http://joshbloodworth.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
pop up description layerThe Lost Doctrine of Regeneration
In contrast to my previous lengthy post about alcohol, I would like to keep this post fairly short. However, my topic, as the title suggests is the doctrine of regeneration. Dr. R.C. Sproul at the Ligonier Conference a few weeks ago made the comment that we have forgotten about the doctrine of regeneration. We like our neat three doctrine trajectory of justification-sanctification-glorification, but this creates a problem. Just after initial justification, and I feel it is safe to say as part of the process or effects of true justification, is the receiving of and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Please do not hear me saying that justification is anything other than by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone; however, as part of justification, the new convert receives and is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I hope that makes sense. Anyway, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is where true life change and repentance come from. Without the Holy Spirit's regenerating and changing us, we have no hope of seeking holiness through sanctification.
What we, as the contemporary church, do looks something like this: 1. An individual either comes to Christ if you're an Arminian, or is chosen by God if you're a Calvinist. 2. The church immediately expects that individual to shift to the far end of sanctification, as close to glorification as is possible on this earth; in other words, he or she is supposed to act like a Christian (whatever their definition might be). 3. The individual then does one of two things. He or she most likely goes along with the game and tries to act as holy as possible, but has many questions and many aspects of his or her life that need to be changed. What has been created? A Pharisee. Or, worse than this, though, is the new convert who fully realizes that he or she can not fit this holier than thou model. This person understands that he or she is really jacked up; however, there is nowhere to turn for help. There is no one who claims to understand the vicious struggle that is the immediate conflict created between the old self and the new as the Holy Spirit regenerates them, or the slow process of sanctification, because few have honestly fought that battle. Many have instead given into option one, put a smile on their face and their best clothes on, and gone to church, acting like nothing was wrong, despite their entire world being in shambles.
It all breaks down, because we no longer have true community. We no longer do true discipleship and accountability. It is all about the individual's walk with Christ. It's just you and God, and dadgum if we are going to worry about the rest of the Body of Christ. The bottom line, I guess, is this: if our congregations are not being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, there is no hope to continue on to seek holiness through sanctification. This leaves one last chilling and sobering thought. Remember our three part trajectory of justification-sanctification-glorification. If there is a breakdown in the justification process, if there is not regeneration by the Holy Spirit, sanctification will not happen, and also neither will glorification happen, because the person is not truly saved from God's impending wrath. We create false converts who fill our chairs and pews, if you are old school. They faithfully attend church, and then one day, they wake up in hell without a clue as to what happened. In quoting Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees, we have made them twice as fit for hell as we are. I'm not really sure if any of this makes sense. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is a conglomeration of ideas, really, but I hope something applicable can be taken from it and is useful in your life.
God Bless,
Bloody
Is It OK for Christians to Drink Alcohol? Part Two (But is really Part One)
Question: Is it OK for a Christian to drink alcohol?
The following is an edited transcript of a lesson I taught on alcohol a few months ago, which comes to the conclusion of what I believe Scripture has to say about drinking alcohol.
First thing I want you to do is to vote about what you think about drinking alcohol. No one is keeping count of this vote. This works a lot better in person in a classroom setting where you can cut the tension with a knife, as each individual looks around to see the way his or her buddy is going to vote. But, nevertheless, I would like for you to honestly vote in your head.
Here are your choices to vote on:
Choice 1: You think a Christian should not drink alcohol at all.
Choice 2: You think it’s OK for a Christian to have a drink with their meal or whatever, as long as they don’t get drunk.Choice 3: You don’t know what you believe, and you’re hoping this will clear things up.
First, a few disclaimers to go along with this voting simulation.
1. Own your faith, wherever you stand on this issue.
Romans 14:5-One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
If someone asks you why you believe something, it is not good enough to say, "Bloody told me so." God gave each of us a conscience to help us make personal decisions about things not laid out in Scripture as right or wrong.
2. We are not going to fight about this.
This is a prime example of open handed issues in comparison to closed hand issues. Open handed issues are things that, like previously stated, God gave us a conscience to discern what is right and wrong. Examples include such things as drinking alcohol, smoking (legal substances), tattoos, administration of sacraments, worship music style, style of dress worn to church, etc.
Romans 14:17-For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit..."
This verse simply tells us to not make a big deal out of what Scripture does not make a big deal out of. We should use that time and energy to make a big deal of Jesus, and not earthly things.
Closed handed issues, however, are doctrine. These things are not open for debate, and we should be willing to die for them. Examples include such doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin birth, the dual nature of Christ as fully God and fully man, the literal resurrection, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, etc.
There are two main perversions of the open handed/closed handed debate: legalism and liberalism. Legalists hold everything in the closed hand. Not only is this oppressing and taking the "fun" out of fundamentalism, there is also a greater problem. In a legalistic worldview, for example, you elevate the style of music or style of clothing worn to church to a doctrinal level. It is a huge problem when you elevate wearing a tie or not having a tattoo to be on par with the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then there is liberalism, which moves everything into the open hand. Liberals will correctly say it is up to the individual person to decide about smoking a cigar, wearing a dress or pants to church, or what type of music will be used for worship; however, they then ruin all of their credibility by saying it is also up to the individual to decide about the Virgin birth, the Trinity, etc. In summary, both of these views are wrong.
After saying all of that, here is my stance. Are you ready? I believe if you drink...you're going to hell. Haha, I'm just kidding. I got some of you back on task with that one didn't I? Seriously though, according to the Scriptures, I believe we have freedom in Christ, and part of that freedom in Christ allows a Christian to enjoy a drink without getting drunk. If you cross the line and get drunk, it is a sin, and it is not open to debate.
Now before you all go out and tie one on, and when asked about it say Bloody told me to, stay with me for the explanations behind this stance.
Why we think it is wrong to drink
1. Misunderstanding of Scripture
a. "When God said wine, he didn't really mean wine."
We aren't allowed to choose the words we like or don't like in Scripture. In Numbers 6, there is a Hebrew word used for grape juice. If God wanted it to say grape juice, it would say grape juice. As a side note on grape juice, and I mentioned it previously in my first post on alcohol, pasteurization did not come about until 1864; so, if you had grape juice for more than 6 hours, you had wine.
b. "They did not know how to ferment wine like we do today."
That sounds really awesome until you actually read the Bible. Check out Genesis 9. We've all been taught about Noah and the Ark in Genesis 6, 7, and 8. But, if you went to a good Baptist church like I did growing up, you never heard a preacher preach the incident that occurs after God makes His covenant with Noah, starting in verse 20 of chapter 9. "Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard." What do you get from a vineyard? And God's people said, "Wine!" "That's ok," our legalistic fundamentalist Baptist brethren say, "because they didn't know how to ferment wine." Check out verse 21: "When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent." Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the first redneck. You have to see Noah running around with a lampshade on his head, sipping moonshine, until he passes out naked underneath his blue tarp tent. All kidding aside, by Genesis ch. 9, we see that man had discovered how to drink and get drunk.
c. "Their wine was actually 3 parts water and 1 part wine."
The biggest problem with this statement is, it is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. And check out what we are told about adding things to the Bible in Revelation 22:18-19, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." I don't know about you, but that sounds like a little too serious of a consequence for me to add an elementary chemistry equation to God's Word.
Moving on, let us discuss Jesus' first miracle. What was Jesus first miracle? And all of God's people said, "Turning water into wine." At this point you will get the objection, "But it wasn't real wine." Once again, you insult someone's scriptural intelligence by making this comment. Let's look at John 2:1-11.
"1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.(Weddings back then were a lot different. Food and wine was provided for the entire village.) 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." 4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."(Let's stop right there for a second. Why would you do that? Because the guests were sloshed! They had thrown down a couple pints of Guinness, and then they were all for drinking the Natty Lights.) 11 This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him." So what do we see here? Jesus' first miracle was one just to keep the party going.
The biggest problem I see, is that I believe that it can be quite easily inferred from the Scriptures that Jesus, Himself, drank wine and did not get drunk. We want to immediately challenge this, because we have a constipated view of God. We see God in Heaven with eyebrows furrowed, as a celestial buzz kill, never wanting us to have any fun. The Pharisees had the same problem. Jesus showed up and was nothing like what they thought God should be, so they killed Him for it. One simple Scripture reference for this point, and we will move on, Matthew 11:18-19.
"18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." Question: If the wine wasn’t wine, why did they identify Him as drinking the same product that others were using to get drunk? Some would say, "This verse is simply associating Jesus with those that were glutton and a drunkard." If that is the case, why doesn't the verse say, "And here is Jesus, a friend of gluttons, drunkards, tax collectors, and sinners?" It says the Son of Man came eating and drinking. This statement is immediately followed by an accusation that Jesus has overindulged in both cases, indicating, I believe, that Jesus was seen both eating and drinking.
