Gospel Sower

Comments and reflections on a Prager column

2009-01-01T23:08:00.002-07:00

The following column has appeared, in two parts, on Townhall.com at http://tinyurl.com/78fr9u. Mr. Prager seems to make a lot of sense, from my view, and the Scriptures. In particular, let me point out Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-5:

1 About the things you wrote: ^[a] "It is good for a man not to have relations with ^[b] a woman." ^[c] 2 But because of sexual immorality, ^(A) ^[d] each man should have his own wife, ^(B) and each woman should have her own husband. 3 A husband should fulfill his marital duty ^(C) to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive ^(D) one another—except when you agree, for a time, to devote yourselves to ^[e] prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (Holman Standard Christian Bible)

WHEN A WOMAN ISN’T IN THE MOOD

By Dennis Prager

Given our preoccupation with politics and economics, it is easy to forget that for most of us micro issues still play a greater role in our lives. So here are some thoughts that, as heretical as they might sound, have been found extremely helpful, sometimes even marriage-saving, from listeners to my radio show, which features a “male-female hour” every week.

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of “He wants, she doesn't want.”

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways:

1. You have to be kidding. That certainly isn't my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.

2. If this is true, men really are animals.

3. Not my man. He knows I love him by the kind and loving way I treat him.

4. You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn't expect sex when I'm not in the mood.

5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to sex.

Let's deal with each of these responses.

1. You have to be kidding. …

The most common female reaction to hearing about men's sexual nature is incredulity, often followed by denial. These are entirely understandable reactions given how profoundly different — and how seemingly more primitive — men's sexual nature is compared to women's.

Incredulity is certainly the reaction most women have when first being told that a man knows he is loved when his wife gives him her body. The idea that the man she is married to, let alone a man whose intelligence she respects, will to any serious extent measure her love of him by such a carnal yardstick strikes many women as absurd and even objectionable.

But the question that should matter to a woman who loves her man is not whether this proposition speaks poorly or well of male nature. It is whether it is true. And it is true beyond anything she can imagine. A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says.

(Very few men will confess to the amount of hurt and eventual anger they experience when repeatedly denied sex).

Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition. And then there are men for whom sex rarely has anything to do with making love or whose frequency of demands are excessive. (What “excessive” means ought to be determined by the couple before the refusals begin, or continue.) But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body.

2. If this is true, men really are animals.

Correct. Compared to most women's sexual nature, men's sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual nature's desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.

3. Not my man.

Many women will argue, understandably, “My husband knows I love him. He doesn't need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when I'm too tired or just don't want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I'm into it, too.”

The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesn't want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women.

Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate.

Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.

4. You have it backward.

Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to — women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.)

But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood — see Part II next week.

5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to my husband.

This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.

In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband.

I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you.

In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.

Why?

Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.

1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.

2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.

What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?

This brings us to the next reasons.

3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”

4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.

5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.

6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it?

7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.

8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.

The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.

If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.

Baker's Dozen Meditations #2

2008-11-10T20:52:00.002-07:00

#2 INFANTS IN EVIL

Verse: 1 Corinthians 14:20. “Brethren, don’t be childish in your thinking, but be infants in evil and adult in your thinking.” (HCSB)

We often see and comment on how a child implicitly trusts their father and mother, in ways that an adult would not trust even a parent. Although sometimes that trust is misplaced, such is rare. And it is important, because the child does not always realize the danger offered by walking across a street or highway, listening to the blandishments of a stranger, or dealing with adult tools and equipment.

Children often try NOT to see evil, bad things, and do not look forward and consider what can go wrong. Yet, they are trusting and all too often, we as Christians think that it is this sort of childish behavior that we are to imitate. Paul corrects that misunderstanding in this passage. An adult anticipates and plans for things to go wrong, instead of just “hoping” that all will go right. Then (childlike), the adult does not think of evil to do to respond when things go wrong. It is not ungodly to take actions to avoid and respond to evil, whether physical or spiritual. Indeed, it is wisdom as God defines such. But like a little child, we should exhibit faith and be free of malice, and not acquiesce in evil deeds, either by submitting to them or allowing someone (or ourselves) to be forced into doing evil in return, as a result of the evil done to us.

Read also: Hebrews 5:12, 14, and 2 Peter 3:18.

Song: Children of the Heavenly King (http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/o/cofthehk.htm)

Appointments Everyone Must Keep

2008-09-13T17:24:00.002-06:00

There are five appointments in the life of a human that EVERYONE faces; four of these are required:

1. Birth (see Ecclesiastes 12:7) Our spirit, soul, and mind is created/given to us by God.

2. Death (physical death) (see Hebrews 9:27; Romans 5:12) All men die: only two are recorded in history as having bypassed death and gone to God's presence (Enoch and Elijah), if we understand Scripture right.

3. The Resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 5:12 and 19; Acts 24:15; Revelation 1:7; John 5:28-29; John 6:54; and 2 Timothy 2:18) This resurrection is yet to come, and should not be confused with those who were brought back to life such as Lazarus, Dorcas, or the others recorded in Scripture, except for the Christ Himself, who is the "First Born" (Colossians 1:18).

4. The Judgment (see Acts 17:31; Matthew 13:40-43; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; Revelation 20:12-13) Judgment will be according to our works (John 12:48; Matthiew 7:22-23: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8); Mark 13:31-33; 2 Peter 3:10-13; 2 Thessalonians 5:2). Mercy will be given us, however, for without His mercy our failure to be perfect condemns us (Titus 3:5; Hebrews 4:16, Romans 9:15-18). The time of that judgment is unknown (Matthew 24:44-46).

