Jesus Only

And thou shalt be a blessing

2008-07-18T23:32:00.001-05:00

One of the best ways to believe God is to walk in faith. I don't know Josh Rittenhouse, or his mother, Carol. But I believe we worship and trust the same almighty savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. And they need help. I heard about them through Lane Chaplin's blog.

I plan to trust God and pledge a monthly gift to help pay for Carol's medications. I hope you will do the same.

The Idolatry of Tony Jones and The New Christians

2008-04-09T13:08:00.001-05:00

What is this really about?

I must admit to being overwhelmed as I read The New ~~Kierkegaardians~~ Christians. The error and stupidity in the book are staggering. I do well to choose a single battle and fight it, hoping to provoke others to be more discerning as they read the book. The battle I choose to fight is against Jones’ shameful treatment of Judges 11. Tony abuses the story of Jephthah and his daughter (pg. 145-148) in order to paint orthodox readings of it as wrong. Never mind that he uses a phony “orthodox” interpretation to argue against. Tony Jones avoids salient points in the story of Jephthah to avoid the Gospel message there.

I loathe The New Christians, because it presents the basest view of Christianity that I can imagine. To the Emergent sycophants, the book is glorious and Jephthah is base. Theirs is a view that turns proper exegesis on its head. In his rush to deconstruct (tear down) the story of Jephthah, Tony Jones, makes a parody of the Gospel. Like his friend, Brian McLaren, Tony reduces a story of redemption to one of “child abuse”. McLaren sides with the likes of Jeffrey John, Steve Chalke, Alan Jones, J. Denny Weaver, Joel Green and Mark Baker in trying to reinvent Christ’s atoning death and justifying resurrection. Tony Jones sides with all of them when he follows their method.

Jephthah, Whom God sets free

Is this about good theology or a matter of taking sides? I submit to you that it is about both. The revisioners embrace bad theology and end up on the side of heresy. Tony Jones is a theological workman who ought to be ashamed. He deals with scripture deceitfully and purposefully avoids the Gospel message of the Old Testament. Let’s consider Jephthah and his daughter.

The story of Jephthah comes out of the Old Testament book of Judges. The Holy Spirit lays down the context for the book of Judges in Chapter Two. Judges is a roller coaster ride of blessing and judgment. God worked through the Judges to deliver the people from oppression, which they brought upon themselves in turning to idolatry. It’s a picture of a God who will save anyone who will turn to Him for salvation. It is also a picture of a sin-cursed earth and fallen humanity, both needing a Savior.

And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being a hundred and ten years old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the mount of Ephraim, on the north side of the hill Gaash. And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim: And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. (Jdg 2:7-14)

Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so. And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way. (Jdg 2:15-19)

We meet Jephthah in Judges 11. He is a Gileadite and the bastard son of a harlot. He wasn’t considered a true Israelite, because his father never married his gentile (strange, other) mother. Jephthah was cast out of his father’s house by his brethren. He went to live in the land of Tob. He became a leader of vain (empty, worthless) men and established a rugged reputation. He led an army. Jephthah was a bloody man without a sacrifice or a way to God (Deu 23:2), as far as the Law was concerned.

The children of Ammon (Gen 19:38) made war against the children of Israel. Jephthah’s brethren came to him and sought his leadership. They fetched (accepted, received) him out of the land of Tob to be their Captain. Jephthah challenged his brethren to acknowledge the irony of their predicament, and he agreed to lead them. He set one condition, that they would follow him after the LORD gave them victory over their oppressors. We are told that Jephthah made a compact before the LORD at Mizpeh (watchtower) of Gilead. This is consistent with the context laid down in Chapter Two, where we are told that God raised up the Judges.

So Jephthah sends messengers to the king of the children of Ammon. The Ammonites claim to seek land that was stolen from them many years earlier by the children of Israel. Jephthah rebukes the Ammonites by reminding them that God was the one who dispossessed them of the land. He preaches to them about the redemptive works of God. He reminds them of God’s deliverance of Israel into the land promised to the seed of Abraham. He even mocks their gods, chiding them to appeal to Chemosh for possessions. Jephthah paints the picture of God’s judgment against those who seek to subvert and destroy God’s message and work of salvation (Num 20-22). This story of Jephthah is a portrait of a bastard who was more faithful than legitimate sons concerning the preaching and teaching of God’s word.

Jephthah’s Vow

And then we come to Jephthah’s vow. The battle so far has just been a war of words. Jephthah recognizes that victory is not possible without God. He submits to God’s judgment in the matter of victory against the Ammonites. He pledges, upon his return from battle, to sacrifice whatsoever comes out of his house as a burnt offering unto the LORD.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. (Jdg 11:29-31)

Now let’s just take a few moments to talk about this. Tony Jones relates a foolish interpretation, which he attributes to another pastor, and which frames Jephthah’s vow as a dumb mistake. Such a reading insinuates that Jephthah was hasty and made the vow without thinking. Tony seems to rightly understand that to be a stupid interpretation. When a man vows to give up something that walks out of his house to meet him, he isn’t meaning to offer a toaster or a lamp. He’s obviously thinking of a living object that can move under its own power. So we can agree that Jephthah made a vow to offer a life, right?

But Tony Jones is on a mission to tear down the Bible and promote liberal theology, which majors in a bloodless cross and a Christ who died for social justice. So Tony bypasses illuminating passages of Scripture in order to use the story of Jephthah as way to preach a social-justice gospel. What does the Bible say about burnt offerings, human sacrifice, and the first-born of Israel? What does the New Testament say about Jephthah? Why does Tony Jones pass over those parts of the Bible?

Let God defend His servant!

The burnt-offering (olah, holocaust) is the oldest offering in the Holy Bible. It was offered by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Levites The Mosaic Law confined burnt sacrifices to the LORD as a practice reserved for the Levites. Deuteronomy 12 is especially enlightening here, because God establishes the law of an appointed place for sacrifices in juxtaposition to the abominations and scattered worship of the heathen nations being driven out of the land. The same chapter, that exhorts Israel to worship at the place appointed by God, also warns Israel of destruction if they offer their children as burnt sacrifices.

Human sacrifice was forbidden in Israel (Lev 18 & 20; Deu 12 & 18) . Those prohibitions are always given with reference to Molech, a god of the Ammonites. Only Ahaz (2Ki 16) and Manasseh (2Ki 21) were brazen enough to named by the Holy Spirit as breaking this commandment. They worshiped Molech at Topheth and scripture records their deeds as abominations. Topheth was in the Valley of Hinnom, close to Jerusalem. God pronounced judgment on Jerusalem for it (Jer 7, 19, & 32). Their captivity in Babylon was decreed to rid Israel of that sin.

Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. (Num 18:15-16)

The firstborn of Israel were to be set apart for the LORD (Exo 13, 22 & 34; Lev 27; Num 3, 8, 18). Exodus 13 ties the sanctification of the firstborn to God's redemption of the people from Egypt. Numbers 3 ties it to the special status of the Levites. God took the sons of Levi as a special possession and commanded that the Israelites redeem their firstborn. Numbers 18 deals with the dedication and redemption of the firstborn. The redemption price was five shekels. The Jews were commanded to dedicate their firstborn children and redeem them. The firstborn of their cattle and the firstfruits of their fields were to be dedicated to God. The Levites took provision from the animal and botanical offerings, according to Numbers 18. The offering of firstfruits was also bound to a confession of God's mercy, redemption, deliverance, and provision (Deu 26). And don't miss the fact that Deuteronomy 18 connects the sanctification of the Levites, the offerings of first-things, the condemnation of heathen worship, and the messianic hope together!

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deu 18:15-19)

The New Testament speaks well of Jephthah. The Holy Spirit, through the writer to the Hebrews, gives Jephthah a place of honor (Heb 11). Jephthah is listed there with David, Samson, Samuel, Gideon, and Barak. They are said to have "obtained a good report through faith" not having received the promise (gospel).

What of Jephthah's Daughter?

The last seven verses of Judges 11 deal with the completion of Jephthah's vow. Did Jephthah slay his daughter? No! He pledged her purity. The emphasis in these verses is on her virginity. She was forbidden to marry. The Hebrew word for burnt offering, “olah”, means wholly consumed and ascending.

Jephthah was in a position to pledge his daughter as a pure offering in service to God. A father had binding authority over a daughter living in his house (Num 30). She could pledge her soul on some matter, and her father could break the vow with the blessing of God. The father could not break his own vow, but he was given special authority to act on behalf of his wife or daughter. A man could also pledge any other person as an offering at the Tabernacle and pay a redemption price (Lev 27) Jephthah was authorized to forbid his daughter to wed and remain pure as a sacrifice to the LORD. He could make that vow before the priest and pay a redemption price to seal it.

She knew no man (v 39). He mourned, because she was his only child. He undoubtedly wanted grandchildren. She mourned, because it was a shame for women in that day to be unwed and childless. The Hebrew word for lament, “tanah”, also means to celebrate. The daughters of Israel celebrated this uncommon act of devotion.

The Idol of Liberation Theology

The reader has a choice here. One can ignore what Hebrews 11 says about the good report obtained by Jephthah. One can also ignore the many reasons cited here to spare the life of Jephthah’s daughter. Or one can follow Tony Jones and kill Jephthah’s daughter for the sake of idolatry. The big question here is, what is your view of the Holy Bible?

I submit to you that Tony’s view of the Bible isn’t very high. Tony acts very pious, but his chief aim is to promote doubt. Unbelief is an essential ingredient in existentialist theology. Doubt is the leaven that makes Kierkegaardian theology tasty to Tony Jones. That’s why he passes over so many parts of the Bible that speak to the fate of Jephthah’s daughter. No, Tony wants her to burn so he can promote Jurgen Moltmann’s Liberation Theology. Tony wants her to suffer so he can put God in the fire with her and introduce Bloch’s Marxism into the discussion. Never mind whatever questions it might raise for you about the reliability of the Bible. No, Tony wants your company in the circle of endless questioning at the Emergent church.

You can see God’s holiness and work of redemption here, or you can play the ‘what is truth?’ game with Tony Jones and The New Kierkegaardians.

Drinking Kool-Aide in the New Jonestown

2008-03-23T22:12:00.001-05:00

I saw where Tony Jones recently bragged on his weblog about changing his title to Ecclesiologist. Why not? He’s a poor theologian.

While reading “The New ~~Kierkegaardians~~ Christians”, I am reminded of Jim Jones. He was a church leader too. Jim Jones was a sweaty, lecherous, megalomaniac who led his flock to their deaths in a sweaty place called Jonestown. They killed themselves drinking Kool-Aide which Pastor Jones served to them. It was a case of murder by bad theology.

Whenever someone talks about Kool-Aide in a political, sociological, or religious context, it is a reference to Jonestown. And by the way, the Kool-Aide in Jonestown was poisoned. The poison was the lethal part.

Is Tony’s theology poisoned? I think it is.

Having arrived at Chapter 4 – “The Theology Stupid”, I wonder about the people who choose to swallow this drivel. Why don’t they see the flaw in Tony’s theology when he says; “And finally, the world, to which the gospel would be preached was not the planet Earth. The only world known to Jesus was the Roman Empire…” (pg. 98)? Either Tony Jones thinks God is very limited in His knowledge, or he doesn’t think Jesus was God.

Seeing what Mr. Jones says about postmodernism as the ingredient to liberate theology, I have to wonder if Emergers will swallow anything and everything with a “new” label slapped on it. How can they not perceive his subterfuge when he ties “foundationalism” to biblical faith and declares both wrong (pg. 19 & 103)? According to Tony, there isn’t an “indubitable foundation” in the Bible, or for knowing God (pg. 19). Tony Jones replaces the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) with existentialism when he speaks about “conceiving” of being a follower Christ (pg. 103). Tony says his Kierkegaardian theology begets a new way of life!

I‘ve highlighted many such flaws and poisonous contradictions in my copy of the book. I could go on and on, but reading this book is tiresome! Tony and I are worlds apart in what we believe.

Tony says that theology is defined as "words about God" (pg. 47). How is it that Tony’s three pillars of Emergent theology; it should be local, conversational, and temporary -- are considered by anyone as being consistent with the Holy Bible? Is God not omnipresent, all-knowing, and eternal? Tony Jones doesn’t seem to think so, and his Emergent brethren seem to agree. According to Emergent theology, their words about God don’t have to agree with the Word of God.

How is it that such a man as Tony Jones can be considered fit to define what a church should be?

Watch out for the poison in the theological Kool-aide Mr. Jones is serving! Drink from the fount of Emergent theology at your own peril!

Tony Jones and The New Kierkegaardians

2008-03-16T15:51:00.000-05:00

I’m getting a real education as a result of reading Tony Jones’ latest book. If the book is any reflection of its author, then I’m pretty sure that this education is not what Tony intended.

Another Allegory

A young Danish man, Soren, grew up under the care of his parents, Michael and Anne (Ane). His father was a legalistic Christian, depressive, and sinner. Michael, Soren’s father, believed that the penalty for his sins would be passed on to his children. Soren’s father was so good at training him in Christian-legalism, that Soren would turn that legalism against the Danish Church.

Soren went to Theology School. His father was undoubtedly pleased. The young man’s fancy turned from Theology to Philosophy and Literature, Soren never really believed. He placed his father in the position of Christ saying, “he died for me in order that, if possible, I might still turn into something.” The father had insisted that Soren should become a Pastor. The boy felt obliged to fulfill his father’s wish.