2. It controls people and destroys lives.
This is in fact a true statement, some of the time. Some people simply should not drink. Those prone to alcoholism, or with alcoholism in their family, probably should not drink. Some people will be controlled by alcohol. If you can't live without alcohol, you have a problem. If you come home, and you're of age, and the first thing you do is look for a drink, you have a problem. However, it is not fair to say that no one at all should drink. Martin Luther said this, “Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?” Sex is something, just like alcohol that is abused. Many of us have heard the fire in the fireplace analogy for sex. Sex within a Biblical marriage is like fire in a fireplace: it is a safe blessing that warms the house. However, sex outside of marriage is like a fire outside of a fireplace: it can burn up anything, or even kill you. The same can be applied to alcohol. Drinking alcohol in the Biblical sense is perfectly fine, if you are of age.
3. It is a stumbling block
Romans 14:21 says this, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." Now, a lot of people will take this verse and say you’re making your brother fall by drinking, or they will use 1 Corinthians 8:9, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak," for the same ends. I understand this view; however, it is a wise hermeneutic to always consider the context of a verse. Romans 14 also includes such verses as, "2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him," "5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind," and "13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."
It would seem to me that passing judgment is actually considered the be the stumbling block being referred to in Romans 14, which is a major irony for the legalistic fundamentalists who say someone is going to hell for having a drop of alcohol touch his or her lips. And actually the 1 Corinthians verse is talking specifically about eating food sacrificed to idols, and letting one's own conscience be his or her guide. Matt Chandler said it well at the SBC Pastor's Conference when he said that he's convinced pastors are better at cliches and coffee cup verses, than preaching the Bible. These are examples of coffee cup verses, taken suspiciously out of context to fulfill Pharisaical, legalistic, religious means. However, that being said, I do think out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ we should not only be careful of our judgments, but also be watchful over our liberties. John Darby, interestingly enough, says it quite well in his synopsis of Romans 14:
"Many important principles are brought forward in these exhortations. Every one shall give account of himself to God. Everyone, in these cases, should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and should not judge another. If any one has faith that delivers him from traditional observances, and he sees them to be absolutely nothing-as indeed they are-let him have his faith for God, and not cause his brother to stumble.
No one lives to himself, and no one dies to himself; we are the Lord's. The weak then regard the day for the Lord's sake; the others do not regard it because of the Lord. This is the reason therefore for not judging. He whom I judge is the Lord's. Therefore also I should seek to please my brother for his edification-he is the Lord's; and I should receive him, as I have been received, to share in the glory of God which has been conferred on him. We serve Christ in these things by thinking of the good of our brother. As to the energy of a man's faith, let him have it between himself and God. Love is the ruler for the use of his liberty, if it is liberty, and not the bondage of disregarding. For the converse of this principle, when these observances are used to destroy liberty in Christ, see Galatians 4, where the apostle shews that, if the observance is taught as a principle, it is really turning back to Paganism."
Some people, I think it is safe to say, because of their pride, are not only stumbling blocks, but effective jerks in certain situations when exercising their liberties. Examples would include drinking in front of a recovering alcoholic. Love your brother as yourself. Be considerate. Is that glass of wine really worth the troubles it may cause your brother or sister in Christ? Secondly, drinking in front of those who are underage is not always wise, particularly in the college setting that I am so familiar with. If you're 21, and you are hanging out with underage friends, don't wave your freedom in their face. Last example, if you have no problem with drinking, but you go home to visit your parents who do not drink or approve of doing so, honor your father and mother by abstaining from having a drink. You might say, "But when they come to visit me, it's my house, and I'll do whatever I want to do." Once again, this is prideful, and you are being a jerk. They changed your diapers for years. Why should they deal with your crap as an adult. We have to be aware of the situations in which we enjoy our freedom in Christ, and in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
Sins associated with drinking alcohol
1. Getting drunk
A numerous amount of verses speak on this-I will give you two places to look:
a. Ephesians 5:18-"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery, instead, be filled with the Spirit." I know someone out there is saying, "Oooh that says wine, but it doesn't say anything about beer." Come on really?
b. Proverbs 23:29-35-"Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. "They hit me," you will say, "but I'm not hurt! They beat me, but I don't feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?" I don't know about you, but the first image that was conjured up in my head was of a hungover frat guy, wondering what he did last night.
c. I have heard many a stumbling drunk so-called Christian tell me that he was buzzed not drunk. Where’s the line? Buzzed vs. Drunk? All I can say is it is a motives of the heart issue. 1 Corinthians 4:5 says, "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
God judges even our motives. So, if your only reason for drinking more is to see how close to that line you can get between sober and drunk, then your heart is clearly not in the right place, and I would say that would be sinful.
2. Underage drinking
a. Romans 13:1-"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." The authorities that exist have been established by God, and here in this country the governing authorities say we can not drink unless we are 21 or older. You don't have to like it or agree with it. You do, however, have to respect and obey said authorities up to the point in which those authorities conflict with Scripture.
b. Once again, the Bible says honor your father and mother. If you say, "I’m gonna parade it in front of them when I turn 21," once again you are just being prideful, licentious, and a jerk. "What if I move back in with them?" you might ask. If you are under their roof, obey their rules, and respect them. "What after I get married and have my own house and have them over for dinner?" I addressed this earlier; again, honor your father and mother. If they don't believe in drinking alcohol, respect their views.
c. "I can’t wait to turn 21 so I can go drink." If that’s your only reason for celebrating your 21st birthday, God help you. Don't get me wrong; I understand that this privilege is opened up at 21. But be thankful that God has given you another year to live for Him on this earth. Be thankful for what things you have: your health, job, gifts, abilities, etc. If you are considering drinking after turning 21, you should prayerfully consider it, because very rarely do we see college students drink responsibly.
3. Buying alcohol for people under 21
a. Nothing is more infuriating, because first off, you are teaching someone to disrespect authority. Parents who give your kids alcohol, remember this when your kids become insubordinate. Parents who have the party at their house to keep kids from being out doing it on their own, you parents who are trying to be the cool parents, this is just plain wrong. God has called you to a wonderful blessed ministry of raising your children to seek and follow after Him. Don't be surprised when your precious angels, who you think you are best friends with, end up in some deep trouble one day. I know this; when I have kids, and some idiot parents provide my kids with alcohol, trying to be the cool parents, someone is going to get whipped. It may very likely be me, because I am a licensed skinny guy. But I will go down swinging in protecting my children.
b. Secondly, and even worse, you are helping someone to sin. Remember Jesus' words in Matthew 18:5-6, "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." If you are this person, providing alcohol to minors, Jesus is saying things are not going to go so well for you. Even worse than this, later on down the road, the kid might turn into an alcoholic. Needless to say they aren't going to think you are so cool for giving them a beer then.
In closing, I just want to say this. What I do or don’t do does not make me righteous; Jesus makes me righteous. Colossians 2:16-19, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."
If we focus on issues more than Jesus, then we’ve lost connection with Jesus. I'm so sick of church culture that claims righteousness by action. It's the same thing Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. It's the same thing the early church fathers faced with the Judaizers. It's the same thing that Luther and Calvin railed against the Catholic Church for, and that continues on in the Catholic Church today. It is exactly what makes a so-called Christian religion a cult now, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and the like. It is what makes legalism so appalling. It is never Jesus plus anything else. It is Jesus PERIOD. We are only right with God through Jesus Christ alone. Our best works are like filthy rags. We can do no good thing at all in and of ourselves. Even when we try to do good things, our heart, which is deceitful above all things, still has selfish motives. If you are separated from God, you do not know Jesus. Please accept Jesus' wonderful gift of salvation, repent from your sins, and step from death into life. This is my stance.
(Based on a sermon by: Perry Noble. Ideas also taken from the teachings of Mark Driscoll.)
"Under the God Stuff, More God Stuff"
This was the final quote from the new episode of House, M.D. last night. I watch House pretty much every Monday, because it comes on right before 24, the greatest show ever created(if you disagree, I will pray for your salvation). But, Dr. House had been secretly reading a book of sermons, and he was discovered. He was reading the book, because, come to find out, his biological father was a Baptist preacher who had written the book. There were a lot of lines from there on out that bordered on blasphemous, but I stuck through it. I was amazed at how they could talk about the things of God as being "crap," etc. However, it became apparently more obvious(and sad) as the episode went on that this was a clear representation of how the world views Christianity and the things of God. Then, the last part of the show, quoted above, took place. Wilson was asking House if he discovered anything about his Dad through all the, "God stuff." To which House replied, "Under the God stuff, more God stuff."
As sad as it is, this is how many non-Christians view Christians. I think it is safe to say that they have every reason to think that in many cases. Many claiming the name of Christ in today's age and time would be rebuked in the same way the Pharisees were, "You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." The non-Christian would view that as God stuff on top of God stuff, when in fact, it is a mere veneer of godliness covering complete and total human depravity. The religious people whom Jesus was talking to were in fact the same people who would put the Messiah to death. He came to hang out with with the outcasts, tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners. This was not what they thought God should be like; so, they killed Him.