There is one other appointment which is optional: men may fail to meet this very important appointment, but will suffer the consequences of doing so. It is an appointment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
a. It must be met in order to obtain glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
b. It must be preached (1 Corinthians 9:16)
c. It must be obeyed on pain of everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)
d. It is the Gospel of Him who is the source of eternal salvation and must be obeyed (Hebrews 5:9)

We humans were created to live forever, but to do so, we must meet these five appointments. Physical death and Judgment are only steps on the way to eternity, but where will we spend eternity? If we reject our appointment with the Gospel, we have no more mercy available from God on Judgment, and we cannot obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

2 Thessalonians 2:16-17: "16 May our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal encouragement and good hope by grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good work and word. "

Baker's Dozen Mediations #1 Builders

2008-08-16T21:32:00.000-06:00

Verse: Nehemiah 4:9: “So we prayed to our God and stationed a guard because of them [furious plotters, verse 8] day and night.” (HCSB)

Throughout history, the builder has frequently also had to defend what they have built against those who do not want the building done. Sometimes it is a spiritual “building project,” and sometimes it is a physical project with a spiritual aspect. Whether it was the Anasazi defending their cliff dwellings against nomadic raiders, a contractor protecting his equipment and job-site against eco-freak “monkeywrenchers,” or an inner-city ministry defending their chapel against a street gang, they can all appreciate the situation in the rebuilding of Jerusalem 2500 years ago.

Prayer is essential; it is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the believer. But Nehemiah and his fellow builders in Jerusalem were careful to recognize that faith inspires works. As Nehemiah 4:15 records, they stood watch against their enemies “with their swords, spears, and bows.” While trusting the Lord, they were prepared and ready to fight if needed. They understood that they were not to depend on their own ability, though. They knew that “Our God will fight for us.” (4:20).

This sound Biblical principle applies to all endeavors we undertake, spiritual and physical. James tells us (2:17), “faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.” “Watching” was clearly, to Nehemiah and his pioneers, more than just being alert and sounding an alarm. It included an active defense and required weapons. An unarmed watchman is worthless.”

Yes, they still trusted to the Lord that they were prepared enough, that He would keep them alert and ready “unto every good work,” even when that work required physical defense against those attacking them, their work, their families, and their community.

Are we able to do the same today?

Read also: James 2: 22-24, and Psalm 127: 1-3.

Song: Remember Me, O Mighty One

Baptism saves!

2008-08-16T21:31:00.000-06:00

Most American Evangelicals reject this statement: Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals of all types. A web search will reveal more attacks on the Biblical teaching that baptism saves than supporting it. Why? Many believe that baptism is something that we do for God and for others. Ironically, most of those claiming to be Christians in the rest of the world believe this statement as well as the historic church, apostate or not.

Even the apostate “historic” churches have confessed that baptism provides for the forgiveness of sin. In the third article of the Nicene Creed, many confess “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.” This creed is confessed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, as well as Reformed churches. They will and do reject the idea of some modern “Baptist” and “Bible” churches that the one baptism is a “Spirit baptism” and not involving water (although these “historic” churches mostly believe that sprinkling or pouring can replace immersion).

Definition of Baptism

The Greek words mean to wash, immerse, or dip. There are two: the noun, usually translated “baptism” is baptisma. The verb is baptizo, translated usually as “baptize.” Both words are used throughout the New Testament for cleaning and washing (see Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10). These are unrelated to the act of baptism or action of baptizing, but since a Greek word can have multiple meanings, context is critical to understanding what the word means in a particular verse.

Why Baptize?

This starts with Jesus and John the Baptizer. While Jesus did not require baptism, he shows us that baptism is associated with the Holy Spirit as well as an action that God approves of. When John questioned Jesus’ need for baptism, Jesus replied "Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt 3:15).

When Jesus was baptized, we see the entire Godhead. God the Father approves of what God the Son just had done; and God the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus. This marks the beginning of the Jesus “public” ministry. Fulfilled righteousness was now to be proclaimed.

When He met with Nicodemus, Jesus stated " I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5).

At the completion of Jesus’ earthly ministry, he returns to baptism. He makes baptism a part of making disciples. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. “ (Matt. 28:19-20a). Baptism is part – an obviously essential part - of making disciples. Note that it is listed before teaching. If baptism is part of making a disciple, then it is more than just an action we do.

What does Baptism do?

In the Acts of the Apostles, we see baptism play an important role in the growth of the young Church. Baptism has many benefits for the believers, but certainly one is the forgiveness of sin. The first time we hear this is then Peter tells those in Jerusalem that it is baptism that brings the forgiveness of sin (Acts 3:38).

When Paul was recounting his conversion, Paul stated that he was to be baptized which washed away his sins (Acts 22:16). In Acts, we see other benefits of baptism that God gives to the believer such as the gift (indwelling) of the Holy Spirit. In Romans, Paul writes that we receive new life in Christ when we are baptized (Rom. 6:4). We also see that baptism removes our sins (Titus 3:5-6); this may be the same as forgiveness, or a related benefit.

Peter writes about baptism is his first letter. He states that the Great Flood was a symbolic form of baptism for Noah and his family since it saved them. Peter clearly teaches that baptism now saves us. Baptism is the pledge of a good conscience words God. Baptism saves us by Christ’s resurrection. This is consistent with what Paul wrote in Romans 6.

It is wrong to conclude that baptism is the only way of salvation. Baptism is the way of salvation that God has given us. We find examples of those who were saved through baptism and those saved prior to baptism or with no baptism at all: but those were under the Old Covenant; under the New Covenant, we have but the one way that God has given us. Does this limit His power to save? No, of course not – but He is the Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).

Who is doing the Work?