The young man went on to far exceed his dead father’s expectations. Soren became regarded as one of the great minds of his time. He wrote many books and continues to influence many people to this day.

But Soren’s pastorate was not so successful. He became a farmer (gaard), sowing seeds of doubt around the church (kierke). His theology went askew. He reduced sin to “despair”. He taught that “doubt” is the springboard of Christian faith. This doubt-sowing shepherd taught that faith is founded on unbelief. Soren Kierkegaard continues to influence many Christian existentialists (religious doubters) to this day.

A few generations have sprung up from this Kierkegaardian pastorate of doubt. They represent the mixed multitude of the New Testament (postmodern) era. The religious doubters were keen on church membership. They didn’t think God was working unless they saw some movement. So, they started a Church Growth Movement. Church became something religious people just do. The doubters raised their children to be religious doubters too. The religious, doubting progeny left home to start their own churches. They said, “Each generation works out what it means to be Christian, so we can too.”

The New Kierkegaardians sought out teachers who were willing to teach clever-sounding things. Sayings like, “you can’t know the truth, and when you understand that, then you’ll know the truth” became music to their ears. They formed circles around their existentialist teachers and began deconstructing (tearing down) the Holy Bible. Jesus became a cheap cardboard cutout, who said; “The work of God is that ye doubt on him who he hath sent.”

Believe or doubt, what is the difference?

An Alternative Ending

Soren read the Holy Bible, and he recognized that it is the only reliable standard for Truth. He realized that his father lived for him, but Christ was the one who died on his behalf. The young man put Jesus Christ before all other things. He believed in Jesus as The Way, The Truth, and The Life (John 14:6). The young pastor knew that Jesus is the real sower (Mat. 13:3-9; 13:27) and the true seed is the Word of God (Mat 13:19-23). He led many people to Jesus through faithful preaching and exposition of the Bible. He taught the members of his flock to feed themselves with the Word, daily. And many churches were spared from the leaven of unbelief masquerading as genuine faith.

Bible-believing Christians were not duped by vain conversation. They recognized that the failures of men are not the failures of God.

What does that have to do with the Emergent church?

Tony’s “new Christianity” was birthed out of a merger between philosophy (liberalism, according to Tony) and church-growth work. Mr. Jones confesses that very plainly. Tony is not forthcoming about his Kierkegaardian theology, however. You’ll have to follow him closely to get it. Emergent sycophants refuse to see it, but those of us who read and listen carefully do.

Tony did a couple of interviews, for promotion of the book, where his theology of doubt comes out in spades.

One interview was with John Chisham. It’s an interview that apparently Tony doesn’t want people to see. When asked if he is born-again, Tony replied with a mocking response, at first. Then he spoke about his unbelief and tried to use Mark 9 and John 20 to justify his position as great faith.

Mr. Jones did another interview with Todd Wilken on KFUO’s Issues Etc radio program. We have a link to it. Tony becomes evasive and irritable when repeatedly asked biblical questions on church and pastoral responsibility.

Moreover, Tony speaks very plainly about the teachings of Brian McLaren. Jones doesn’t mind attaching the word “heresy” to Brian McLaren, because Tony thinks the word is meaningless. And don’t miss the fact that Brian McLaren made a name for himself with a book about people leaving churches to become New Age evangelists.

It's not an accident that Tony quotes Mark 9:24 between his preface and chapter one. These dubious Christian leaders want you to leaven faith with doubt.

Is this comparison unfair? I don’t think so.

UPDATE: 03/19/2008

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) has suddenly canceled the Issues Etc radio show. Look here.

Why We (I) Reject Evolution As Repudiation Of Genesis One

2008-03-16T11:23:00.001-05:00

One word. Abiogenesis.

Evolution, as a doctrine in science, was originally framed in two contexts. As a foundational theory of Genetics, evolution is the framework for explaining the way environment influences mutations. As a popular theory in Biology, evolution is commonly thought to provide justification for the notion that life arose spontaneously from dead (“non-living”) matter.

Abiogenesis is the little-used term for the part the theory which claims to explain the origins of life. The abiogenetic explanation amounts to the following; “Special conditions existed way back then. We can’t reproduce the conditions. So, we can’t prove the theory by producing life from dead material. Trust us. We’re working on it.”

So Evolution is half-right. It tells half of the story, because the facts for one half of it cannot be presently established. In fact, Abiogenesis is just a fairy tale.

We find it odd that so-called Christians are willing to put Genesis, Chapter One in the realm of fairy tales…to embrace the false doctrines of men.

TONY JONES: A church leader for all of the wrong reasons?

2008-03-12T20:32:00.001-05:00

I recently saw a classic film entitled "A Man for All Seasons". It was a 1967 movie adaptation of Robert Bolt's stage play. The play and movie are based on Sir Thomas More, who died at the (figurative) hands of King Henry VIII. More was executed by the King's court because he refused to bless Henry's claim as the head of the Church of England. Thomas More's ecclesiastical allegiance was to the Church of Rome, and many Protestants would question the biblical soundness of More's faith. Nevertheless, More was undoubtedly a man of conviction.

Having read Chapter 1 of "The New Christians - Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier" by Tony Jones, I feel like I'm watching a bizarre drama in Theatre of the Absurd style. The primary conviction that Tony seems to project in his first chapter is that American church life is dying and the Emergent church is a life-saving medicine. Jones' treatment of Christianity is both comedic and tragic.

Tony sets the stage in his introduction. Hoping to convince the reader that the movement is an unstoppable organic force, Jones compares the Emergent church to a weed that can't be killed. The funny-sad part of that analogy is that Jesus Christ compared weeds (tares) to the work of Satan in Matthew 13. Jesus used parables to illustrate great spiritual truths. Jones identifies himself, in the very back of the book, as a practical theologian. That apparently means a person who claims to study God, but who believes in the supremacy of pragmatism over Scripture. This first gaffe betrays a disregard for, or ignorance of, what the Holy Bible says about ecclesiastical matters.

The curtain opens as Tony Jones is sitting in the first-class cabin of a airline passenger jet. He weaves a story about a woman assigned to the seat next to him. Jones tells of trying to hide the fact he was reading a Bible as the plane takes off. Tony Jones, practical theologian and spokesman for the Emergent church, is ashamed to be caught reading his Bible!

Continuing on in the second paragraph of the first chapter, Mr. Jones shifts the focus to laptop computers, hers verses his. He tells us that he's busy writing a Bible study on his laptop, but he draws our attention to the woman. He practically gushes over her in his description. Despite using the word "Bible a couple of times, Tony Jones paints a very carnal picture in this opening scene. The climax of the plane ride occurs halfway through the flight, when the woman pulls out a rosary and leans back in her seat to pray. As Tony relates it, she prays to the "Blessed Virgin".