My point is this: the world is going to view many activities of a Christian, i.e. praying, reading the Bible, going to church, etc., as God stuff; however, there should be something more. The Christian should live a life that makes the world around him/her say, "There is something different, something special, about this person." The Christian should be the most loving, sincere, benevolent, joyous, etc. person. We have victory in Jesus: eternal life, no condemnation, complete and total mercy and grace from God. That should cause an overflow of compassion towards the unregenerate: to share the wealth of Christ, of eternal life, no condemnation, complete and total mercy and grace, and joy, with them. I make this my prayer, and I hope you will do the same, to not just be seen as having "God stuff under the God stuff," but to be a Christian, who in conforming to the image of Christ, exhibits the fruits of the Spirit, "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
God Bless,
Bloody
Extra Thoughts on Is It OK for Christians to Drink Alcohol
In light of last week's Bible study lesson on "Is it OK for Christians to drink alcohol?," and the fact that I am stuck at home with the flu, I decided to follow up a little bit on the subject. Sorry it's been so long since I've written anything, but school has been whipping my butt. First of all, to recap, the stance I established was that a Christian has certain freedoms in Christ, one of which is the freedom to drink alcohol. This comes with the stipulation that one does not do so in a way that breaks the law in any way, including underage drinking or the support thereof, and that one does not get drunk. If one drinks enough to become intoxicated, it is a sin, and that is not even open for discussion. (Note: Also, as I stated last week, this is not something that we should argue about as Christians. This is an open hand issue that we are free to discuss and have different convictions about, as opposed to a closed hand issue like the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, etc. that are things we should fight and die for that are not open for debate. Own your faith; work out your own faith. Please do not try to pick fights with me on this subject, because it is not something worth fighting about.)
Now, one of the main things that came up after the fact that I probably should have discussed more clearly was the statement that Jesus drank alcohol. You are not going to find this explicitly stated, i.e. verse 4-And Jesus partook of the fruit of the vine. You will not find that anywhere. However, to elaborate more on my statement that Jesus drank wine, I believe with all my heart that, based on scriptural and cultural implications, that Jesus did drink alcohol. Matthew 11:18-19 says this, "18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." Question, why did they call Jesus a drunkard if he was not at least seen once with a drink in his hands? I don't see this title as a result of his association with ones who did drink alcohol, because if that was the case, the last statement would have read, "Here is a glutton, a friend of tax collectors, sinners, and drunkards." By the way, those statements are in the red letters: they are the words of Jesus quoting the religious folks. If you believe Jesus never sinned, then you believe His words. More than that, it is part of the Bible, which if you don't believe the Bible is God-breathed, you have a lot bigger problems than worrying about whether Jesus drank wine or not.
Culturally speaking, during this time, and really up until the late 1800's, drinking(without getting drunk, mind you) was not seen as being a bad thing in and of itself. Some interesting facts, a lot of which are taken from some of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church in Seattle's views on alcohol, are as follows:
After Charlemagne’s reign, the church became Europe’s exclusive brewer.John Calvin’s annual salary package included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by he and his guests.Martin Luther explained the entire reformation as “…while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.” Pasteurization was discovered until 1864, meaning if you had grape juice for more than about 6 hours, you had wine.Dr. Thomas Welch, a Methodist pastor, created a very Christian, "Welch's" grape juice to be used in communion as alcohol began to carry a negative connotation.
Something interesting to note involving fact number four above is this: the Passover festival documented in John chapter 2 takes place in the Spring, while grapes are grown in the Fall. What they were drinking had at least been fermenting since the Fall, and most likely longer than that. Furthermore the wine Jesus made was declared better than the wine initially brought out at the party. Some would argue that Jesus made grape juice. No way, these people would have had incredible taste in wine. This was alcoholic wine. Some might argue that the wine they were drinking was three parts water and one part wine to keep the water fresh. This type of "wine" did in fact exist, because clean drinking water was hard to come by. However, at a party, do you really think they would have been drinking this? On that same thought, would you think then that Jesus also did not drink this form of water/wine? That is a cop-out and a semantics issue, but it still proves the point that our Savior drank alcohol in some form. And how much would they have had to drink of this water-wine to "have too much to drink" as John 2 explains? Let's be logical, and let Scripture speak for Scripture. On this same vein, it seems funny to me to think that the Guy who turned 100 gallons of water into wine later on, was sitting at the party asking for water, while everyone else drank wine. Simply put, the culture was so different back then, nothing was thought about having a drink. However, as early as Genesis 9 with the first redneck, Noah,(check it out if you don't know what I'm talking about) God establishes the sin of getting drunk. A simple example, despite this being a cop-out and another semantics issue, Jesus technically drank a form of wine while on the cross. When He said, "I thirst" the soldiers gave Jesus wine-vinegar. Needless to say, it is pretty simple to infer that Jesus, our Lord and Savior, sinless and blameless, drank alcohol at one point or another.
My whole point in this discussion is not just to prove that drinking in moderation is ok. Some people absolutely should not and can not drink. Period. But, the point is to combat the hypocrisy that some people claim to be more righteous, because a drop of alcohol has never touched their lips. This petty extra-Biblical rule making is the exact thing that the Pharisees did: you know the people who killed Jesus? Most likely, these same folks claiming self-righteousness because of their prohibitionist/abolitionist views on alcohol, do so to judge other people and put themselves up on a holy pedestal. How sad and ridiculous this is.
Check out Colossians 2:16-19, "16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow." The bottom line is this guys, what I do or do not do does not make me righteous; what my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did on the Cross of Calvary makes me righteous in the eyes of God. Praise God Almighty for that! I'll be the first to admit that I would be absolutely screwed without what Jesus did. I have not lived a life that could be taken in any way as being holy or good. I can not do anything good in and of myself without selfish pretenses. But my God can do good through me for His Kingdom. May we never ever focus on what we can or can't do or what we do or do not do, but forever focus on what Jesus did for us when He said, "It is finished," and then rose from the grave on that third day, conquering death, Hell, and Satan forever. Hallelujah! Hosanna in the highest!
God Bless,
Bloody
(Notes: Content from Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church in Seattle-Mars Hill)
Seeing and Believing
Hey there! I know it's been several days since I've posted anything, but starting back to school has really made it difficult to write much. I just read yesterday's "Days of Praise" from the Institute for Creation Research, and I felt like it said several things very well about belief by faith and not by sight. So, here it is; I hope it blesses you.
Seeing and Believing by Henry Morris PhD.
God Bless,
Bloody
Music in the Church
"Next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise. I am not of the opinion that all arts are to be cast down and destroyed on account of the Gospel, as some fanatics suggest. On the other hand, I would gladly see all arts, especially music, in the service of Him Who has given and created them. I always love music; who so has skill in this art, is of a good temperament, fitted for all things. We must teach music in schools; a schoolmaster ought to have skill in music, or I would not regard him. Neither should we ordain young men as preachers, unless they have been well exercised in music. Praise God with both word and music. God has preached the Gospel through music. The common people need to hear and sing the Word of God in their own language, so that they might be edified. 'Let everything be done so that the Word of God may have free course.' Music is a vehicle for proclaiming the Word of God. Use the simplest and most common words, preserve the pure teaching of God's Word, and keep the meaning as close to the Psalms as possible."-Martin Luther(emphasis added)
“Sadly, some Christians and some Christian leaders, while not denying the cross, prefer to keep it out of plain view because they wrongly believe that nice, decent people hate to have their sensibilities offended by such violence and gore. Consequently, the word has gotten out that being a Christian is about avoiding the suffering, pain, and horrors of this life by living in a safe, zip-locked Christian plastic bag filled with diversionary worship songs to prom-date Jesus so we don’t have to pick up any cross or shed any tears."-Mark Driscoll in Vintage Jesus(emphasis added)
Above is a conglomerate of Luther quotes on the subject of music that I put together for one massive, somewhat cohesive quote, and a great quote from Mark Driscoll's book Vintage Jesus. The Luther quote pretty well covers Luther's, a great musician and composer in his own right, viewpoints on music. Italicized and in bold above, is the subject of my main thoughts on the topic of music in the church. I did not include the last part of his statement there, because, although that is also important, and is the main view of Luther's Reformation counterpart, Calvin, it does not apply to my discussion here. Luther discusses the power and importance of music on a personal and congregational level. Never has this idea been so prevalent as it is in the modern church. However, I believe at times this has been taken to the extreme.
All to common in the modern church, is the "big sexy rock show," as I have heard it so fondly called. To cut off any impending criticism, I love contemporary worship; I really do. All the lights and whatever is projected on the screen are great. I'll get just as fired up singing a contemporary song with fantastic lyrics and a strategically placed key-change as anyone. But the problem lies in the small repertory of songs in today's churches that have any theological or doctrinal meaning. As Driscoll is referring to here, a majority of the songs out there are like going to prom with Jesus. You dress up, put on your best behavior, and sing and move to a lot of emotionally based lyrics, acting like you have a hold on what love is. Ultimately, you shield yourself from any reality, and you don't have to confront any problems while doing prom with Jesus. Here's the deal; the greatest exhibition of love was on an old rugged cross, where Jesus of Nazareth died the most gruesome death ever devised by humankind. So, it seems odd to me that our form of praise to Him, all too often, comes in this emotional garble with no firm foundation.