When you read these verses, who is acting and who is passive? God is active in baptism while we are passive. We can only receive what God gives through baptism. God is acting through the person administering the baptism, so if we were to claim that the person doing the baptism is saved by doing so, we would indeed be preaching “salvation by works,” but that isn’t the case.

In Acts 2:38, Peter states that we receive both forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. We are the passive participants in this action: our only action is submission to the Savior.

In both passages from Romans and Titus, it is clear that we are passive in this act. Titus 3:5-6 states that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the active players “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. In Titus 3:6, the only part we play is passive “. . . so that having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” An heir does not merit their inheritance, but is given to them by the generosity of another.

Who should be baptized?

Jesus states that we are to baptize all nations – plain and simple. There is no limit to sex, ancestry, nationality, or age in his command: the only limit is that it is necessary to believe (Acts 8:36-37) and repent (Acts 2:38). Likewise, Peter instructed those on Pentecost that baptism and the promises associated with it is for both the adults and their children capable of repentence. In Acts 16:32, the jailer and all of his family were baptized into the faith after Paul and Silas presented the Gospel to the jailer; again, anyone who could believe and repent.

It is clear that this resolves the claims of many that John 3:16 and Mark 16:16 support the idea that belief alone (faith only) is required for salvation. There is no “believe only” loophole any more than there is a “baptism only” exemption. God has established His Way, and we may accept it or reject it, but we are not able to bargain about it.

Anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord, and like those in Jerusalem on that long-ago Pentecost, repent of their sins, may confess His name and put on His name in baptism, submitting to His will and being buried with Him in baptism to rise to a new life. Anyone.

Critical Comments on a Horrible Event

2007-12-11T06:49:00.000-07:00

It happened this weekend. Here is one of the many news stories (my comment follows):

Colorado killings linked to same [dead] gunman

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-09-missionariesshot_N.htm

USA Today

COLORADO SPRINGS — Police searched a home in suburban Englewood early Monday, seeking any link between two deadly shooting sprees at Christian religious centers that left both communities stunned on a day of worship. Four people and a gunman died in the attacks Sunday at a megachurch here in Colorado Springs and at the Youth With a Mission missionary center in the town of Arvada. "She [the security volunteer] probably saved over 100 lives," [New Life Church leader] Boyd said. He described her as a highly trained volunteer member of the church with a law enforcement background whose role was to provide security. He said she was not wearing a uniform and is licensed to carry a gun. Boyd said the shooting was random and that the gunman had no conenction to the church. He said the church has had a security plan in place for many years which includes the evacuation plan it used on Sunday.

Let’s start with the good news: one woman with a gun, a church member, a volunteer with training, saved dozens of lives.

Why? Because:

(1) the leaders of that church (yes, a denominational church) faced facts (in today's society, just as in the time of Jesus, violence (sometimes random and irrational violence) was a fact of life, and no one is immune to it),

(2) fear did not drive their decisions (especially irrational fears about some of their own members carrying weapons, or about scaring away members of their church because weapons might be present in the meetinghouse),

(3) love DID drive their actions (concern for both the spiritual AND physical wellbeing of their fellow members in their church and those who visited); and

(4) they believed that self-defense was scriptural. It was taught by the Lord Himself, it is clearly a principle expressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and it does not mean that we do not trust in the Lord to save us or protect us.

Since Colorado is an open-carry state, I assume this woman volunteer had a CCW and carried her weapon that way - concealed. But more important, she knew how to use it and she had the courage to use it. Like the Lord, she was willing to lay down her life that others might live.

Notice: there was NO ONE armed at the Arvada church: no doubt they proclaimed what too many brethren have:

(1) “it can’t happen here,”

(2) "it is too dangerous,"

(3) "it might scare off people who would otherwise come to worship," and

(4) “we trust in God, not in evil weapons.”

Each of these excuses (and many others) can be answered simply and directly. This very incident (and dozens more across the years and around the world) show that it CAN happen here: yes, even in churches of Christ and even to faithful brethren. Just as floods, tornadoes, fires, vandalism, family violence, and other bad things can happen. Weapons are no more dangerous than any other tool: we don't ban electricity in the meeting house because there is a chance of electrocution, we don't ban baptisries in the meeting house because there is a chance of drowning (and sadly, over the years, children HAVE died from drowning in a baptisry), but too many are so fearful of "guns" that they are willing to ban them. If people are so fearful of weapons that it will keep them from worshipping God, it is THEY who are showing no trust in the Lord, nor in their fellow Christians: and the work of the church to educate them about the real dangers they should fear is obvious. Finally, if we are to trust in the Lord in the matter of self-defense and protection from attacks, why do we NOT "trust in the Lord" when it comes to fire, flood, vandalism, and car accidents: this argument makes paying for liability and auto accident insurance a sin of lack of faith in God. If we are to trust in the Lord in all physical things (an argument that has been advanced more than once to me), why do we have heaters in church buildings: do we not trust the Lord to keep us warm and safe from storms?

There are too many churches where leaders (sadly, elders and deacons) are willing to make fun of those who DO want to carry, asking “what are YOU afraid of?” and “why are you so fearful and distrustful of God?” Perhaps these needless deaths in Arvada and Colorado Springs will make a few wake up and and understand that when brethren are willing to and do carry weapons, openly or concealed, it is about LOVE and not fear: love for their brothers and sisters in Christ, love that says, in very physical terms and not just in pious words that if Christ was willing to die for us, we should be willing to put our own lives in danger to protect our brothers and sisters in Him, the visitors to our assemblies, even our neighbors and, yes, even strangers from both physical and spiritual dangers.

Reprint from Apologetics Press: Is all religion bad?

