<br />
It is worth noting that the fact that this passage refers to a seduction and not rape is really not news. Bahnsen notes that, “one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape;”[15] he lists several,<br />
</div><blockquote>Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Matthew Henry: “. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).<br />
James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).[16]</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Hence a skeptic who was interested in what the passage actually says could easily have discovered what I have noted by consulting a commentary. <strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>Medieval Commentators</strong><br />
If many post enlightenment and modern commentators realise that this passage is about a seduction and not a rape how does one explain the fact, alluded to above, that many medieval commentators apparently interpreted the passage to refer to rape? Here one needs to be attentive to the fact that words change their meaning over time. Medieval writers utilised a wider definition of rape than modern people do. In the middle ages the word ‘rape’ could include not only what we call rape today but also what was called “seduction,” where a man seduces a virgin he is not married to <em>with</em> her consent.<br />
<br />
Isidore De Seville, for example, stated “seduction [stuprum], or rape, properly speaking, is unlawful intercourse, and takes its name from its causing corruption: wherefore he that is guilty of rape is a seducer.”[17] Similarly, Thomas Aquinas wrote,<br />
</div><blockquote>They [rape and seduction] coincide when a man employs force in order unlawfully to violate a virgin. This force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from her father’s house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents’ house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape remain no matter how force is employed.[18]</blockquote>Hence it is not entirely accurate to read the word “rape” in Medieval commentaries as we understand it today. <div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In conclusion then, it is very doubtful that Deut 22:28-29 commands women who have been raped to marry their rapists.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/sunday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html">To continue reading, click here</a> </div>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-20787165013171585412012-07-28T23:57:00.001-04:002012-08-01T10:47:58.357-04:00Resources on the Same Sex Marriage question<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/07/discussing-samesex-marriage.html" target="_blank">Discussing Same-Sex Marriage (Audio)</a> – "How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show." <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6553" target="_blank">Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses</a> – "Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/09/what-is-marriage.html" target="_blank">What Is Marriage?</a> – "One of the smartest men I know of, Robert P. George from Princeton University, with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson have written an argument for the traditional definition of marriage. You can download the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1677717#%23" target="_blank">PDF</a> and digest it." <br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/denying-same-se.html" target="_blank">Denying Same-sex Marriage Isn't Unequal Protection</a> – "An Iowa court recently <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html" target="_blank">ruled</a> in favor of six same-sex couples who claimed that denying them the right to marry violates the equal protection clause. This argument seems reasonable at first. Straight people can marry. Gays cannot. This is not equal protection. A little reflection, however, reveals how this view is mistaken.''<br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/08/federal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8.html" target="_blank">Judge Strikes Down Prop 8</a> – "Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a <i>relevant</i> characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there's no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more <a href="http://www.michiganfamily.org/main-resources/publications/2parents-web.pdf" target="_blank">ramifications</a> when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage." <br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/08/were-.html" target="_blank">We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights</a> – "One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue. Here's the approach I usually take…"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/09/liberal-support.html" target="_blank">Liberal Support for Traditional Marriage</a> – "This self-described liberal Democrat <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story" target="_blank">supports</a> California's Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman because, as the piece so well explains, marriage, as a societal institution recognized by government, is about children." <br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/12/answering-a-case-for-same-sex-marriage.html" target="_blank">Answering a Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Video)</a> – <span style="font-size: small;">Alan Schlemon responds to Zach Wahls's video promoting same-sex marriage.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6801">Marriage Is a Social Construction.</a></span> - "What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times."<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6800">Marriage Is about Love</a></span> - “As long as people love each other,” one person asserted, “it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”</div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7933" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;">When the Bride Is a Groom</span></a> This article was written in 1999 - "The goal is to remove any hint of social stigma attached to homosexuality. One way to accomplish that is to depict all moral concern about the issue as malice. If you think the behavior is wrong, then you're guilty of spreading hatred." </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5727">You Can't Marry Your Canary</a></span> - "Restricting the definition of marriage is not inappropriate discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word, discrimination, doesn't even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman."<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/06/inconsistent-same-sex-marriage-advocates.html" target="_blank">Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates</a> - "</span>There’s no principled way to exclude polyamory from marriage, if one adopts the principles being argued by same-sex marriage advocates."<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/same-sex-marriage-arguments.html" target="_blank">Same Sex Marriage Arguments</a></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> - "The real issue is whether or not marriage is a right. It's not. It's nor more a right than a drivers' license is a right. As far as goverment's recognition of marriage, there is no right to either on. They're civil arrangements that the goverment has an interest in."<br />
</div><a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/is-denying-same-sex-marriage-like-denying-interracial-marriage.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small;">Is Denying Same-sex Marriage Like Denying Interracial Marriage?</span></a> - "Let me be blunt: denying same-sex couples from marriage is <em>not the same</em> as denying interracial couples from it. Although anti-miscegenation laws were immoral, the same mistake is not happening today. And despite the rhetorical force of making the comparison, merely claiming it’s the same does not make it so."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5255" target="_blank">Forbidding "Gay Marriage"</a> </span> - "Marriage seems to be something in particular, not something we can twist any way we want."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/" target="_blank">Gay Is Not The New Black</a> - "</span>The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/tactics-for-defending-traditional-marriage/" target="_blank">Tactics for Defending Traditional Marriage</a> - "</span>Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage/" target="_blank">A Secular Case Against Same Sex Marriage </a>- An argument using statistics and facts to show why same sex marriage is not good for society.</span>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-80698908129925222312012-07-28T23:26:00.000-04:002012-07-28T23:26:37.024-04:00Gay Is Not The New Black<h4>by Voddie Baucham</h4><h4></h4><br />
It's hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ-h3GS167b-R8qf7EyJ57QK0OS59d8H-v7vZI5uD_v5yiZHS8JBbkZMH2tk-Yi-xqC1cSnDmtNbmyoopBdbTlIYLkZ3oaUICdOBqaHTdm4_FGHTKxLx2FN5qKHQH9ECfyd8O_LOhwS5d8/s1600/gaynewblack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ-h3GS167b-R8qf7EyJ57QK0OS59d8H-v7vZI5uD_v5yiZHS8JBbkZMH2tk-Yi-xqC1cSnDmtNbmyoopBdbTlIYLkZ3oaUICdOBqaHTdm4_FGHTKxLx2FN5qKHQH9ECfyd8O_LOhwS5d8/s320/gaynewblack.jpg" width="231" /></a></div>The idea that same-sex "marriage" is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual "marriage" and civil rights is Michael Gross's<a href="http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp" title=""> article in <em>The Advocate</em></a>, in which he coins the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."<sup>1</sup> Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, "Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable."<sup>2</sup><br />
<div class="mceTemp"> </div><br />
Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by <em>GQ</em> magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, <a href="http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2009/03/-the-reconstructionist-michael-steele.html" title="">replied</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:<br />
<blockquote>Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation---<em>like a person's race or gender</em>---does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.<sup>4</sup> (emphasis added)</blockquote>The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.<br />
<br />
<h3><strong>Unidentifiable Minority </strong></h3>The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.<sup>5</sup><br />
<br />
Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.<sup>6</sup><br />
<br />
Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn't enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGS<sup>7 </sup>in college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="1 Cor. 6.9-11" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Cor.%206.9-11">1 Cor. 6:9-11</a>)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn't a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn't Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?<br />
<br />
But this isn't the only problem with the civil rights angle.<br />
<br />
<h3><strong>Unalterable Definition</strong></h3>An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the <em>ability</em> to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?<sup>8</sup><br />
<br />
Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word <em>marriage</em> has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny <em>any</em> person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.<br />
<br />
Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,<sup>9</sup> along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.<br />
<br />
Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court <em>in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage"</em>: "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."<br />
<br />
There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:<br />
<blockquote><em>[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all</em>. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.</blockquote>I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."<br />
<br />
However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."<br />
<br />
<h3><strong>Unsustainable Precedent</strong></h3>Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?<sup>10</sup> What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?<sup>11</sup> Where do we stop, and on what basis?<br />
<br />
Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in <em>Lawrence v. Texas,</em> a decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy cited his 1992 opinion in <em>Planned Parenthood </em>v. <em>Casey</em>:<br />
<blockquote>These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.<sup>12</sup></blockquote>I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:<br />
<blockquote>I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is <em>the passage that ate the rule of law</em>.<sup>13</sup> (emphasis added)</blockquote><br />
<h3><strong>Inescapable Confrontation</strong></h3>It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Eph. 5.22ff" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Eph.%205.22ff">Eph. 5:22</a>), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Gen 1.27-28" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%201.27-28">Gen 1:27-28</a>), the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-74278472675170895082012-07-16T13:30:00.000-04:002012-07-16T13:30:22.536-04:00God of War: Playing the Amalekite Card<h4><a href="http://tcapologetics.org/author/anthony-weber/" target="_blank">by Anthony Weber </a></h4><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglL1zpAtjrdSUekin3JNOhOc6_sVlxE6Z8SmcZgGfXp09tZju4FOMT_Kmm1SkmKo_HbBzOUC3Z6CQrYJ5t2Rjp1WMO7clNe7JPwkIWHqIemOQ5c7hLq572y1-mZmWwfHpxTpvJFcym4Rui/s1600/victory-of-joshua-over-the-amalekites.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglL1zpAtjrdSUekin3JNOhOc6_sVlxE6Z8SmcZgGfXp09tZju4FOMT_Kmm1SkmKo_HbBzOUC3Z6CQrYJ5t2Rjp1WMO7clNe7JPwkIWHqIemOQ5c7hLq572y1-mZmWwfHpxTpvJFcym4Rui/s320/victory-of-joshua-over-the-amalekites.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>If you have engaged in serious discussions with skeptics about God and the Old Testament, you know it won’t be long before someone will play the Amalekite card – and let’s be honest, it’s a game-changing card (<a href="http://tcapologetics.org/2012/07/god-of-war-the-war-texts/">read the war texts in my previous post</a>). <br />
<br />
There’s a temptation to fold at this point and hope that the next hand deals something better (“Hey, I know! Let’s talk about love!”). However, there is far more to the story (I should note her I am indebted to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280378736&sr=1-1">writing </a>of Christian apologists such as <a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/paul-copan/">Paul Copan</a> and <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/">Matthew Flannagan</a> and organizations such as the <a href="http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html">Christian Think Tank</a>).<br />
<br />
As a teacher, I often have parents call me because their child came home with a tale of woe featuring my ineptitude as a teacher and my complete failure as a human being. How else to explain that “D”? I offer a perspective they did not hear from little Johnny. More often than not (I’m not perfect), we resolve the situation pretty quickly. It turns out there was more to the story than they initially heard.<br />
We have a tendency to judge the actions of others before we fully appreciate the complexity or depth of the situation. That even applies when the ‘other’ is God and the ‘full story’ is actual world history. As this series unfolds, I will attempt to reveal the context and complexity more clearly. Let’s start with some observations about the Amalekite culture.<br />
<br />
<span id="more-675"></span><br />
Historians agree with biblical history that the Amalekites were apparently outstandingly bad by any standard of that time. According to the biblical text, they had quite a track record:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><em>“…in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12.31)</em></div><br />
Note the issue was not merely that they worshipped their gods; all the nations around Israel served other gods, and they escaped judgment. Egypt’s treatment of the Israelites was not ‘evil enough’ to warrant a war. If God’s only goal was to make every nation around Israel like Israel, he would have needed to attack everybody. The gods were not in and of themselves the issue. Something unique was happening here.<br />
<br />
In Leviticus 18, God gives a list of the things that had “defiled the land,” and for which He specifically was judging the inhabitants. There were only two categories: rampant sexual immortally (including beastiality and incest) and child sacrifice, both of which seem to be associated with temple prostitution and the worship rituals offered to their particular gods. There are, of course, <a href="http://family.jrank.org/pages/847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html">terrible consequences from incest</a>:<br />
<blockquote> <div style="text-align: center;"><em>“…delinquency, anxiety, regressive behaviors, nightmares, withdrawal from normal activities, internalizing and externalizing disorders, cruelty and self-injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, poor self-esteem, and age-inappropriate sexual behavior. A review of forty-five studies indicated two common patterns of psychological response to incest (Williams and Finkelhor 1993). The first are those associated with posttraumatic stress symptomology. The second is an increase in sexualized behaviors…</em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>Long-term psychological sequelae of incest include depression, anxiety, psychiatric hospitalization, drug and alcohol use, suicidality, borderline personality disorder, somatization disorder, and eroticization (Schetky 1990; Silverman, Reinherz, and Giaconia 1996). Common, too, are learning difficulties, posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorders and conversion reactions, running away, prostitution, re-victimization, poor parenting, and an increased likelihood of becoming a perpetrator.”</em></div></blockquote>As for child sacrifice, you can find numerous sources online that quote this description:<br />
<blockquote> <div align="center" style="text-align: center;"><em>“Its origin (human sacrifice) must be sought, evidently, in Canaanite culture. When a disaster was threatening Carthage, the inhabitants of the town decided it was due to the anger of Kronos, to whom they had formerly sacrificed their finest children: instead, they had begun to offer sickly children, or children they had bought. Thereupon, they sacrificed two hundred children from the noblest families. There was a bronze statue of Kronos with outstretched arms, and the child was placed on its hands and rolled into the furnace….Funerary jars have been found with the bodies of young children distorted by suffocation as they struggled for life after having been buried alive as a sacrifice to Canaanite gods. Such young children have been found in the foundation pillars of Canaanite houses…”</em></div></blockquote>In addition, as soon as Israel escaped Egypt–before they could even ‘catch their breath’–the Amalekites made a long journey and attacked Israel. Their first targets were the helpless: <em>“Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God!” (Deuteronomy 25.17-19).</em><br />
<br />
Historian <a href="http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-atheists-and-amalekites.html">Mike Woodruff notes, </a><em>“ They were distant cousins of the Israelites who gained God’s ire by going out of their way to provoke him. They likely knew that the promise God had made was to bless everyone through the blessing of Israel, and they certainly heard of the way God was providing for the Jews; but the Amalekites did not fear God. Instead, they attacked the weakest of God’s people. After giving their promise not to attack, they waited for the Jewish slaves to file through their land on the way to Sinai and then attacked the stragglers—the sick, tired, and elderly. This actually became a bit of a pattern for the Amalekites. They preyed on the weak, and they never missed a chance to attack the Jews.” </em><br />
<br />
The behaviors we’ve looked at were not widely shared by the other Ancient Near East cultures. This evil appears to have been specifically Canaanite/Amorite, and its recorded by both Christian and secular historians. <a href="http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html"> One writer noted:</a> <em>“By 1400 B.C. the Canaanite civilization and religion had become one of the weakest, most decadent, and most immoral cultures of the civilized world.” </em><br />
<br />
<em></em>Honestly, can you look at history and say these people didn’t have it coming? The Amalekites were particularly bad dudes. <a href="http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/nov2003/hurn.pdf">They preyed on the weak</a>; they burnt their children alive; they worshipped their gods by engaging in ritualized incest and beastiality. They were in a league of their own.<br />
<br />
I’m a fan of <a href="http://www.leechild.com/">Lee Child’s series of books starring Jack Reacher.</a> Reacher is a former military policeman with a strong sense of justice who could probably snap me in half. In every story, he finds himself in a situation where somebody has to do something to stop really bad guys from exploiting and using other people. Nobody else is strong enough or capable enough, so Reacher steps in. There is one book in particular in which he uncovers an organization of terrorists whose list of atrocities is disturbing to say the least. When Reacher stops that kind of evil (and he usually kills the people involved) we cheer for him not because we love violence and death, but because somebody needed to step up and put an end to that kind of evil. We cheer for both justice and mercy will prevail: justice for the perpetrators, and mercy for those who suffered.<br />
<br />
Certainly what happens in the Old Testament occurs on a larger scale, but I think the analogy holds. The people with whom the Israelites dealt were causing far more destruction than than the villains in Lee Child’s literary world. Somebody needed to bring justice and mercy- and sometimes that means killing the perpetrators of evil to bring an end to the suffering of their victims.<br />
<br />
Of course, if the Israelites committed atrocities of their own, that’s still a huge problem. Justice would have to fall on them as well. We will address this more fully as we continue this series with ” God of War; God of Justice.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tcapologetics.org/2012/07/god-of-war-playing-the-amalekite-card/" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-73603088315794328872012-06-04T17:23:00.000-04:002012-06-04T17:23:11.780-04:00Is the Old Testament God Evil?<i>Are the charges made by the New Atheists a distorted representation of Old Testament ethics or is God a moral monster, as the New Atheists says He is?</i> <br />
<br />
