Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell?

Mithra?  Attis?  Really, Rob Bell?

Apologist, James White, addresses the charges of one Rob Bell that claims early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ.

This video is a wonderful supplement to the recent Bell's Hell post.  I posted that article before I had an opportunity to watch this video.  White reiterates and substantiates a lot of the information that is in the Bell's Hell post and at the same time, provides enough additional information to make this video a must watch.

Bell's Hell

Bell's Hell

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to a theological concept that I had never heard of before; Universalism.  I remember reading a link that he sent me written by someone that had embraced this concept and had posted a paper about it on Scribd.  

I remember the paper was a rather lengthy explanation as well as including several biblical passages and rationale for his un-orthodox belief.  For those that do not know, universalism is the belief that, in the end everyone gets saved or receives salvation.  I am by no means an expert and at the time I read my friend's article, I was not even familiar with any variations of this belief.  I do remember, however, the paper that I read on Scribd didn't say that persons wouldn't ever go to hell; only that they wouldn't stay there for eternity.  The paper I read, made a correlation between the symbolic imagery of fire associated with hell in orthodox teaching with the fire that a smelter uses to extract impurities from metal.  It appears, according to this belief from the paper that I read, that sinners have a set amount of sin in them and if said sin could be extracted then an individual would be sanctified.  Through sanctification, the newly cleansed person would be worthy of attaining salvation and gain admittance into Heaven.  


If you really want a more detailed and a more authoritative look into Universalism, I strongly recommend for you to start your search with a visit to the CARM site.   There you will learn the basics about universalism as well as different variations pertaining to it as well.  For the purpose of this article, my reference to universalism is in regards to Christian Universalism.  In Christian Universalism, Jesus died for everyone's sins and in this act salvation is available to everyone.  A just and loving god cannot or would not damn sinners to eternity because this act would be void of love.  God, instead, offers salvation through Jesus irrespective of having faith in Jesus.  For those that have faith, they avoid hell altogether.  For those that do not have faith in Jesus, they go to hell for a period of time.  It is in the afterlife that god eventually brings sinners to repentance, etc.  


If you do not keep up with the current events that take place in Christendom, you may be unaware of the controversy that surrounds Rob Bell and his new book.  Rob Bell is a Wheaton College graduate, the Harvard of Christian schools as CNN puts it, and pastors a non-denominational Christian Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill .  CNN describes Bell as "a pastor and author who has achieved rock star status in the Christian world".  


Irrespective of attaining the status of a rockstar pastor or not, Bell has stirred up quite a controversy in the land of Christendom with the announcement of his new book that is called "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".  In this book, Bell puts hell on trial and examines the afterlife.  The book description from Amazon is as follows;

"Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners—with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls “a singular rock star in the church world,” Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins." 

Shortly after the announcement of Bell's book, Justin Taylor of the Gospel Coalition, responds with a blog piece, "Rob Bell: Universalist?" This blog post, needless to say, has sparked a dialogue and in some cases, a heated debate pertaining to Rob Bell. CNN reports that on the Saturday that Taylor's article was published, Bell reached the status of being the top ten in trending topics on Twitter; a status that is rare for theological debates to reach on Twitter, etc.

Some people argue that it isn't fair to judge a book before it has been released.  To be fair to Justin Taylor, however, his response was mostly directed at a promotional video that Bell has put out for his book and not the book that hasn't been released yet.  It is also presumptuous for us to believe that Taylor, a VP editorial at Crossway, does not have access to the book in its entirety and has read enough of the book that he is indeed qualified to make statements thereof.  

In further defense of Bell, others argue that the promotional video is mostly void of making any authoritative statements in which Bell mostly asks questions for effect.  Proponents of this viewpoint then commonly ask, is it wrong to ask questions?  They purport that Bell is only asking the questions that many others are also asking in hope of finding answers.

It's not wrong to ask questions.  In fact, we know from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to make a defense and be quick to give a reason for the hope that lies within us.  If we are to be in the position to offer answers then it stands to reason that we should ask questions if it is used to advance our knowledge of the hope that we have in Christ.  Critics of Bell's use of questions in his presentation are quick to point out that it is rhetoric and its intended use is deployed as a method of instruction. I tend to fall, however, in the camp of the critic.  I don't buy for one minute that Bell is simply asking rhetorical questions for the sake of stimulating thought.  For those that want to insist that asking questions in of itself is innocent and has no real consequence or lacks the powers of insinuation then I challenge you to try this with your wife.  The next time you see your wife, rhetorically ask your wife a series of questions that addresses the issue as to if you really love her and examine her reaction.  Tell  her that you ask yourself everyday you come home from work if you love her and that you ask yourself if you are happy and if you should stay committed to this relationship and see if she's just assuming that you are playing the academic devil's advocate or if you're trying to propagate another message altogether.  Let me know how that turns out for you.

Is it possible that all of this hysteria or panic over Bell being a Universalist is premature given that we don't know what is in the book that is yet to be released?  Some skeptics are saying that they suspect that there are going to be a lot of people that are going to owe Bell an apology once the book is released.  This may be true but at the same time I'm at a loss as to why there are so many people that truly appear to be so shocked that Bell could be a Universalist.  It's not as if an assessment on Bell is taking place in a vacuum.  There are numerous reports of Bell and his theology.  There are numerous reports that warn of Bell being a "dangerous false teacher."  