2007-12-11T06:45:00.001-07:00

All Religion Is Bad Because Some Is?
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Printer version | Email this article

In logical discussions, a straw man is a weak, illogical position that is easily refuted. The more powerful, logical position is then coupled with the straw man, and both are said to fall together, yet the stronger position never actually is refuted by the opposition. For example, suppose a person stated that he owned a congenial, safe dog. The man’s neighbor argued that such was impossible. The opposing neighbor then recounted a story about a family’s pet pitbull that went berserk and killed someone. Then he stated that this incident proves that all pets are dangerous. Does his argument follow from the evidence? Of course not. He might have proven that one family’s pitbull was dangerous, but he did not prove that all pets are dangerous. In fact, it would be easy to multiply numerous examples of dangerous pets, but proving those specific pets to be dangerous could not logically be applied to all pets.

This idea must be understood when reading modern atheistic writings that purport to prove that the ideas of God and formulated religion are detrimental to society. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Since we can list examples of religions and religious fanatics that were (or are) harmful or detrimental to society, then all religions or ideas about God are harmful or detrimental to society.

So that the reader does not think that this author is, himself, constructing a straw man, let us consult the writings of a very popular, militant atheist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.”

One of Hitchens’ most popular recent books is titled god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Notice that his subtitle is broad enough to lump all religions into it: Islam, New Testament Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Hitchens then proceeded, in the pages of his book, to list many horrible things that people have done in the name of “religion.” He said: “Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow” (2007, p. 6). Hitchens even titled chapter two, “Religion Kills.” In it he wrote: “Here, then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed... ” (p. 18). He then recounted horror stories of several moral atrocities perpetrated in the name of “religion.” Furthermore, Hitchens stated: “If one comprehends the fallacies of any ‘revealed’ religion, one comprehends them all” (p. 126).

Can Hitchens and others document atrocities performed in the name of religion? Of course they can. Does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food. Many foods are poisonous and kill people, thus all foods should be avoided. Apply it to electricity. It is the case that many people have died while using electricity, thus all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming. Many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if it were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during surgery, or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided because it all leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.

New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of other competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right to assert that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with various other religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). Instead, New Testament Christianity as personified in the life of Jesus Christ shines as the truth that makes men free (John 8:32).

[NOTE: It should not be understood that Hitchens and others attack Christianity solely using the straw man argument. They do present other, more specific arguments that are answered in other Apologetics Press materials. It should be observed, however, that the straw man is a frequently used, favorite tactic that needs to be understood and specifically refuted.]

REFERENCES

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

How important is a "quibble over a word"?

2007-10-14T23:03:00.000-06:00

Recently, a dear friend could not understand how I could not support an effort to preach the Gospel and restore liberty in our land, just because I did not agree with the promoter and founder of the effort insisting on calling preachers or evangelists by the denominational term "pastor."

I've written this informal study in an attempt to answer that question:

Dear friend:

I am sorry that you believe I am just quibbling over a word. I am not saying that it is an insult in itself, but an insult because it is wrong. If I, an engineer, am called either an "architect" or a "technician" it is wrong: it may not be an insult, especially not an intentional insult, but none the less it is wrong because I am neither. Would you accept being called a "Doctor" when you are a nurse? Or being called a "nursing aide" when you are a nurse? When someone should or does understand the difference between one profession and the other, it is insulting to be called the wrong thing, even if unintentional.

Mr. Baldwin states that he is very much a believer in the Scriptures, and that he follows the tradition of "Sola Scriptura" - the Bible only. He states that he believes that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, and not that it "contains" the Word (as so many people do). He wants people to follow the Bible. I applaud his effort, but fear he is not sincere in it. He has added (or accepted traditions of men) to God's Word. It is very clear in the New Testament that there is a very great difference in the role or offices of pastor and preacher.

A preacher, evangelist, or minister is an individual who publicly proclaims the Word of God to both christians and nonchristians; from the pulpit and in public places; who may also be a teacher (although that is a separate role, as well). If we accept the usual division of the mission of God's church into three parts: "evangelism, edification, and benevolence," his primary concern is the first: evangelizing. It may be done in foreign fields (a "missionary") or locally - but the primary purpose is to reach the lost. A preacher may be completely on his own (example, Phillip or Peter) or part of a team (Paul and Silas, Paul and Barnabas); he may be located in one place for years (Titus, Peter in Joppa or even Paul in Corinth) or move from one location to another frequently (Paul's missionary journeys, Phillip; what today we call itinerant preachers). There are no requirements as to age, experience, family status, education, or similar things stated in the Bible: we know that Timothy was very young, Phillip of middle age, and there are other examples. As part of their duties (Titus is one example) they are to appoint shepherds or overseers in churches. An evangelist may be full-time (that is, supported by others) or part-time (supporting himself to do the work, as Paul did by making tents). I know that some people believe that no one should be completely supported by others because this creates a "hireling" mentality and creates a temptation to "tickle people's ears" when they are paying for you to do your work.

A pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, presbyter, or overseer (all biblical terms for what is the same role or office, emphasizing the wide ranging nature and functions) is one of the leaders of a community of believers: a local community or congregation. All the examples and commands in the New Testament make it clear that there is _always_ more than one co-equal shepherds or overseers in a congregation - I believe to prevent the dangers of one-man rule. Their primary concern is the well-being, spiritual _and_ physical, of the congregation which they are among: the "edification and benevolence" parts of the church's mission. To carry out this mission, they may do it themselves or have teachers (for the edification) and deacons (for the benevolence). The qualifications of these bishops are very clearly stated in New Testament - twice in fact. Among other things, they are to be husbands of one wife and have believing children (I believe this is, among other things, because the viewpoint and wisdom of both a man and a woman are essential to performing the duties, and because properly raising a family is strong evidence that they have the wisdom (and patience)). They are, of necessity, of mature years. As part of their responsibilities, they are to resolve disputes, ensure that sound doctrine is preached and practiced, and see that things are done in good order. Most people that I know believe these should always be "part-time" - that is, not paid for their work (for the same reasons: a "hireling" mentality) but do not exclude retired men who actually do work almost full-time in this role,