Not being swayed by what the Bible says...Tony Jones overlooks the fact that Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus, lost her virgin status when she had other children (Mat. 12 & 13). He fails to connect Luke 2:21-39 with Leviticus 12:2-6 which demonstrate Mary to be a sinner. Tony doesn't stop to question the biblical ramifications of praying to Mary. No, Tony Jones is on a mission to script an engaging segue to the main act of Chapter 1. Tony's purpose in this airline drama is to hold the woman up as picture of religion that doesn't look like religion.

The woman on the plane is merely a literary tool, a device, to introduce a "spiritual itch" that comes out of "the air". Put those thoughts of 2 Timothy 4:3 and Ephesians 2:2 out of your minds, friends. You're not going to benefit from this chapter unless you cast out all thoughts of the Bible!

The plot of this absurd tale proceeds into a down-hill slide from the sixth paragraph. Jones proceeds to narrate a tour of 20th Century American Christianity. He talks about left and right, claiming that liberalism represents the "high church" and conservatism represents the "low church". He begins to exploit divisions between left and right, so he can put "kite flying", disenchanted Christians squarely in the middle. Christ remains somewhere backstage, muzzled, and out of sight.

Jesus has no part in Tony's Chapter 1 new christian drama. Christ is not mentioned except for a reference to the UCC denomination, and an offhand mention of the term "Christ-like". Jones willfully leaves the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ out of all of his discussion of what a church is or should be.

One of the most comical and tragic highlights in the main act is when Mr. Jones sets up the straw man of "foundationalism" to show us "the real problem". Tony Jones wants you to accept his premise that biblical-faith is self-defeating. He attempts to kill foundationalism by acting out an imaginary conversation between a low-church Bible-believer and a skeptic. Jones lays down a series of vacuous questions and answers to prove that anyone who trusts in the Bible as Truth is a rube. That kind of thinking, to use his words, is "infinite regression". Tony says there isn't any "rock-bottom" foundation that defines what it means to be Christian. (SPOILER, Mr. Jones: Jesus Christ is Truth [John 14:6], the great I AM [John 8:58; Rev 1:8], and the foundation of His Church [Mat 16:18; 1Co 3:11]. Jesus Christ is a foundationalist!)

No, don't walk out of the theater yet! What about the chickens?

If you believe the Bible has no authority in a church or Christian life, then Tony Jones has a church for you. If you think that Jesus is whoever you want him to be, then Tony Jones has a new christian movement you can join. If you are willing to throw your Bible out the window at 30,000 feet, then come join the Emergent church. It's coming soon to a location near you!

Never mind the tree. What of the root?

2008-03-09T15:27:00.000-05:00

I have been neglecting this blog, in part because I've been fighting battles for biblical truth elsewhere. I have been invited to join three other godly men is a deconstruction of a new book by Emergent church leader, Tony Jones.

I don't have the book in my hands at the moment, so the thoughts that follow refer to things that others have written about Chapter 1. In it Mr. Jones is said to compare Christendom to a forest. He is reported to compare failed churches, faulty theologies, and old methods to a materials in a compost heap. Others tell me that Tony Jones likens the Emergent church to a new tree in a forest, feeding from the better parts of the compost heap of Christendom.

That is the gist of Chapter 1 as I understand it. I was inspired to today to consider the Root. So I wrote the following.

I was just reading a blog about the Shepherds Conference 2008. I was praising God for allowing me to see and read about men of faith coming together to uphold Truth. I prayed that God would bless the men who spoke there and those who attended. I prayed that such conferences might not be the formation of, or outworking of a man-made system, but of Christ. Something crystallized in my mind as I was praying. My comments follow from that.
I think we can all agree that churches have much to answer for. But we should not uphold the doctrine of Balaam (Rev 2), which is that God cannot bless that which He has promised to bless. God has not promised to bless everything that we see in going on churches. He has promised to bless the teaching and hearing of His Word.
It is right to question and judge ourselves, as believers and churches, to make sure that we are abiding in biblical truth and spirit. But we should be very careful in saying God cannot bless where His Word is faithfully preached. And yes, preaching is not done just with words. Walking (halikah) in faith is demonstrated to a perishing world through actions.
I must admit that I often wonder how (why) God is going to bless Christendom. But I'm not willing to take my questions and lift them up in order to propose a new system. For me, that is entering into the realm of Balaam. I believe that is one of the first steps on the path to gross apostasy. A departure from God starts in the heart and will proceed outward from there.
A tree often represents a system in the Holy Bible. The fig tree (Mat 21) represents a system that is not bearing fruit for God. Mark (11) paints the picture of Christ not knowing if the tree bears fruit as He approaches it (see Luke 18:8). In Matthew, Jesus is clearly headed to the cross and meeting nearly constant questioning and opposition from the Apostates of that time. I agree with those who interpret the fig tree in Matthew 21 as being a picture of first-century Judaism. It represents a broken-down, fruitless system.
If Tony wants to talk about broken-down fruitless systems, then fine. Christians should do that regularly. However, I do not find his propositions to be consistent with the Holy Bible.
Tony seems to want to make Jesus Christ into the 'Great Ecologist', or something much lower. Does Tony read Psalm 22:6 too literally? Perhaps Tony thinks that Jesus is the 'Great Recycler'. The compost analogy may seem very fitting in all of this talk about trees. But it is wrong, because it ignores the Root! Any system that takes it's sustenance from detritus is not of Christ. Christ is not only the Vine (Jn 15:5), but He is also the Root (Rev 5 & 22.) Does Christ, the Creator and author of Life, draw sustenance from the waste of broken-down systems? Is the Body of Christ nourished by dung?
I've looked at the root of the Emergent church, and I have not found Christ there so far. The Emergent movement emphasizes fruit, but what of the root? They seem to have a lot of leaves. I must give them credit for that.

After actually reading the first chapter, I have a different take on it. The interesting thing is that I can say, with even greater conviction, that the Root of David is not there at all.

The King Speaks (Building the Kingdom) - Part 6

2008-01-01T16:00:00.000-06:00

Introduction

We heard the King offering the Kingdom to the Jews in Matthew 11. They rejected Him, despite the mighty works He performed in the name of His Father. Being rejected, He compares the multitude of Jews to spoiled children who love to be divided against each other. He tells them they don't know righteousness when it was presented to them. Jesus tells them that wisdom is proven by what it produces. Then He pronounces judgment on the cities where He preformed most of the works of the Messiah. He found little repentance in those cites of Galilee.

Chapter 12 presents Jesus and His disciples in a cornfield. They are plucking ears of corn for food. God provided for the poor by commanding the Israelites to reserve a corner of their fields for the poor to glean from. The Pharisees complained about Him allowing His disciples to harvest on the sabbath. He answered them by speaking of the way David provided for his men during the days of his rejection as king (1Sa 21). Jesus reminds the Pharisees that God accepts the service of the priests in the temple by grace. The temple and sabbath were at the center of a great deal of legalistic power for the Pharisees. Jesus engendered their hatred by placing himself in the position of God, greater than the temple and Lord of the sabbath. They knew He was claiming to be equal with God. (It's tragic that so many, especially those who claim to know and love Him, question His deity.)