In Rob Bells "Gospel" Presentation Critiqued, Bell not only gives an atrocious and libel account of the history of Christianity but gives a corrupt account as to what constitutes the Gospel.  Bell, in this presentation of deconstructionism, espouses the same lies that is most often heard from atheists as opposed to a pastor from the pulpit.  Bell claims that the early Christians borrowed or ripped off accounts from Helenistic mystery religions like Mithra and Attis and attributed said accounts to Christ making Mithra and Attis an archetypal Christ; accounts such as, being born of a virgin, being born on December 25th, the resurrection as well as dying to pay for the sins of his followers.  Bell goes on to argue that the resurrection story is not unique.  Bell claims that someone giving the account of the resurrection at the time the early Apostles were evangelizing would've been met with, "so what?" because they've heard all of this before, etc.

In contrast to Bell's account of history, renown historian and Christian Apologist, Edwin Yamauchi, explains in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for the Real Jesus" that Mithraism did not show up as a religion of practice until the middle to late second century. The timing, in other words, is off if the early Christians were to use the account of Mithra as a template for Christ.  As far as Mithra's birth story is concerned, Mithra was born of a rock and not a virgin.  Like Jesus, Mithra was born naked but unlike Jesus, Mithra was born fully grown and posses a cap upon birth.

 As far as being born on December 25th to link Jesus with Mithra, we don't know the date that Jesus was born per the Bible not giving us the date.  Celebrating December 25th is tied into the Roman Emperor Aurelian setting this date for a sun god celebration per the Winter Solstice.  When Constantine came to power, Christians began celebrating Christmas on December 25th circa 336 A.D.  Constantine prior to becoming a Christian was accustomed to celebrating on this date when he participated in sun god worship.  He now set this date for Son God worship.  I highly suspect that if Rob Bell put forth a serious study of the history that he presents his Christian congregation with then he too would have been aware of the historical account that contradicts his teaching.  At the very least, he could have warned his congregation that the historical account he was about to present was refuted by academic scholars as opposed to presenting it as the authoritative truth.  

The Christian faith as a whole rests on the resurrection and Rob Bell carelessly tries to negate its significance by downplaying its unique account in history.  Unlike Christ, Mithra didn't sacrifice himself, he killed a bull.  There is no historical account of Mithra's death.  If Mithra didn't die, then it goes without saying that this mythical god could not even possibly have anything in resemblance of a resurrection story.  According to Ronald Nash, the same goes for Attis.  According to scholars, there is not a resurrection account in any of the Hellenistic mystery religions.  Yet, at the same time, Rob Bell is trying to tell us that there is nothing unique about the resurrection.  If the resurrection account was as common as Bell makes it out to be then it is fair to ask why Paul wasn't challenged with this when he preached to the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:16-21).  Instead, Paul was said to be a

"proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection."

Can you imagine why this could have been said of astute philosophers of Athens if resurrection accounts were as common as Rob Bell makes them out to be?

Rob Bell not only has a strange account of history but one of the Gospel as well.  In "Rob Bell's Gospel Presentation Critiqued", as previously mentioned, Bell says the Gospel is the good news that God hasn't given up on the world.  This in of itself is not the best description  I have heard but it's not exactly heretical either.  The Gospel is the good news; the word "Gospel" means good news.  Bell is adding to the definition and although it seems innocent enough, I always have a red flag go up if something is being added to the all sufficient word of God.  Bell, however, is a spin master and it quite frankly wouldn't be his style to say something as conventional as the word "Gospel" means "good news."  No, for Bell, it has to have some extra bit of revelation.  The Gospel is good news and if one wanted to take a loose interpretation of it, I suppose that it is fair enough to say that it is good news because God hasn't given up on the world.  Wouldn't it, however, be more accurate to say that the Gospel is good news because as a sinner, you earned death (for the wages of sin is death) and instead of giving you what you deserved (hell), God gives grace and saves through faith in Christ Jesus that paid for your sin-debt when He was nailed to a tree?  Perhaps Bell wouldn't say something like this because according to Bell, Jesus is not saving us from God's wrath, He is saving us from our sins, our mistakes, our pride, etc. 

 Perhaps Bell wouldn't present a reiteration of the Gospel in a similar fashion as mine because according to Bell, "you" are the good news.  You "are the gospel".  What?  I"m the gospel??  What in the world is Bell talking about?  

According to Bell, when others want proof of the resurrection, all that they should have to do is to look to us.  They should look to us because we are the good news, we are the gospel and we are the resurrection.  Bell saying this with pretty music in the background sounds like he is delivering love to his audience.  Pretty music, however, does not save and Bell's gospel has us exalting ourselves because he would have others looking at our deeds as opposed to the work of Christ performed on the cross.  Bell would have others looking to us instead of Christ.

With all of the background that has been presented in reference to Rob Bell and the controversy pertaining to his new book, please allow me to leave you with an important piece of information.  Scott Dixon, also known as "SaltyDawg" on Twitter has a website called "The Tenth Leper".  Somehow, Mr. Dixon has received an early copy of Rob Bell's book and in response to all of the controversy in regards to Bell's book, has decided to publish an early book review.  It was my intention to address the content of this book review in this post.  I had not, however, anticipated that this piece would be as long as it has turned out to be, etc.  In light of additional information that still needs to be examined, I will end this post here with the hope of addressing the content of Mr. Dixon's review in an upcoming post.