Luther, and Calvin, realized that music in their worship services could be a useful tool. They realized that, through music, they could disseminate their new doctrinal views, as part of the Protestant Reformation, very quickly, while being the first to truly designate an avenue for congregational worship. These church fathers grabbed hold of this view of music and never let go. However, it is now so far from that. The modern church needs to utilize its music to the fullest. I like the move to contemporary music styles to include more people; everyone doesn't like four-part harmony.(although the world might be a better place if they did) I get that, but put something into it by having lyrics that have some theological fortitude. Many of the old hymn writers got this. And some of the new writers are catching on. Songs like, "In Christ Alone," "Revelation Song," or the "My Chains Are Gone" version of "Amazing Grace" are fantastic. I'll leave you with the lyrics to "In Christ Alone." Check them out through theological glasses without the music, and then check out how powerful the song is with music. Notice the numerous verses referenced in the song; it is fabulous!
In Christ alone my hope is found,
He is my light, my strength, my song;
this Cornerstone, this solid Ground,
firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
when fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All in All,
here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain:
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave he rose again!
And as He stands in victory
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me,
For I am His and He is mine -
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath.
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand.
God Bless,
Bloody
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas everyone! Have a fantastic day, and remember what this day is all about!
God Bless,
Bloody
(Picture: Answers in Genesis)
Continental Drift and Biblical Authenticity
What follows is my answer from Facebook to the following questions(Note the answer about dinosaurs is available below in the article titled Carbon 14 and Dinosaurs):
"If the Earth is only a few thousand years old, then what about continental drift and dinosaurs? The hard to swallow truth is that there are multiple transcriptions, with no other way to classify such a practice. The Bible is ever-changing in the hands of man because the stories are not literal. They are stories meant to teach moral code, in the same way that fairy tales do. While I am still a man with faith, I acknowledge this, because it really doesn't matter if everything in that book actually happened or not. Throughout the centuries science has reduced everything we consider magic and made it into things we can understand. There is no need for religion to be mystic. If anything, science could allow for more people to understand and believe in some of the things if they could be proven in a scientific way (rather than in a "take my word for it, God said it") way. In short, there is no reason logic cannot prevail alongside religion."
In reference to dinosaurs, I feel like I have covered that in the previous article. Continental drift, falls under the category of geochronometers. I have discussed these in reasonable detail, also in the previous article, but basically geochronometers are extremely variable. They are established today as a common rate; however, without the omniscience and omnipresence that only God exhibits, we can not know for a fact that these rates have been constants.(In fact, it is somewhat ignorant to consider that they have.) An important key to geochronometers, though, is that none have been confirmed even allowing for a billion year old earth, a far cry from the 4.5 billion allowing for Darwinian evolution.
Some of the most recent figures of continental drift cite the continents of Africa and South America as moving about 5.7 cm/year. No problem here; this is observable and provable and thus true science. Once again, the problem lies in assuming that there has been no variation in this rate throughout the earth's history. But even if it has stayed constant, at 5.7 cm/year, this only allows for approximately 250 million years. This is, however, just the continents. The plates underneath travel at an even faster rate, approximately 12-15 cm/year, allowing for only 100 million years since break up of the super-continent.(once again assuming a constant rate) I believe, however, that all of these rates are irrelevant. I believe that true science indicates catastrophic plate tectonics, due to Noah's flood, as opposed to slow and gradual continental drift. Most of my beliefs are congruent with this article on Answers in Genesis here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics. In short, observation of what is here, the only kind of things that science can truly explain, points towards quick break up of the continents as in Noah's Flood, than slow movement.
Your statement that, "it really doesn't matter if everything in that book actually happened or not" is simply not allowed for in reading the Bible, and strongly concerns me for your eternal well-being. Jesus claimed in John 14, and as well as in many other places, to be the only way to the Father, and ultimately Heaven. Another problem lies, in that, by saying that the events did not happen, you are claiming God to be a liar and wrong, and these are concessions I can not give. If that were to be true we would all be intensely screwed. Check out what Paul writes to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15: "17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." Simply, it is specified that if Christ is not who He has said He is, we are all idiots and just as lost as the rest of the world. This concession is made internally; in other words, Paul says that if these things did not happen, there is no point in even reading the Book. Look to the Ten Commandments to realize how much you need a Savior, and then check out the words of Jesus to realize the plan of salvation. I really, truly want to see you in Heaven one day. I care about your eternal security.
In relation to your point, the Bible, internally, does not allow for an interpretation of being simply, "stories meant to teach moral code," anymore than Jesus allowed for a belief that He was simply a "good moral teacher." The Bible claims to be the Holy, divinely inspired, Word of God. To interpret it differently is of no use whatsoever. The historical accuracy of the manuscripts of the Bible is far superior to any other book of antiquity. The closest book in historical accuracy in relation to the original manuscripts after the Bible is Homer's Iliad. 650 manuscripts exist for Homer's Iliad; however, the earliest is dated 1,000 years after the original authoring by Homer. There exist for just the New Testament, and just in Greek, over 5,000 manuscripts, the earliest of which dates to only 30 years after original authorship. This incredible level of authenticity ensures that the original intent of the author holds true.
Next, the Bible contains hundreds of prophecy that are fulfilled hundreds and even thousands of years after they are originally prophesied. This simply can not be faked. For example, Jesus' death on a cross is prophesied in detail in Psalms 22, hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented and before the birth of Jesus.
The Bible passes all tests of historical, archaeological, scientific, and bibliographical accuracy. For more reading on this topic, check out http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible and http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html#yNgNuSs89vdm.
I fully agree to your statements that "logic can prevail alongside religion," and "science could allow for more people to understand and believe in some of the things if they could be proven in a scientific way." I would hope you would not accuse me of such blind faith, as is listed in your comment, because this is simply not the case. I spend a lot of time studying the Bible through other venues, such as science and history, so I am able to defend these ideas outside of blind faith. This blind faith is simply not effective in reaching out. 1 Peter 3 tells us to be prepared to give a defense of our faith, and I intend on being able to do so. I hope this answers your questions on this topic.
God Bless,
Bloody
(Picture: Answers in Genesis)
Carbon 14 Dating and Dinosaurs
What follows are my answers to questions about Carbon 14 dating and how dinosaurs fit into the literal-day model of Genesis 1:
Great questions, first I will allow a quote from a Canadian anthropologist, Dr. Robert Lee, speak to the carbon dating statement:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates." -Dr. Robert Lee (1981 Anthropological Journal of Canada)
The problem with any type of radiometric dating is that of any attempt to use scientific processes to estimate origins or timelines prior to human history. That problem is that many assumptions and much guesswork have to be involved in these attempts at dating. As Dr. Lee alludes to, the first step of dating anything is to select a dating method, that is assumptions begin immediately about the age of the item being dated in order to select a process to date it "correctly." This dating method selection eliminates many possible ages solely on guesswork.(i.e. Carbon 14 dating can only date things that are supposedly 50,000 years old or less, because of the half-life of Carbon 14.) Essentially, radiometric dating of any kind is only valuable in the vacuum of scientific presuppositions.
Next, what about the dinosaurs? I really love this question. First, according to Genesis Chapter One dinosaurs were created on day five (sea-dwelling reptiles) and day six (land-dwelling dinosaurs) of the creation week. They lived contemporaneously with man until the time of the Flood of Noah. Usually the objection is, "The word dinosaur does not appear anywhere in the Bible." This is true, because the word did not exist until the 19th century. The Bible does utilize words like dragon, Behemoth, and Leviathan throughout the Old Testament to describe such creatures. I have no reservations that dinosaurs coexisted with human beings, because of instances of their mention in written history, such as what is found in the Bible and in other writings by men like Herodotus, Alexander the Great, Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Marco Polo and Ulysses Aldrovandus.
The next question that would seem to arise, would be "Where are they now?" Obviously, dinosaurs, in the usual meaning of the word, are now extinct. After the Flood of Noah, dinosaurs faced adversity to their survival. Some of the species lived on for the next hundreds or thousands of years, as recorded by the men above, but most dinosaurs ceased to exist very soon after the Flood. I hope that helps to answer your questions!
God Bless,
Bloody
(Source: Dr. Grady McMurtry and Creation Worldview Ministries Pictures: Answers in Genesis and Daniel Nuckols)
Christian in College Interview With Ray Comfort
Check out this great interview Ray Comfort gave to Christian In College about living the Christian life at the college age.
Interview with Ray Comfort-Christian in College
God Bless,
Bloody
Thousands Not Billions, part 2
CAPTION.MYTABLE { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color:white; color:white; border-style:solid; border-width:2px; border-color:black; } TABLE.MYTABLE { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; font-family:arial; font-size:10pt; background-color:black; width:400px; } TH.MYTABLE { font-size:10pt; background-color:red; color:white; } TR.MYTABLE { } TD.MYTABLE { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; font-size:10pt; background-color:black; color:white; border-style:solid; border-width:1px; text-align:center; }
In part two of my discussion entitled Thousands Not Billions, I would like to take a look at specific scientific evidence for a young earth. More specifically, I would like to talk about geochronometers. The term geochronometer obviously comes from the roots "geo," meaning earth, and "chronos," meaning time. So these are time keeping processes that have naturally occurred throughout the history of the Earth and the universe. As a recap, the importance of a young earth, is that a young earth, one that is only thousands of years old instead of 4.5 billion, does not allow for an origin based in evolutionary methods, and thus points strongly to a Creator God. In part two, I would like to look at these so-called geochronometers, and see what they reveal.