Jesus was right to say the Pharisees were merciless, because we see them gathering in verse 14 to talk about destroying Him. We begin to find His enemies setting traps for Him in Matthew 12:9-14. They will not be satisfied until He is dead.

The rejected King in the countryside

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Mat 12:22-28)

To be continued...

The King Speaks (Building the Kingdom) - Part 5

2007-12-16T22:21:00.000-06:00

Introduction

We're presently looking into the Gospel of Mathew, focusing on the LORD's teachings on the Kingdom. God has been painting pictures of the Kingdom and the King from Genesis up to this Gospel. The pictures continue from here on through the book of Revelation. You'll find the King cleaning house and establishing His kingdom when you get to that last book. But this book is about the King coming to a people He promised to visit. He's bringing the Kingdom to them, but as a nation, they reject Him.

The King was heralded by messengers for centuries. He was promised to a disobedient, adulterous, and backsliding nation (Hos 3). He came to them in the fullness of time, knowing that they would reject Him. If you read this Gospel rightly, friends, you'll find out that He has very harsh and condemning things to say about a people who reject Him. But He won't forget the promises He made to Israel. He's going to give them eternal possessions. He offers eternal possessions to everyone who will receive Him. (The Church's possessions are spiritual in 2007.) He's going to save them by grace through faith also (Zec 12:9-14), but they're going to reject Him first. He's going to be pierced, but He's not going to cast the faithful overboard.

So, we saw the King teaching about the Kingdom in Matthew chapter 5-7. He had already met His greatest enemy in chapter 4. He proved there that Satan could not defeat Him. Jesus moves down from the mount in chapter 8 and begins to demonstrate His power to rule over all things. We find Him there healing diseases, challenging pretenders, commanding the forces of nature, casting out demons, and being rejected for the love of swine. He meets opposition from the religious rulers in chapter 9, as he continues to heal, call disciples, restore young and old, and proclaim a time of harvest.

He chooses disciples to be apostles in chapter 10. They are sent to reap a harvest in Israel. He endues them with power to do the works of the King, telling them to travel as beggars and go to the lost sheep of Israel. He tells them to freely give the gifts He just gave them. He pronounces judgment on those who reject the King's gifts and message. He warns them that they will be rejected and persecuted. He spells out the terms of a new relationship to God. It's one that will divide families. He spells out a different basis on which to have power with God. He is sending Jews out to minister to Jews. This is not to the Gentile church! Man can no longer say the he is saved by lineage and law. An age is coming to an end!

He offers the Kingdom to them

Chapter 11 opens with Jesus traveling alone. He goes into cities to teach and preach. Disciples of John the Baptist come to him confused, asking if He is the Messiah. They were expecting the Kingdom to be established at this time. Christ answers by referring to Isaiah35 and Isaiah 42. Jesus was doing the works of the Messiah, but they expected the judgments to come with the works. He had come to provide salvation to them first, so that they might be spared from the judgments.

John's disciples leave, and Jesus turns to the the multitudes that had come to hear Him. He tells them that the Kingdom has come to them if they will receive it.

And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. (Mat 11:7-19)

The LORD refers to Elijah, saying that John the Baptist stands in the place of Elijah if they will believe that the Kingdom is at hand. God promised, in Malachi 4, to send Elijah before He came in judgment. John the Baptist preached repentance in the face of impending judgement. The King says that men cannot produce the Kingdom, though they try to do it by force. All we can do is simply receive the Kingdom by receiving Christ, the King.

This chapter parallels Exodus 19 where Jehovah offers to make the children of Israel a kingdom of priests. We don't have the response of the people in Matthew 11 like we have in Exodus 19, but in both places something seems to go wrong. In both places, God seems to suddenly become angry. We need to know what God says about the human heart and hypocrisy to understand what is at work here. The LORD searches the heart, friends. The King knew that He would be rejected. They didn't need to say it. He knew it.

Witness His response to rejection. He begins to pronounce judgement on the cities that witnessed most of His mighty works.

Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for thee. (Mat 11:20-24)

Repentance means turning. God wants everybody to turn away from sin and turn to Jesus Christ. The cross represents an impending judgment for all who will not receive The Lamb who died there, and salvation for all that will. Judgement will precede the establishment of the Kingdom.

Our concern, in the face of impending judgment, for those who are confused about these things should cause us to teach this Gospel rightly! This Jesus is not just a hippie love child. He is both Savior and Judge.

This is where the Gospel comes into conflict with the heresy of the Emergent church movement. The teaching of sin, righteousness, and judgment is offensive to people. Seeker sensitive movements like the Emergent church want people to forget about the judgments of Christ and focus only on the works of Christ. Emergers propose to be kingdom builders, as if God has been waiting for them to arrive and start building. Study the leaders of the Emergent movement; Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, and Brian McLaren. You'll find that they are too worried about offending anyone to talk about the judgments of Christ truthfully, if at all.

The King Speaks (Building the Kingdom) - Part 4

2007-12-14T20:15:00.000-06:00

Introduction

I began writing this series of articles about the Emergent church, and more specifically about a right perspective on the Kingdom of God. I thought I would take the reader through the teaching of the King himself, but I have gotten bogged down along the way. I don't want to take my LORD's words out of context, because I think that too many in our churches have lost the context. I don't know how else to explain the adoption of so much heresy in so-called Christian circles. I find the present state of Christendom disturbing. I thought I should devote some time and effort to pave the way to this junction, but I find myself over-doing the paving. So I think I'd better proceed with this part while I keep laying the King's red carpet.

Promoters of Kingdom Theology, like the Emergers, broadcast the idea that God is just waiting for Christians to start building His kingdom. To hear them talk about working for the kingdom, you might think that Christ will return as soon as we get busy building Him a palace with our good works. Kingdom Theology is an old heresy that was at work among professing Jews in the days of Christ's earthly ministry (Mat. 11:12).

There is a lot of nonsense in Christian circles concerning the Kingdom of God. Nonsense in relation to the things of God is the result of bad theology, which itself is a product of people failing to read the Holy Bible. We need to read all sixty-six books and treat each one as well as all of the others. We have too many pastors in too many churches failing to teach the whole counsel of the word of God. The thirty-nine books that many pastors view as footnote material are just as worthy as the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. They provide context, and they need to be taught in context!