Mr. Baldwin, like many many others, has confused these two very distinct offices and has a defacto clergy-laity distinction that is not found in the Bible and has led to the degraded state of "christendom" today. To call a preacher a pastor is like calling a Lieutenant a General: it is inappropriate, and when done by a civilian might be brushed off due to lack of knowledge, but when done by someone who is a military scholar or a military member, is an insult because it is so inappropriate. The development of one-man rule, the merger of individual churches into dioceses or synods or whatever, the "hireling" mentality, the splitting of churches into a privileged clergy supported by a laity; all these things have produced great evils. Worse, the word "pastor" (and for that matter, "bishop" and "elder" and even "shepherd") have been turned into titles, almost as bad as titles of nobility: together with the titles or honorifics "reverend" (reserved in the Bible for God alone) and "father" and "saint" - elevating some people over others. Bishops/overseers are not to "lord it over the flock" and there is night and day difference between "let no one despise your youth" and the way "Pastor" is fawned over in many congregations today.

I know of many men who are preaching in Wyoming and South Dakota and Nebraska who would agree with the idea of the Black Regiment who are preachers - not many "full-time" preachers but still ministers of the Word. They live in Sheridan, Rawlins, Cheyenne, Rapid City, Huron, Omaha, perhaps even Alliance and Hot Springs and Spearfish. They all preach, most of them two or three times a week in public worship services and public and private Bible classes in their communities. If someone calls them "Pastor" one time they will, to a man, correct the person gently and explain that they are not elders or bishops or pastors, just preachers or ministers. (Some of them may work in churches where there are shepherds that oversee them just like the rest of the congregation.) If someone calls them that again, and it is clearly not just a matter of habit, they will treat it as evidence that the person rejects the explanation or doesn't care enough to remember - either an implied insult, even if unintentional.

Just as I consider Mr. Baldwin's lack of any response whatsoever to my e-mail to be one of several things:
(1) he could simply be unable yet to respond due to press of time (my assumption for now)
(2) he is working on a response
(3) he knows he is wrong, ignores it, and therefore ignores any challenges
(4) he does not consider the argument to be worth considering because of who is making it

Sadly, the first two do not seem to be the case, as it has been three or four months without an answer. So I must reluctantly conclude that it is one of the two latter. He has apparently decided that he is not, after all, a believer in "Solo Scriptura" - that he can with impunity accept or add things to God's Word. Therefore, he is not in fellowship with God. I cannot participate with him in his effort, however noble or highly motivated it might be, because it is a religious effort, if he is not in fellowship with God.

Reprint from Apologetics Press: Embryos are People

2006-11-21T16:04:00.000-07:00

Embryos are People
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article

The polarizing national debate over the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of seeking solutions to medical ailments continues to rage. The most recent development entailed the passage by the Senate of a bill to permit government funding for research using human embryonic stem cells (Babington, 2006a). President Bush vetoed the bill on the grounds that such research entails the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others (Babington, 2006b). At the formal signing of the veto, the President was surrounded by babies and young children who began life as frozen embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization, but who remained in suspension after the fertility treatments were complete.

What further proof is needed? Nothing was done after conception to change these children from embryos into humans. They became human at conception. From that point onward, they were merely allowed to grow—transferred to the womb to continue their development. No difference exists between a pre-birth infant and a post-birth infant—both are simply at different stages of human growth and development. As the children produced from “adopted” frozen embryos encircled the President with their parents, proof that embryos are people was staring the nation and the world in the face. How blind can we be? Are we of those who “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13)?

Apart from the fact that the scientific community’s insistence that embryonic stem cells will be the panacea to cure disease remains both unproven and highly suspect, and despite the fact that adult stem cells have, in fact, shown the most promise and have been used successfully (Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Harrub, 2006), the only concern in the discussion ought to be the moral, ethical, and spiritual implication. On this basis alone, the entire matter ought to be—and can be—settled.

If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then human life begins at conception. To deliberately terminate that life—for whatever purpose—is the taking of human life, identified in Scripture as murder. David insisted that his development as a human being, his personhood, was achieved by God, prior to his birth, while he was yet in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16). Elizabeth’s pre-born baby is represented as a living human being (Luke 1:39-44). In fact, the term “baby” used in verses 41 and 44 to refer to the pre-born John is the exact same term that is used in chapter two to refer to Jesus after His birth as He laid in the manger (Luke 2:12,16). So, in God’s sight, whether a person is in his or her pre-birth developmental state, or in a post-birth developmental state, that person is still a baby! John the Baptizer is referred to as “a son” from the very moment of conception (Luke 1:36). All three phases of human life are listed in reverse order in Hosea 9:11—birth, pregnancy, and conception (see Miller, 2003).

The national discussion regarding the use of embryonic stem cells is “cut and dried” for those who believe in and respect the God of the Bible: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). The fact that we even are debating this subject demonstrates the extent to which the nation has strayed from its commitment to and reliance on the God of the Universe—yet another unmistakable manifestation of America’s downward spiral into moral and spiritual depravity.

REFERENCES

Babington, Charles (2006a), “Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto,” Washington Post, July 19, A01, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/ AR2006071800182.html.

Babington, Charles (2006b), “Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush’s First Veto,” Washington Post, July 20, A04, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/ AR2006071900524.html.

Harrub, Brad (2006), “False Marketing of Embryonic Stem Cells,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2976.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

A Christian View of Islam - Part 1

2006-09-07T23:37:00.000-06:00

This will be part of a series, looking at Islam from various points of view - the entire series will be on this blog, with other portions on other blogs or at www.thepriceofliberty.org, since the idea of the series originated with the publisher of The Price of Liberty.