For the meanwhile, please visit The Tenth Leper and read the book reviews that have been posted thus far and by all means please return to this blog for a follow up post.  

In the love of our Heavenly Father, 

God bless.

W.

Fighting for the Faith - Rob Bell - Love Wins Critique

Fighting for the Faith - Rob Bell - Love Wins Critique

In light of the Rob Bell controversy pertaining to his new book, "Love Wins, Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived" or more accurately, in response to Bell's promotional video for the book - here is a critique via Fighting for the Faith.

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

Rick Warren @ 2010 Desiring God Conference

Rick Warren @ 2010 Desiring God Conference

This post is behind times.  It is a day late and a dollar short.  

This video on Lane Ch's YouTube channel contains the Rick Warren presentation that he gave at the 2010 Desiring God Conference.  Due to various family needs that required attention, Warren could not make the conference in person.  Even for those that do not care (or even know) about the controversy the ensued hereafter John Piper invited Rick Warren to the 2010 DGC, this video serves as an illustration as to the make up of Warren's theology.  


Warren's presentation is played in it's entirety with frequent breaks via commentary from Chris Rosebrough from Pirate Christian Radio.  

  

Grace & Peace,

W. 

Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns?

Tying into the phenomenon of change that takes place within the realm of language, this video illustrates how "unicorn" is used throughout the Bible and how today's word usage is a source of confusion, etc.

John Lennox - 2 Scratches vs 3.5 Billion Letters

John Lennox - 2 Scratches vs 3.5 Billion Letters

World views drive our perception and unfortunately this holds to even the disciples that bow and pay homage to the god of "chance and necessity".  


Below is a wonderful illustration that Dr. John Lennox provides to illustrate the hypocrisy that passes off as academia today. 

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

What is the Bible About?

What Is the Bible About?

My last piece was a response to a church window that I had seen with a slogan that simply read, "People Matter Most".  My response included a discussion pertaining to the role of the church and how people fit into the economy of God.  My assertion was that people do matter but from scripture, we can't conclude that people matter most.  In the economy of God, it is having a heart after God that matters most, the value of people is derived from the importance that they have to Christ.

In this video, Tim Keller does a wonderful job explaining that everything in the Bible points to Jesus.  Contrary to popular belief, Jesus is found in both Old and New Testament.  This video does a nice job at pointing out this illustration.

People Matter Most

People Matter Most

If you read my piece on language from a couple of weeks ago, then you were briefly introduced to some of the idiosyncrasies of language.  Words have meaning but their meanings may change over time.  When I was a kid, for example, "a man of discriminating taste" would carry along with it the connotation of someone that had mastered the art of differentiation.  Today, however, racial overtones associated with "discrimination" may inject a connotation with the word that you may not want to relay - if you were simply trying to say, for example, that someone was familiarized with the finer things in life.

When I went to church back when I was a kid (circa 5 yrs old), I had not developed an elaborate theological portfolio yet but there was one thing that I did know; Church is all about God.  Unlike language, theological concepts should not change irrespective of the Church's goal of meeting ever changing needs in the community.  Jesus is the same today as He was yesterday.  God doesn't change and His word doesn't change.  God's word is not like shifting shadows that are here today and gone tomorrow.  Given my presupposition (Church is about God) that I've had since I was a child, can you imagine to my surprise when I noticed a church window that read, "People Matter Most"?

To be honest, I actually took a double look when I saw the church window.  I thought to myself, "People Matter Most?", I thought the church was about God?  If the Church is about God then doesn't it stand to reason that we should instead say "God matters most"?  For the purpose of presenting a visual for this piece, I took a picture of the "slogan" and continued to contemplate the purpose of the church. 

Let's not, however, assume that the biblical acumen of a five year old child can be relied upon.

What does the Bible say about the church? 

When Paul addressed the Corinthian Church in the 1 Corinthian epistle, he introduces an analogy where he compares the body of the church (body of congregants) to the body of Christ.  Paul tells the Corinthian Church that they are all members of one body.  Each body member (congregant) has specific jobs/roles in the kingdom of God the same as members of the body, i.e. ears, hands, elbows, etc. have specific jobs to perform in the body of Christ. 

Paul never says that all jobs have equal worth but stresses that all job functions are important. All have not been appointed to being an apostle, prophet or teacher, nevertheless, having a lower tiered job function does not alienate anyone from being a member of the body just the same. The ear, for example, isn't any less a part of the body because it's not an eye; if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?

To further place the roles and purposes of the congregants and the church into context, Paul goes on to say that you can give away all of your possessions, feed the poor and sacrifice your body but all of it is meaningless if it is without love.  Paul ends his letter by telling us that the resources or gifts of the Church will fade.  Gifts of prophecy and knowledge will be done away with and tongues will cease, for example, but love never fails.  Out of faith, hope and love, in the economy of God, the greatest of these is love.