<h4>By Paul Copan</h4><h3> </h3><h3>Introduction</h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/images/201203_images/400/201203_034_OTGod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/images/201203_images/400/201203_034_OTGod.jpg" width="267" /></a></div>The God of the Bible is a good God who demonstrates His love for people by giving His Son for the salvation of those who believe (John 3:16). The New Atheists, however, think differently. They question God’s goodness by raising abundant complaints about Old Testament (OT) ethics. Richard Dawkins thinks that Yahweh is a moral monster: “What makes my jaw drop is that people today should base their lives on such an appalling role model as Yahweh — and even worse, that they should bossily try to force the same evil monster (whether fact or fiction) on the rest of us.” Yahweh’s commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is both “disgraceful” and tantamount to “child abuse and bullying.” Yahweh breaks into a “monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirted with a rival god,” resembling “nothing so much as sexual jealousy of the worst kind.” Add to this the killing of the Canaanites — an “ethnic cleansing” in which “bloodthirsty massacres” were carried out with “xenophobic relish.” Joshua’s destruction of Jericho is “morally indistinguishable from Hitler’s invasion of Poland,” or Saddam Hussein’s massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.” Beside all this, we have to contend with the “ubiquitous wierdness of the Bible” as well as the moral failures and hypocrisies of biblical characters: a drunken Lot seduced by and engaging in sexual relations with his daughters (Genesis 19:31–36); Abraham’s twice lying about his wife Sarah (Genesis 12:18,19; 20:1–18); Jephthah’s foolish vow that resulted in sacrificing his daughter as a burnt offering (Judges 11).<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
According to Christopher Hitchens, the now-forgotten Canaanites were “pitilessly driven out of their homes to make room for the ungrateful and mutinous children of Israel.” Moreoever, the OT contains “a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human animals.”<sup>2</sup><br />
<br />
Sam Harris boldly asserts that if the Bible is true, we should be stoning people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, worshipping graven images, and “other imaginary crimes.” Referring to Deuteronomy 13:6–11, Harris claims that the consistent Bible-believer should stone his son or daughter if she comes home from a yoga class a devotee of Krishna. Furthermore, once we recognize that slaves are human beings who are equally capable of suffering and happiness, we will understand that it is “patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment.” Indeed, we can be good and recognize right and wrong without God or the Bible: we can know objective moral truths without “the existence of a lawgiving God” and can judge Hitler to be morally reprehensible “without reference to scripture.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
I argue that these charges made by the New Atheists are a distorted representation of OT ethics, which fail to consider issues such as the earliest creational ideals (Genesis 1,2), the warm moral ethos of the OT, the ancient Near East (ANE) context, the broader biblical canon, and the metaphysical context to undergird objective morality. I have attempted elsewhere to address at both scholarly and popular levels the various OT ethical questions — slavery, the Canaanite issue, killing Canaanites vs. Islamic jihad, “harsh” moral codes and “strange” levitical laws, Abraham’s offering Isaac, the imprecatory psalms, divine jealousy, divine egotism, and so forth.<sup>4</sup> I only offer a broad overview here.<br />
<br />
<h3>A Response to the New Atheists</h3><h3> </h3>Biblical scholar John Barton warns that there can be no “simple route” to dealing with OT ethics.<sup>5</sup> John Goldingay sees Israel’s unfolding history as broken up into five distinct stages or contexts — wandering clan, theocratic nation, monarchy, afflicted remnant, and post-exilic community of promise. Each one of these requires distinct rather than uniform moral responses.<sup>6</sup> Thus, a proper response calls for greater attention to a range of relevant factors the New Atheists’ crass hermeneutic and left-wing fundamentalism completely ignore.<br />
<br />
<h3>1. Mosaic law and historical narratives</h3>A plain reading of Israel’s priestly/legal codes reveals that they are embedded within a broader historical narrative. Unlike other ANE cuneiform legislation, God ultimately instructs Israel, not by laying down laws or principles, but by telling stories of real people as they relate to their Creator and Covenant Maker. Ideally, God’s moral character and His activity in Israel’s history give the nation a necessary ethical framework to shape its way of life. This is in contrast to the prologue/epilogue to Hammurabi’s Code, which, rather than offering historical narrative, contains lofty language about Hammurabi’s being endowed by the gods as a benevolent earthly sovereign to be a just ruler on earth.<br />
<br />
As we will see below, the critics’ assumption that Israel’s holiness code offers an ultimate, universal ethic is misguided.<br />
<br />
Dawkins’ claims that biblical characters are often deeply flawed may win him points in the “rhetoric” category, but he is not saying anything with which Christians disagree. Such moral blackballing loses him points when he ignores many moral, noble actions of the biblical characters — Abraham’s magnanimity toward Lot; Joseph’s moral integrity; David’s refusal to touch King Saul, despite the opportunities; Nathan’s courage to confront David the adulterer. Indeed, many biblical narratives tend to confirm our moral intuitions, which reveal how biblical characters are often a mixed moral bag. <br />
<br />
Thus, Christopher Hitchens’ remarks about “the ungrateful and mutinous children of Israel” are accurate. St. Paul observes as much in 1 Corinthians 10. Many of Israel’s stories involving stubbornness, treachery, and ingratitude are vivid negative role models — ones to be avoided. The OT’s descriptions (“is”) do not necessarily amount to prescriptions (“ought”).<br />
<br />
<h3>2. The Mosaic law, human sin, and divine ideals</h3>Bruce C. Birch observes that the ANE world — its slavery, polygamy, war, patriarchal structures, kingship, and ethnocentrism — is “totally alien” and “utterly unlike” our own social setting. He advises us to acknowledge this impediment: “these texts are rooted in a cultural context utterly unlike our own, with moral presuppositions and categories that are alien and in some cases repugnant to our modern sensibilities.”<sup>7</sup> The new atheism ignores what Christians most likely affirm — that Mosaic legislation is not the Bible’s moral <i>pinnacle</i> but rather a <i>springboard</i> anticipating further development or, perhaps more accurately, a <i>pointer back</i> to the loftier moral ideals of Genesis 1 and 2 and Genesis 12:1–3. These ideals affirm the image of God in each person, lifelong monogamous marriage, and God’s concern for the nations. The moral implications from these foundational texts are monumental, though Israel’s history reveals a profound departure from these ideals.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the believer need not justify all aspects of the Sinaitic legal code. After all, God begins with an ancient people who have imbibed dehumanizing customs and social structures from their ANE context. Yet Yahweh desires to treat them as morally responsible agents who, it is hoped, <i>gradually</i> come to discover a better way. He does this rather than risk their repudiating a loftier ethic — a moral overhaul — that they cannot even understand and for which they are not culturally or morally prepared. As Goldingay puts it: “God starts with his people where they are; if they cannot cope with his highest way, he carves out a lower one.”<sup>8</sup> This kind of progression, as we shall see, is not biblical relativism, as some allege. Indeed, we see unchangeable biblical ideals highlighted from the very beginning of the Scriptures (Genesis 1:26,27; 2:24), which are reaffirmed throughout.<br />
<br />
<h3>3. Mosaic law, Cuneiform law, and moral improvements</h3>Collections of cuneiform law include the laws of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 B.C., during the Third Dynasty of Ur); the laws of Lipit-Ishtar (c. 1925 B.C.), who ruled the Sumerian city of Isin; the (Akkadian) laws of Eshnunna (c. 1800 B.C.), a city 100 miles north of Babylon; the laws of Hammurabi (1750 B.C.); and the Hittite laws (1650–1200 B.C.) of Asia Minor.<sup>9</sup> Despite parallels between these and Mosaic law codes and even certain improvements in ANE codes over time, some significant differences also exist. We have in the Mosaic law some genuine, previously unheard-of <i>improvements</i>.<br />
<br />
Slaves in Israel, unlike their ANE contemporaries, were given radical, unprecedented legal/human rights — even if not equaling that of free persons. As the <i>Anchor Bible Dictionary’s</i> essay on “Slavery” observes, “We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.” By comparison, “the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE,” where slaves were forcibly branded or tattooed for identification. Indeed, in “contrast to many ancient doctrines, the Hebrew law was relatively mild toward the slaves and recognized them as human beings subject to defense from intolerable acts, although not to the same extent as free persons.”<sup>10</sup><br />
<br />
Another unique feature of the Mosaic Law is its condemnation of <i>k</i><i>idnapping</i> a person to sell as a slave — an act punishable by death (Exodus 21:16; cp 1 Timothy 1:10). This is a point lost on, or ignored by, those who compare slavery in Israel to that in the antebellum South. While Israel was commanded to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15,16), Hammurabi demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves(§<sup>16</sup>).<br />
<br />
As an aside, some have alleged that Paul’s returning the runaway Onesimus to his alleged owner Philemon is a step backward toward Hammurabi. This is a false charge. For one thing, there is scholarly debate on the question of whether or not Onesimus was a slave. For one thing, there are no “flight” verbs in this letter, and this “runaway slave” interpretation did not emerge until the fourth century.<br />
<br />
Moreover, Paul had declared that in Christ there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28), and he elsewhere appeals to Christian masters — who have their own heavenly Master — to treat their slaves justly, impartially, and without threatening (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). And if slaves can gain their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21), Paul encouraged this. Surely, this is dramatic departure from Hammurabi.<br />
<br />
<i>Hebrew (debt) slaves</i> — which we could compare to indentured servanthood during the founding of America — were to be granted eventual release in the seventh year (Leviticus 25:35–43) — a notable improvement over other ANE law codes. This release was to be accompanied with generous provisions and a gracious spirit (Deuteronomy 15:9). The motivating reason? “[Y]ou were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today” (Deuteronomy 15:12–18, NASB<sup>11</sup>, esp. verse 15). Even if the poverty could not be eradicated, Deuteronomy 15’s overriding, “revolutionary” goal is <i>that there be no debt slavery in the land at all</i> (verses 4,11).<sup>12</sup><br />
<br />
Concerning the ANE’s inferior <i>sexual morality</i>, we are familiar with the condemnation of the Canaanite female and male cult prostitutes (cp. Genesis 38:15,22,23; Deuteronomy 23:17,18; also Hosea 4:14). Many ANE cuneiform laws, however, permitted activities that undermined family integrity and stability by allowing men to engage in adulterous relations with slaves and prostitutes. The laws of Lipit-Ishtar of Lower Mesopotamia (1930 B.C.) take for granted the practice of prostitution (e.g., ¶ 27,30). In Hittite law (1650–1500 B.C.), “If a father and son sleep with the same female slave or prostitute, it is not an offence.” (¶ 194)<br />
<br />
Not only do we find morally inferior cuneiform legislation, but also its attendant harsh, ruthless <i>punishments</i>.<br />
<br />
For certain crimes, Hammurabi mandated that tongue, breast, hand, or ear be cut off (§§ 192,194,195,205). Beside punishments such as cutting off noses and ears, ancient Egyptian law permitted the beating of criminals (for, say, perjury or libel) with between 100 and 200 strokes.<sup>13</sup> Contrast this with Deuteronomy 25:1–3, which sets a limit of 40 strokes for a criminal.<br />
<br />
What of Scripture’s emphasis on <i>lex talionis</i> — an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? First, except for capital punishment (“life for life”), these texts (Exodus 21:23–25; Leviticus 24:17–22; Deuteronomy 19:16–21), are <i>not taken literally</i>. Each example calls for (monetary) compensation, not bodily mutilation. Later in the New Testament (NT), referring to this language that was being used as a pretext for personal vengeance outside the lawcourts, Jesus himself did not take such language literally (Matthew 5:38,39) — no more than He took literally the language of plucking out eyes and cutting off hands if they lead to sin (Matthew 5:29,30). Second, this principle served as a useful guide for exacting proportional punishment and compensation; this was designed to prevent blood feuds and disproportionate retaliatory acts.<br />
<br />
Additionally, the increased complexity and stringency of Mosaic regulations is a divine response to Israel’s disobedience. From the beginning, the earliest legislation (Exodus 21–23) was intended to be simple and much less harsh — comparable to patriarchal religion (cp. Jeremiah 7:2,3; Galatians 3:19,22). However, the greater stringency of the ensuing laws is the result of three things: (a) Israel’s refusal to approach God at the mountain as a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6), instead sending Moses as their mediator; (b) Aaron’s failure as high priest in the golden calf incident (Exodus 32), resulting in a tightening of priestly restrictions (Exodus 35 through Leviticus 16); (c) the people’s worship of the goat idols (Leviticus 17:1–9), resulting in more severe laws for the community (Leviticus 17:10–26:46).<sup>14</sup> Consider how a rebellious child will often need external rules, severe deadlines, and close supervision to hold him over until (hopefully) an internal moral change takes place. Rules, though a stop-gap measure, are hardly ideal.<br />
<br />
Although the New Atheists belittle the Mosaic Law for its ruthless strictness, it is an <i>accommodation</i> to a morally undeveloped ANE cultural mindset — with significant ethical improvements — as well as a response to the rebellious, covenant-breaking propensity of the Israelites.<br />
<br />
<h3>4. The Mosaic law, Israel’s history, and varying ethical demands</h3>I have noted the shift from an ancestral wandering clan to a theocratic nation, then to a monarchy/institutional state/kingdom, an afflicted remnant, and finally a post-exilic community/assembly of promise. Each stage offers enduring moral insights — faithfulness/covenant-keeping, trusting in God, showing mercy. Our focus, though, is on the varying ethical demands on God’s people. For example, in the first stage, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are apolitical characters (except for Abram’s rescuing Lot in response to an invasion/raid [Genesis 14]). After Israel’s 400-year wait, including bondage in Egypt, until the sin of the Amorites reaches full measure (Genesis 15:16), they became a nation. This required land to inhabit. Yahweh fought on Israel’s behalf while bringing just judgment on an irredeemably Canaanite culture and religion that had sunk hopelessly below any hope of moral return — with the rare exception of Rahab and her family and the Gibeonites at the end of Joshua 9. As Leviticus 18:28 declares, the land would “spew out” its inhabitants, and Israel itself was subject to the same judgment.<br />
<br />
“Holy warfare” is perhaps the most emotionally charged point raised by the New Atheists. It is primarily located in the second stage — and not throughout Israel’s OT history. So let me offer a few comments here. First, Israel would not have been justified to attack the Canaanites without Yahweh’s explicit command. Yahweh issued His unique command in light of a morally sufficient reason — the intractable wickedness of Canaanite culture and the moral and spiritual danger it posed.<br />
<br />
Second, as I argue elsewhere,<sup>15</sup> we have strong archaeological evidence that the targeted Canaanite cities such as Jericho and Ai were not population centers with women and children, but military forts or garrisons that protected noncombatant civilians in the hill country — namely, soldiers and political/military leaders — although occasionally female tavern keepers (e.g., Rahab) could be found in these citadels. Indeed, the terms “city” (<i>‘ir</i>) and “king” (<i>melek</i>) were typically used in Canaan during this period to refer, respectively, to “fortress/garrison” and “military leader.” In addition, Jericho probably had about 100 or fewer soldiers in this outpost (which is why the Israelites could encircle it seven times in one day and then do battle against it). So if Jericho was a fort, then “all” those killed therein were warriors — Rahab and her family being the exceptional noncombatants dwelling within this militarized camp. The same applies throughout the Book of Joshua. Moreover, the attacks on cities were more like “disabling raids,” not acts of utter decimation, as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen argues: “these campaigns were essentially disabling raids: they were not territorial conquests with instant Hebrew occupation. The text is very clear about this.”<sup>16</sup><br />
<br />
Third, the “obliteration language” in Joshua (e.g., “he left no survivor” and “utterly destroyed all who breathed” [Joshua 10:40, NASB]) and in early Judges is clearly hyperbolic — another stock feature of ANE language. Consider how, despite such language, the latter part of Joshua itself (along with Judges 1) assumes plenty of Canaanites still inhabit the land (e.g., Joshua 23:12,13).<br />
<br />
Fourth, the biblical language of the Canaanite “utter destruction” is identical to that of Judah’s destruction in the Babylonian exile. So utter annihilation or even genocide is completely inaccurate. Indeed, God threatened to “vomit” out Israel from the land just as he had vomited out the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:25,28; 20:22). In the Babylonian invasion of Judah (sixth-century B.C.), God threatened to “lay waste the towns of Judah so no one can live there” (Jeremiah 9:11). Indeed, God said, “I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin” (Jeremiah 25:9, NASB). God “threatened to stretch out My hand against you and destroy you” (Jeremiah 15:6, NASB; cp. Ezekiel 5:16) — to bring “disaster” against Judah (Jeremiah 6:19). In Isaiah 43:28, the Lord uses this term <i>herem</i> (“[consignment to the] ban”) in an exaggerated fashion: “So I will pollute the princes of the sanctuary, and I will consign Jacob to the ban and Israel to revilement” (NASB). The biblical text, supported by archaeological discovery, suggests that while Judah’s political and religious structures were ruined and that Judahites died in the conflict, the urban elite were deported to Babylon while many “poor of the land” remained behind to inhabit the towns of Judah. Clearly, Judah’s being “completely destroyed” and made an “everlasting ruin” (Jeremiah 25:9) was a significant literary exaggeration — which reinforces our point about the Canaanite “destruction.”<br />
<br />
In Deuteronomy 7:2–5, we see from that wiping out Canaanite religion was far more significant than wiping out the Canaanites themselves.<sup>17</sup><br />
<br />
What of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15? Were they totally destroyed? Apart from keeping animals and king Agag alive, Saul said he had obeyed God (verse 20). What’s more, at the end of the book David is fighting an army of Amalekites, and over 400 soldiers escaped (30:17). Clearly, no “total destruction” was in view. The same is true of the Midianites in Numbers 31. After the seduction of Israel by Midian, “every male” Midianite was killed (verse 7). Is this literal? Not at all. We see in Judges 6:5 tells us that the Midianites (and their camels) were too numerous to count.<br />
<br />
Fifth, we should take seriously the numerous references of “driving out” the Canaanites (e.g., Exodus 23:28; Leviticus 18:24; Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 6:19; 7:1; 9:4; 18:12; Joshua 10:28, 30,32,35,37,39; 11:11,14) or “dispossessing” them of their land (Numbers 21:32; Deuteronomy 12:2; 19:1; etc.). We then read in Joshua of repeated affirmations that Joshua did all that Moses commanded (Joshua 11:12,14,15,20). But if he did so, and many Canaanite survivors remained, then clearly Moses did not intend this to be literal either.<br />
<br />
Sixth, God’s difficult command regarding the Canaanites as <i>a limited, unique salvation-historical situation</i> is in some ways comparable to God’s difficult command to Abraham in Genesis 22. Yet, we should no more look to the divinely mandated attack on Canaanites as a universal ideal for international military engagement than we should look to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as a timeless standard for “family values.” Behind both of these hard commands, however, is the clear context of Yahweh’s loving intentions and faithful promises. In the first place, God had given Abraham the miracle child Isaac, through whom God promised to make Abraham the father of many. Previously, he saw God’s provision when he reluctantly let Ishmael and Hagar go into the wilderness — with God reassuring Abraham that Ishmael would become a great nation. Likewise, Abraham knew that God would somehow fulfill His covenant promises through Isaac — even if it meant that God would raise him from the dead. Thus Abraham informed his servants, “we will worship, and then we will come back to you” (Genesis 22:5 [NRSV<sup>18</sup>]; cp. Hebrews 11:19).<br />
<br />
With the second harsh command regarding the Canaanites, Yahweh has already promised to bring blessing to all the families of the earth without exclusion (Genesis 12:1–3; 22:17,18) and desires to include Israel’s most-hated enemies in this blessing (e.g., Isaiah 19:25). This should be set against the background of Yahweh’s enemy-loving character (Matthew 5:43–48; cp. Exodus 34:6) and worldwide salvific purposes. In both cases, we have a good, promise-making God who has morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201203/201203_034_Good_God.cfm" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here.</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-54061237733526331052012-06-04T09:09:00.000-04:002012-06-04T09:09:41.085-04:00Tim Keller’s top 10 evangelism tips<h4>by Martin Salter </h4>A while ago on our elder retreat we listened to a talk Tim Keller gave at Lausanne. As part of that talk he gave 10 tips to help our lay folk in their evangelism. They were so helpful I wanted to put them down somewhere, so here they are:<br />
<ol><li>Let people around you know you are a Christian (in a natural, unforced way)</li>
<li>Ask friends about their faith – and just listen!</li>
<li>Listen to your friends problems – maybe offer to pray for them</li>
<li>Share your problems with others – testify to how your faith helps you</li>
<li>Give them a book to read</li>
<li>Share your story</li>
<li>Answer objections and questions</li>
<li>Invite them to a church event</li>
<li>Offer to read the Bible with them</li>
<li>Take them to an explore course</li>
</ol>What Keller also advises is that we (generally) start with 1-4. If people are interested and want to talk more you can move them to stages 5-7. If they’re still interested go on to stages 8-10. Sometimes people will want to go straight to 10, but often people start from way back and need some time to think and discuss things in a non-pressured way. We often think that only stages 8-10 count and invest all our energy there. TK suggests that to get people at stages 8,9,10 you have to put the work in at 1-4. Sometimes you’ll have to keep going round the loop multiple times.<br />
<br />