I would like to take a different approach in discussing geochronometers than is usually, particularly by young earth creationists. A key point to realize right off the bat is that it is impossible(yes you can quote me on this) to establish any kind of accurate dating prior to human history. These dates can not be established by science, because science, by definition, is, "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Origins can not be observed, and thus, they can not honestly be discussed with certainty in the scientific field. However, natural processes can be studied, particularly natural processes that are extremely repetitive with little variation, to help create an estimate about prehistoric times. An important realization is, as Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, points out, "Since the magnitude of the error in the assumptions obviously will vary quite widely from process to process, one would expect to get a wide range of "apparent ages" from different processes." For example, the rate of decay of the earth's electromagnetic field and the life of short-term comets point to an earth that is 10,000 years old. River deltas and the growth of the oldest living part of the biosphere point to an earth that is only 5,000 years old. There seems to be some agreement between certain geochronometers. However, then you see rates that should be similar, but are totally different: the influx of silicon into the oceans from rivers indicates an earth that is 8,000 years old, but the influx of magnesium into the oceans from rivers indicates an earth that is 45,000,000 years old.(Note: I know someone will say this immediately disassembles my thousands not billions theory. The thing to note with this is to go back to the only tangible evidence we have, written history. Traveling past written human history only allows for estimates and assumptions.) Reproduced here is Dr. Morris' chart listing 76 particular geochronometers, and the age of earth that they infer.
Geochronometers and Their Indicated Age of Earth
Process
Indicated Age of Earth
Reference
1.
Efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere
1,750 - 175,000 years
1
2.
Influx of meteoritic dust from space
too small to calculate
1
3.
Influx of radiocarbon to the earth system
5,000 - 10,000 years
1
4.
Development of total human population
less than 4,000 years
1
5.
Influx of uranium to the ocean via rivers
10,000 - 100,000 years
1
6.
Influx of sodium to the ocean via rivers
260,000,000 years
1
7.
Influx of nickel to the ocean via rivers
9,000 years
1
8.
Influx of magnesium to the ocean via rivers
45,000,000 years
1
9.
Influx of silicon to the ocean via rivers
8,000 years
1
10.
Influx of potassium to the ocean via rivers
11,000,000 years
1
11.
Influx of copper to the ocean via rivers
50,000 years
1
12.
Influx of gold to the ocean via rivers
560,000 years
1
13.
Influx of silver to the ocean via rivers
2,100,000 years
1
14.
Influx of mercury to the ocean via rivers
42,000 years
1
15.
Influx of lead to the ocean via rivers
2,000 years
1
16.
Influx of tin to the ocean via rivers
100,000 years
1
17.
Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers
100 years
1
18.
Influx of carbonate to the ocean via rivers
100,000 years
2
19.
Influx of sulphate to the ocean via rivers
10,000,000 years
2
20.
Influx of chlorine to the ocean via rivers
164,000,000 years
2
21.
Influx of calcium to the ocean via rivers
1,000,000 years
2
22.
Leaching of sodium from continents
32,000,000 years
2
23.
Leaching of chlorine from continents
1,000,000 years
2
24.
Leaching of calcium from continents
12,000,000 years
2
25.
Influx of sediment to the ocean via rivers
30,000,000 years
3
26.
Erosion of sediment from continents
14,000,000 years
3
27.
Decay of earth's magnetic field
10,000 years
4
28.
Efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure
10,000 - 100,000 years
5
29.
Formation of radiogenic lead by neutron capture
too small to measure
5
30.
Formation of radiogenic strontium by neutron capture
too small to measure
5
31.
Decay of natural remanent paleomagnetism
100,000 years
5
32.
Decay of C- 14 in pre-Cambrian wood
4,000 years
5
33.
Decay of uranium with initial lead
too small to measure
6
34.
Decay of potassium with entrapped argon
too small to measure
6
35.
Influx of juvenile water to oceans
340,000,000 years
7
36.
Influx of magma from mantle to form crust
500,000,000 years
7
37.
Growth of active coral reefs
10,000 years
7
38.
Growth of oldest living part of biosphere
5,000 years
7
39.
Origin of human civilizations
5,000 years
7
40.
Formation of river deltas
5,000 years
8
41.
Submarine oil seepage into oceans
50,000,000 years
9
42.
Decay of natural plutonium
80,000,000 years
10
43.
Decay of lines of galaxies
10,000,000 years
11
44.
Expanding interstellar gas
60,000,000 years
12
45.
Formation of Carbon 14 on meteorites
100,000 years
13
46.
Decay of short-period comets
10,000 years
14
47.
Decay of long-period comets
1,000,000 years
15
48.
Influx of small particles to the sun
83,000 years
15
49.
Maximum life of meteor showers
5,000,000 years
15
50.
Accumulation of dust on the moon
200,000 years
15
51.
Deceleration of earth by tidal friction
500,000,000 years
16
52.
Cooling of earth by heat efflux
24,000,000 years
16
53.
Accumulation of calcareous ooze on sea floor
5,000,000 years
17
54.
Influx of lithium into ocean via rivers
20,000,000 years
18
55.
Influx of titanium into ocean via rivers
160 years
18
56.
Influx of chromium into ocean via rivers
350 years
18
57.
Influx of manganese into ocean via rivers
1,400 years
18
58.
Influx of iron into ocean via rivers
140 years
18
59.
Influx of cobalt into ocean via rivers
18,000 years
18
60.
Influx of zinc into ocean via rivers
180,000 years
18
61.
Influx of rubidium into ocean via rivers
270,000 years
18
62.
Influx of strontium into ocean via rivers
19,000,000 years
18
63.
Influx of bismuth into ocean via rivers
45,000 years
18
64.
Influx of thorium into ocean via rivers
350 years
18
65.
Influx of antimony into ocean via rivers
350,000 years
18
66.
Influx of tungsten into ocean via rivers
1,000 years
18
67.
Influx of barium into ocean via rivers
84,000 years
18
68.
Influx of molybdenum into ocean via rivers
500,000 years
18
69.
Influx of bicarbonate into ocean via rivers
700,000 years
19
70.
Escape of high-velocity stars from globular clusters
40,000 years
20
71.
Rotation of spiral galaxies
200,000,000 years
20
72.
Accumulation of peat in peat bogs
8,000 years
21
73.
Accumulation of sediments for sedimentary rocks
20,000 years
21
74.
Lithification of sediments to form sedimentary rocks
20,000 years
21
75.
Instability of rings of Saturn
1,000,000 years
15
76.
Escape of methane from Titan
20,000,000 years
15
The importance of this chart, and as Dr. Morris makes quite clear, is that although geochronometers do not allow for clear-cut, scientific evidence for origins, due to the variance in numbers, none of these allow for even one billion years of earth history, nowhere near enough time for Darwinian evolution to take place. In recap, "It should be recognized that it is impossible to determine with certainty any date prior to the beginning of historical records—except, of course, by divine revelation. Science, in the proper sense, is based on observation, and we have no records of observation except historical records. Natural processes can be used to estimate prehistoric dates, but not to determine such dates."-Dr. Henry M. Morris. In continuing the discussion of Thousands Not Billions, part three will look at, what I think is pivotal to the young earth argument, the evidence and reality of the Flood of Noah. Thanks for reading!
God Bless,
Bloody
(Source: Dr. Henry M. Morris and The Institute for Creation Research Picture: Answers in Genesis)
Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?
In light of the Thousands Not Billions discussion, I decided to post this article, once again by Dr. Grady McMurtry. I heard Dr. McMurtry speak in person several years ago, and he explains these things so well, both in person and in print. He is a fantastic intellectual, who has been strongly blessed by God! Part 2 of Thousands Not Billions is coming soon!
Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?
God Bless,
Bloody
(Picture from Answers in Genesis)
Thousands Not Billions, part 1
What follows is part one of my answer to a question that was posed to me on Facebook, "Do you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old?"
Wow, great question! Yes, I do, and throughout the day(or maybe next couple of days) I will try to substantiate this claim, both Biblically and scientifically. First, if I am wrong, and the Earth is old, it does not make evolution any less of a fairy tale, but it just allows for the possible time period needed for evolution to take place. However, my main interest in the topic is that if the Earth is young(as I believe) there is absolutely no room for atheistic evolution. For the time being I will start from a Biblical perspective as to why I believe this is the case.