The church, in other words, is the collection of believers acting as members of the body of Christ.  God has appointed some for some jobs and others for other jobs.  Notice how Paul, however, said that you can feed the poor but if you don't have love, it is meaningless. Paul's not saying that people do not matter but at the same time, he's also not saying that people matter most. In God's economy, the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and mind but the second one is like it; 

‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’

To keep matters in perspect, consider that James says that pure or undefiled religion is to take care of widows and orphans in their afflictions and that faith without deeds is dead.  Jesus also tells us in the parable of the Good Samaritan, in the book of Luke, for us to do the same as the man that shows mercy toward his neighbor in need.  As instructed from scripture, we care for people by and through taking care of widows and orphans in need, showing mercy towards our neighbor (in need) as well as loving our neighbor as we do our-self.  Our faith, in other words, should act in accordance with our deeds.  In our faith, we become imitators of Christ.  People matter, not because of any intrinsic value that they have but because they matter to Christ.  We love people because Christ loves people.  It is His Gospel that saves!  It is In the life that He gives us that we should die to ourselves;

"and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

2 Corinthians 5:15

If we only exude love for others in accordance to others' intrinsic value, then surely we would would fall short of loving everyone.  Surely, just as well, would we fall short of loving everyone if we were to love others in our own strength.  Out of the love that Peter had for Christ, he promised to die for him prior to Jesus' capture.  In that same love/zeal, however, he feared the consequences of knowing him and denied Him three times. When Christ perfects us in love, however, He removes fear and frees us from bondage.  When Christ perfects us, we receive a new nature and we have a heart to be pleasing to Him.  People do not matter most, having a heart after God matters most.  God is spirit and He must be worshiped in spirit.  What better can there be for the interest of man than to be in God?  Is it not God that gives life?  If you being as evil and wicked as you are know how to give good gifts, then  how much more does our Heavenly Father know to give to us?  Let us rejoice and be glad that people do not matter most.  If people were to matter most then what is pleasing to them would matter most.  And what is pleasing to them?  A recent Barna poll inquiring about New Years Resolutions describes what is at the top of priorities that people have for themselves;

"When it comes to the types of resolutions people make, Americans not surprisingly focus on self-oriented changes. Among those planning to make resolutions, the top pledges for 2011 relate to weight, diet and health (30%); money, debt and finances (15%); personal improvement (13%); addiction (12%); job and career (5%); spiritual or church-related (5%); and educational (4%). Personal improvement responses included being a better person; giving more; having more personal or leisure time; organizing their life or home; and having a better life in general."

God is spirit and He must be worshiped in spirit.  The priorities that we have in our carnal nature denies the Kingdom of God glory and raises up carnal sinful man in place of what God desires.  I am so glad that people do not matter most.  I am so glad, instead, that God in His glory has decided to saved a stubborn stiff neck people that would reject Him as the corner stone if it were in their sovereignty to do as much.  Praise Him who died on a cross so that we may live in Him.  Praise Him that gave us grace and mercy as opposed to what we earned for the wages of sin is death.  

Before I conclude, please allow me to appeal to pastors of flocks.  Please rest in Him.  Rest in His word and do not be ashamed of it.  Do not be ashamed of the word that gives life.  Do not be ashamed of the author of our salvation.  I watched an interview on Penn Jillette yesterday that was very disturbing.  Penn Jillette is a part of Penn & Teller, the magicians/comedy team the performs all sorts of weird tricks.  

Jillette is an atheist.  Jillette is extremely vocal about his beliefs and his disapproval of God and the Bible.  Jillette claims that it was reading the Bible that made him an atheist.  In the interview that I watched, however, I noticed that he also said that he had parents that made him go to church.  He had a youth pastor that was very hip and relevant.  He dressed in cool clothes and "he would play Jim Morrison songs and the Beattles".   When Jillette asked questions about the Bible, his youth minister could not answer his questions.  It escalated to the point to where the youth minister called Jillette's mom and dad and politely asked them to stop sending Jillette to Sunday school.  According to Jillette's account, he was converting the class to atheism, etc.  

Although Jillette's atheism cannot be entirely blamed on his inept youth minister, it does say something about our modern churches.   Appealing to the youth via tactics that are designed to entice and allure is not only void in scripture but serves as an insufficient testimony in the hope that we have in Him.  Pastors, clergy, and ministers are not asked to be infallible theologians but at least provide some sort of guidance that has root in a credible apologetic.  At least provide a witness for the hope that you have in Him.  At least seek guidance in a weak area that you cannot deliver therein.  Pastors, do your flock right by being a worthy shepherd.  

In closing, the word of God instructs his flock to care for people the same that He cared for us. Resting in God's word is the most loving thing you could possibly do for another human being.  By resting in God's word, you will care for the orphan, widow and neighbor that is in need.  God is spirit and He must be worshiped in spirit.  Take on the spirit of God and love your neighbor.  Let us all be a testimony and give a reason for the hope that we have in Him.  Relevancy does not save men.  Let us be grounded in the word, the good news that brings with it salvation to all who believes.  Let us praise God for loving us first as well as pray for those that are determined to earn death if they are not found in Him.  

God bless you all.  People do matter for we are the gift that the Son is going to give to the Father but it is Him whom is the Alpha and Omega - for whom all things were made by and for Him.