TK suggests to leaders that we should aim to get 20% of our folk doing this (of course it should be 100% but let’s be realistic). If we do, we’ll see a steady stream of conversions over the long term, and sustainable church growth.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://salternlite.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/tim-kellers-top-10-evangelism-tips/" target="_blank">To read more from Martin Salter, click here.</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-12211382589589342602012-05-22T19:53:00.000-04:002012-05-22T19:53:38.801-04:00The Trouble with "Faith"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyH5XJhKR40XAAQID8EpeLkTVqM5E5Sarwiy7AMwHKetwlU1tidtzWVhCysQ" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyH5XJhKR40XAAQID8EpeLkTVqM5E5Sarwiy7AMwHKetwlU1tidtzWVhCysQ" width="165" /></a></div><span style="font-size: small;"><i><em>Is Christian conviction simply religious wishful thinking? Can we hope, but never truly know? </em><br />
If you just take Christianity on "faith” you may be in trouble…</i></span><em><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">here are biblical examples to dispel that notion.</span> </i></span></em><br />
<br />
<h4>by Greg Koukl </h4><h4><br />
</h4>I don’t like the word “faith.” <br />
<br />
It’s not that faith isn’t valuable. True biblical faith is essential for salvation. But faith is often deeply misunderstood in a way that hurts Christianity and harms Christians.<br />
<br />
Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief” unnecessary or irrelevant. That kind of knowledge undermines genuine faith and offends God.<br />
<br />
The reasoning goes something like this. We all know God wants us to have faith. In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true? Faith, then, is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_ry4YPhTOWJ4H5lNs6gjVpNvzcUEm50XSx1gs2AriCZAxr615OlrosWPfyw-idH5jj_eSL_PKum6olNNXEnBO3vJvCiKWFbFBj1OeVBBhKnNvpVwLw2rg_FCuft4nFyVsVztytM5r_p8/s1600/20090916_fingers_crossed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_ry4YPhTOWJ4H5lNs6gjVpNvzcUEm50XSx1gs2AriCZAxr615OlrosWPfyw-idH5jj_eSL_PKum6olNNXEnBO3vJvCiKWFbFBj1OeVBBhKnNvpVwLw2rg_FCuft4nFyVsVztytM5r_p8/s200/20090916_fingers_crossed.jpg" width="192" /></a></div>On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you. Faith is a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness. When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,” as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.<br />
<br />
This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking. We can hope, but we can never know.<br />
<br />
But this will never work. Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.” If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.<br />
<br />
The “I just take Christianity on (blind) faith” attitude can’t be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet Peter directs us to <em>make</em> a defense for the hope that is in us.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10168#_ftn1">[1]</a> <br />
<br />
Also, the biblical word for faith, <em>pistis</em>, doesn’t mean wishing. It means active trust. And trust cannot be conjured up or manufactured. It must be earned. You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible has in mind unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true.<br />
<br />
In fact, I suggest you completely ban the phrase “leap of faith” from your vocabulary. Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. <br />
<br />
The following biblical examples make my point.<br />
<br />
<h2>Blood, Boils, Frogs and Flies</h2>Israel’s exodus from Egypt was depicted in a clever animated film called “The Prince of Egypt.” After seeing the movie, my wife and I spent time reading the original account in the Hebrew Scriptures. <br />
<br />
Though I’d read this passage a number of times, something jumped out at me then that I hadn’t seen before, a phrase God kept repeating over and over in the account. <br />
<br />
The material relevant to my point starts in Exodus 3. Reading the encounter with God at the burning bush, we realize Moses is reluctant to be God’s deliverer. And it’s understandable. Why would Pharaoh, the most powerful leader in the world, submit to a renegade Jew? Why would two million Hebrew slaves follow a murderer and a defector? <br />
<br />
“What if they won’t believe me, or listen to me?” Moses demurred. “What if they say, ‘The Lord hasn’t appeared to you’?”<br />
<br />
What God <em>didn’t</em> say in response is as important as what He <em>did</em> say. He didn’t say, “Tell Pharaoh he’s just going to have to take this on blind faith. Tell the Hebrews the same thing. They’ve got to have faith.”<br />
<br />
Instead God asked, “What’s that in your hand?”<br />
<br />
“A staff,” Moses answered.<br />
<br />
“Throw it on the ground.”<br />
<br />
So he threw it down, and it became a serpent.<br />
<br />
“Stretch out your hand,” the Lord said. “Grab it by the tail.” <br />
<br />
Reluctantly, Moses did as he was told. When he grabbed the snake, it became a staff again.<br />
<br />
“Do this,” God said, “and then they’ll believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, has appeared to you.” <br />
<br />
More signs followed that got the people’s attention: the river of blood; frogs covering the land; the gnats, flies, and locusts; the boils and pestilence; the hail; the darkness; and finally the angel of death. All for one purpose: “That they might <em>know</em> there is a God in Israel.” Not simply “believe,” “hope,” or “wish.” <em>Know</em>. This is no idle comment, but a message that is central to the account. In fact, the phrase is repeated no less than ten times throughout the account.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10168#_ftn2">[2]</a><br />
<br />
What was the result? “And when Israel <em>saw</em> the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they <em>believed</em> in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Exodus 14:31).<br />
<br />
Note the pattern: a powerful <em>evidence</em> (miracles, in this case), giving the people <em>knowledge</em> of God, in Whom they then placed their active trust (faith). Knowledge –some level of certainty—went before belief in each of these cases. <br />
<br />
God didn’t ask the Hebrews, or even Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking. He demonstrated His power, giving them good reason to believe, resulting in obedience. First, the Hebrews were given good reason to know. This then grounded their investment of faith (active trust) in God. Pharaoh got the picture, too, but his response was not humble surrender leading to salvation. Instead, it was submission under compulsion. In both cases, though, each was compelled to act based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s power.<br />
<br />
In the animated feature, “The Prince of Egypt,” Miriam breaks into a song of praise following Israel’s deliverance. The song is entitled “When You Believe,” and includes these words: “There can be miracles, when you believe…. Who knows what miracles you can achieve, when you believe…Just believe…Gotta believe….”<br />
<br />
Is that the way it happened, that the people achieved miracles <em>because of </em>their belief? No, reality was just the opposite. In the original account, miracles didn’t <em>follow</em> belief; they <em>preceded</em> it. Acts of power led to knowledge, which then allowed faith to flourish. <br />
<br />
<h2>Taking the Easy Way Out?</h2>Fast-forward to the New Testament and you’ll find the same pattern in the life of Christ. In Mark 2, we encounter Jesus speaking to a group gathered in a home in Capernaum. A crowd blocks the front door, keeping a paralytic—being carried by his four friends—from gaining an audience with the Healer. The only way in is from above, so they dig through the earthen roof and lower the deformed man down on a pallet.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.sermonsfromseattle.com/images/clip_image008_000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="http://www.sermonsfromseattle.com/images/clip_image008_000.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Jesus is impressed. Seeing their faith He says to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” His words offend the scribes, though, who grumble among themselves at such an audacious claim. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” they whisper.<br />
<br />
Jesus, aware of their complaint, puts a question to them. “Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Arise, take up your pallet and walk’?”<br />
<br />
How would you respond? If you were in Jesus’ position, would it be easier for you to claim to forgive sins or to claim to heal paralysis? Clearly, it’s always easier to boast about something no one can check up on than it is to claim to have supernatural powers and run the risk you’ll fail the test.<br />
<br />
Jesus knew it looked like He was taking the easy way out, until His next remark: “But in order that you may <em>know</em> that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He then turned to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” Then, in the sight of everyone, the paralytic got up and got out.<br />
<br />
Jesus gives us the same lesson we find in Exodus. He proves something that can’t be seen—the forgiveness of sins—with evidence that can be seen—a dramatic supernatural healing. Jesus heals “in order that you may know.” Once again, the concrete <em>evidence</em> allows the doubters to <em>know</em> the truth so they can then <em>trust</em> in the forgiveness Christ could give. Once again, there is no conflict between knowledge and faith. Rather, the first is the basis for the second.<br />
<br />
<h2>The Apostle Peter</h2>The book of Acts and Peter’s dramatic sermon on Pentecost gives us another vivid example of the evidence/knowledge/faith equation. <br />
<br />
The crowd is both amazed and bewildered at the manifestations of the Spirit they see with their own eyes. Peter takes his stand before the throng and explains that it isn’t intoxication they witness, but prophecy being fulfilled in their midst by the hand of God. <br />
<br />
He recounts that Jesus—one attested to by miracles, signs, and wonders—had been murdered at the hands of godless men. Death couldn’t hold Him in the grave, though. He had risen. Not only did King David himself foretell such a thing; Peter and the rest of the disciples had witnessed the risen Christ themselves. The Holy Spirit, the gift promised by the Father, was now being poured out in a way that Peter’s entire audience could “see and hear.”<br />
<br />
He then closes with a statement tailor-made for all those who think that certainty somehow diminishes genuine faith: “Therefore let all the house of Israel <em>know for certain</em> that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10168#_ftn3">[3]</a> <br />
<br />
When the crowd beholds the evidence—the miracles, the fulfilled prophecy, the witnesses of the resurrection, the powerful manifestations of the Spirit in their midst—the people are pierced to the heart. They are <em>convinced</em> of their error, they <em>know</em> the truth, and thousands <em>believe</em>, putting their <em>trust</em> in the Savior.<br />
<br />
<h2>Hear, See, Handle, Believe </h2>John, the Beloved Disciple, brings it all together for us in 1 John. He opens his letter with the evidence of his own eyewitness encounter with Christ. Notice how many senses he appeals to:<br />
<br />
What was from the beginning, what we have <em>heard</em>, what we have <em>seen</em> with our eyes, what we <em>beheld</em> and our hands <em>handled</em> concerning the Word of Life—and the life was <em>manifested</em>, and we have <em>seen</em> and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was <em>manifested</em> to us—what we have <em>seen</em> and <em>heard</em> we proclaim to you also…<br />
<br />
Then he closes his letter like this:<br />
<br />
And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may <em>know</em> that you have eternal life.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10168#_ftn4">[4]</a><br />
<br />
To John, faith wasn’t a blind leap. It wasn’t wishing on a star. It was grounded in evidence that led to knowledge. And when the evidence is so overwhelming—as it was for the earliest follows of Jesus (and many since then)—the knowledge is certain.<br />
<br />
The record is clear from the Old Testament, to the Gospels, from the very beginnings of the early church, to the epistles of the apostles: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10168" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-59777487292821042382012-05-16T01:17:00.000-04:002012-05-16T01:17:53.699-04:00What's wrong with Joel Osteen?<em>The following is by Rev. Dr. Brian Lee, pastor of <a href="http://www.christreformeddc.org/" target="_blank">Christ Reformed Church</a> in Washington D.C. This was originally posted on <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/01/whats-wrong-with-joel-osteen/" target="_blank">The Daily Caller </a> on May 1, 2012 and pretty much sums up why Joel Osteen drives me absolutely bonkers.</em><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.christianpost.com/full/52718/joel-osteen-night-of-hope.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://images.christianpost.com/full/52718/joel-osteen-night-of-hope.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>On Sunday April 29, 2012, 41,000 fans packed Nationals Stadium in Washington, D.C., to hear a message of hope, inspiration, and encouragement from Joel Osteen. Most paid about $20 (including fees) for the privilege.<br />
<br />
Osteen sold out the stadium—a feat the Nationals rarely accomplish. But did he have to <em>sell out</em> to do so?<br />
Osteen is the latest embodiment of the American Religion—Revivalism. For centuries now, preachers have known how to fill stadiums or circus tents and send people home with hope in their heart and a skip in their step. Osteen promises you will leave a transformed person—at least until his tour comes around again next year, when you can be transformed again.<br />
<br />
Osteen’s message is a positive one for a difficult time. Every one of us has seeds of greatness inside, potential that has not yet been released, buried treasure waiting to be discovered. If you were a car, you would be the fully loaded and totally equipped model—”with pin stripes,” he says, gesturing to his suit.<br />
<br />
Before God created you, he planned great things for you. As you stretch your faith, “God is going to show up, and show out, in tremendous ways. … If you don’t step into your destiny and release your gift, then this world will not be as bright as it should be.”<br />
<br />
That’s a pretty positive message. What could be wrong with that?<br />
<br />
The biggest problem with Osteen’s message about God is that it is really a message about me. God is a potential, a force, a co-pilot, waiting to be tapped and deployed. I may have a net below me, but I am the one that has to take the first steps on the wire:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>Taking steps of faith is imperative to fulfilling your destiny. When I make a move, God will make a move. When I stretch my faith, God will release more of his favor. When I think bigger, God will act bigger.</i></blockquote><br />
God is as big as I think him to be.<br />
<br />
Yes, this is the American Religion: a program, a plan, five simple steps to help me be all that I can be. This is the religion of the bootstraps, where “God helps those who help themselves.”<br />
<br />
By the way, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that is a quote from the Bible. It’s not.<br />
And that’s the second problem. Osteen’s message is not biblical. His promise that his audience will be taught the Bible—from a preacher who has admitted that teaching the Bible isn’t his strength—is fulfilled with a smattering of verses. These snippets are at best torn out of their context, at worst fabricated.<br />
<br />
There’s this stretch: “God is saying to you what He said to Lot, ‘Hurry up and get there, so I can show you my favor in a greater way.’” In <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Genesis 19.22" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%2019.22">Genesis 19:22</a>, the Angel does tell Lot “Get there quickly, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.” God waiting on Lot to step out in faith so he can bless him? Not exactly. It is God telling Lot to flee to Zoar, a city of safety, so he can rain down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.<br />
<br />
Osteen bolsters his bootstrap religion by quoting Jesus: “Roll away the stone, and I’ll raise Lazarus.” This, Osteen says, is a “principle,” “God expects us to do what we can, and He will do what we can’t. If you will do the natural, God will do the supernatural.”<br />
<br />
One problem. Jesus does command them to roll away the stone, but no such quid pro quo is found in holy writ. This foundational principle is one of Osteen’s own making.<br />
<br />
It is not primarily the details of Osteen’s biblical sunbeams that are problematic. It’s the overall message. What’s missing is any sense of human sin. Osteen leads his crowd in a mantra at the opening of his performance: “This is my Bible. Tonight I will be taught the word of God. I can do what it says I can do.” Again, bootstraps.<br />
<br />
What does the Bible say we can do for ourselves? Our best works are like filthy rags, the prophet Isaiah teaches (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Isaiah 64.6" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%2064.6">Isaiah 64:6</a>); we are like sheep gone astray (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Isaiah 53.6" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%2053.6">Isaiah 53:6</a>). Paul says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Romans 3.23" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%203.23">Romans 3:23</a>) and includes himself in this “all” as “the chief of all sinners” (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="1 Timothy 1.15" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%201.15">1 Timothy 1:15</a>). The big problem is that we don’t want what’s good for us, and when we do, Paul says, “The good that I want to do, I do not do” (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Romans 7.19" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%207.19">Romans 7:19</a>).<br />
<br />
Ring true? It does for me. That’s why the stadium will be full next year. Self-esteem doesn’t help me, it just leaves me with more me, digging deeper within.<br />
<br />
How about Jesus? Surely he’s more upbeat than Paul or the prophets? Well, he does offer this simple recipe to happiness: “Sell all you possess, give it away to the poor, and follow me.” You done that yet? Yes, he does say that our faith makes us well, but he is the healer our faith looks to. He also tells the paralytic to take up his bed and walk, but only after he has healed him.<br />
<br />
What we want is the excitement and encouragement and affirmation of the stadium—”God is waiting for you to act.” What we need is the truth and compassion of Jesus—”Come to me you who are weary, and I will give you rest.”<br />
<br />
After the adrenaline boost, I hope some of those 41,000 find their way through the desert to some place where they can get a drink of water.<br />
<br />
Earlier Sunday, 45 worshipers (about 0.1% of Osteen’s crowd) gathered at <a href="http://www.christreformeddc.org/" target="_blank">Christ Reformed Church</a> in Logan Circle—and other churches in this city—to hear a message of sin and salvation, the Good News of a God who loves those who are his sworn enemies. They responded to God’s word with prayer, song, and confession, and received the benediction of a God who pardons sin full and free.<br />
<br />
There was hope and inspiration too, but of an entirely different sort. Admittance was free.<br />
<br />
[<em>Note: The author didn't make it to Nationals Stadium on Sunday; he caught the previous "Night of Hope Event" at Yankee Stadium online</em>.]<br />
<br />
Dr. Brian Lee is the pastor of <a href="http://www.christreformeddc.org/" target="_blank">Christ Reformed Church</a> in Washington, D.C. He formerly worked as a communications director both on Capitol Hill and at the National Endowment for the Humanities.<br />
<hr style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;" /> <strong>Editor’s note:</strong> Just so that you don’t think it is only cranky Reformed types who are saying these things about Joel Osteen, Salon.com also posted a piece on The Osteen Tour stop in D.C.: <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/joel_osteen_worships_himself/" target="_blank">Joel Osteen Worships Himself</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-50749715318206233222012-05-13T20:48:00.000-04:002012-05-13T20:48:38.474-04:00The Dan Savage speech and a couple of responsesIn case you live under a rock, there was a speech given by Dan Savage (homosexual activist) recently at a high school where he had some choice words to say about Christians and the Bible. Here is the original. Be warned; there is a little bit of language on this. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ao0k9qDsOvs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<br />
Here is a response from <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/BrettKunkleSTR" target="_blank">Brett Kunkle</a> at <a href="http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PL_landing_homepage" target="_blank">STR Place</a> (the youth ministry of <a href="http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage" target="_blank">Stand To Reason</a>). He gives some background on who Dan Savage is and provides a great response to the overall philosophical and logical mis-steps Dan makes, as well as some of the theological misrepresentations.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/YLy8JpKVr9k?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<br />
Here is a response from <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/AandODirector" target="_blank">James White</a> at <a href="http://www.aomin.org/" target="_blank">Alpha and Omega Ministries, </a>doing what James White does best.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/uxIWf7qrcZM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-52652439263251098602012-05-13T20:21:00.000-04:002012-05-13T20:21:24.431-04:0010 Myths of the Resurrection<h4>by C. Michael Patton and Dr. Mike Licona</h4><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/case-for-the-resurrection/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="152" src="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/wp-content/themes/academica/images/tcftroj-banner-wide-red.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There are many myths about Christianity that millions of people have bought into. But one thing remains certain — Jesus died on the cross and rose again 3 days later. That’s not just faith — it’s FACT — and there’s a strong historical foundation to support this. Please click on these short videos below to learn more about ten of the top myths regarding the resurrection of Jesus.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-1/">Myth #1: Contradictions in the Gospels</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-2/">Myth #2: Pagan Parallels in the Mystery Religions</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-3/">Myth #3: The Fraud Theory</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-4/">Myth #4: Hallucinations</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-5/">Myth #5: It’s a Matter of Faith</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-6/">Myth #6: Apparent Death Theory</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-7/">Myth #7: It Was Merely Legend</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-8/">Myth #8: Science Proves that Resurrections Cannot Occur</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-9/">Myth #9: Not Enough Evidence</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/myth-10/">Myth #10: Lost Gospels</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/case-for-the-resurrection/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/wp-content/themes/academica/images/experience-box-square_a.png" /></a></div>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-8582598755707987812012-05-12T10:23:00.001-04:002012-05-12T10:24:29.435-04:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Is Same Sex Marriage about Equality? </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