What is the context of which I speak? God's work from Genesis to Revelation. A beloved teacher once said that the Holy Bible is God's picture book for His children. (I don't know about you, but I had to be born-again to be able to enter the Kingdom. I'm growing in Christ as I write this.) It's uses words to paint pictures of righteousness, sin, and judgement. Every picture has a backdrop, and every sketch has a point. The whole thing lays out a panorama of the Kingdom that stretches from Eden to the New Jerusalem. It's wondrous, and we need to step back often to take it all in. Many of us are guilty of taking colors and brushstrokes out of context to paint a different picture. That is what is being done in the organized church today.

The King on a mount

The passage below is taken from the Sermon on the Mount. It is part of the Law of the Kingdom. The Gospel of Matthew is the gospel written specifically for the Jews, who were looking for a king in the line of David. The book of Matthew is a kingdom gospel. It begins with the genealogy of the King in chapter one. Chapter two of Matthew deals with his birth and childhood. We find Jesus being baptized in chapter three. He is tested, calls disciples, heals diseases, casts out demons, and gathers followers in chapter four. He begins to teach on the Kingdom in chapter five of Matthew, saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

This Sermon on the Mount is one of the most abused passages of the Bible. Everybody seems to approve of it for some purpose. The enemies of the Church find justification in it for believing that Christ is a myth and Christians are hypocrites. Nominal Christians think that it sets forth rules that they can live by, and it provides a nice detour around the cross. The confused Messianic crowd finds righteousness by works there. And liberal Christianity promotes it as the only essential and palatable part of the Bible for all people, everywhere. Each misunderstanding is built on the notion that we are expected to live up to this ethic. Never they mind verse 5:48 where He says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." That verse is supposed to take you to the cross, my friend, not give you a pass around it!

The proper context for the Sermon on the Mount is provided by the preceding and following chapters. He is speaking to the Jews. This a picture of the Kingdom that Hannah foresaw. This is for the Church, but it is not to the Church. The Church does not come into existence until the second chapter of Acts, after Christ's crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension. The picture here is that Christ is the King and we can't earn our way into the Kingdom. The Church is not the Kingdom. It is of the Kingdom, but it does not define or represent the Kingdom.

If you read the full sermon, chapters five through seven, you'll see that the Kingdom is not of this present world. Consider the following passage from chapter 6;

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Mat 6:24-34)

Does that fit the present world? No, we live in evil days. Let's give the promoters of Kingdom Theology credit, friends. They recognize that people need to be concerned about worldly goods like food and clothing. They go off the rails, however, when they assert that the King is telling us to establish the kingdom through clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. I agree that the King's people should do these things, but let's be clear that we have to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

The Kingdom of God is a kingdom of righteousness and perfection. Man can't produce righteousness or perfection, but God can. If you read all sixty-six books, friends, you will see where man departed from righteousness and where God will restore it. The former was in the beginning, the later comes at the end. In the meantime Christians have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. God sees us in Christ, but the world doesn't. We still have an old nature, and that is why this world is in a sorry state. That is why the Church appears weak. We can't produce the Kingdom. The King is the only one who can do that. We're told to teach and baptize. Food and clothing may get us in the door where the lost dwell, but teaching (knowledge of Christ) and baptism (identification with Christ) are not to be neglected. Those things are essential to get them into the Gate (Mat 7:13-27) by faith (Rom 10:13-17).

Even then, we are at the mercy of the Spirit of God to accomplish the work. It's His book and His work. It's only by the grace of God if I can say anything here that will be helpful to anyone.

Listen closely to the sermons of the Emergent leaders, friends. They focus on good works and purposely squelch the clear teaching of sin, righteousness and judgement. Their Jesus is a hippie love child, who would never judge anyone. If you read that section in Matthew chapter 7, you'll know better. He says that there will be false teachers who try to enter the Kingdom on good works that they thought were in His name. He says that they will be shut out. Why? Because they despise His atoning work on the cross. They don't want to teach it. It's a message the world does not want to hear.

The Emergers say that "love" isn't love if it comes with an agenda. God has an agenda. He wants to bring you into the Kingdom through the atoning death and justifying resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. His love provided the blood of the Lamb, which was shed so that you might be forgiven (John 3:16-8). You're already condemned without the blood of the Lamb. You must apply His atoning blood to your life by faith. They would know and teach these things if they were indwelt by the Spirit of God and read their Bibles!

He taught with authority

I feel that we should close this portion by considering what the hearers of the Sermon on the Mount said about Jesus.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Mat 7:28-29)

The teachers of that day, the scribes, we're known to argue with each other. Read the Talmud sometime to see their method at work. They would start with a doctrine or question and try to out do one another in their explanations and answers. You might say that their method was to settle matters through conversation.

The Emergent church is big on conversation too. So much so that one of their tenants is that all theological suppositions should be questioned. This Sermon on the Mount is not some church focus group at work! Jesus isn't asking the congregation for ideas on how to be 'missional', nor is He teaching that. He is elevating God's commandments to a very high standard. He's telling you and me that we're not going to get away with slapping His name on whatever passes for good works and expect to get into heaven on our own merit. This is not a conversation or an argument. It's a sermon!

Don't miss the context, friends, or you'll probably miss the message.

Video Interlude

2007-12-01T01:28:00.001-06:00

I saw these on another blog and thought they are worth sharing. The first is a parody of worship music for 'prosperity churches'. The second is for an electronic Bible to replace your iPod. And the third is a parody on Rob Bell's heretic sermon, Bullhorn Guy.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:16-18)

Credits to sermonspice.com; Community Christian Church; Timotheus333

Here Comes the King's Messengers (Building the Kingdom) - Part 3

2007-11-26T14:27:00.000-06:00

Introduction

I thought I wouldn't spend too much time on the King's messengers. But I feel that it would be a shame to brush over the prophets too quickly. They are doing the King's business after all. Everyone one of them received their orders from the King. They know Him and they are a tremendous help for us as we study the Kingdom. I'll try to be brief, but I hope to capture something important from each one.

Hannah's boy, Samuel is first in a line of God's professional prophets. God used Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, and even Balaam to give us messages that are arguably, if not indisputably, prophetic. But the professional prophets are a rather special group, because they were raised up during a time when the children of Israel were set on following earthly rulers. The priesthood had generally failed to keep the people close to God, and the kings (yet to come until Samuel grows up) are going to fail in that respect too. So with the priesthood failing to do God's business, the LORD raised up messengers.

The King sees far ahead, friends. He knows the beginning and the end of all things. He wasn't surprised when the priests and earthly kings failed to lead. The Messiah is sufficient to be Prophet, Priest, and King. He does all things well (Mark 7:37).

Samuel, Nathan, Shemaiah, & Ahijah

Nathan is the only one of these four prophets to deliver information that pertains directly to the Messiah, who was to come. But Samuel, Shemaiah, and Ahijah delivered messages to the earthly kings of Judah and Israel that are worth our consideration.