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

What Vessels Like Hitchens Show Us...

 I stumbled along this piece tonight as I was going through my old "sent" emails that were directed at professors at Georgetown College.  I had written and shared this piece with one of my professors on January 5, 2010.  The following is mostly intact the same as I had originally written it in Jan of 2010.  I have implemented some minor changes as a way to slightly clean it up as well as making some changes for the sake of annotation.   

 

What Vessels Like Hitchens Show Us...

Christopher Hitchens is staunchly opposed to God. I have heard him in
debates and believe me when I say that he truly hates God with contempt.

This is not, however, to say that the man is not intelligent. You had better be on your game if you go against him in a debate. He makes some very astute observations and provides unsettling and daunting insight in regards to the truth vs. the worldview battlefield that we are called to fight the same as it is mentioned in the article that I have listed below (1);

"More to the point, though, you soon discover that many of those attending
are not so sure about all the doctrines, either, just as you very swiftly
find out that a vast number of Catholics don't truly believe more than
about half of what their church instructs them to think."

I'm not trying to cherry pick this and imply that Catholics are the only ones that Hitchens correctly observes as to being vulnerable to criticism per weak apologetics.  Prior to that statement, for example, he truthfully describes the way Calvinists cringe and hesitate to own up to being a Calvinist when asked in the sense that he (Hitchens) is going to hell.

Men like Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins or any other name that would be right at home as being listed as a guest speaker on an Atheist Alliance International Convention event (2) are instrumental, however, in serving a purpose. I discovered the Hitchens' article through reading an article about how Christians need to man up instead of being embarrassed or afraid to defend what we believe (3). The Hitchens' article also addresses men that he debates like Doug Wilson.  Hitchens states that he respects men that actually hold to doctrine and truly believe that biblical stories really happened and are not just metaphors.  Hitchens respects men like Wilson, for example, more than he respects the ecumenicals that have equated church as to being a "community organizing" effort.

Without men or vessels like Hitchens, we may become complacent in our understanding of God and loose our zeal to fight for the truth and to carry on "the good fight" by going out into the world to deliver the gospel so that lost men may be saved. As Paul would ask, however ala Romans, should we go on sinning so that God may be glorified more? 

Surely not! 

In other words, the accusations from men like Hitchens, Maher and Dawkins force men of faith to man up and deliver the truth.  Through a vigilant adherence to delivering the gospel and adhering to the Great Commission, God is given glory.  Men like Hitchens, Maher and Dawkins are serving a purpose in the Kingdom of God that they may never be aware of accordingly.  In spite of the purpose that men of this nature may serve, however, we should never forget that these men are lost and are in dire need of our prayers so that they may be saved.  Although they hate God with all of their hearts, they are no different than we were before we were born again with a new nature; a nature that is not at enmity with God; a nature that is not a God hater; a nature that is a result from having a heart of flesh as opposed to a heart of stone. By ministering to men of this caliber (along with any other lost soul) per the Great Commission, we continue to give God glory by being obedient to His will.

As it stands now, the aforementioned men are vessels of wrath according to Romans and even in that God will receive glory when His justice is rightly distributed according to His divine will that is after His own council.

May everything continue to act in accordance to God's will to give Him glory and may we be pleasing to our Heavenly Father by having a heart for the lost and to minister unto them so that they may be saved.

May it all be for his glory!

W.



(1) What I've learned from debating religious people around the world.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 26, 2009, at 11:21 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/pagenum/all

(2) Atheist Alliance convention featuring Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher coming soon July 6th, 2009 11:46 am ET

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Atheist-Alliance-convention-featuring-Richard-Dawkins-and-Bill-Maher-coming-soon


(3) Hitchens to believers: Man up! 

By Jake

http://wisertime.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/hitchens-to-believers-man-up/

Image Credit

The Gift of Language

 

Disclaimer - This post is not a comprehensive examination - meaning that every anecdote and or verse pertaining to language will not be addressed per se. With that being said, I would love to gain additional insight so please feel free to post your ideas/comments!

The Gift of Language -

Being made in His image, God has performed a wonderful work in us.  God has given us the gift of language that we can use as a tool for work in His Kingdom for His purposes.  It is my hope to briefly examine this wonderful gift so that it may be used for edification.  Ephesians 4:29, for example, tells us to not only abstain from unwholsome/abusive/corrupting talk but to use language for the purpose of building up one another so that it may "give grace to those who hear".  The gift of language, in other words, is to be rejoiced in for God has seen fit to give it to us as a means of building up the saints.  With this gift, however, comes a tremendous amount of responsibility.  Proverbs 18:21, for example, tells us that there is life and death in the tongue and those that love it will reap what they sow. Let us therefore be responsible with the gift of language that can be used for both good and evil.  

The Gift of Language Being Used for Good -

Adam used the gift of language as a tool and as a means to exercise dominion over the Earth.  When God allowed him to name all of the animals, Adam was given the ability to create identity. It is in God's good pleasure to endow man with the gift of language to practice dominion and to assume the role of creator - in a fashion that mirrors but pales against the Almighty Creator of the Universe.  The gift of language, therefore, makes man a "god".  He's not a (little "g") god in the same fashion as the Mormon's aspire to be but a (little "g") god in the same sense that Jesus said that we are "gods" in John 10:34 when He said; 

"Jesus answered them,"Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?"