I think that Greg Koukl does a great job here and you should take the time to watch.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/46fWQk21kUQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-76017173107930561392012-05-10T11:54:00.000-04:002012-05-10T11:54:43.763-04:00Pro-Life Crash Course<h4>by Amy Hall</h4><em>Here’s a summary of how to argue for the pro-life position that I created for a friend whose secular philosophy class was scheduled to discuss abortion. It’s a great little cheat sheet you can keep on hand for your own discussions on this subject.</em><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.toddlersworkshop.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/stimulation-in-utero1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.toddlersworkshop.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/stimulation-in-utero1.jpg" /></a></div>The most important question to resolve when discussing whether or not you can kill the unborn is the question, "What is it?" If it's not a human being, then there's no problem killing it. If it's a valuable human being, then one can't justify killing it.*<br />
<br />
There are three stages your argument will have to address:<br />
<ol><li>Is it a human being?</li>
<li>Should this human being have the rights of other human beings?</li>
<li>Respond to objections.<br />
</li>
</ol><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Part 1 – Is it a human being?</strong></span><br />
<br />
Steve Wagner formulated this quick defense of the unborn as a human being:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">If the unborn is growing, it must be alive.<br />
If it has human parents, it must be human.<br />
And living humans like you and I are valuable aren’t they?</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><br />
</div>There's really no question that the unborn is a member of the human species. This is just a biological fact. It's a human being at the earliest stage of development. It looks different from you and me, but so do newborns look different from you and me! We are merely at different stages of development, but we remain the same kind of being throughout all stages of our development.<br />
<br />
So now that you've established it's a human being, you'll need to argue that unborn human beings ought to have the same right to life as every other group of human beings.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Part 2 – Should it have the rights of other human beings?</strong></span><br />
<br />
To determine whether or not these unborn human beings ought to have rights, there are two questions to answer:<br />
<ol><li>What are the differences between the unborn human being and born human beings?</li>
<li>Are any of those differences relevant to human rights?</li>
</ol>To remember the four main differences between the unborn and the born, use the acronym S.L.E.D.:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">S – Size<br />
L – Level of development<br />
E – Environment<br />
D – Degree of dependency</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><br />
</div>Now watch this five-minute <a href="http://strplace.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/here%E2%80%99s-why-unborn-human-beings-are-as-valuable-as-adult-human-beings/" target="_blank">video</a> of Scott Klusendorf explaining how to use the S.L.E.D. Test. These four differences are all irrelevant when we're determining the rights of born people, so why should they be relevant when determining the rights of the unborn?<br />
<br />
The fact is that the concept of universal human rights is based on the idea that every human being is valuable and has rights <em>simply because of the kind of being he or she is</em>. We don't require human beings to meet an arbitrary standard of characteristics (such as race, intelligence, size, or ability) in order to receive rights. The kind of thinking that rules out whole groups of human beings based on an arbitrary standard of characteristics is unjust discrimination, and it has caused all sorts of human rights abuses in the past.<br />
<br />
Human beings have rights because they're <em>human beings</em>. They have these rights because human beings are the <em>kind of being</em> worthy of rights—the <em>kind of being</em> that is self-aware, rational, and moral. And we're this kind of being, even if we're not currently able to express one or more of these aspects of our human nature. For example, a person in a coma isn't able to express his rationality, but he's still the <em>kind of being</em> that is rational. He doesn't lose his rights simply because he's currently unable to express his rationality. In the same way, an unborn child is the <em>kind of being</em> that is rational, even if he is currently unable to express his rationality. He's a fellow member of the human family, and is therefore worthy of rights.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Part 3 – Respond to objections.</strong></span><br />
<br />
As Alan Shlemon explains in his <a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/01/the-prolife-twostep.html" target="_blank">Pro-Life Two-Step</a>, objections will usually fall into one of two categories:<br />
<br />
1. <em>The objection will assume the unborn isn't a human being.</em><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">Example: "Abortion should be legal because a baby might cause a woman financial hardship."</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;">Response: Nobody would say you could kill a person just because he's causing you a financial hardship. The person who makes this argument is not thinking of the unborn as a human being. Try using a toddler as an illustration the person can better relate to, put the toddler into his argument, and then say his argument back to him using the toddler: "Should a woman be allowed to kill her two-year-old if he's causing her financial hardship? We don't kill human beings for this reason. So let's go back to the question: Is the unborn a human being? If he is, then we can't kill him to save someone money."</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><br />
</div>The idea is for you to keep returning to the idea that the unborn child is a human being. Keep trying to get that point across.<br />
<br />
2. <em>The objection will disqualify the unborn from receiving rights based on a particular characteristic (size, development, etc.).</em><br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">Example: "But the unborn is just a clump of cells."</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><br />
</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;">Response: Show them that the characteristic is irrelevant to the question: "How is size relevant to rights? Can you kill a newborn just because he's smaller than an adult? Can you kill him because he looks different from an adult? It's just not a relevant characteristic."<br />
</div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Using these ideas in conversation and debates…</strong></span><br />
<br />
Here are some links that include debates so you can see these arguments in action:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://strplace.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/pro-life-position-presented-at-secular-university-first-five-minutes/" target="_blank">A pro-life case</a> given to a secular university audience</li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://strplace.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/my-abortion-debate/" target="_blank">A fifty-minute debate</a> on abortion – This should give you an idea of the objections you can expect and how you can answer them.</li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.prolifetraining.com/FiveMinute1.asp" target="_blank">The Five-Minute Pro-Lifer</a> – Article at Life Training Institute on how to defend your pro-life views in five minutes or less</li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Unaborted-Socrates-Dramatic-Surrounding/dp/0877848106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336432208&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Unaborted Socrates</a> – This book is a cross between <a href="https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommerce/24416522?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=7041&store_id=1161" target="_blank">Tactics</a> and <a href="https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommerce/425979848?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=2721&store_id=1161" target="_blank">Pro-Life 101</a>, in narrative form, and it's a helpful model of this approach.</li>
</ul>And if you want more, here's a <a href="http://strplace.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/answer-every-defense-for-abortion-chart-amp-video/" target="_blank">post</a> with a chart, a video, and some links to more articles (see below the video) for more information.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/pro-life-crash-course.html" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-67465469300596630702012-05-09T12:17:00.001-04:002012-05-09T12:22:22.281-04:00Should Homosexuals Be Able To Marry Whom They Love?<h3>by Alan Shlemon</h3><h3><br />
</h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://strplace.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/same-sex-marriage.jpg?w=360&h=267" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://strplace.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/same-sex-marriage.jpg?w=360&h=267" width="320" /></a></div>Are we really depriving homosexuals the right to marry the person they love? Yes. But there’s nothing unusual about that. <i>Nobody</i> has the right to marry any person they love. <i>Everyone</i> has restrictions.<br />
<h3></h3>When you take an honest look at the marriage law, it turns out that there is nothing unfair about it. Homosexuals have the <i>same rights</i> and the <i>same restrictions</i> as heterosexuals. For example, there is no legal right<i> </i>granted to a heterosexual that does not apply <i>in exactly the same way</i> to every homosexual. Both can marry in any state. Both can marry someone of the opposite sex. Both can receive the benefits that come with legal marriage. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated alike.<br />
<br />
There is also no legal restriction for homosexuals that does not also apply <i>in</i> <i>exactly the same way</i> to every heterosexual. Neither one can marry their sibling. Both are prohibited from marrying someone already married. They can’t marry a child. And neither has the freedom to marry someone of the same sex.<br />
<br />
The marriage law applies equally to every person, whether they are homosexual or not. Everyone is treated the same.<br />
<br />
Homosexuals cry foul, of course, because the kind of person they are legally entitled to marry is not a person they love. They believe this is a restriction that is limited to them. But it’s not. There isn’t a person in the United States that has unfettered freedom to marry anyone just because they love them. There are numerous parings of people who love each other and can’t marry.<br />
<br />
I have a male friend who I’ve known for over a decade. We have a long-term, committed relationship. We talk every week, we make sacrifices to visit one another, and we’re there to meet each other’s needs. We’re not sexually involved, but I routinely say I love him and he says the same to me. I can’t marry him even though he’s someone I love. I’m restricted. The state won’t recognize our relationship.<br />
Brothers and sisters usually develop strong bonds. They love one another and often have deep, meaningful relationships that can last a lifetime. Their commitment to one another is significant. But they can’t marry one another. Though they love each, they state won’t recognize their relationship. The same is true of two brothers or two sisters.<br />
<br />
Fathers and daughters also have long-term, committed relationships. There’s a special bond between them that develops and lasts for years. I can say that the love I feel towards my daughter has a unique texture to it. It’s taught me an aspect of love that, until I had a daughter, I never experienced. There are things that I’ve done and would do for her that virtually no one else on the planet can make me do. And like many fathers and daughters, our special relationship could last half a century or more. But guess what? The state doesn’t care about us as a couple. It doesn’t matter how much we love each other. We can’t get married.<br />
<br />
There are dozens of more examples of pairs of people who develop strong, meaningful, and long-term relationships. These people love each other, but that doesn’t mean the state is required to recognize them within the definition of marriage.<br />
<br />
Sometimes people point out that in these examples there is no sexual activity and that’s why it’s not the same as a homosexual pair. But why does that matter? Why do we have to use our sex organs with one another to qualify for marriage? Isn’t it enough that we love each other and are committed? Making sexual activity a requirement for marriage is arbitrary.<br />
<br />
So what do all these relationships (and many others) have in common? None of them produce the next generation. Committed male friends, siblings, and parent-child relationships don’t have kids.<br />
<br />
There is one kind of couple that, throughout all of human history, is known to produce children: heterosexuals. Long-term, monogamous, heterosexual unions <i>as a group and by nature</i> produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the <a href="http://strplace.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/should-homosexual-couples-be-allowed-to-adopt/" target="_blank">most stable and advantageous environment for raising children</a>. They not only stabilize society, <i>they make society possible</i>. That role can’t be underestimated.<br />
<br />
Notice that I said, “As a group and by nature.” As a group, heterosexual couples have kids. There may be exceptions, but the group’s tendency is to produce children. Laws are designed to generalize for the group. “By nature” is a reference to the fact that heterosexual unions produce children by the natural function of their sexual activity. Unlike male friends, siblings, and other relationship couples, it is biologically natural for heterosexuals to produce children.<br />
<br />
The government, that normally has a hands-off policy to most relationships, gets involved in sanctioning these long-term, heterosexual unions. It creates a group of privileges and protections for these male-female couplings because it recognizes their role in creating and stabilizing society.<br />
But the government doesn’t get involved in any other relationship pair. It doesn’t legally sanction two male friends, siblings, or father-daughter relationships. That’s because, though there are exceptions, they don’t as a group and by nature produce the next generation. They might love each other – deeply and for a long period of time – but that is irrelevant to the government. The state has a concern to perpetuate and protect our civilization and that explains its vested interested in heterosexual unions.<br />
<br />
So why does the government not sanction the relationship of two homosexual males? For the same reason it doesn’t sanction the relationship of male friends, siblings, or a father and daughter. Homosexual couples don’t as a group and by nature produce the next generation. Although, theoretically, homosexuals can adopt, this is the exception. Most same-sex lovers don’t pursue parenting. Furthermore, children don’t naturally result from their sexual activity.<br />
<br />
Instead, the state must intervene and grant them children. As Jennifer Roback Morse explains, “Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple. The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.”<br />
<br />
A common objection is that marriage can’t be about children because not all married couples have kids. First, although that’s true, every child has a mother and father and a right to know them. These children have a vested interest in the union and stability of their parents. But that’s not something they can protect. Society needs to secure that right for kids so far as we are able.<br />
<br />
Second, even if some marriages don’t produce children, it doesn’t nullify the natural tie of marriage to procreation. The purpose of marriage remains regardless of whether married couples actualize it or not. Books are meant to be read even if they collect dust on a bookshelf.<br />
<br />
Third, marriages create the optimal environment for raising children. Same-sex marriage intentionally creates the condition where a child is denied their mother or father or both. This is not healthy, a claim that has been long noted by researchers.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://strplace.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/should-homosexuals-be-able-to-marry-whom-they-love/" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">*For additional information on this issue, <a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage/" target="_blank">see this excellent post </a>for a secular case against same sex marriage. </span></b></i>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-70464402854629643882012-05-08T17:00:00.000-04:002012-05-08T17:00:29.404-04:00263 Theological Questions and AnswersThis is a <a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/what-we-do/263-theological-questions-answers/" target="_blank">complete list of all the videos</a> available from <a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/what-we-do/the-theology-program/" target="_blank">The Theology Program</a>. For those who can't attend seminary, this is a fantastic FREE resource from <a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/" target="_blank">Credo House Ministries</a> to get a very solid grounding in theology. If you ever find yourself sitting around saying "I'm bored", you no longer have a valid excuse!<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/263TheologicalQandA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/263TheologicalQandA.jpg" /></a></div>Most simply put, The Theology Program (TTP) is on a mission to reclaim the mind for Christ by equipping people, churches, and pastors, to understand and articulate the Christian faith. <br />
<div class="overviewDescription" style="line-height: 28px; margin-top: 15px;">The Theology Program is a program of Christian theology (study of God) and apologetics (defending the faith) created with all believers in mind. TTP seeks to give people who may never have the time, ability, or circumstances that allow them to attend full-time seminary the same opportunity to study the great and rich Christian heritage of truth. Here, you will learn theology historically, biblically, and irenically (in a peaceful manner). The contents of TTP are created from a broadly evangelical perspective, engaging other traditions in a persuasive yet gracious manner. In short, we seek to help people think theologically by understanding what they believe and why they believe it.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/images/TTPFaith.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/images/TTPFaith.jpg" /></a></div><div class="overviewDescription" style="line-height: 28px; margin-top: 15px;"><br />
</div><div class="overviewDescription" style="line-height: 28px; margin-top: 15px;">We believe that all people are created in the image of God and therefore able and desirous to engage in a deep level of theological training that has traditionally only been offered at seminaries. TTP courses are designed with you in mind, walking you step by step through this comprehensive program.</div><div class="overviewDescription" style="line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 20px;"><strong>If you have ever asked these questions, then this is the program for you:</strong></div><ul><li>» How do we know what books belong in the Bible?</li>
<li>» Do all religions lead to God?</li>
<li>» So many churches—what is the big difference?</li>
<li>» Why does everyone seem to interpret the Bible differently?</li>
<li>» The doctrine of the Trinity—can someone please explain this?</li>
<li>» Why should I study theology?</li>
<li>» So many versions of the Bible… Which one do I use?</li>
<li>» What about those who have never heard about Christ, can they still make it to<br />
heaven?</li>
<li>» Why does God allow bad things to happen?</li>
<li>» What is the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics?</li>
<li>» Can we be sure that Christ rose from the grave?</li>
</ul><div class="overviewDescription" style="line-height: 28px; margin-top: 15px;">Michael Patton is the director and primary teacher of this excellent 6 course program. The program materials Michael has created are of the highest quality being endorsed by the likes of Chuck Swindoll and J.P. Moreland. We invite you to join the thousands of churches individuals who have already been equipped through The Theology Program.</div><div class="overviewDescription" style="line-height: 28px; margin-top: 15px;"><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/get-started/" style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 1px;">I’M READY TO START THE THEOLOGY PROGRAM!</span></a><span style="color: blue;"> </span></div><br />
<strong>General Questions about Theology<br />