I will kind of work my way backwards through this, Biblically. The first thing I would like to share is from Romans 1, where there is blatant admonishment of the evolutionist point of view. Starting with Romans 1:18: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Two points: first, they suppress the truth in their wickedness, and second, God has been made plain to them since the creation of the world. As I’ve talked about in previous posts, the evil human heart wants to escape judgment any way it can. One of the biggest perks of atheism is that, if there is no higher moral law to answer to, then one can live like Hell with no consequence. Sadly, evolution has been used as this scapegoat for atheist and pagan peoples for thousands of years. (Note: evolution is not a new idea within the past couple centuries. The Greeks were known to have believed in evolution thousands of years ago, hence Paul’s admonishments here.) Secondly, this is not a true scapegoat, because as verses 19 and 20 above talk about, God has been apparent through His creation. None have an excuse for their disbelief.
Number next: the next point I would like to make is a Biblical genealogical argument. This timeline is a great resource for this part of the argument: Biblical Genealogical Timeline. Even as it states on the side, these particular dates and years can be disputed; however, it does establish a clear, Biblical, genealogical timeline from Adam, through Jesus, and on into the fourth century. In other words, 4004 might not be the exact year of creation, but the lifespans on the timeline are charted Biblically. Essentially, my point in this is that the generational history of the Bible only allows for approximately 6 to 7,000 years of history since creation.
Lastly, and most important to this argument strictly from a Biblical perspective is the creation story in Genesis 1. I feel it is important to establishing my argument to include Genesis 1 in its entirety at this point.
Genesis Chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
The argument for theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists that has arisen from Genesis 1 is that the days (i.e. 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.) were not literally days, but periods of time. This is simply not an accurate reading of the text. I will start from the simple and move to the more complex. First, this text is one of many important texts throughout the Bible that is written in a unique way. The unique form of writing to which I’m referring to is the simple, elementary, children’s book type writing, that allows this story to be understood in its correct context by even the simplest of minds. If you read other parts of Genesis, or any of the other first five books of the Bible, you truly see the divine hand of God reaching down to inspire this particular story, the creation story, to be authored in a different manner. So in summary of this part of the argument, this story is clearly and simply articulated, which does not lead the reader to believe that there is a veiled deeper meaning to the text. Next, and the lynch pin for the age vs. day argument in Genesis 1, can be discovered by pulling out a concordance and looking at the meaning and specific use of the root that has been translated day in our Bibles. Here are links to two separate entries in the concordance for yowm, meaning day: Entry 1 for Yowm and Entry 2 for Yowm. It is important to note part b in the first entry, but more important is the second entry: “day always refers to a twenty-four hour period when the word is modified by a definite or cardinal number.” This is clearly the case here in the story of creation. Also, there is more clarity given in verse three about the first day, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” It explicitly states that the first day was morning and evening, clearly establishing that the days of creation were literal 24 hour days. If this is the case, as it seems so apparent, the Biblical historical account(which has been found to be 100% historically accurate) allows for approximately 6 to 7,000 years since creation.
In part two of this discussion, which will be hopefully be on both Facebook and here on , I will provide scientific evidence for a young Earth through the study of geochronometers.
God Bless,
Bloody
(Picture from Answers in Genesis)
Global Warming? Absolutely No Truth To It!
In light of all of the environmental discussion that seems to be so popular these days, I decided to share an article that has fully shaped my point of view on the topic of global warming.
Global Warming? Absolutely No Truth To It! - Dr. Grady McMurtry
"If global warming gets any worse, we'll all freeze to death!"
God Bless,
Bloody
The Christmas Altar Call
I heard a preacher today, who will remain unnamed, give an altar call after preaching the typical Luke 2 Christmas story. The altar call is a typical part of the Baptist Church; so, this did not surprise me. The shocking, and slightly humorous part, was what he said after the altar call. The congregation sang a couple of stanzas of an offertory hymn, with no takers for receiving, "The Greatest Gift ever Given into Their Heart."(the way this particular pastor talked about accepting Christ, with no mention of repentance of sin, mind you) This was really of no shock to me. After the offertory hymn, the preacher said the following words: "In 20 years of ministry, I've seen a couple of decisions made after hearing a Christmas message; so, I always try to give an invitation." Call me crazy, but it would seem like a true Gospel presentation of God coming down in human form, fulfilling multiple Messianic prophecies from centuries before, to bring eternal salvation and eternal life, destroying sin and defeating Satan in the process, would get an audience. If you point out, as Mark Driscoll did recently in his sermon about the birth of Jesus, that, here in Luke 2:11, is the only time in the entire Bible that the words, "Savior," "Christ," and "Lord," appear in a single sentence, this should be probably the second most exciting exclamation in all of Scripture; the first of which would be the angel's exclamation to the women at the tomb on the third day: "He is not here; He is risen!" So, why is the Christmas story not one of the greatest decision makers in the church?
The problem is not one specific to the Christmas story, but to the modern gospel, as I've discussed previously in some detail.(Some being 'some'what of an understatement. Oh puns...) The Gospel is being thrown about freely, which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It is problematic, because a presentation of the Law, establishing a need for a Savior, very rarely precedes the Gospel presentation. As Ray Comfort establishes over and over in his writings, this type of Gospel presentation usually does one of three things: the message totally falls on deaf ears,(i.e. It's the same old story, over and over. I've heard it all before. Why should I care?) it actually offends the hearer,(i.e. Someone has stepped in and paid your traffic violation of $25,000.00, to which the hearer responds, "What are you talking about? I haven't had any traffic violation. How dare you suggest such a thing!") or, it creates a doomed to-be backslider(i.e. The hearer accepts the Gospel message into his/her heart, because he/she has heard about all of the wonderful benefits of putting on the Savior, Jesus Christ. Then, at the first sign of trial or tribulation, the person relinquishes their new-found beliefs, and he/she actually feels like they have been lied to and cheated.)(Note: Currently, 90-95% of the decisions made in the evangelical church are nowhere to be found in the churches, when followed up on one year later. 9 out of 10 people who walk the aisle, can not be found in church a year later. Wake up church!)
I will end with another classic Ray Comfort hypothetical situation to illustrate the proper use of the Law to bring sinners to their knees to see their need for the Gospel. If I walk up to you and say, "Here, take this. It is the cure for Bloodworth's disease. I sold everything I had to get it." you may take it, but you would wonder what on earth to do with it. "I don't have Bloodworth's disease. What on earth is this idiot talking about?" You may actually be somewhat offended and embarrassed by my proposition. However, if I walk up and say, "Here, take this. It is the cure for Bloodworth's disease. I sold everything I had to get it. I can point out ten clear symptoms right now. It is a fatal disease, and you should really take this cure." you wouldn't be able to wait to get that cure from me. If I show you that you have broken the Ten Commandments, God's Holy Law, and that the penalty for that is an eternity in Hell, you would be very concerned and would want to know what you would have to do to clear your name. It is at that time, and at that time only, that the Gospel message of Jesus crucified, buried, and resurrected to defeat sin and bring eternal life can be preached effectively. In summary, an altar call without a presentation of the need for the propitiatory death of Jesus on the cross might as well not be given at all.
God Bless,
Bloody 
The Importance of a Literal Interpretation of the Bible
What follows is my take on why it is importance to have a literal interpretation of the Bible. As part of the questions presented to me, was "Why does there have to be a literal interpretation? Jesus used metaphor."
First, I will say this. If one can not trust the Bible on small things, how in the world can one trust the Bible on the ultimate thing: salvation through Jesus Christ?
Jesus used parables(as opposed to metaphor) to teach His disciples, the people, and especially the Pharisees lessons. The key is metaphor or hyperbole is not used when He discussed historical events and prophecy fulfilled through Himself. In other words, metaphor is not used in reference to concrete things, but as a teaching device. These concrete things, including such things as Creation, the Flood, the Ten Commandments, prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus' virgin birth, Jesus' ministry and miracles, and His death on a cross, burial, and resurrection are written so clearly, especially when taken back to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, that a child can understand them. This is not a mistake or bad writing, but this is the Word of God being inspired in a clear, concise manner to allow easy understanding of important events and characteristics of God.
Taking the Word of God and making it metaphorical(when it is not obviously meant to be so) causes so many problems, but it is most associated with breaking the 2nd of the Ten Commandments. I will elaborate. The main reason in changing the Word of God to meet our own desires is to try to avoid personal responsibility for shortcomings. All of humanity was created with a conscience, allowing us to know right from wrong. In Jeremiah 31 it says the Law has been written on our hearts. Ultimately, we are made in such a way that we realize right from wrong, and thus, we expect a consequence for our wrongdoing. The Ten Commandments, the Law, was given, not as a way to earn salvation, but to show us how extremely wicked we are and how badly we need a Savior. So, we know right from wrong. We want to escape our impending Judgment; however, we can not do that in and of ourselves.(Atheists take all of this a lot further. Without a God, there is no moral code, and he or she can live like Hell until the day that person dies and actually ends up there.) So, we begin changing the Word of God to fit our needs. "Well when it says thou shall not lie, it only means about big stuff, not white lies." or "Taking the Lord's name in vain only means GD, not any other form of using the Creator God's name as a cuss word." To get back to the original point, this is creating a god that fits one's own wants, not the God of the Bible, and is thus idolatry.