 Jesus, of course, was not saying that we are deity but that we are gods in the sense that the word is used to define an administrator of antiquity - most notably a judge or a magistrate of an appointed office - the same as how it was used in the Psalm 82:6 verse that Jesus quotes.  The point of this illustration is not to highlight that we are gods but that man is an administrator (i.e., little "g" god) because he can use language in the role of an administrator/judge as ordained by and through God. 

The gift of language, most notably though, is also the primary means God has decided to use as a measure to reconcile man unto Him; for we are saved by grace through faith and faith comes by hearing the gospel which is the power of God to save anyone who will believe (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16). Isn't it amazing how God used His word (language) in the beginning to create and continues to use it today to give life? When we follow through with the Great Commission we are using the gift of language to deliver the good news of the Gospel and in doing so, language continues to give life - only this time it is used to give life in Christ in eternity!

Language that Displeases God -

 

Like any gift, however, the gift of language can be abused as can be seen through the Tower of Babel.  Man, in his pride, used this gift to rebel against God.  Also let us not forget the warning from our dearly beloved brother, James;

(8)But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.(9)With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;(10)from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

 As much as language can be used to make man in the image of God, it can also be used in ways that are displeasing to God.  The same language that can deliver the beautiful message of the Gospel is the same instrument that can be used to curse God and or to curse one another. In the same fashion that our prayers should be earnest, our use of language should be as well.

The Power of  Association - 

Before language can be used for good or bad, it has to have some mechanisms in place so that we may derive meaning from it thenceforth.  Really when one thinks about it, it is amazing that any meaning can be derived from written or spoken language.  Afterall, spoken language is only a bunch of arbitrary sounds that have been assigned meaning.  There's no reason in the world that the sound that we make when we say the word "shirt", for example, couldn't just as well apply to the concept that we have for a chair and vice versa.  Sounds, in other words, have to have meaning assigned to them.  Learning the meaning that is associated with sounds comes through experience.  A child, for example, is exposed to language over a period of time and through imitation, he/she begins to utilize language.  A child, for example, discovers that when he or she imitates mommy and daddy and speaks by assembling specific groups of sounds together, he/she gets his/her wants, needs and desires fulfilled.  With wish/need fulfillment contingencies met, language then acts as a reinforcer and we naturally grow up using the gift of language all throughout our lives.  Written language mechanics act in a very similar way as verbilization.  With written language, however, meaning is assigned through an arbitrary symbol as opposed to an arbitrary sound. 

In addition to all of the attributes that have been discussed thus far pertaining to language, I have personally witnessed another unique ability of language.  Language association, for example, does not need to be very complex at all in order to convey meaning.  I witnessed this ability at work last week through a game that my superior and his students were playing in class.  He would say one or two words that were intended to be a description of a student in the room; someone he was thinking of when he said the word.  He would then ask the class to name the student that was best represented by the word or two that he had just vocalized.  After he would say the word or two, faces would light up and students would speak up and say a name that was best represented by the word just spoken.  It was amazing to see how everyone, without collaboration, would unanimously say the same name in response to hearing a one or two word description.  It is amazing, in other words, at how language contains within it the ability of association.  How can an association contain so much meaning that an individual can be identified through the use of a word or two?  How is that possible?

Jesus did something similar to the very act I witnessed last week.  He didn't ask a group to identify a person according to a one or two word description.  He did, however, associate a term to a pair of brothers; presumably based on their demeanor.  James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John took notice of a Samaritan village that wouldn't welcome Jesus.  After doing so, they asked Him if He wanted them to rain fire from Heaven and destroy them?  With this in mind, it is no wonder that Jesus associated a term like "Sons of Thunder"  with James and John. 

Jesus did not, however, reserve appointed associations for the "Sons of Thunder".  He calls Himself "Son of Man" 88 times in the New Testament.  Originally, the name "I AM" is associated with Yahweh.  This easily accounts for the anger that unbelieving Jews had towards Him when He uses this name in association with Himself in John 8:58.  The very name, itself almost appears to be a paradox.  Consider the depths of God and it almost seems miraculous that God can accurately associate Himself with a term as short and concise as "I AM".  

Associations Reflect Nature - 

The amazing gift of language containing within it the ability to describe complex meaning with only a few words is a testimony to the genius of God.  The arbitrary nature of language requires context as a means to frame meaning.  Scripture, for example, is often taken out of context as a means to manipulate the language of God so that it speaks the will of man as opposed to the will of God.  This is why it is imperative to read scripture in context as a measure of deriving the true meaning of scripture.  Similar to applying an appropriate hermeneutic in reading scripture, deriving complex meaning from a few select words requires a context or a certain amount of knowledge about the object being described.  When my superior gave a one or two word description identifying a student in the room, for example, the other students obviously had knowledge about one another in order to associate a word with one of their peers.  The students had more than a cognitive knowledge of their peers' existance however.  In order to interpret that a word or two was referring to a specific peer, they had to have a knowledge of their peers' nature.  From what little we know about James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John, I'm guessing that the term "Sons of Thunder" made perfect sense to those that either knew the men or knew about their nature.  Jesus having a perfect knowledge of where He came from and where He was going as well as knowing His mission that He came to fulfill, "Son of Man" can denote that Jesus is a man (a human being, i.e. a description of His nature) at the same time He is "I AM" (God, a description of His nature).  Those aware of scripture at the time most likely were well aware that "Son of Man" not only denoted the prophesy of the Messiah given in Daniel 7:13-14 as well as Him being human (His nature) as it mirrors God calling Ezekiel the "son of man" 93 times in the Book of Ezekiel.