(Prolegomena)</strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=001it-digiwb" target="_blank">Workbook - Click here </a></span></strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session2/IT2a.wmv">What is theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session2/IT2b.wmv">Who is a theologian?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session2/IT2c.wmv">What is Tabloid Theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session2/IT2d.wmv">What is Folk Theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session2/IT2e.wmv">What are the other ways people “do” theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session3/IT3a.wmv">What are the different categories of theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session3/IT3b.wmv">What are the categories of systematic theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session3/IT3c.wmv">What is biblical, historical, philosophical, creedal, and apologetic theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session3/IT3d.wmv">How does one “do” theology right?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session3/IT3e.wmv">Why are there so many different theologies out there?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session4/IT4a.wmv">What is the study of the way people come to know truth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session4/IT4b.wmv">What is the difference in relative truth and objective truth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session4/IT4c.wmv">What is Postmodernism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session4/IT4d.wmv">Where did Postmodernism come from?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session4/IT4e.wmv">What are the key characteristics of Postmodernism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session5/IT5a.wmv">What difficult questions was the church challenged by with moderns?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session5/IT5b.wmv">What difficult questions is the church challenged by with postmoderns?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session5/IT5c.wmv">What is the basic difference between modernism and postmodernism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session5/IT5d.wmv">What is the modern view of truth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session5/IT5e.wmv">What is the postmodern view of truth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session5/IT5f.wmv">What is the Christian view of truth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session6/IT6a.wmv">What truths are relative and what truths are objective?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session6/IT6b.wmv">What truths are relative?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session6/IT6c.wmv">What truths are objective?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session6/IT6d.wmv">What truths are essential for a believer to hold to be considered orthodox?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session6/IT6e.wmv">How certain should we be about our beliefs?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session7/IT7a.wmv">What is the “big picture” difference between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session7/IT7b.wmv">How do Protestants view Church History?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session7/IT7c.wmv">How do Roman Catholics view Church History?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session7/IT7d.wmv">How do Eastern Orthodox view Church History?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session7/IT7e.wmv">Why are there so many Protestant denominations?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session8/IT8a.wmv">Where do we go for truth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session8/IT8b.wmv">How do the various Christian traditions view truth? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session8/IT8c.wmv">How do the various Christian traditions view truth? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session8/IT8d.wmv">H</a><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session8/IT8d.wmv">ow do my traditions, reason, experiences, and general revelation contribute to my theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session8/IT8e.wmv">What do emotions and special revelation contribute to my theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session9/IT9a.wmv">Does God still speak today?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session9/IT9b.wmv">Why do some people believe that God still speaks today?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session9/IT9c.wmv">Why do some people say that God does not speak through prophets today? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session9/IT9d.wmv">Why do some people say that God does not speak through prophets today? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session9/IT9e.wmv">What is the Soft Cessationist view of prophecy?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session10/IT10a.wmv">Can we have unity and diversity in the Church? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session10/IT10b.wmv">Can we have unity and diversity in the Church? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session10/IT10c.wmv">How do we do theology in our culture today?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/IT/session10/IT10d.wmv">How do Christian traditions have unity and diversity?</a><strong></strong></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about Authority and the Bible<br />
(Bibliology)</strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=002bh-digiwb" target="_blank">Workbook - Click here</a></span> </strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session1/BH1b.wmv">Who do we trust for Christian authority?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session1/BH1c.wmv">What is Tradition? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session1/BH1d.wmv">What are the five main view for Christian authority?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session2/BH2a.wmv">Is the Scripture all we need?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session2/BH2b.wmv">What are the arguments for Sola Ecclesia (the Roman Catholic view of authority in the Church)?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session2/BH2c.wmv">What are the arguments against Sola Ecclesia (the Roman Catholic view of authority in the Church)? Part 1 </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session2/BH2d.wmv">What are the arguments against Sola Ecclesia (the Roman Catholic view of authority in the Church)? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session2/BH2e.wmv">Is the Bible alone the only infallible source for authority (sola Scriptura)?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session3/BH3a.wmv">Has the text of Scripture changed since it was first written?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session3/BH3b.wmv">How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session3/BH3c.wmv">How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session3/BH3d.wmv">How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? Part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session3/BH3e.wmv">How accurate are Scriptures?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session4/BH4a.wmv">Do we have the right books?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session4/BH4b.wmv">What are the facts concerning the canon?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session4/BH4c.wmv">What are the tests of canonicity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session4/BH4d.wmv">What are the arguments for the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books of the Roman Catholic Bible?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session4/BH4e.wmv">What are the argumentsagainst the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books of the Roman Catholic Bible? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session5/BH5a.wmv">What is the Old Testament canon?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session5/BH5b.wmv">How were the New Testament books decided upon? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session5/BH5c.wmv">How were the New Testament books decided upon? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session5/BH5d.wmv">How were the New Testament books decided upon? Part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session6/BH6a.wmv">What is the doctrine of inspiration?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session6/BH6b.wmv">What is the biblical view of inspiration?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session6/BH6c.wmv">What are the different theories of inspiration?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session6/BH6d.wmv">How does inspiration occur?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session6/BH6e.wmv">What is the most common mistake that evangelicals make with regard to their understanding of the inspiration of the Scriptures?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session7/BH7a.wmv">How do we know the Bible is inspired?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session7/BH7b.wmv">What is the internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session7/BH7c.wmv">W</a><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session7/BH7c.wmv">hat is the internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session7/BH7d.wmv">What is the external evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session7/BH7e.wmv">What is the external evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session8/BH8a.wmv">Does the Bible err?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session8/BH8b.wmv">How is inerrancy different from infallibility?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session8/BH8c.wmv">Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session8/BH8d.wmv">What are the objections and responses to inerrancy?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session8/BH8e.wmv">What about all the “contradictions” in the Bible?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session9/BH9a.wmv">How have people historically interpreted Scripture?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session9/BH9b.wmv">How did the Rabbis interpret the Old Testament in Christ’s day?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session9/BH9c.wmv">How did the Apostles interpret the Old Testament?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session9/BH9d.wmv">How did the early Church interpret Scripture?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session10/BH10a.wmv">How did people interpret Scripture during the medieval period?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session10/BH10b.wmv">How did the Reformers interpret Scripture?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session10/BH10c.wmv">What is the modern way of interpreting Scripture?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session10/BH10d.wmv">What are the basic principles of biblical interpretation?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/BH/session10/BH10e.wmv">What are some common interpretative fallacies?</a></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about God<br />
(Theology Proper)</strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=003tr-digiwb" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Workbook - Click here</span></a> </strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session1/TR1b.wmv">What is a worldview?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session1/TR1c.wmv">What is a theistic worldview?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session1/TR1d.wmv">What are deistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic worldviews?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session1/TR1e.wmv">What are polytheistic, naturalistic, and pluralistic worldviews?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session2/TR2a.wmv">Can finite humans understand the infinite God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session2/TR2b.wmv">Is human language adequate to describe God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session2/TR2c.wmv">Why do people object to the study of God’s existence? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session2/TR2d.wmv">Why do people object to the study of God’s existence? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session2/TR2e.wmv">Why do people object to the study of God’s existence? Part 3 </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session3/TR3a.wmv">Can we prove that God exists?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session3/TR3b.wmv">What are the arguments against the existence of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session3/TR3c.wmv">What are the arguments for the existence of God? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session3/TR3d.wmv">What are the argumentsfor the existence of God? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session4/TR4a.wmv">What makes God, God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session4/TR4b.wmv">How is simplicity an attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session4/TR4c.wmv">How is the simplicity of God to be defined?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session4/TR4d.wmv">What are the objections to simplicity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session4/TR4e.wmv">How is eternality an attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session5/TR5a.wmv">How is immutability an attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session5/TR5b.wmv">What are the objections to immutability?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session5/TR5c.wmv">How is omnipresence and attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session5/TR5d.wmv">What is the doctrine of aseity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session6/TR6a.wmv">How is omniscience and attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session6/TR6b.wmv">How is omnipotence an attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session6/TR6c.wmv">How is sovereignty an attribute of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session6/TR6d.wmv">Other communicable attributes of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session6/TR6e.wmv">An evaluation of Openess Theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session7/TR7a.wmv">How did the early church understand the Trinity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session7/TR7b.wmv">What are the early Trinitarian heresies? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session7/TR7c.wmv">W</a><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session7/TR7c.wmv">hat are the early Trinitarian heresies? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session7/TR7d.wmv">What is the importance of the ecumenical councils?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session7/TR7e.wmv">What are some of the difficulties in communicating the doctrine of the Trinity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session8/TR8a.wmv">Does the Bible teach the Trinity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session8/TR8b.wmv">What does the Old Testament say about the oneness of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session8/TR8c.wmv">What does the New Testament say about the oneness of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session8/TR8d.wmv">Is Jesus God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session8/TR8e.wmv">Did Jesus ever claim to be God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session8/TR8f.wmv">Is the Holy Spirit God?</a></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about Christ<br />
(Christology)<br />
</strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session9/TR9a.wmv">How did the early Church understand the humanity of Christ?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session9/TR9b.wmv">What is Apollinarianism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session9/TR9c.wmv">What is Nestorianism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session9/TR9d.wmv">What is Monophysitism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session9/TR9e.wmv">How did the Council of Chalcedon affect Christology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session9/TR9f.wmv">What are the different interpretations of Chalcedon?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session10/TR10a.wmv">What do the Scriptures say about the humanity of Christ?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session10/TR10b.wmv">Why was Christ born of a virgin?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session10/TR10c.wmv">What does it mean that Christ “emptied Himself”?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session10/TR10d.wmv">W</a><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/TR/session10/TR10d.wmv">as Christ able to sin?</a></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about Humanity and Sin<br />
(Anthropology and Harmartiology)</strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=004hs-digiwb" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Workbook - Click here</span></a><br />
</strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session1/HS1b.wmv">What is Anthropology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session1/HS1c.wmv">Why did God create man? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session1/HS1d.wmv">Why did God create man?, Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session2/HS2a.wmv">What is our essential nature?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session2/HS2b.wmv">What is Monism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session2/HS2c.wmv">What is Trichotomy?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session3/HS3a.wmv">What is the constitution of man?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session3/HS3b.wmv">What is the response to trichotomy?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session3/HS3c.wmv">What is dichotomy?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session3/HS3d.wmv">What is conditional unity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session3/HS3e.wmv">What is Gnostic dualism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session4/HS4a.wmv">What are the negative effects of Gnosticism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session4/HS4b.wmv">When and how was our soul created? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session4/HS4c.wmv">When and how was our soul created? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session5/HS5a.wmv">What does it mean that we are in the image of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session5/HS5b.wmv">What else does it mean to be created in the image of God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session5/HS5c.wmv">What are the aspects of the image of God within man?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session5/HS5d.wmv">How did the Fall affect the imago dei?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session6/HS6a.wmv">How far did we fall?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session6/HS6b.wmv">What does Scripture say about the Fall? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session6/HS6c.wmv">What does Scripture say about the Fall? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session6/HS6d.wmv">What are the different types of sin?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session6/HS6e.wmv">What is Pelagianism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session6/HS6f.wmv">What is Augustinianism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session7/HS7a.wmv">What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session7/HS7b.wmv">What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session7/HS7c.wmv">What is the Arminian view of Original Sin?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session7/HS7d.wmv">What is Original Sin?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session8/HS8a.wmv">Is there such a thing as Free Will? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session8/HS8b.wmv">What are the different positions on Free Will?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session8/HS8c.wmv">What are the different Free Will views of responsibility?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session8/HS8d.wmv">What are the problems with the different views of Free Will?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session8/HS8e.wmv">Is there such a thing as Free Will? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session9/HS9a.wmv">What is the theological difference between men and women?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session9/HS9b.wmv">What are the two main theological positions on the difference between men and women?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session9/HS9c.wmv">What is the Egalitarian view?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session9/HS9d.wmv">What is the response to Egalitarianism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session10/HS10a.wmv">What is Complementarianism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session10/HS10b.wmv">What is the defense of Complementarianism? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session10/HS10c.wmv">What is the defense of Complementarianism? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/HS/session10/HS10d.wmv">What is the response to Complementarianism?</a></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about Salvation<br />
(Soteriology)</strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=005so-digiwb" target="_blank">Workbook - Click here</a></span><br />
</strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session1/SO1b.wmv">What does it mean to be “saved”?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session1/SO1c.wmv">What is salvation?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session1/SO1d.wmv">What is the process of salvation (ordo salutis)?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session1/SO1e.wmv">How do various Christian traditions view salvation differently?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session2/SO2a.wmv">What does it mean to be predestined?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session2/SO2b.wmv">What is the doctrine of election?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session2/SO2c.wmv">What is a defense of unconditional election</a><strong>?</strong></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session3/SO3b.wmv">Is election conditioned upon my choice?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session3/SO3c.wmv">What is a defense of conditional election</a><strong>?</strong></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session3/SO3d.wmv">What are the arguments against conditional election?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session4/SO4a.wmv">Is predestination fair?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session4/SO4b.wmv">Does God predestine people to Hell?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session4/SO4c.wmv">Why did Christ die on the Cross?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session4/SO4d.wmv">What is the Recapitulation theory of the Atonement?</a> <strong>Part 1</strong></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session5/SO5a.wmv">What is the Recapitulation theory of the Atonement</a><strong>? Part 2</strong></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session5/SO5b.wmv">What is the Ransom to Satan Theory of the Atonement?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session5/SO5c.wmv">What is the Satisfaction Theory of the atonement?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session5/SO5d.wmv">What is the Moral Example Theory of the atonement?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session5/SO5e.wmv">What is the Governmental Theory of the atonement?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session5/SO5f.wmv">What is the Substitution Theory of the atonement?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session6/SO6a.wmv">For whom did Christ die?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session6/SO6b.wmv">Can we say “no” to the Gospel?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session6/SO6c.wmv">What does “born again” mean?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session6/SO6d.wmv">Does regeneration precede faith?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session7/SO7a.wmv">What does it mean to have faith?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session7/SO7b.wmv">What does it mean to repent?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session7/SO7c.wmv">Can someone be saved without repenting?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session7/SO7d.wmv">What does one ultimately have to do to be saved?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session8/SO8a.wmv">How is a person justified before God?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session8/SO8b.wmv">What is the Eastern/Greek Orthodox view of justification?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session8/SO8c.wmv">What is the Roman Catholic view of justification?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session8/SO8d.wmv">What is the Protestant view of justification?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session9/SO9a.wmv">How does one become a better Christian?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session9/SO9b.wmv">What are the basic principles of sanctification?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session10/SO10a.wmv">Can a believer lose their salvation?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session10/SO10b.wmv">What are the arguments of those who say you can lose your salvation?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/SO/session10/SO10c.wmv">What are the arguments of those who say you cannot lose your savation?</a></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about the Church<br />