In the case of atheists, they want Christians to give on topics such as a literal Creation account, a literal Flood, the literal virgin birth, the literal, physical resurrection of Christ, and other things that could be considered "metaphorical." This gives them a foothold, an opening. Slowly, the atheist explains that everything is here because of evolution(the wonderful fairy tale for adults), that there is no need for God. Everything ultimately came from nothing, and only ignorant people believe in God's existence. In this lies my extreme disgust for liberal theologians that question everything from the first word to the last of the Bible. They will say things like "there is no such thing as eternal truth" and "how can we know anything is true?" They provide an open door into Christian society for Satan to come in and pervert the mind to believe all kinds of ridiculous things. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, looking to ravage the rest of the flock.
I will repeat, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) If all of the Bible is inspired or breathed out by a Holy, sinless, God, how could any of it be fallible? If the Word could accurately fulfill prophecy written hundreds, and even thousands years before the literal, concrete, tangible events of the Messiah's birth, including location of Bethlehem, birth of a virgin, lineage of King David, etc., and prophecy of His death by crucifixion(hundreds of years before the invention of crucifixion mind you), and many other events, why on Earth can it not be taken literally, at face-value, word-for-word on any Biblical topic that could be discussed? If there has yet to be a single historical or archaeological error presented in the Bible, why can it not be held in highest esteem as Eternal Literal Truth? By questioning the literal meaning of the Word of God, you ultimately question God Himself, and that is a losing battle 100% of the time.
God Bless,
Bloody
Joel Osteen, Larry King, and the Prosperity Gospel
Let me preface everything I’m about to say with the following, all of which came from the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth, God incarnate:
Mark 8:34-35 “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it."
Luke 9:23-24 “Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
John 15:18-20 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.”
Matthew 5:10-12“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Now, Joel Osteen, famed mega-church, prosperity gospel preacher, was recently on Larry King Live. I told myself that I wouldn’t watch it, but, at 9:30, I decided, “What the heck, I’ll see what’s going on.” Thirty seconds in, I was already fuming. What follows are Biblical responses to some of the things Mr. Osteen said in discussion with Larry King and my take on the prosperity gospel.
I had originally prefaced the rest of this post with a comment about Osteen being a Christian; however, after comments from friends I highly respect, I agree that there is no real way he is a Christian. He rarely mentions sin, Hell, repentance, or even Jesus. Therefore, it would seem difficult for Mr. Osteen to know Christ, or at the least, it is not evident in his messages. The first thing I remembered being discussed on Larry King Live was the death of Oral Roberts, famed televangelist. King asked Osteen about what he thought happened to Mr. Roberts after his death. Of course, the answer was that Roberts was in Heaven. I thought to myself, “good answer.” Then, King asked Osteen what he thought Heaven was like. The cool Joel Osteen then began stuttering a lot of “I think’s” and “I believe’s.” “God is there so it is all good.” OK I can take that response, but where are the seraphim crying “Holy, Holy, Holy?”(Isaiah 6) Where is Christ, in all of His Glory, seated on His throne at the right-hand of the Father?(Colossians 3, Ephesians 1)
Next, King asked something to the affect of, “Is he in physical form?” Osteen replied that he, himself, along with all humans, are living inside of their shells of human body for the time being. Good start.(Psalm 39:5) However, he blows it by saying that, I forget his exact words, but that there is nothing physical about us after we ascend to Heaven. I think about after Jesus had been resurrected from death and stood before his disciples. Thomas was in disbelief that He had risen from the dead, and he would only believe if he felt the holes in his hands, feet, and side. “Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."(John 20:27) This was clearly a physical body that Jesus had, and this was the same body that Jesus ascended into Heaven with. Later in the New Testament, Paul talks about our new glorified bodies that we will be given, that will be like Jesus’.(1 Corinthians 15:45-49 and Philippians 3:21)
Next was probably the most discouraging and enraging part of the half of the show that I watched. Larry kind of laughed and said he had asked many before on his show the following, but that he felt like he should ask Joel as well. “Why do you believe?” This is a very legitimate question that has been asked since the days of the early Church. We are told in 1 Peter to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”(1 Peter 3:15) Joel had his usual smile on his face, but I thought to myself, “I bet he is going to give a great answer here.” I’m sad to say I was wrong. Osteen had the great opportunity to talk to a non-believer, Larry King, and many non-believers across the globe through the broadcast, about why he believed. Osteen’s answer was two-fold, and both answers were awful and cop-outs. 1. "I believe, because I was brought up to believe." 2. "I believe that everyone has a God-shaped vacuum in their heart." And you wonder why people mock Christians and Christianity. This is not a defense of the faith at all. Larry, and many across the globe, have been brought up to believe otherwise. Point one is already moot. The second point does not even deserve to be answered, but I will. I believe that God did, in fact, put a deep desire in each of us to discover our purpose, which is to serve and worship Him. He also created the world around us to make His glorious presence clearly known. (Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19) The problem is, many fill this, “God shaped hole,” with many other things, ironically, health, wealth, prosperity, jobs, children, and other material things, and of course sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. They find their purpose in the created, not in the Creator.(Romans 1:25) So, Mr. Osteen, yes there is a desire for purpose and desire for God in all of us. I will give you that. The problem is, many find happiness, purpose, etc. without filling that with God and end up spending eternity in Hell. Both points are moot, void, and not worth the breath used to say them. A better answer was given by Rev. Voddie Baucham, "I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and they claim to be divine rather than human in origin." Please do not be scared of apologetics folks. Use the Bible, yes. Use your testimony, yes. But don’t be scared to use science, history, archaeology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. to defend your position.
Number next, King asked Osteen if he had any political stands. Osteen said no, which I find discouraging. How can you have a Christian worldview, look out at America today, and not have an opinion? First of all, the answer to that question should always be the same for the believer. “Yes, I have a political stand. It is listed out quite clearly for me here in God’s Word.” Abortion, murder. Homosexuality, sin. Global warming/ over-concern for the environment-I could spend all day on this one, but God told us that man would never destroy the Earth. That is reserved for Him one day. There will be global warming: all at once when the Earth is destroyed by fire. (2 Peter 3:7)
In relation to the previous question, King brought up the fact that a lesbian mayor had apparently been elected in Osteen’s hometown. Joel and his wife seemed overjoyed at this. King asked for their thoughts. Osteen’s wife said “She’s been a good friend to our church.” First of all, I do not hate homosexuals, and if you do that’s a sin that you need to repent of. If a church is doing its job, a lesbian woman is not going to be a great friend of the church in her current state, because the church would be using the Law of God to shine light on her sins. (Note: Witnessing to homosexuals should be done no differently than to any other lost person. We should use the Law to point out that she is doomed to Hell, because she has transgressed the Ten Commandments of her lying, stealing, adulterous, blasphemous heart. The person is lost and doomed despite her sexual orientation.) On the other hand, I would hope that the church was a great friend to her, in the fact that they love on her and want to see her life change. The church should be reaching out to homosexuals in the way that Jesus reached out to the prostitutes, tax collectors, etc.(Matthew 11:19) Osteen said that she had, at one time been on the city-council, and voted for their church to get the use of a facility. Then the most disturbing statement, “We wouldn’t be where we are if it weren’t for her.” Wow. The correct statement would be that “We wouldn’t be where we are without God.”
King continued with this discussion by asking what Osteen thought about gay marriage. This got Joel a little uncomfortable, which was awesome. By Osteen’s reaction, I honestly thought that he was going to give a Biblical answer that he knew wouldn’t be received well. Sadly, once again I was wrong. He flirted with the idea by saying, “It is my wish that we would keep marriage between a man and a woman.” Great start. Then he followed it with, “But this is a democracy so...” and then trailed off. Is it that hard to have backbone, sir? As it was so eloquently put by many redneck friends of mine, “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”(Genesis 2:24) In regards to homosexuality, the Bible takes a very clear stand in many places that it is sin. Romans 1:27-27 says, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts... Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Also, the sin of the men of Sodom was quite clearly homosexuality, and they were so perverse that he even begged Lot to bring out the angels who visited him so that they might know them(KJV) or have sex with them(NIV).(Genesis 19) The entire place was destroyed by God, and you trivialize it so, Mr. Osteen? Moving on.
Going with the political theme, King asked what Joel’s take on the health care debate was. Osteen stammered through part of an answer and King interrupted with a baiting question: “Would God want health for all?” A red light should go off at this point, but let’s keep moving. Osteen simple reply was, “I think he would.” This might come across as dogmatic and extreme, but this screams “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above...”(Exodus 20) This is idolatry. This is making a god that suits one’s personal needs. That does happen to be a part of the Decalogue, and is a no-no. Way to go, Joel.