FROM THE CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW

In many ways, the establishment of the religion of Islam (which means “Submission”) was intentionally to create a challenger, a replacement, for “Christianity.” This should come as no surprise, given the degraded state of what was called “Christian” in the 7^th Century. The religious hierarchy so foreign to the New Testament was completely developed, the apostasy from the First Century nearly complete. The “church” was characterized and best known for an era in which rival bishops and archbishops used gangs of ravenous monks to attack their theological opponents, where rivals in the church assassinated each other, where the secular ruler used his troops to support one interpretation of scripture over another, and barricaded dissenting congregations in their burning buildings.

As a result, Mohammed and his Companions (as Joe Smith Jr. was to do 1200 years later) created a religion that drew on both Old and New Testament and even pagan traditions, coupled it with a “new revelation” (the Qu’ran) and created a unique religion. In many ways, what developed over the next century could be described as “Judaism on steroids” for it took much from the Old Law and created a legalistic system that put anything First-Century Pharisees attempted in a distant second place.

Much of the new religion bore the unmistakable stamp of its origin in the Arab peoples of their vast and often inhospitable peninsula, just as 19^th Century Mormonism wears the unquestionable dress of its American origins. Not only were old and favored shrines incorporated into the religion (geo-oriented as much as Judaism and completely unlike pure Christianity), but many of the customs and rituals of the previously pagan or mixed-faith tribes were embedded deeply in the new faith. It should come as no surprise that Islam proved such a perfect tool for Arab, Mongol, Turkic, and Persian imperialism for the next millennium.

In contrast to the messianic hope of the Old Testament faith of Moses and the Prophets, in contrast to the fulfilled promise of the Messiah’s incarnation and His promised return in glory, Islam offers a warped view of salvation by works and a “God-given” society designed for 7^th Century Arabia, created by a man with obvious hatred for both Jews and Christians.

What is wrong with Islam, from a Biblical point of view? (A Baker’s Dozen ™: What is wrong with Islam according to the Bible):

1. Islam portrays God as vindictive, cruel, and hateful, and not loving and merciful (even though they are careful to call Him that).

2. Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and demotes him from Savior to a mere “Prophet” on a par with Abraham, David, Isaiah, and Moses, and less important than “The Messenger” (Mohammed).

3. Islam denies the sufficiency of the Bible, adding not just the Qu’ran but many other writings, and claims that the Bible is corrupt and evil as it presently exists.

4. Islam, while claiming to revere the Old and New Testaments, constantly contradicts both portions of the Bible – claiming, for example, that Ishmael (not Isaac) was the son of promise.

5. Islam teaches salvation by works, and not by faith: that Judgment is a weighing of good and bad deeds, and that men can atone for their own sins.

6. Islam demands perfect adherence to the same sort of rituals and ceremonial, physical actions as found in the Old Law and put away forever by Christ’s sacrifice “once and for all.” Thus, it negates His life, death, burial, and resurrection.

7. Islam preaches violence, conquest, tyranny, slavery, degradation of women, and many other moral and social evils.

8. Islam promotes looting, killing, mutilation, conflict inside and outside families, spouse and child abuse, incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.

9. Islam promotes discrimination and segregation based on ancestry and such cultural features as language (promoting Arabic as the only acceptable language for religion, for example).

10. Islam seeks to unite church and state, elevating what should be “servants” (ministers) of God into masters, and making God into the patron of tyrants.

11. Islam’s followers take into their own hands things that are reserved alone to God, in matters of judgment and punishment.

12. Islam results in civil strife, bloodletting, racial prejudice, personal vengeance, invasions, poverty, slavery, mutilation, and general destruction.

13. Islam claims to result in unity in one single religious-political-cultural system (the “Ummah” or “dar al-Islam”) but the result has been more factions and religions and religious strife, not only outside Islam but within the religion.

Although many of these things have been practiced by some claiming to be christian over the centuries, they are unable to justify their actions by the New Testament (regardless of translation) whereas the Qu’ran can be cited in support of these things readily (even though some “moderate” or “liberal” Muslim “clerics” claim to interpret these things into mere symbolism or “spiritual” understandings. Today and always this has been viewed as an aberration, and condemned as the hypocrisy it is, by virtually all of “Christendom” – but it has been common and accepted in Islam, and for the most part still is today.

What should we do?

Remember that we are to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Be ready to preach, not just in word, but in deed, to those followers of Islam we encounter.
Support mission work in areas under Islamic control and threatened by that religion, including areas here in the US. Prayer and giving are both needed.
Teach the truth about Islam to other christians and non-christians, countering ideas that it is “peaceful” or “just another way to God.”
Resist the slow creep of Islamic concepts into our society and even into religion in general – an all too common process going on in Europe and elsewhere.
Understand and act on the urgency to preach to those who might be attracted by this “new” thing or rejecting the evils of “mainstream Christianity”

Reprint from Apologetics Press: Murderous Scientists

2006-05-15T21:54:00.000-06:00

Eliminate 90% of the Human Race?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article

In elementary schools, it often begins with a crush. In middle schools that crush is frequently transformed to idolization. During the rebellious years of high school, we try to act as if we dislike all of them—even though we still have our favorites. Then, in college, we respect them for their education, and in graduate or professional school we oftentimes revert back to idolization. Most of us can look back through our educational years and remember teachers who really stood out—teachers that made a difference in our lives. These are the ones who made an imprint on us—and as such, we often pattern our own values, beliefs, and ideology accordingly.