(Ecclesiology) </strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://store.reclaimingthemind.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=006ee-digiwb" target="_blank">Workbook - Click here</a></span> </strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session1/EE1b.wmv">What is the story of Christianity?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session1/EE1c.wmv">What is the Church?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session1/EE1d.wmv">What is the nature of the Church?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session1/EE1e.wmv">How do the various traditions view the nature of the Church differently?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session2/EE2a.wmv">What is the Dispensational and Replacement views of the Church? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session2/EE2b.wmv">What is the relationship between the Church and Israel?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session2/EE2c.wmv">What is Replacement Theology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session3/EE3a.wmv">What is Classic Dispensationalism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session3/EE3b.wmv">A defense of Classic Dispensationalism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session3/EE3c.wmv">What is Progressive Dispensationalism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session3/EE3d.wmv">What is Progressive Covenantalism? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session3/EE3e.wmv">What is the difference between Israel and the Church?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session4/EE4a.wmv">What is the purpose of the Church? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session4/EE4b.wmv">What is the purpose of the Church? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session4/EE4c.wmv">Why is the Church here and not in heaven?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session4/EE4d.wmv">What purposes are limited to those that can be accomplished only on the earth?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session5/EE5a.wmv">What are the ministries of the Church? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session5/EE5b.wmv">What ministries does your local church have? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session5/EE5c.wmv">What constitutes a local church? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session5/EE5d.wmv">What constitutes a local church? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session5/EE5e.wmv">What constitutes a local church? Part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session5/EE5f.wmv">What is worship, teaching, fellowship, evangelistic outreach, and in-reach? </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session6/EE6a.wmv">What is an ordinance/sacrament? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session6/EE6b.wmv">What is an ordinance/sacrament? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session6/EE6c.wmv">What is baptism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session6/EE6d.wmv">What is the Lord’s Supper?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session6/EE6e.wmv">How is the Church equipped to accomplish its ministry?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session7/EE7a.wmv">What are the different views of spiritual gifts?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session7/EE7c.wmv">What are spiritual gifts?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session7/EE7d.wmv">How many spiritual gifts are there? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session7/EE7e.wmv">How many spiritual gifts are there? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session8/EE8a.wmv">What are the marks of a false church? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session8/EE8b.wmv">What are the marks of a false church? Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session8/EE8c.wmv">What are different models of church government?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session8/EE8d.wmv">How should the church organize its government? Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session8/EE8e.wmv">How should the church organize its government? Part 2</a></li>
</ol><strong>Questions about the End Times<br />
(Eschatology)</strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Use link above from Ecclesiology for the Eschatology workbook</span><br />
</strong><br />
<ol><li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session9/EE9a.wmv">What is eschatology?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session9/EE9b.wmv">What are the different views of the millennium?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session9/EE9c.wmv">What are the arguments for postmillennialism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session9/EE9d.wmv">What are the arguments for amillennialism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session9/EE9e.wmv">What are the arguments for premillennialism?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session10/EE10a.wmv">What are the different views of the rapture?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session10/EE10b.wmv">What is the pre-tribulational view?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session10/EE10c.wmv">What is the mid-tribulational view?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session10/EE10d.wmv">What is the post-tribulational view?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/files/TTP/EE/session10/EE10e.wmv">Questions about Heaven and Hell</a></li>
</ol>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-59478281180479248622012-04-27T16:43:00.000-04:002012-11-12T14:39:55.445-05:00The REAL Mormonism 101This is actually more what a Mormonism 101 post should look like (as opposed to the <a href="http://pmbccrosstrainers.blogspot.com/2012/04/mormonism-101.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>), since this is a series of posts by <a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5065" target="_blank">James White</a> with information more suited to a class. If you go through all of these articles, you will have a very solid footing on the teachings of Mormonism.<br />
<br />
<span class="itembody"><br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1987">Mormonism 101: Badly Needed in our Culture Today</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1998">Mormonism 101: The First Vision Continued</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1999">Mormonism 101: More on the LDS Scripture's View of God</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2013">Mormonism 101 Continued</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2014">Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements: The King Follett Discourse (#1)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2015">Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements: The King Follett Discourse (#2)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2022">Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements: The King Follett Discourse (#3)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2034">Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements: The King Follett Discourse (#4)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2053">Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements (More)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2058">Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements (Final)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2061">Mormonism 101: Third Level Statements (#1)</a><br />
<br />
- Special - <a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2080">Jesus and Lucifer: Spirit Brothers?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2090">Mormonism 101: Third Level Statements (#2)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2114">Mormonism 101: Third Level Statements (#3)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2121">Mormonism 101: Third Level Statements (#4)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2146">Mormonism 101: Fourth Level Statements (#1)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2191">Mormonism 101: Fourth Level Statements (#2)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2222">Mormonism 101: Fourth Level Statements (#3)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2223">Mormonism 101: Fourth Level Statements (#4)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2225">Mormonism 101: Fourth Level Statements--Final You Graduated!</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="itembody">Here's another link for discussing this: <a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5279&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=5c992" target="_blank">100 Verses for Witness to Mormons</a> <br />
</span>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-63501230305566074272012-04-26T16:55:00.000-04:002012-04-26T16:55:46.253-04:00Why Apologetics Matters to Every Believer and Every Church<h4>by Lenny Esposito</h4><br />
“Apologetics? What are you apologizing for?”<br />
“Is that a class that husbands are supposed to take?”<br />
“What is that?” <br />
<br />
These are questions I hear frequently whenever I mention the study of apologetics. It probably comes as no surprise the word “apologetics” is foreign to most people, even who are a part of the Christian church. Evangelicals, who define themselves by their passion to follow Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”(<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Matt. 28.17" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt.%2028.17" target="_blank">Matt. 28:17</a>) will usually look quizzically at me whenever I begin discussing the need for apologetics, even though apologetics is an essential part of making disciples. Why would this be? <br />
<br />
[<b><a href="http://apologetics315.s3.amazonaws.com/church-apologetics-2/01-why-apologetics-matters-to-every-church.mp3" target="_blank">MP3</a></b> | <b><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/HowToGetApologeticsInYourChurch2" target="_blank">RSS</a></b> | <b><a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-get-apologetics-in/id522500696" target="_blank">iTunes</a></b>]<br />
<a href="" name="more"></a>One of the problems is simply that the church doesn’t talk a lot about it. Apologetics is generally understood to be a specialty discipline– specifically engaging in defending the faith against skeptics, alternate religions, cults, and contrary worldviews. As such, many pastors feel that it can only play a very limited role in ministering to the needs of their congregation. How does apologetics help the man trying to feed his family after losing his job or the newly widowed woman?<br />
<br />
I’ve said before that in many churches, a person telling his or her pastor of their desire to start an apologetics ministry results in an experience similar to a young man telling his Jewish mother he wants to be a proctologist. “Well, I glad you’re going to be a doctor,” she would say, “But why did you have to choose <i>that</i>!” Pastors are happy to have people desiring to get into ministry opportunities, but they simply aren’t sure where apologetics fits in their church. However, many times both church leadership and laity fail to understand the more holistic aspects of providing a strong apologetics ministry to the local congregation. In this article, I’d like to highlight two benefits of an apologetics ministry that applies directly to every member of the church, benefits that you may not have considered before. <br />
<br />
<b>A Biblical instruction to provide answers</b><br />
<br />
Every apologist has his or her favorite passages in the Bible that command the believer to practice apologetics. Many point to <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="1 Peter 3.15" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Peter%203.15" target="_blank">1 Peter 3:15</a> or <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="2 Corinthians 10.5-6" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%2010.5-6" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 10:5-6</a>, but a passage that I’ve found inspiring is <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Proverbs 22.17-21" data-version="esv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Proverbs%2022.17-21" target="_blank">Proverbs 22:17-21</a>. There, as Solomon is addressing his son he writes:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.readersdigest.com.au/files/aus-en/attachments/pictures/GB_king_solomon.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="http://www.readersdigest.com.au/files/aus-en/attachments/pictures/GB_king_solomon.gif" width="320" /></a></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"> <i>Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise,<br />
And apply your mind to my knowledge;</i> <i><br />
For it will be pleasant if you keep them within you,</i> <i><br />
That they may be ready on your lips.</i> <i><br />
So that your trust may be in the LORD,</i> <i><br />
I have taught you today, even you.</i> <i><br />
Have I not written to you excellent things</i> <i><br />
Of counsels and knowledge,</i> <i><br />
To make you know the certainty of the words of truth</i> <i><br />
That you may correctly answer him who sent you? </i> </blockquote>Just as Solomon was instructing his son, I believe our Father in Heaven is instructing us to apply our minds to His knowledge. He has written excellent things to us in His word, and we should be diligent to seek them out. Also, one of the outcomes of applying your mind to the wisdom and knowledge of God is found in verse 19: “so that your trust may be in the Lord.”<br />
<br />
<b>Apologetics guards believers against heresies</b><br />
<br />
The word apologetics literally means providing reasons and evidence for the Christian faith. Part of this means defending the Christian faith from imposters or detractors, but it also means protecting those in the church from the wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing. One can define apologetics as theology properly applied and there is no greater need to apply theology properly than with new believers. The Burned-Over district is a good example. <br />
<br />
Historian John Martin notes that in what was then a formidable frontier, the area of upper western New York in the early 1820s was attracting people coming from the more established eastern seaboard cities. New immigrant populations also flooded the area seeking land and jobs. Many preachers would travel throughout the area holding tent revival meetings, the most prominent of which was Charles Finney. Finney called many to repentance, but as church congregations continued to grow and revivals spread, these were accompanied by the establishment of such unorthodox beliefs systems as the Mormons, the Spiritists, and the Millerites who spawned both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. Martin writes, “The traditional theology of Christianity was not of great interest to these seekers for answers, and they were susceptible to explanations which moved beyond the traditional Biblical basis of the various Christian faiths.”<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[i]</span> Without a proper grounding for what orthodox Christian beliefs were and why the church held those beliefs, aberrant beliefs were able to grow and flourish, leading to lost souls not only in that generation, but for generations to come. <br />
<br />
Apologetics, though, encompasses the study of theology, especially as it relates to orthodoxy. If we are to defend our beliefs with reason and evidence, then it follows we need to know just what we believe and the reasons why we hold to those beliefs. Just as many of the modern cults we see today got their start from a lack of theological training, controversial teachings are even now creeping into the evangelical church. The Barna organization reports that although four out of five people classify themselves as Christian, “most people say Satan does not exist, that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol, that eternal peace with God can be earned through good works, and that truth can only be understood through the lens of reason and experience.”<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[ii]</span> Clearly, the church is being infected with faulty beliefs today, and apologetics is one discipline that will help stem that tide.<br />
<br />
<b>Apologetics protects the Christian in times of crisis</b><br />
<br />
In verse 19 of Proverbs 22, Solomon says that one of the benefits of studying apologetics is that “your trust will be in the Lord.” Apologetics is for the edification of every believer, regardless of one’s education, and this is nowhere more apparent than when Christians faces crises. It’s easy to hold to your beliefs when times are good. But when the storms of life present themselves—the loss of a job, the death of a spouse, the diagnosis of cancer—doubts inevitably arise. In those moments when you are praying and praying and it feels like your prayers are doing nothing more than bouncing off the ceiling, it’s natural to question your faith. “Is this real?” “Does God exist?” ‘How do I really know any of this is true?” are common questions people ask when facing difficult trials. However, this is exactly the <i>wrong</i> time to ask such questions! A person in this state is understandably highly emotional; he isn’t thinking clearly, given that worry, fear, and many other facets are tampering with his reasoning skills. He is at a terrible disadvantage to try and reason properly, especially about the biggest questions of life! It’s no wonder that James Spiegel shows many atheists have had severe traumatic experiences in their pasts. <span style="font-size: xx-small;">[iii]</span><br />
<br />
This is why apologetics can be ministerial to the Christian in times of trial. I know in my own life I’ve dealt with some very difficult situations, including my wife facing a life-threatening condition. At those times, when I was praying and wondering why God would allow such things, I could hear the question of “Is God real? Is He really listening to you or are you just believing all this because you want to believe it?” creeping into my head. But I immediately remembered my apologetics training and said to myself “I don’t have to wonder about that. I know God exists; I know that Jesus really rose from the dead. I’ve already worked through those issues and I’m convinced of them. I may not know why God is doing this in our lives, but I can’t doubt that God exists. That question has been answered.” Apologetics was able to keep my trust I the Lord, even during the hard times. It is one reason why everyone needs to have an answer for their hope: everyone will face trials. <br />
<br />
In his commentary on Proverbs 22, Matthew Henry writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"> <i>“The excellent things which God has written to us are not like the commands which the master gives his servant, which are all intended for the benefit of the master, but like those which the master gives his scholar, which are are intended for the benefit of the scholar. These things must be kept by us, for they are written to us”</i></blockquote>We should strive to seek out these excellent things written for our learning and edification. Apologetics is a great way to do this. Although such study may seem difficult, it is necessary. Church leaders need to encourage apologetics to become more effective in their evangelism, but also to become more effective in their discipleship programs and more effective in their ministry to those in crisis. Believers should pursue a foundation in apologetics for personal edification, for assurance of belief, and to protect against the attacks of Satan through faulty doctrine or through doubt. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/04/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church-2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Apologetics315+%28Apologetics+315%29" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.crossexamined.org/articles-detail.asp?ID=80&Title=An+Apologetic+against+Christian+Apologetics%3F" target="_blank">For another helpful article on this issue, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-84725797090720693662012-04-20T11:37:00.000-04:002012-04-20T11:37:03.829-04:00Common Misconceptions about Christianity1. <em><strong>Christianity is based on blind faith.</strong></em> Christianity is not based on blind faith, but rather faith based on evidence. Blind faith is superstition. Christianity is overwhelmingly supported by reason, evidence, and scientific inquiry as we show in various articles on our website: <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians</a>.<br />
<br />
2. <em><strong>We get to heaven based on how good we are here on earth.</strong></em> Well, we do get to heaven based on good works, but not our good works! We get to heaven based on the works of Jesus Christ! The Bible teaches that no one is good enough to get to heaven on the basis of their good works. It is Christ’s sacrifice for our sins that saves us from God’s wrath and hell. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel">http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel</a> and <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course">http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course</a>. This is the biggest single misconception about Christianity. This is what separates Christianity from all other world religions and worldviews. Because we cannot possibly be good enough to get to heaven, Christ’s sacrificial life, death, and resurrection are absolutely necessary to get people to heaven. We are saved by grace (that is, it is a gift) through the medium of faith, and specifically not through our own merit (<a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#" title="Ephesians 2:8-9 - New International Version via Bible Gateway">Ephesians 2:8-9</a>).<br />
<br />
3. <em><strong>Christianity is a laundry list of things to do.</strong></em> No matter how many ways we try to state this fact in #2 above, it does not seem to sink in. Even many Christians, when asked how we get to heaven, will answer something like, “I always try to be a good person.” But this is an incorrect response and shows great misunderstanding of the Christian message. The correct answer is, “There is no reason at all why I should go to heaven except for what Christ did for me on the cross.” Christianity, unlike other religions, is not a religion as such at all—but rather a personal relationship. God has reached out to sinful man and through his only son Jesus has offered a way to be reconciled to Himself through a personal relationship with Jesus. So Christianity is not a laundry list of things to do. There is nothing we can add to Christ’s finished work on the cross as payment for our sins.<br />
<br />
4. <em><strong>Once we become a Christian, being saved by God’s gift of grace, it does not matter what we do.</strong></em> This is the corollary of #2 and #3 above. There are some people who think that since we are saved by Christ’s finished work on the cross, we can just go on sinning and God will forgive us. While we are saved by God’s grace through the medium of faith in Christ, good works will <em>result</em> from a true saving faith. Thus good works are <em>evidence</em> of a saving faith. This is very different from saying that we are saved by being a good person. While the Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, the Bible does not teach “easy believism.” A true Christian will repent of his sins continually and surrender his life to God. While we will never be perfect, or anywhere near perfect—and have ups and downs—a Christian will continue to improve over time through a process the Bible calls <em>sanctification</em>. So, while we are saved as a gift of God available to all who trust in Christ, after being saved, a Christian, by the power of the Holy Spirit, will seek to conform his life to God’s will—as best he understands God’s will and his duty. The Christian life is more about direction than perfection. For more detail, see <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course#christianlife">http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course#christianlife</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.timeofgraceblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/coexist1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="104" src="http://www.timeofgraceblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/coexist1.png" width="320" /></a> 5. <em><strong>There are many ways to heaven, many paths to God.</strong></em> Because man is separated from God by his sin, the penalty for our sin had to be paid somehow for justice to be done. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Thus Christ is thus the only name under heaven by which man may be saved (<a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Acts 4:12</a>). See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/arent-all-religions-the-same">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/arent-all-religions-the-same</a>.<br />