The Nature of Language -

The same as word associations refer to the nature of the object being referred to, language also has a nature unique to itself. All the while language mechanics may have certain rules to adhere to in order for it to maintain orthodox usage, the very meaning of the words that language utilizes will change over time.  When I was a boy, for example, "discriminate" had a positive connatation.  A man that had a discriminating taste was one that could differentiate from among common artifacts to the finer things in life.  To "discriminate" implied a level of sophistication or ownership of an administrative skillset that set one apart from the blue collar skillsets of the populace.  Today, however, "discriminate" is laced with racist overtones. The word no longer carries with it a level of disctinction that it once had in another era.  The ever changing nature of word association should be kept in mind when exercising appropriate hermaneutics.  Do not assume a word that we are using today is necessarily carrying with it the same meaning that it exuded 2,000 years ago.  The era that a word was used in - is a part of the context of that word.

The Ambiguity of Language -

Context is a component of language that could lend itself to volumes of books and even then it may not be covered to the extent that it warrents or deserves.  Context is intrinsically linked to the meaning of words, sentences, paragraghs, chapters and books, etc.  It is imperitive to find the meaning of terms when concepts are being discussed. 

Anthony Hopkins was recently on Charley Rose.  Through the course of the interview, the topic of faith was brought up.  Mr. Hopkins talked about growing up as an atheist and then later he became agnostic and then later, he came to believe.  If there wasn't any more clarification, one could easily assume Mr. Hopkins was a believer in Christ and was saved.  Mr. Hopkins had the good sense, however, to further define his terms as a means to prevent any sort of confussion about the God that he worships.  Mr. Hopkins said that;

"I don't believe in the person, but I beleive in Spinoza's God, an intelligent and supreme, awe inspiring design at the back of the cosmos starting from the big bang."

In other words, Anthony Hopkins does not believe in the God of the Bible.  Mr. Hopkins believes in a god that is somewhat synominous with nature.  Mr. Hopkins has faith, it just happens to be a faith that is lacking Christ.  Faith alone will not save Mr. Hopkins.  James says that even the demons believe, and shudder.  In order for one to receive eternal life, he has to have faith but it has to be a God saving faith that is grounded in Christ Jesus.  Spinoza's god is a fiction of Spinoza's imagination.  Spinoza's god will not save but damn.

In summary,  the gift of Language is a wonderful gift from God.  Langauge can be used for God's glory or it can be used as a instrument of sin.  Language can be God honoring when it is used to edify the saints as well as being an instrument to deliver the gospel.  Language is displeasing to God when it is used to carry out man's will instead of God's will.  Language, at the same time, is displeasing to God when it is used to curse men.

The nature of language is complex.  Although language mechanics adhere to rules, context has to be used dilligently as a means of deriving meaning from language per its ambiguous nature.  Knowledge about an object's nature must be known in order for language to have accurate meaning.  Knowledge of how language is used given the era it is used in per se must also be known inorder to derive accurate meaning given that words change over time. 

Finally, terms require elaboration as a means to ensure appropriate meaning is being communicated within a given context.  Words can contain meanings that vary from their orthodox roots.  Faith, for example, does not always apply to faith in Jesus.  Demons can have faith and a god is not necessarily the God of the Bible.  Discernment must always be adhered to and practiced with diligence. 

It is my hope that this post can be used to edify the Saints.  May we never forget that the very language God has given us to save men through the Gospel can also be used to tear those same men down.  Let's remain in the spirit of God approved men and act as Ambassadors in Christ for His glory.  Amen.

May it all be for His glory,

W. 

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

The Offense of the Gospel in Alabama

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley made controversial remarks that some people are not happy about.  On Martin Luther King Day (1/17/11), the governor made a speech at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist church shortly after he was sworn into office.  Two days later, Bentley’s director of communications released a statement on his behalf - “The governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people...”

The contents of Bentley’s speech have Bill Nigut, the Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, stating that Bentley should not only apologize but also release a full retraction of his declaration.  According to Nigut, there is no excuse for making the kind of mistake that Bentley is charged with making - “The governor does not have to be a seasoned politician to understand the impact of remarks like that,” Nigut, said. “Joey Kennedy of The Birmingham News also adds “He is not a civilian anymore; he is not a private person anymore. He is the governor of Alabama every day, 24-hours a day.”