That’s all well and good when teachers maintain integrity and adhere to a strong moral code. But what happens when students worship a professor who suggests that we humans are no better than bacteria? And that the world would be a better place if we had an airborne version of Ebola that would wipe out 90% of the human population—a virtual holocaust to cleanse the Earth? To make matters worse, what message are we sending when we designate such a man as the “2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist?”

What does it take to earn the title of “Distinguished Texas Scientist”? Well, obviously, it does not hurt to do research in Texas. But since when is suggesting the human race needed to be wiped out a good thing? This is precisely what Dr. Eric Pianka did at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. The meeting, held March 3-5, 2006, honored Pianka, an evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, as the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

In describing the event, attendee Forest Sims observed:

Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away. This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka’s strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter (2006).

In his recounting of the wicked speech, Sims noted that one of the first planks Pianka laid was that humans were no better than animals. Recounting the story of a neighbor who questioned his interest in lizards, Pianka responded: “What good are you?” He then felt compelled to announce: “We are no better than bacteria!” (Sims, 2006).

From there, the speech took a decisively wicked turn, as Pianka insisted the Earth would not be able to sustain life without drastic measures. He proposed the only solution was to eliminate most of the world’s population. Reflecting back on the conference, Sims noted:

Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved (2006, emp. added).

If Pianka’s words do not send chills up your spine you need to check your pulse. How does it feel knowing that this man is idolized, to the point that one of his students was heard to say: “I worship Dr. Pianka” (Sims, 2006). One wonders how many young graduate students currently enrolled at various universities “worship” this man and would be more than willing to work on creating an airborne strain of Ebola.

One of the saddest parts of this story was the audiences’ reaction. Instead of being outraged or standing up against Pianka, his own colleagues gave him a standing ovation. Sims observed:

When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause (Sims, 2006).

This account should be a sobering reminder as to why there should be restraints on scientific research. Most scientists do not want any restrictions on their research, and in many cases their research has out-paced ethical laws. They contend that they should be a “self-governing body,” and yet we find them giving a standing ovation to a man who suggests that “billions must soon die” in order to solve the “population crisis.” In an article titled “Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish,” the World Net Daily noted:

During a question-and-answer session, the audience laughed approvingly when Pianka offered the bird flu as another vehicle toward achieving his goal. They also chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “What kind of reception have you received as you have presented these ideas to other audiences that are not representative of us?” asked one member of the audience. “I speak to the converted!” Pianka replied (see “Scientists Cheer...,” 2006).

Converted from what? Sanity?! Here is a man who is willing to press atheistic evolution to its logical conclusion. This is the same man who approves of the Chinese “one-child” policy and proclaimed that smarter people have fewer kids. As a society we must quickly acknowledge the fact that our children and grandchildren are placing many professors on pedestals. It’s time we hold those professors accountable for the seeds they are planting in the hearts and minds of our young people.

REFERENCES

“Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish” (2006), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555.

Sims, Forest (2006), “Meeting Doctor Doom,” The Citizen Scientist, [On-line], URL: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Judas' Gospel and other Fairytales

2006-04-17T18:35:00.000-06:00

Over the past year, attacks on the historical accuracy of the Bible, and the history of both Jesus and His church, have been appearing frequently. The book (soon-to-be movie) “The DaVinci Code”, revived interest in historic revisionism and conspiracy, creating fresh interest in books like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail.” Now, with the National Geographic Society’s publication of the so-called “Gospel of Judas,” another series of attacks have appeared.

One purpose of these attacks is to weaken faith in God by discrediting the accuracy and origins of the Bible. It is therefore critical to effectively counter such attempts.

All these books are based on one or more of a series of spurious “gospels” written in the second and third centuries, a hundred years or more after Jesus’ ascension. “The DaVinci Code” and “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” are based on two forgeries called the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. These claim that Jesus married the Magdalene (some claim He married Mary and Martha of Bethany, as well), and had children. Following Jesus’ death (and presumably, His resurrection), mother and child (or children) took refuge, either in Gaul (France) or the West Country (England). Then, supposedly, this family founded a dynasty which at times ruled much of Europe, and today includes the “royal” Bourbon and Hapsburg families, who continue to strive for power and fight against the Roman Catholic Church, which has supposedly “surpressed” all this knowledge.

“The Gospel of Judas” does not claim to be written by the traitor himself, but rather purports to tell the truth about Judas – that he was really the most beloved disciple, therefore hated by the others, and selected by Jesus to “betray” Him, thus triggering the entire Passion of our Lord. Of course, the Bible clearly contradicts this. Judas (like many Jews who listened to, and even followed Jesus) expected Jesus to be a powerful, earthly king, who would make Israel physically and politically free and stronger than the nations around it. When Judas saw that Jesus’ “kingdom is not of this world,” we are told “Satan entered into him.” Whether he expected his action to force Jesus to launch the revolution, or he truly sided with the temple authorities is a moot point – he betrayed our Lord. And Jesus knew it and told Judas in so many words that He did.[1]

All these (and many more writings from AD 100 to perhaps AD 500) are examples of Gnostic texts. They were written to support a faction that claimed that “secret knowledge” existed and was necessary for “true” salvation. This faction mixed magic, ancient philosophies, even demonology, with the pure Gospel of Christ Jesus. They were never considered by any real christian to be Scripture, despite the claims being circulated today. The particular group or tradition which circulated “The Gospel of Judas” are often called Cainite Gnostics, because they had a regular cottage industry of rehabilitating biblical villains such as Cain, Saul, Simon the Sorcerer, and Judas.

Catholics (and most Protestants) today will claim that the Canon (the “official” listing of books of the Bible) was established by a worldwide Catholic council (convention) in the late forth century, AD, and that until that time, such books as the Judas, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene gospels might have been acceptable as “scripture.” This makes the Bible appear to be the creation of humans, of a church. Fortunately, that is not really what happened – it is false history, even outright propaganda.