Finally, Joel was asked if he had any New Year’s resolutions. Osteen’s response was as follows: “...to not get in a rut; to not say I have had some success and that be enough. God wants us to go further. God's dream for our life is bigger than our own." This is some of the purest example of prosperity gospel teaching that I have heard in a while. Osteen previously had been asked about his seeming materiality and relation to the prosperity gospel. Osteen stated boldly that he did not consider his church or his teachings to be of that strain. However, it seems clear to me, and in several blatant statements that Osteen is a clear proponent of the prosperity gospel. Osteen, in similar words, made the statement that he believed that God wanted us to be happy, to be well-off monetarily, and to have much. There is only one problem with this: the words of Jesus Christ, our Lord. I put them at the beginning of what has become a lengthy rant. so, that a Biblical, Christian, foundation would be set to contrast these seemingly heretical teachings against. I have included John Piper’s take on this prosperity gospel at the conclusion of this note, and he does a much better job of explaining all of this than I do. However, I would like to give a brief opinion, rooted firmly in what Jesus did, and articulated eloquently by Mr. Ray Comfort.
First, all of this will be taken from Ray Comfort’s The Way of the Master, which I highly recommend, along with any other work by Ray Comfort. "There are two reasons why the Church is filled with people whose lives don't measure up to what they profess. First, the modern gospel has degenerated into a means of happiness rather than of righteousness. Second, we have failed to show sinners that they are lawbreakers, that they have violated the Law of a holy God." The modern gospel is synonymous with the prosperity gospel. Ray gives three reasons why the modern or prosperity gospel is wrong. 1. It is unbiblical. 2. Failure to mention Judgement Day. 3. Sin is glossed over. When you promise a potential convert health and wealth, fame and fortune, joy and happiness, you get results. The problem is, this simply creates false converts who will turn from Christianity at the first of tribulation. They will actually feel hatred towards those who presented them with Christianity, as they will feel cheated, slighted, and lied to. Many times these people become violent towards the Gospel, and become what Ray calls, “bitter backsliders.” Ray points out that if you strike up a conversation with many involved in the occult or cultish activity, you will often find a backslidden false convert. You do not see Jesus promising health and wealth to his disciples. You see Him asking them to take up their cross and follow Him, that those who die for Him will find life, and that His followers will be persecuted. And in fact, many would die a martyr’s death. But more importantly, Jesus preached Law to the proud, to break their evil, prideful hearts, and He then followed with grace and Gospel to those who had been softened by the Law: those who saw their need for a Savior. This is how we should be witnessing, as well. We should confront sinners with the Ten Commandments, showing them their need for grace and mercy. Then, when they see the need for a Savior, we tell them the Good News: They had broken the Holy Law of God, and on Judgement Day they would be guilty before the Lord, doomed for Hell. But, Jesus has stepped in to take the punishment for them, and they no longer have to go to Hell. Instead of punishment, they receive eternal life, and they get to worship Jesus in Heaven, forever! I will close with this fantastic illustration and commentary by Ray Comfort from Hell's Best Kept Secret.
“Two men are seated in a plane. The first is given a parachute and told to put is on as it would improve his flight. He’s a little skeptical at first because he can’t see how wearing a parachute in a plane could possibly improve the flight. After a time he decides to experiment and see if the claim is true. As he puts it on he notices the weight of it upon his shoulders and he finds that he has difficulty in sitting upright. However, he consoles himself with the fact that he was told the parachute would improve the flight. So, he decides to give the thing a little time. As he waits he notices that some of the other passengers are laughing at him, because he’s wearing a parachute in a plane. He begins to feel somewhat humiliated. As they begin to point and laugh at him and he can stand it no longer, he slinks in his seat, unstraps the parachute, and throws it to the floor. Disillusionment and bitterness fill his heart, because, as far as he was concerned, he was told an outright lie.
The second man is given a parachute, but listen to what he’s told. He’s told to put it on because at any moment he’d be jumping 25,000 feet out of the plane. He gratefully puts the parachute on; he doesn’t notice the weight of it upon his shoulders, nor that he can’t sit upright. His mind is consumed with the thought of what would happen to him if he jumped without that parachute.
Let’s analyze the motive and the result of each passenger’s experience. The first man’s motive for putting the parachute on was solely to improve his flight. The result of his experience was that he was humiliated by the passengers; he was disillusioned and somewhat embittered against those who gave him the parachute. As far as he’s concerned it’ll be a long time before anyone gets one of those things on his back again. The second man put the parachute on solely to escape the jump to come, and because of his knowledge of what would happen to him without it, he has a deep-rooted joy and peace in his heart knowing that he’s saved from sure death. This knowledge gives him the ability to withstand the mockery of the other passengers. His attitude towards those who gave him the parachute is one of heart-felt gratitude.
Now listen to what the modern gospel says. It says, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. He’ll give you love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and lasting happiness.” In other words, “Jesus will improve your flight.” So the sinner responds, and in an experimental fashion, puts on the Savior to see if the claims are true. And what does he get? The promised temptation, tribulation, and persecution. The other passengers mock him. So what does he do? He takes off the Lord Jesus Christ, he’s offended for the word’s sake (Mark 4:17), he’s disillusioned and somewhat embittered, and quite rightly so. He was promised peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, and all he got were trials and humiliation. His bitterness is directed toward those who gave him the so-called “good news”. His latter end becomes worse than the first: another inoculated and bitter backslider.
Saints, instead of preaching that Jesus improves the flight, we should be warning the passengers they’re going have to jump out of the plane. That it’s “appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). And when a sinner understands the horrific consequences of breaking God’s law, then he will flee to the Savior solely to escape the wrath that’s to come. And if we’re true and faithful witnesses, that’s what we’ll be preaching. That there is wrath to come; that God “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Why? “Because He has appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness” (vs. 31). You see, the issue isn’t one of happiness, but one of righteousness. It doesn’t matter how happy a sinner is, how much he’s enjoying “the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb 11:25). Without the righteousness of Christ, he’ll perish on the day of wrath. “Riches profit not on the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death” (Prov 11:4). Peace and joy are legitimate fruits of salvation, but it’s not legitimate to use these fruits as a draw card for salvation. If we continue to do so, sinners will respond with an impure motive lacking repentance.
Now, can you remember why the second passenger had joy and peace in his heart? It was because he knew that parachute was going to save him from sure death. And as a believer, I have, as Paul says, “joy and peace in believing” (Rom 15:13), because I know that the righteousness of Christ is going to deliver me from the wrath that’s to come.
Now with that thought in mind, let’s take a close look at an incident on board the plane. We have a brand new stewardess. She’s carrying a tray of boiling hot coffee. It’s her first day; she wants to leave an impression on the passengers, and she certainly does. Because as she’s walking down the aisle, she trips over someone’s foot and slops that boiling hot coffee all over the lap of our second passenger. Now what’s his reaction as that boiling liquid hits his tender flesh? Does he go, “Ssssfffff! Man that hurt”? Mmm-hhh. He feels the pain. But then does he rip the parachute from his shoulders, throw it to the floor and say, “The stupid parachute!”? No. Why should he? He didn’t put the parachute on for a better flight. He put it on to save him from the jump to come. If anything, the hot coffee incident causes him to cling tighter to the parachute and even look forward to the jump.
Now if you and I have put on the Lord Jesus Christ for the right motive, to flee from the wrath that’s to come, when tribulation strikes, when the flight gets bumpy, we won’t get angry at God; we won’t lose our joy and peace. Why should we? We didn’t come to Jesus for a happy lifestyle: we came to flee from the wrath that’s to come. And if anything, tribulation drives the true believer closer to the Savior. And sadly we have literally multitudes of professing Christians who lose their joy and peace when the flight gets bumpy. Why? They’re the product of a man-centered gospel. They came lacking repentance, without which you can’t be saved.”
John Piper and the Prosperity Gospel-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc_FoELt8s
God Bless,
Bloody
The Forgotten African Tribe
What follows is my answer to the common question, "What about the poor native tribe in deepest Africa that has never heard about Jesus? Are they damned, because they have never heard?"
That is a good question. First, it is the inherent sin of a human being that sends him or her to Hell, not if they have heard about Christ or not. Each and every human being has fallen short of the perfect Law of God in some way during their life time. However, Romans Chapter 1 says, "For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse." God has revealed Himself through his creation, along with through our conscience. Romans 2:15 says, "They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." People inherently know what is right and wrong, because God has written his pure and holy Law onto their hearts. This is why tribes and peoples deep in the middle of nowhere always seem to have laws, despite if they even have written language or not. Most of these people have laws against killing, stealing, etc., which, mirrors the perfect Law of God, the Ten Commandments perfectly. God cares about those individuals' souls who have never heard the name of Christ far more than we ever could, and believing that is God is holy, all-loving, and omnipotent, we trust that He has made provisions for those who have not heard the name of his Son. An interesting phenomena, right now in the Middle East, is that many Muslims are converting to Christianity, not because someone told them about Christ, but because they have had dreams. In these dreams, they have said they have seen Jesus, and they have converted, leaving their families and upbringing behind. At the end of the day, it is still, however, our job to try to reach these people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, we have to trust that the most-high God has taken care of those who have not been reached yet with the Gospel.
God Bless,
Bloody
© 2004-2010 LeighRSS.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | FAQ | Advertising | Contact Us
No comments:
Post a Comment