<br />
6. <em><strong>It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.</strong></em> This is a nice idea, but does not hold up to logic. Christianity is so radically different from other belief systems that if Christianity is true, the others are false. One can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. Sincere belief in a cult, in a false religion, in atheism, or in the tooth fairy do not get one to heaven. For an explanation see our article Why Christianity: <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/why-christianity">http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/why-christianity</a>. <br />
<br />
7. <em><strong>The New Testament was written long after the events took place and are thus subject to legends being inserted into the text. </strong></em>The New Testament was written entirely by eye witnesses to the life of Christ or by interviewers of eyewitnesses. Many of the books were written within 25 or so years of Christ’s death, and many scholars—both liberal and conservative—are moving toward the view that all of the books of the New Testament were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The one book for which some doubt remains is Revelation. But recent scholarship holds that even this book was written prior to 70 AD. This is the view that liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson presents in his book <em>Redating the New Testament</em>. This is also the view that conservative scholar Kenneth Gentry presents in his book<em> Before Jerusalem Fell</em>. So there was not enough time for the stories to have been developed into legend. Further, as professor of Medieval and Renaissance English, C. S. Lewis said, “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man [Jesus] as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.” (quote from Lewis’ “God in the Dock.”)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBtD4Lwfxpxfa7BYhGbAQ1gEUNZkH-YglNxVavCrC4jrSoXseKEt6popfyrRh3TmF9X9GJWx32ov_pYaYpRfIuRKmHCSSztyGBUKiqbhIDoxBr018pYBCGVT9QaBXeCUjGfKXcFk2Fbaym/s1600/old_biblical_manuscript.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBtD4Lwfxpxfa7BYhGbAQ1gEUNZkH-YglNxVavCrC4jrSoXseKEt6popfyrRh3TmF9X9GJWx32ov_pYaYpRfIuRKmHCSSztyGBUKiqbhIDoxBr018pYBCGVT9QaBXeCUjGfKXcFk2Fbaym/s320/old_biblical_manuscript.jpg" width="314" /></a></div>8. <em><strong>The Bible has been changed or is otherwise not true to the original manuscripts.</strong></em> The original manuscripts—that is, the actual pieces of parchment or papyrus upon which St. Paul and others wrote the Bible—are no longer extant. But, especially as regards to the New Testament there has been an unbroken chain of manuscripts from the originals. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts extant, including ones from the first and second centuries. Scholars have been able to correlate the manuscripts to know that the Bible we have today is faithful to the originals. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps</a>. A good book on this issue is <em>The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?</em> by F. F. Bruce. Regarding the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, first discovered in 1947 were from the time of Christ and even to the 2nd century BC. These manuscripts predate the previously oldest known manuscripts by a thousand years. Comparisons of these texts with the others already in existence showed that they were essentially identical. This information confirms how carefully the texts were copied over the centuries and has given scholars tremendous confidence in the accuracy of the Old Testament we have today.<br />
<br />
9. <em><strong>The Bible cannot be trusted because of all the miracle stories.</strong></em> If God exists, miracles are possible. In fact, if God exists, miracles are certain. If he can create the universe—a miracle beyond human comprehension—he could certainly do the other miracles in the Bible. Perhaps the greatest miracle story is the resurrection of Christ. We devote an entire article to the evidence from modern scholarship of the veracity of this claim: <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/contemporary-scholarship">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/contemporary-scholarship</a>. The claim that miracles do not exist is held only by those who hold to a view of naturalism, which says that the physical universe is all that there is. The philosophy of naturalism assumes that the there is no such thing as the supernatural. We are convinced that the evidence is strongly in favor of the existence of God, and that therefore miracles are possible. To say that miracles are not possible is really atheism. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/does-god-exist">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/does-god-exist</a>.<br />
<br />
10. <em><strong>The Bible conflicts with science.</strong></em> While the Bible was not written as a science textbook, a careful analysis of the Bible reveals that the Bible does not conflict with science at all. Charges leveled at the Bible turn out to be red herrings. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/are-christians-anti-science">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/are-christians-anti-science</a>.<br />
<br />
11.<em><strong> Christianity must be false because evolution is true.</strong></em> We are persuaded, after much study, that not only is macroevolution <strong>not</strong> true (macro-evolution being the vertical evolution of higher life forms in which a greater quantity and quality of genetic material is introduced by pure chance)—it cannot <strong>possibly</strong> be true. While this may sound puzzling in this age, we back up this claim with the evidence. For a summary of the research and a discussion of the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, see <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/evolution-or-creation/origins-and-silly-putty">http://www.faithfacts.org/evolution-or-creation/origins-and-silly-putty</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS6r6_3hLrFD1CAZkwK-QdKOwiDrveyLcsN4h9mrvDiywsc98kv1p9atw9icfTArfP317VW3QMtGE0Ow5UVJZ5xTMKJ9oEcm8h3Cn0XKK_GLN9z5YUneHUlZM1anHBimeHtlzMl2Mwol3X/s400/slavery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS6r6_3hLrFD1CAZkwK-QdKOwiDrveyLcsN4h9mrvDiywsc98kv1p9atw9icfTArfP317VW3QMtGE0Ow5UVJZ5xTMKJ9oEcm8h3Cn0XKK_GLN9z5YUneHUlZM1anHBimeHtlzMl2Mwol3X/s200/slavery.jpg" width="195" /></a></div>12.<em><strong> The Bible condones slavery.</strong></em> Actually, both the Old and New Testaments specifically condemn the slave trade (<a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Exodus 21:16</a> and <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">1 Timothy 1:10</a>). Just because slavery was a common practice in the ancient world does not mean that God condoned it. The Bible speaks of many activities that were common or customary but were wrong in God’s eyes. Indeed the Old Testament in particular was a history of how bad mankind was, which precipitated the necessity of Christ to come to earth to set things straight. It must also be pointed out that much of what was described as “slavery” in the Old Testament was not racial forced slavery. Rather it was voluntary servitude, in which people would commit themselves to work for someone else for a period of time in exchange for certain benefits. Many slaves seemed to have lived almost like free men, or lived with a family as quasi-family members. The Old Testament Hebrew laws also had rules about letting indentured servants become free after a certain period of time, namely 6 years (<a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Deuteronomy 15:12-15</a>) or at other intervals such as the so-called Jubilee. The Deuteronomy passage is instructive about the type of slavery that was practiced—not only that slavery was a voluntary act but also prescribes rules of aid for the slave. The Bible reminds the Hebrews that they were once slaves in Egypt themselves and they were not to treat people the way that they had been treated. While the Bible may not condemn slavery as loudly as we might prefer, it is true that the Bible teaches that we are all equal in God's eyes (<a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Genesis 1:26-27</a>; <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Genesis 9:6</a>; <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Colossians 3:11</a>). These passages and others laid the groundwork for the abolition movement, which was a Christian movement. See this link: <a href="http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_105_SlaveryAbolitionism.pdf">Abolition</a>. Here are three links with further information on this topic: <a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html">Got Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-slavery.html">Christian Answers</a>, <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/slave.html">Bible Encyclopedia</a>.<br />
<br />
13. <em><strong>The Bible demeans women.</strong></em> In fact, the Bible elevates the status of women. Christianity has had a freeing influence for women, especially in comparison to other religions. For a comparison of Islam and Christianity, see <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/contrasting-christianity-and-islam#women">http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/contrasting-christianity-and-islam#women</a>. The passage that is sometimes pointed to that critics say demean women is <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Ephesians 5:22-33</a>. This passage, while it points out that men and women have different roles, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies just as Christ loved the church. See also <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/The-Impact-of-Christianity">http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/The-Impact-of-Christianity</a> for a list a cultural benefits women have gained from Christianity. The example is Jesus, who treated women (as well as others demeaned in his culture) with mercy and respect. (See the comments in #14 below.)<br />
<br />
14. <em><strong>The Bible cannot be correct given the strange rules the Jews had to follow. </strong></em>The rules given to the Jews by God fell into different categories. There were civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. Many of the laws given to the Jews in the book of Leviticus seem strange to us today. While helpful to the Jews (both medically and spiritually), these laws do not apply universally. The civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were specifically repealed in the New Testament. Examples: <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Acts 10:12-15</a>; <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Colossians 2:11-16</a>; <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Romans 14:17</a>. Moral laws were not repealed, but certain harsh earthly penalties for them are not in force in the same way since Jesus’ gospel of grace. Jesus’ example, such as toward the adulterous woman in <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">John 8:1-11</a>, was not to condemn the transgressor to harsh punishment as the culture would have demanded (in this case being stoned to death), but to show mercy and insist that she leave her life of sin.<br />
<br />
15. <em><strong>The God of the Bible is immoral.</strong></em> This statement is occasionally made by certain vocal atheists who seem to have an ax to grind against the God who made them. It seems incredibly presumptuous of fallible man to think they know better than God. The charge comes about mainly in regard to God’s command to the Jews to take over the land of Canaan and kill the inhabitants, in which the Jews became the responsible agent to execute specific justice against an immoral indigenous society. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/how-can-a-loving-god-order-people-killed">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/how-can-a-loving-god-order-people-killed</a> for an explanation.<br />
<br />
16. <em><strong>The Bible does not permit the charging of interest.</strong></em> Not charging interest or receiving interest was a practice in the Old Testament to give benefit to people in need. The New Testament effectively abrogates this practice in Jesus’ Parable of the Talents (<a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Matthew 25:14-29</a>).<br />
<br />
17. <em><strong>I can be a “Jesus Only” Christian.</strong></em> Some people who don’t like all the moral commands in the Bible want to tear out the pages of the Bible they don’t like. This is problematic for many reasons. One reason is that if you pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like, that is creating a God in your own image. This is idolatry, which is a violation of the Second of the Ten Commandments. Another reason is that if you think that the Bible is not reliable, you don’t know who the Jesus you think you worship is, since what we know about Jesus comes primarily from the Bible. We have more comments on this in this article our article “Cults, Heresies, and Heterodoxies.”: <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/cults-and-heresies">http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/cults-and-heresies</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.conservativecut.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/joel1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" src="http://www.conservativecut.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/joel1.png" width="320" /></a></div>18. <em><strong>Christianity is about being financially prosperous.</strong></em> This view of the Christian faith has become popular among some televangelists. It teaches that material prosperity and success in business and personal life is to be expected as external evidence of God’s favor. This is referred to as the “Prosperity Gospel.” It is a dangerous distortion of the biblical gospel. It is true that if one practices biblical principles in one’s life—ethics, hard work, concern for others, discipline, etc—one is more likely to be successful financially as well as physically healthy, but it is not always the case. The focus on this movement is incorrectly put on the accumulation of wealth and material goods, rather than on the true gospel. The biblical gospel is very clearly the declaration of Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection to save us from God’s wrath and hell. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel">http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel</a>. The Bible teaches an attitude about money and wealth that directly contradicts the Prosperity Gospel:<br />
a. <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">1 Timothy 6:7-10</a>: "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." <br />
b. <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Mark 10:17-22</a>:"go, sell what you own, give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven . . ." <br />
c. <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Matthew 6:19-21</a>: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." <br />
d. <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Luke 18:22-25</a>: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." <br />
e. <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">1 John 2:15</a>: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."<br />
In fact, one of Christ’s most quoted sermons (The Sermon on the Mount in <a class="scripturized" href="http://www.faithfacts.org/#">Matthew 5</a>) essentially assures a Christian that they will suffer hardships.<br />
<br />
19. <em><strong>Most Christians think favorably of televangelists. </strong></em>Overwhelmingly, Christians think that most of the TV preachers are full of baloney. Sadly, many televangelists preach a distorted Gospel. Christians whose beliefs are rooted in the truths of the Bible are quick to point out the discrepancies.<br />
<br />
20. <em><strong>Christianity is different by insisting that its claims are exclusive.</strong></em> Actually all religions claim exclusivity. Just ask a Muslim or a Hindu if a Christian is one of them. Even those who say that there should be no exclusivity in religion are in reality making an absolutist claim by eliminating from their circle those religions who claim exclusivity. See <a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/arent-all-religions-the-same">http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/arent-all-religions-the-same</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/misconceptions-about-Christianity" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-54464992732540482812012-04-18T11:45:00.000-04:002012-04-18T11:45:50.899-04:00The Terrible Truth About Christians<h4>By Michael K Reynolds</h4><br />
Christians really have the unique ability to drive people nuts. Most other folks of faith are pretty good about keeping to themselves and staying out of other people’s business. But the same can’t be said of us Holy Rolling, Bible Thumpers.<br />
<br />
The reality is there truly is a diamond hidden amongst all of that bothersome coal, and if you can somehow get past our many shortcomings, you’ll discover our hearts are in the right place.<br />
<br />
So before you give up on us completely, here are a few helpful things you should know about Christians.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://capitalistliontamer.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/biblethumper.jpg?w=450&h=337" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="149" src="http://capitalistliontamer.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/biblethumper.jpg?w=450&h=337" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is an example of a fake↑↑↑↑</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table><strong>Yes…Most Of Us Are Fake<br />
</strong>If you see a guy wearing a Coca Cola shirt, don’t assume he works for the company. Anybody can wear a shirt, few are the real thing. The same holds true for us. So many people will claim to be a Christian, but very few are really “followers of Christ.” What’s the big difference? Well…one is someone who is merely using the title for convenience and to be part of the club, while the other is really committed to changing their life in a major way.<br />
<br />
<strong>…And Heavily Flawed<br />
</strong>If it wasn’t hard enough to have to identify real “followers of Christ,” here is some more bad news. Even the “Christ followers” are a messed up bunch as a whole. Just know that if we were perfect, we wouldn’t need the fixing that Jesus Christ offers us in the first place. When we give our lives to Christ we are forgiven, but it takes all of a lifetime to become more like Christ. We’ll need your patience.<br />
<br />
<strong>…And Confused<br />
</strong>Anyone who tells you they understand each and every facet of the Bible and their Christian faith is a heretic and when you hear this you should start boiling the water. The truth is that the Truth is very complicated. After hundreds of years of research and study to rely upon, even the greatest Biblical scholars still disagree over some of the finer details of the faith. Yet, what is clear is that when you begin to study the Bible, the major truths become quickly apparent and the more you learn, the more you want to share it with others.<br />
<br />
<strong>…And Pushy<br />
</strong>Probably one of the biggest complaints about “followers of Christ” is that we are so pushy. I mean, why can’t we just keep our beliefs to ourselves? Well here is the answer. We imagine ourselves as if we’re on a river leading to a beautiful lake that we’ll be able to enjoy for all eternity. We want all of the people we love to be there with us. Across the way, we see friends and family going down a separate river that we believe with all our hearts is headed for a terrible waterfall that will spell their doom. We understand that we must look like complete loons as we’re waving frantically and shouting from the distance for you to get out of the boat before it’s too late. But you should be flattered that we’re willing to sacrifice whatever fragments of our dignity we have left for your benefit. More concerning to you should be those “Christians” who would calmly wave from abroad and whisper, “Enjoy your trip, my friend”<br />
<br />
<strong>Who Can You Trust?</strong><br />
<strong><b><a href="http://www.michaelkreynolds.com/?p=52" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: normal;">To continue reading, click here </span></a></b></strong>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-39960007678509875842012-04-16T11:23:00.000-04:002012-04-16T11:23:40.914-04:00Silly Putty Bible Study<i>Many Christians treat the Bible like putty. Just add the Spirit, and it can be molded into almost anything at all.. </i><br />
<h4>By Greg Koukl</h4><br />
<h2 align="center">Quick Summary: A Moment of Truth</h2><br />
<ul><li>Evangelicals have developed a dangerous habit of looking for verses or isolated phrases in their Bibles that they think the Spirit “impresses” on them with personal messages foreign to the original context.</li>
<li>Experiences like these are powerful, but deeply relativistic and unbiblical.</li>
<li>The Bible teaches that God chose specific words to communicate precise meanings. Private interpretations do not yield those accurate meanings. </li>
<li>Instead, we are to study to get the correct sense of a passage, then guard and protect that truth from distortion and abuse.</li>
<li>God’s Word is alive, but His words do not have a life of their own. There is no power when God’s words are twisted, distorted, or adulterated for our private use. There are no private messages in the Bible.</li>
</ul><br />
21<sup>st</sup> Century kids have cell phones, DVD players, and video games. When I was a kid we had simpler delights. One was a handful of malleable goo that could be pulled, twisted, or distorted into any shape imaginable. It was called Silly Putty®. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://blickenstaffs.com/blicks-blog/wp-content/uploads/09-Silly-Putty.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="189" src="http://blickenstaffs.com/blicks-blog/wp-content/uploads/09-Silly-Putty.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>Sadly, many Christians use their Bibles like Silly Putty. Just add the Spirit and the Bible becomes putty in their hands, able to be molded into almost anything at all. Often, the results turn out to be silly, too, and sometimes even tragic.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Holy Spirit Give-Away </strong><br />
<br />
Some Evangelicals have developed a dangerous habit: They use the Bible to find a personal “promise” or “word” of guidance from the Spirit unrelated to the text’s original meaning rather than as a treasure of truth of all.<br />
<br />
Here’s how it works. Instead of studying to find legitimate personal application of Scripture to their lives, they read the Bible looking for verses or isolated phrases the Spirit “impresses” on them with personal messages foreign to the context.<br />
<br />
For example, a Christian woman who has been praying for her family’s conversion stumbles upon Acts 16 during her quiet time. Her eyes settle on Paul’s response to the Philippian jailer who asked, “What must I do to be saved?” “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved,” Paul answered, then added “you and your household” (v. 29-31).<br />
<br />
Encouraged by these words, the woman begins to claim the “promise” that <em>her own</em> household will be saved, with the justification that “The Holy Spirit gave me this verse.”<br />
<br />
<b>Why would she use wording like that? Because the verse wasn’t hers to begin with.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124#_edn1">[i]</a> Rather, she believes, under the Spirit’s influence there is a mystical transformation that takes place causing the meanings of the words to change for her, conveying a private message not intended for anyone else.</b><br />