Samuel had the privilege of anointing the first two earthly kings of the Jews, Saul and David. He grew up in service to God at Shiloh, witnessing the scandalous moral and liturgical abuses of the sons of Eli, the High Priest. Samuel prophesied the death of the sons of Eli and the cutting-off of Eli's lineage from the priesthood (1Sa 3:11-14). He witnessed the spiritual failure of the priesthood. Samuel also delivered a message for all believers concerning God's requirement of obedience before sacrifice (1Sa 15:22).

Nathan succeeded Samuel as God's messenger to the kings of the Jews. He served as the prophet to David, whereas Samuel delivered prophetic messages chiefly to Saul. Nathan was sent to rebuke David for the 'secret' sins of adultery and murder. In response to David's wish to build the LORD a house, Nathan had the privilege of recording God's eternal covenant with David's progeny. Nathan tells us that the Messiah will be a king in the line of David (2Sa 7:12) with an everlasting kingdom (2Sa 7:13), not only David's 'son' but God's son (2Sa 7:14a). We're also told that the Messiah will be chastened with the rod and stripes of men when guilt is laid upon him (2Sa 7:14b).

Although God refers to David as a man after His own heart, the earthly kings were failures. The tribes of Israel were divided into two kingdoms after the death of David's son and successor, Solomon. Rehoboam, David's grandson, ruled Judah and Benjamin in the south. Jeroboam ruled the other ten tribes as Israel in the north.

Shemaiah was a prophet to the southern kingdom. He had the unenviable task of telling David's grandson, Rehoboam, not to try to reunite the kingdom after God divided it (1Ki 12:22-24). Shemaiah also informed Rehoboam that God was going to use the king of Egypt to punish Judah for idolatry (2Ch 12:15).

Ahijah prophesied to Jeroboam, king of the ten northern tribes. He told Jeroboam of God's plan to take ten tribes away from Solomon (1Ki 11:29-39). When Jeroboam had failed to uphold the name of the LORD as king, Ahijah warned him of God's fierce judgment (1Ki 14:5-16).

What do we learn from Samuel, Nathan, Shemaiah, and Ahijah? We learn that God requires obedience before sacrifice. We're told that the Messiah will be a king in the line of David and His kingdom will be established forever. He'll be the son of God and rule the LORD's house from the LORD's throne (1Ch 17:14). These men teach us that God establishes kingdoms and judges rulers.

The Psalmist

The book of Psalms is chock full of prophecy about the Messiah. Each chapter of Psalms is a hymn of praise. Seventy-three of the songs were written by King David. The authorship thirty-nine of them is not known. The remaining thirty-eight are attributed to various individuals. We'll use the designation of Psalmist to refer to any and all of the authors of prophetic psalms. In the interest of brevity, we'll deal only with the most messianically rich psalms.

Psalm 2 picks up the theme of the Messiah. The song is only twelve verses long, but it speaks of the Son of God who is despised by the kings of the earth. It tells of His judgment of the kingdoms from Zion. He owns the earth and calls wise men to worship and trust in Him.

Psalm 22 is a powerhouse of suffering and faith. It doesn't mention the Messiah specifically, but it speaks of a kingdom established by God and the worship of people from all kindreds and nations. The kingdom and worship spring forth out of affliction. This psalm presents a picture of a faithful servant who faces death at the hands of scoffers while trusting in God's deliverance. This goes beyond David's suffering or claims to greatness. It is a picture of something much bigger. It is David's vision of the Messiah's suffering and vindication.

Psalm 40 is a rather extraordinary because it is a study in contrasts. It starts out as an account of redemption followed by praise. The psalm takes a rather strange turn in verse 6 when it says that the LORD does not require sacrifice or burnt offerings. Those things were the center of Jewish worship in David's time. Verses 7 and 8 says "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." It goes on to speak of the righteousness, faith, and praise of the one who is expected to come. The psalm takes a reverse turn again in verse 12 as it speaks of one who has sinned and is in need of redemption. The song concludes with, "But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God." The one needing redemption is the author of the psalm, King David. The one bringing redemption is the author of life, the Messiah. One king needs salvation and the other is mighty to save, because He is God.

Psalm 45, written by an unknown author, dovetails nicely with Psalm 21, written by David. Psalm 21 sets forth a king like the one from Hannah's prayer (1Sa 2). Psalm 45 marks the Messiah out as a king who is eternal and far above humanity. He is a man of war, truth, meekness and righteousness. He is God and His throne and scepter are eternal. He is anointed because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is a bridegroom and His people will praise Him forever.

Psalm 69 paints a picture of a man who endures great suffering. This is all about the Messiah, and it shows Him bearing the sins of the world. Where does it say that? Read carefully. His suffering is compared to an overwhelming flood, and it comes at the hands of a multitude who wrongfully hate Him. He bears the earthly shame of those who wait on God and seek Him. The hatred of men toward God is on Him. He is God's servant and finds no pity or comfort among men. He trusts in God to raise Him from the tomb. His sacrifice will far surpasses any sacrifice of oxen or bulls. This is a song of the Savior!

Psalm 72 describes the King's kingdom. This psalm was written by David's lesser son, Solomon. One might think that Solomon aspired to have a kingdom like this for himself, and he probably did. But the king of this kingdom is able to "redeem their soul(s) from deceit and violence". Solomon was wise enough to know that God is the judge and redeemer of men's souls (Ecc 12). It's going to be a kingdom like no other, friends!

To be continued...

Prepare to meet the King (Building the Kingdom) - Part 2

2007-11-08T12:14:00.001-06:00

Introduction

Theology is the study of God. The God of the Holy Bible makes bold claims concerning truth. He demands to be regarded as the one true God, Creator of heaven and earth. He says that He is eternal, without beginning or end, and He says that man is created by Him with a living soul. The God of the Bible, who revealed himself through the Jews, claims sovereign kingship over the universe.

Now you, friend, are either willing to learn from the Holy Bible, or not. If you are not, and many are unwilling, then you might as well stop reading this. There isn't anything for you here.

If you are willing to learn then you ought to be prepared to study. Churches and Christians are in a sad condition today, because they don't study. Many don't know God and they are far from Him. Too many know a little about Him, but the condition of America in 2007 clearly demonstrates that those that know Him are of a small minority.

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Ti 2:15)

That quote brings us back to our purpose in this series of articles. We're examining a ridiculous and widespread heresy movement operating under the name of the Emergent church. Their theology is based on a postmodernist view of the Bible. One of the tenets of postmodern thinking is that all truth is relative. Therefore the Emergers want us to read the Bible with the attitude that it's only as true as you or I want it to be.

Emergers think that they can help God establish His Kingdom through their "good works". The following is a quote from a prominent Emergent web site.