What history shows is, that just as men inspired by God wrote the books that make up the Bible, so the Spirit inspired the assembling of those various books into a single collection, not later than AD 150 and likely even sooner, perhaps while John the Apostle was still alive. This agrees with Scripture itself. After that time, there were many challenges to specific books (as late as Martin Luther’s challenge of James’ letter), and these challenges were mostly put to rest by a series of these councils – which amounted to man presumptuously “ratifying” what God had done.

The bizarre and pernicious doctrine of Gnosticism first rose in New Testament times, as discussed in Titus 3:18, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 John 10-11, and perhaps 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. It was not a “competitor” to “orthodox” Christianity, as some would charge, but rather, a departure from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (like so many other ideas). Its key aspects are strongly condemned in Scripture, and are incompatible with God’s revealed religion. Gnosticism is internally inconsistent and its writings, like all false teachings, contain many obvious errors.

Gnosticism is sometimes thought (in tradition) to be traced to Simon (Acts 9). It would create an inner “elite” or “initiate” church like most religions have – a system completely opposed to God’s will for the church. Sadly, Gnosticism is still a threat to the faith of members of the church today, in many different ways: the blending of pagan philosophies (such as “new age Christianity” or the modern Roman Catholic Church), the blending of science and religion, and such. The very idea that only an elite (priests, scientists, school-trained preachers, etc.) can understand God’s will, and other errors, are exactly the kind of Gnostic concepts that plagued the church 1700 years ago. The christian must be ever vigilant to deal with such issues as “The DaVinci Code” and “The Gospel of Judas.”

[1] It is interesting, that as recently as this week, I have heard that John 13:26-27 is “proof” that the Gospel of Judas is true, because Jesus clearly commanded Judas to do the deed – rather than simply Jesus knowing what he would do. As with many other claims, this is based on the assumption that Jesus is human, not divine.

How to be saved

2006-04-17T18:18:00.000-06:00

It is, despite so many people’s claims, very simple. Let us look at five very basic points, which will help you understand both yourself and the Lord.

God is the Lawmaker, and just as He made universal natural laws that govern the very elements of the Universe, He also created universal spiritual laws that govern our relationship with Him. Man can no more change these spiritual laws than Congress can change the law of gravity.

Point One

God LOVES you very much. He offers a wonderful future for your life.

God's Love: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“Believe” as generally used in the Bible means much more than “thinking this is so,” as so many people would define it today. Here, it means more than recognizing that Christ Jesus exists; it means taking action to commit to His service. (Remember even Satan believes in God, "Thou believe that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19)

True Biblical belief requires that we act on it by commiting our lives to Him.

God's Future: Jesus said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (that is, full and complete) (John 10:10)

But few people HAVE that “abundant life.” Why?

Point Two

All people are SINFUL. Sin separates us from God. Separate from God, we cannot understand or experience God's love and future. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) "For the [result] of sin is death" –not just physical death, but spiritual separation from God (Romans 6:23)

God created Man to be in fellowship with Him. But our stubbornness has caused us to become willful, go our own way, and therefore, we break that fellowship with God. Whether our stubbornness is an active rebellion against God, or a passive apathy towards Him, it is sin, and separates us from our future and His love.

How do we end that separation?

Point Three

God provided just one solution for Man’s sin: Jesus Christ. Only through the Son of God can you can know and have God's love and future.

He Died in Our Stead: "But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)

He Defeated Death: "... Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ... he was buried ... he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1st Corinthians 15:3-6)

He is The Way to God ~ "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.'" (John 14:6)

We must do more than “know” what God’s provision for us is; we must understand more...

Point Four

We must each RECEIVE and ACCEPT Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord; otherwise we can neither know nor have a future through God's love.

We Must Accept Jesus as the Christ (the Anointed): "But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12)

We Can Have Christ Only through Faith ~ "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

We Must Be Born into Christ: "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind blows where it will, and thou hear the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:3-8)

We Are Personally Invited to Receive Him: Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come to him" (Revelation 3:20)

Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self and sin (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us the kind of people He wants us to be. Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience. We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of will... and we must demonstrate that faith. True belief requires action.

Point Five

Once you have believed and rejected sin and self, you must accept Christ; you must become a born-again Christian by confessing His Name before men and being baptized INTO Jesus Christ.

We Must Have A Living Faith: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works (deeds or service) is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2:20-22)

We Must Submit to His Will: “And they said, ‘Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?’ And Peter answered and said, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38)

A New Change ~ "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2nd Corinthians 5:17)

Yes it is true that works, service or good deeds do not save us; God alone can save us. But we must submit to Him and we do this through publicly confessing He is Lord and being buried with Him in the waters of baptism, “that we might rise to walk in newness of life.” (Romans )

Are you ready?

You can receive Christ right now very simply. First, you must by faith through prayer (that is, talking with God); show that you believe in God and His Son, and tell Him you repent of your past life of sin. God knows your heart, so don’t be as concerned with your words as with your attitude. You can then tell others, even if it is only one person (to start with) that you accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, your Lord and Savior. Then you can submit to Christ, in faith, in the waters of baptism (immersion in water), just as those thousands at Pentecost, the Ethiopian Eunich, the Philippian Jailer, and so many more from that day to this; “Arise, and be baptized, washing away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts 22:16) “This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you-not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.(1 Peter 3:21).

IF you are willing to submit, Jesus Christ will come into your life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as He promised. We are very excited if you want to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord, and if you decide to follow Him. We would love to help you become and grow as a Christian. Please let me know if you need any further assistance, or if you need assistance in study or to be baptized into Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.