<br />
Notice, her confidence is not based on the <em>objective</em> meaning of the text, but on the unique <em>subjective</em> meaning given to her by the Spirit in the moment. I—or any other Christian, for that matter—could not claim that verse for myself unless the Holy Spirit “gave” the verse to me, too.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124#_edn2">[ii]</a><br />
<br />
<b>Experiences like these are powerful because they seem intensely personal. But there’s a problem: Acts 16:31 is not her promise. It’s the Philippian jailer’s promise, if it’s a promise at all.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124#_edn3">[iii]</a> This is an abuse of God’s Word. It’s also deeply relativistic.</b><br />
<br />
When an objective claim (a verse) communicates completely different meanings (“truths”) to different subjects (people), that’s relativism. Since truth is not in the objective meaning of the words, but in the personal, subjective experience of the reader—in this case, an experience with the Holy Spirit—a personal prompting can be “true for me, but not for you.” Since there are different experiences for different people, there are different “truths” for each.<br />
<br />
Relativism is the defining characteristic of the age, and has deeply influenced the church. Therefore, let me speak plainly: <em>There is no biblical justification for finding private, personal messages from texts originally intended by God to mean something else.</em> This approach is the wrong way to read the Bible. I know because of what the Bible teaches about itself.<br />
<br />
<h2>The Bible on Bible Study</h2><em><b>First, the Bible teaches that the written words of Scripture are inspired.</b> </em><br />
<br />
“All scripture [<em>graphe, </em>Gr.—the “writing”] is inspired by God” ( 2 Timothy 3:16). The wording here is important. Paul says that the <em>writing itself</em> is “God breathed,” not the thoughts, impressions, or private messages that occur to us when we read the writing.<br />
<br />
God told Moses to speak to Pharaoh the specific <em>words</em> of God: “I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to <em>say</em>” (Exodus 4:12). “Let them hear my <em>words</em>,” God said later at Horeb, “so they may learn to fear me all the days they live on the earth” (Deuteronomy 4:10). These are the “living <em>words</em>” that Stephen said have been passed on to us (Acts 7:38).<br />
<br />
God told Jeremiah, “Write in a book all the <em>words</em> I have spoken to you” (Jeremiah 30:2). He said to Isaiah, “My <em>words</em> which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span>offspring” (Isaiah 59:21).<br />
<br />
God has always been concerned with the words, because He chose specific words to convey precise meaning. That’s why Paul confidently refers to revelation not as words of human wisdom, but as “<em>words</em>…taught by the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 213)<em>.</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<b><em>Second, the Bible teaches it is important to accurately understand these inspired words of Scripture.</em></b><br />
<blockquote>Note Jesus in Luke 10:25-28 <i>And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered and said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly.”</i><br />
</blockquote>Jesus did not ask, “What does the Spirit say to you on this issue?” He asked, “What is <em>written</em>? How does it <em>read</em>?” Then He waited to see if the lawyer got it right.<br />
<br />
There is a correct and incorrect way to read the Bible. Paul tells Timothy to handle the Word accurately to avoid bringing shame on himself (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus scolded the Pharisees for not understanding the Scripture properly. He then made an argument for the resurrection that hinged on the tense of a word: “I <em>am</em> the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:29-32).<br />
<br />
<b><em>Third, the Bible teaches that private interpretations do not yield the accurate meaning. </em></b><br />
<blockquote>Peter is clear on this point. He writes: </blockquote><blockquote><i>But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)</i> <br />
</blockquote>Because there is a Divine author behind prophesy, the Apostle argues, there is a particular truth—a determinate meaning—God intends to convey. Individual, personalized interpretations that distort this meaning only bring danger (note the reference to false prophets and false teachers in the next verse).<br />
<br />
The same reasoning applies to all Scripture, not just to words of prophets, because the same rationale applies—the same Divine author stands behind the entire Bible.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124#_edn4">[iv]</a> The meaning God originally intended through the inspired writers is the same meaning for anyone reading the verse today. <br />
<br />
Simply put, a text can never mean what it never meant.<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124#_edn5">[v]</a> Whenever God speaks, He has a particular truth in mind that fanciful interpretations obscure. We are not free to extract our own personalized revelations from Scripture. The Holy Spirit did not mean one thing when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, for example, and then something entirely different when we read it 2000 years later. There are no private messages in the Bible.<br />
<br />
<b><em>Fourth, the Bible teaches we are to be diligent in study to get the accurate meaning.</em></b><br />
<br />
The “good hand of the Lord” was upon Ezra specifically because Ezra “had set his heart to <em>study</em> the law of the Lord” (Ezra 7:9-10). The New Testament Bereans were called noble precisely because they went back to the words of the text, “<em>examining</em> the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).<br />
<br />
In Paul’s last words before his death he admonished Timothy to “be <em>diligent</em> to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). <br />
<br />
He warned of a time when the church “will not endure sound doctrine,” but instead will turn to “myths” that “tickle” the ears (2 Timothy 4:3). Truth is the antidote, he said, preached faithfully and accurately. Success in this depends on diligent work, not on “hearing” from the Spirit. <br />
<br />
<em><b>Fifth, the Bible teaches we must guard the accurate meaning from being distorted, twisted, or maligned. </b> </em>This is clear from a number of passages. Jude writes (1:3):<br />
<blockquote> <i>Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you <em>contend</em> earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.</i><br />
</blockquote>Paul assured the Corinthians that he was “not walking in craftiness or <em>adulterating</em> the word of God” (2 Corinthians 4:2). By contrast, Peter warned that the “untaught and unstable” who <em>distorted</em> Paul’s words did so “to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).<br />
<br />
Anticipating his imminent martyrdom, Paul tells Timothy, “Retain the <em>standard of sound words</em> which you have heard from me….<em>Guard…the treasure</em> which has been entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).<br />
<br />
Do you realize you cannot distort something unless it has a specific, correct meaning that can be twisted? You cannot retain the standard of sound words unless <em>the words</em> are the standard. You cannot contend for the same sound doctrine for everyone that protects us from myths— a “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”— if each individual receives his own personal message from the text.<br />
<br />
<b><em>Finally, the Bible never teaches the subjective, individualized interpretation approach.</em></b><br />
<br />
Where does Scripture advance the idea that the Holy Spirit changes the meanings of the words of the text for individual readers? Where does the Bible teach that private messages lurk between lines wanting only the Holy Spirit’s touch to bring them to light? Where does God’s Word suggest the relativistic, take-the-verse-out-of-context-for-my-own-private-use approach? It’s not there.<br />
<br />
If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be God because He chose to communicate through language, not around it. God will not twist, distort, or redefine His own Word for our private consumption.<br />
<br />
“We cannot make [the Bible] mean anything that pleases us, and then give the Holy Spirit ‘credit’ for it,” Gordon Fee wrote. “The Holy Spirit cannot be called in to contradict Himself, and He is the one who inspired the original intent.”<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124#_edn6">[vi]</a><br />
<br />
The Bible speaks clearly on this question. The written words of Scripture are God-breathed, chosen specifically by the Holy Spirit for their precision. There is a correct way to read them and an incorrect way. Private interpretations do not yield accurate meanings. Instead, diligent study and careful examination of the text deliver to us unadulterated truth, a treasure we are to guard and protect from shameful distortion and abuse.<br />
<br />
<strong>The OT in the NT</strong><br />
<br />
How is it, then, that Old Testament verses cited by New Testament writers sometimes seem so far removed from their original context? This is a fair question to which there are a couple of explanations, depending on the citation. Most hinge on our core principle: Meaning is always based on the author’s intent.<br />
<br />
Since the principle author of Scripture is God, He may have intended more than the Old Testament authors were aware of and may clarify His original meaning in subsequent writings.<br />
<br />
God may have intended multiple meanings or multiple levels of meaning (e.g., double entendre), or an immediate literal sense and an additional spiritual sense (e.g., prophecy and apocalyptic literature). The New Testament writers have insight into these meanings that we do not.<br />
<br />
There are other possibilities. Sometimes a writer notes that a type—a divinely inspired pattern or symbol—is being “fulfilled,” and not the words themselves; God’s history sometimes repeats itself (e.g., Jeremiah 31:15 vs. Matthew 2:17-18).<br />
<br />
A later author may not be <em>finding</em> new meaning in a text, but <em>giving</em> new meaning to it. For us, then, the question is what did Matthew mean in his <em>use</em> of Hosea (for example), not what Hosea originally meant. <br />
<br />
In no case, however, are New Testament authors relativizing the text for their own private use. Rather, they are revealing formerly hidden <em>objective</em> meanings in the text, something implicit they then made explicit for application to the whole community of Christians. This is critical since I have been arguing that God does not take verses out of context <em>as a means of conveying private messages to individual readers</em>.<br />
<br />
<h2>No Power in Words</h2>Christians err in thinking the words of Scripture are somehow vested with power. Just speak the words—“claim the verse”—and power is released to serve us. This is not so.<br />
<br />
God’s Word is alive, but His words do not have a life of their own. That’s an occult view of language, not a biblical one. There is no power in words themselves. There is only power in God, in whose mind the words originate. Therefore, the words are only alive in their original intent.<br />
<br />
God’s Word only has power when used as God purposed. There is no power when God’s words are twisted, distorted, or adulterated for our private use. We cannot claim divine authority for a verse when we are using it in a way that God did not intend. This is not Christianity. It’s superstition.<br />
<br />
Anyone teaching the Bible out of context, therefore, is not teaching the Bible, regardless of how much they “baptize” their inventions with Holy Spirit language. A reflection on a Bible passage in a morning quiet time, a devotional reading, or a Sunday sermon may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. But if it’s not the message of the text—God’s message—it lacks power even when it’s quoted chapter and verse.<br />
<br />
Whether claiming promises during difficult times or citing verses to substantiate a view, make sure the texts you use to prove your point actually mean what you think they mean. <br />
<br />
Always be on the alert when reading books or listening to sermons. Are the authors or speakers simply quoting verses to buttress their points, or are they interpreting the Scripture carefully by looking at the details of the text?<br />
<br />
Misconstruing a passage neutralizes the Word of God. It robs Scripture of its authority and influence. The entire reason we go to the Bible in the first place—to get God’s truth and apply it to our lives—is thwarted when we ignore the context.<br />
<br />
Simply “claiming” a verse doesn’t make it our own. Only when we are properly informed by God’s Word the way it was written—in its context—can we be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it is working together according to the Spirit’s design<br />
<br />
The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). Used properly, it parries deception and pierces the heart. It protects us with its truth. A sword made of putty, though, has no power. It pierces nothing. It offers no protection. And it has no place in the arsenal of a Christian. <br />
<br />
<h2 align="center">Putting Your Knowledge into Action</h2><br />
<ul><li>First, don’t look for private messages in the Bible. They’re not there. Do not “claim” verses that are not intended for you or your circumstances.</li>
</ul><a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10124" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-68353659916644824632012-04-13T18:16:00.000-04:002012-04-13T18:16:26.206-04:00Who are you to judge???<h4>by Brett Kunkle</h4><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://defendingcontending.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/finger2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="http://defendingcontending.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/finger2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Drinking. Premarital sex. Abortion. Homosexuality. Same-sex marriage. Christians have so many hang-ups with the behavior of non-Christians, don’t they? It all seems so judgmental. Christians have enough problems of their own, so why worry about others? And even Jesus warned against this. “Do not judge so that you will not be judged” (Matthew 7:1). Who are Christians to judge others?<br />
<br />
This common objection to Christianity packs some punch. But why? First, we’re swimming in a sea of moral relativism that prohibits any moral judgments (that is, if you want to be a consistent moral relativist). Against this relativistic backdrop, to identify some behavior as morally wrong is <i>itself</i> wrong. Hopefully you see the self-contradictory nature of this claim, but sadly, many do not as the muddled thinking of relativism blinds its adherents.<br />
<br />
Second, tolerance, the one virtue relativists like to apply universally, is incompatible with moral judgments. Mind you, this is the modern version of tolerance that claims all viewpoints are equally valid and therefore, no one’s moral views should be considered better than another’s (a further self-contradictory claim). So modern tolerance is intolerant of moral judgments. If tolerance is good, then judging is bad.<br />
<br />
So how should Christians think about judging? First, we must ask what one means by “judge.” The dictionary distinguishes several definitions. To judge can mean to pass legal judgment, like a judge sentencing a criminal at the conclusion of a courtroom trial. Nothing wrong with this kind of judging.<br />
<br />
To judge can also mean to form an opinion or conclusion about someone or something. These are assessments or evaluations. A coach judges the skill level of a player trying to make the team. A mom judges the nutritional value of food she serves her family. A plumber judges a clogged sink to fix it. Such judgments or assessments are made all the time, everyday. Again, nothing wrong with this kind of judging.<br />
<br />
But Jesus definitely suggests some sort of judging is wrong, so what was He talking about? Well, if you really want to know, never read a Bible verse. To determine the meaning of a single verse, you must read the surrounding verses. Context is king. When we look at the rest of Matthew 7, we actually discover Jesus doing the very thing most Christians think He has forbidden.<br />
<br />
In verse 6, He warns, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine…” He calls out “false prophets” (v. 15) and says there will come a day when he will say to some, “depart from me, you who practice lawlessness” (v. 23). Ouch, those are harsh <i>moral</i> judgments. So clearly, not all judging is out-of-bounds for Jesus.<br />
<br />
The context makes clear Jesus is after a particular kind of judgment: <br />
<blockquote>For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye (vv. 2-5). </blockquote>When Jesus warns “do not judge,” He doesn’t mean we should never assess moral behavior. Rather, he warns against self-righteous and hypocritical judgments. When you judge, take the log out of your own eye <i>first</i>. This is something we Christians need to work on. But notice that Jesus is not saying it is never right to judge, He is explaining how we are to judge rightly. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, Jesus’ instructions on judging are for individuals, not societies. He is not arguing against the predominant moral views of any particular culture, insisting we adopt moral neutrality (<a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223" target="_blank">which is a myth anyway</a>). His warning does not bar governmental authorities from judging behavior and dishing out punishment. Jesus is addressing the personal behavior of believers. <br />
<br />
Think about the logical consequences if we prohibit all moral judgments. We could no longer declare child abuse, rape, injustice, theft, or racism to be wrong. But these are obvious cases of moral ills. If you were to experience any one of these, you would cry out for justice. However, justice assumes a legitimate judgment. <br />
<br />
Indeed, Jesus’ gospel starts with judgment:<br />
<a href="http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/who-are-you-to-judge" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118146536119364043.post-77942931509121030692012-04-13T10:03:00.000-04:002012-04-13T10:03:39.707-04:00How NOT to argue against evolution<h4>by Tom Gilson</h4><br />
<br />
There are good arguments against naturalistic evolution, the belief that all species developed through unguided random variation and natural selection.<sup class="footnote"><a href="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/04/how-not-to-argue-against-evolution/#fn-10530-1" id="fnref-10530-1">1</a></sup> There are also bad arguments. There are some that are so bad they do not qualify as arguments at all. Here are some things I’d really rather never hear anyone ever say again:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://thetalentcode.com/wp-content/uploads/Nc_evolution_080103_ms.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://thetalentcode.com/wp-content/uploads/Nc_evolution_080103_ms.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: right;"><i>When can I evolve to put some clothes on?</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><strong><em>If we descended from the apes, why are there still apes?</em></strong><br />
<br />
Evolutionary theory does not require that descendant populations or species must replace their ancestral species. If the descendant species occupies a different ecological niche, there is no reason at all to expect that it would replace its ancestors. Even in the same niche, whether one replaces the other is a matter of relative fitness, competitive success, and probabilities that almost amount to luck.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>If evolution is true, where are all the living links between us and the apes?</em></strong><br />
Applied correctly, I think this could be an interesting argument, but the way I stated it here (and the way I have heard it) doesn’t work. The reason is the converse of the preceding answer. While evolution does not require that predecessor species be eliminated, it certainly does allow for it. If early humans out-competed their ancestors in similar niches, their ancestors would certainly have gone extinct. And competition is not the only explanation. If our predecessors were unfortunate enough to be concentrated in a location where they suffered a natural disaster, they could have been wiped out that way, too.<br />
<br />
(Where this argument gets interesting is that it seems that even if it doesn’t work for humans, somewhere in the natural world we should see a graduated transition from one species to the next. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species">Ring species</a> probably qualify, but I’d like to see a series where the beginning and end points are more distinct.)<br />
<br />
<strong><em>If evolution is true, why are there homosexuals? They don’t reproduce, so natural selection should have eliminated them.</em></strong><br />
This objection misunderstands almost everything. It assumes that there is no homosexuality except by birth, and that homosexuality is a simple heritable trait. Even if that were (which it isn’t), the argument still would not go through on its own. It also assumes that homosexuality is associated with no other adaptive trait, no characteristic that might help the population at large in its reproductive success. (Think of how sickle-cell trait provides <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait">protection</a> from malaria.) I could go on, but those few false and/or unexamined assumptions are enough to show that this argument assumes way too much.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>The world was created 10,000 years ago, so there was no time for evolution to happen.</em></strong><br />
This is just begging the question. If we could establish that the world was only 10,000 years old, then we would also establish everything else that’s at issue in these kinds of arguments. But we won’t accomplish that. In fact I consider the premise false, so in my considered opinion the argument fails on that count alone. Suppose, however, the premise might be true: in actual practice, the argument could never go anywhere. No believer in evolution would give it a fraction of a moment’s thought. It’s a conclusion drawn from a source they do not trust, and it contradicts a lot of information that they do trust, so it’s a useless line to pursue.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>The eye is too complex to have come about by chance.</em></strong><br />
First, no evolutionist thinks anything came about just by chance. It’s chance plus the power of natural selection. Second, this argument concerning complexity is just too simple to have any force to it. Suppose for the sake of argument that it’s true: the eye (actually there are many versions of “the eye” in nature) really is too complex to have come about through naturalistic evolution. As an argument this is still much too weak to be any good. It needs definitional rigor, field observation, laboratory study, and much more behind it. Maybe with that it could succeed, but most people who raise it have no clue what it would require to make it go through.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Evolution leads to immorality.</em></strong><br />
This one is wandering in the neighborhood of the truth, but not close enough to work.<br />
<a href="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/04/how-not-to-argue-against-evolution/" target="_blank">To continue reading, click here</a>Chad Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04837827551592963510noreply@blogger.com0