With such a reaction from Governor Bentley’s speech, what could he have possibly said that was so offensive?  Governor Bentley under an official capacity said that Alabamians should ''love and care for each other."  He said that he was color blind but if they did not have the same daddy as he did, then they were not his brothers and sisters; ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

To differentiate one American from another American on the sole basis of being a believer in Jesus Christ is an offense.  In the economy of the world, all beliefs are equal and to declare one as to being superior to the other is to illustrate a lack in civility, it is to show one’s ignorance and presumption, it is to rob the god of diversity his homage that he demands as a blood sacrifice from a world that is all too eager to feed him.  In the economy of the world, it is unimaginable to suggest that one may find favor with God while another is lost and blind without Jesus Christ.  Nigut expresses his offense; “These are remarks of a man who truly believes what he said, apparently. This seems to be quite clear that Christians are part of an exclusive relationship he has with his brothers and sisters and the rest of us are not.”  Nigut would have, however, preferred Governor Bentley to say something more along the lines of; “I realize I was wrong that we are all brothers and sister, and not single out only the ones who believe in Jesus Christ,”

Is it reasonable to believe that Nigut has a point?  Even after taking First Amendment rights into consideration, is it possible that Bentley is in the wrong? According to Gene Policinski, the executive director of The First Amendment Center, Bentley is a public official and like all public officials, his office “represents all faiths.”  Policinski adds, “Religion is a part of many peoples’ lives, but there is an implication when a particular faith receives favorable or disfavorable treatment. It is a very difficult line to draw, but it is one any politician has to be aware of.”

Polincinski is right, all politicians need to be aware of favoring one group of people over another group of people.  Kennedy is also right; Governor Bentley is the governor of Alabama 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Nigut is also right, it appears that Governor Bentley believes the statements he made during his speech.  Bentley’s critics have concerns but are they valid concerns?  Did Bentley say he was going to favor one group over another?  Did Bentley say that he wasn’t governor 24 hours a day so that he can act differently when he’s not in the office?  Does Bentley’s beliefs force him to treat Christians and non-Christians with different measures of justice?  Does Bentley’s beliefs force him to discriminate and disenfranchise one group of people over another group of people?

In none of Bentley’s remarks that have been reported as being offensive in the piece that is referenced in this post did Bentley say that he was going to do anything illegal.  In none of Bentley’s remarks did he say that he was going to disenfranchise one group of people over another or that he was going to use his office to promote one faith over another.  It is a secularized belief that promotes using a political office to represent a faith.  It is Policinski that said that Bentley’s office “represents all faiths” when in reality it is unique doctrine that differentiates one faith from another and therefore represents said faith.  I wouldn’t call Frankfort, for example, and ask my governor, senator or congressman about infant baptism.  It is not the government’s job to represent any faith but to preserve men’s rights so that they can practice their faith on their own accord.  Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world as well as, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”.  It was never commanded of us to adopt the world into God’s family.  This world is going to burn up and it is men’s lost souls that we fight for, not anything of this world.  Christ doesn’t want our governments; He wants to save the lost so that God may be glorified.

It is only through a lack of understanding of Christian teaching that one could even presume that Bentley’s remarks were any sort of indication that he intended to favor one group of people over another.  It is true that God differentiates Christians from non-Christians and one day He will separate the sheep from the goats but at the same time, however, it is God’s children (Christians) that are given the Great Commission – to share the Gospel of Christ so that salvation may be obtained and lost men may be saved.  If we follow the greatest commandments given to us, we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourselves and later we find out that it is the one that shows mercy to another that is the one that is acting like a neighbor.  With any real sincerity when examining Christian teaching and doctrine, one reasonably has to conclude that if one were to follow Christian beliefs while he/she governs a state that others from other faiths would not be in any kind of danger.  We are never commanded to harm others even when we find it necessary to rebuke false teachings and teachers.  Render to Caesar that is Caesar’s is the rule of law that Governor Bentley needs to take heed of; meaning that he needs to act appropriately within his office of governor while at the same time giving all allegiance, faith and confidence to God.  By remaining true to Christian teaching, there is no conflict of interest – Bentley can be loyal to the gubernatorial office as well as to the convictions of His beliefs.  We should pray for Governor Bentley to make an example of his office by exuding a blameless execution of his faith unto God in praise of Jesus Christ all the while he governs the state of Alabama with authority without any guilt of wrong doing.  Meanwhile, perhaps we can make our own contribution to the testimony of the Christian faith by living exemplary lives.  Contrary to the beliefs of Bentley's critics, we should not live one life while we are in office and live another life when we are off the clock as if our faith was an accessory in our lives that we can put on and take off the same as an expensive watch.  It is the false converts that pretend to be sheep on Sunday all the while they are living like goats throughout the rest of the week.  Bear the fruit of the vine by remaining to be in Him that gives life.

In the love of our Heavenly Father,
W. 

Paul Washer - Churches Using Carnal Means

"There is a crisis. Christian youth are rapidly leaving evangelical churches for the world. This well-recognized disaster has been the topic of significant discussion in recent years for both church leaders and modern news media. DIVIDED follows young Christian filmmaker Philip LeClerc on a revealing journey as he seeks answers to what has led his generation away from the church.

Traveling across the country conducting research and interviewing church kids, youth ministry experts, evangelists, statisticians, social commentators, and pastors, Philip discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs, and equally shocking evidence that the pattern in the Bible for training future generations is at odds with modern church practices."

Churches Using Carnal Means to Attract Carnal People

from

The Divided Film DVD

 

A Call For Discernment by Justin Peters

Tim Keller - The Gospel and Idolatry - Acts 19:23-41