"Above all, we became convinced that living into the Kingdom meant doing it together, as friends. Thus, we committed ourselves to lives of reconciliation and friendship, no matter our theological or historical differences. As time passed, others joined the friendship, and the friendship began generating things like books, events, websites, blogs, and cohorts." -- Emergent Village

God says the Bible is truth. I trust in that fact, friends, because it I've had many opportunities to test the Word against it's enemies. The Bible stands while the enemies fall every time. So let's see what the Bible says about God's Kingdom.

God's Kingdom, according to God

The grand theme of the Bible is Man's relation to God. Let's acknowledge that the Emergers have one thing right from the beginning, God is going to establish a kingdom on the Earth. Although we don't find any mention of God's King until we get to the book of 1st Samuel, every book of the Bible tells us something about the Kingdom. The King introduces himself in the book of Matthew, but we need to prepare to meet Him.

The Jews call the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) the Torah. In Genesis we have God creating the heavens and the earth, the first sinful act of Man, the first great judgment, and God choosing a people out of this world to His name. In Exodus we hear God redeeming His chosen people, judging against false gods, and offering His people a choice between Eagles Wings and the Law. (They chose the Law.) It's worth special mention here that Exodus also shows us God moving into the Tabernacle, close to His people, after they break the Law before they actually get it. In Leviticus we encounter God dealing with sin, laying down rules for worship and service, and establishing holy days. In Numbers we witness God bringing His people to the land He promised to give them, the failure of the people to trust Him, and God judging His people for unbelief. In Deuteronomy we follow God as He prepares His people to enter the land, reviews of the Law, gives conditions for blessing, and announces curses for disobedience. So there is the Torah in a nutshell.

Throughout the Torah, we are given rather vague references to a Redeemer. God paints a shadowbox portrait of someone who will break the curse of sin. Using the simple elements of a seed; a torch and smoking pot; a lamb; a son; a ladder; a lion; blood; bread; light; an ark; a star; a scepter; and the tabernacle; God gives His people a hope of restoration to the relationship that Man had with Him in the beginning.

In a series of books the Jews the call the Neviim, we pick up with Joshua and Judges following after Deuteronomy. The book of Joshua gives us the deliverance of God's people into the land, the casting out of the heathens, the distribution of possessions, and the establishment of cities for refuge. In the book of Judges we find the children of Israel riding a roller-coaster built on continuous cycles of apostasy, disobedience, divine judgment, discipline, and deliverance. The book of Judges closes on the following note;

In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

God was the king that led them out of Egypt, carried them through the wilderness, and gave them possessions, but they refused to be ruled by Him.

A Shadow of a Kinsman Redeemer

Moving on to the book of Ruth, we find a woman taken out idolatry and brought into the family of God through a Kinsman Redeemer. I want to say much more about the book of Ruth, because it is widely recognized as a gem, which it is. The Kinsman Redeemer is someone worth all of our attention. But our task is to find the King, and we need to get to 1st Samuel for a quick snapshot of Him.

A Glimpse of the Anointed King

The book of 1st Samuel opens with a barren woman going up to Shiloh, to the Tabernacle, to worship God. She has a burden on her heart for a son. She cries out to God and promises that she'll dedicate the boy to the service of God. She leaves Shiloh with a blessing and a hope that God will grant her petition. The LORD gives the woman a son, and she keeps her promise. She brings her weaned son back to the Tabernacle. She leaves him there to serve the LORD, dedicating him with the following prayer.

And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogance come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength. They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble. The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail. The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed. (1Sa 2:1-10)

This woman, Hannah, tells us about an extraordinary king, the Messiah (anointed). Every king (melek) mentioned in the Bible has been common up to this point. And Israel has not yet had a king. They had God, of course. He is the best king, but they refused to be ruled by Him.

They wanted a king like themselves, and God will grant their petition too. But we can put every king that Israel will be given after this point, including David, up beside this and none will measure up to it until we meet the Son of David. Even the one uncommon king we passed over, Melchizedek (Genesis 14:8), doesn't compare to the picture that God gives us through Hannah.

The Emerging Arrogance (Building the Kingdom) - Part 1

2007-11-06T18:13:00.002-06:00

Let's look at what Emergers are saying about building God's kingdom.

"Our dream is to join in the activity of God in the world wherever we are able, partnering with God as God’s dreams for our world come true. In the process, the world can be healed and changed, and so can we." -- Emergent Village

That seems kind of harmless on the surface. Many Christians probably won't object to that. Some may think it is a poorly constructed way of saying that the Emergers plan to serve God until Christ returns. I submit that is a not so subtle way of saying that they believe they will usher in the kingdom of God through their efforts.

The best way to understand a system of thought is to get to the root of it. When it comes to getting to the root of a crime or conspiracy, the current trend is to 'follow the money'. We need to 'follow the theology' to understand the statements made by these Emergers.

When we look at who is behind Emergent Village we find a fellow by the name of Brian McLaren. This is great, because I happen to remember that name from Phil Perkins' weblog. This is like striking gold, because McLaren is an outspoken Emerger. He is well published and we'll have no trouble finding out what McLaren thinks.

On that note, let's examine a short quote on McLaren's thoughts concerning the correct exegesis of the Holy Bible. The following quote comes from a 'fictional' presentation of McLaren's views of postmodernity and Christianity.

"Our interpretations reveal less about God or the Bible than they do about ourselves. They reveal what we want to defend, what we want to attack, what we want to ignore, what we're unwilling to question..." (A New Kind of Christian, 50)

McLaren essentially says that the reader of the Bible gets to decide what the text means to him or her. McLaren thinks you'll understand the Bible better if you forget about trying to understand God or the Bible itself. His view is that you should just allow it to say whatever you want it to say. McLaren rejects the notion that there is a correct way to understand the Bible.

So the root of Emergent theology is relativism, according to the movement's most prominent speaker, Brian McLaren.

It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

Now I expect some reader to accuse me of jumping to conclusions here. Relativism is slippery, and McLaren is the Bill Clinton of theology. Some are going to read that quote and think that McLaren is referring to a reasonably orthodox understanding of scripture. Christians are supposed to learn a lot about themselves from the Bible, right?. But that is not what McLaren means, he wants you to reject the notion that you will find absolute truth in the Bible.

Let's look at how McLaren embraces postmodernism and apologizes for having renounced it. The following is from an interview McLaren has on his web site.

Q: I found your piece uncharacteristic. You are normally careful not to use inflammatory language, but you called talk about the “postmodern church” ridiculous. Wasn’t that kind of harsh?
A. I regret using that word. I’m sorry for offending or hurting people.

Q: You put people like me in a really tough situation. On our website, we refer to ourselves as a postmodern church, so now we have been judged by you as ridiculous.
A: Again, I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have said that. I’m sure you have good reasons for using that terminology on your website, and I don’t criticize you at all.

Q: I thought you were all about the postmodern church. Why would you say there aren’t any?
A: I guess I was having a bad day. I think everyone can relate to having a bad day.

Postmodernism requires the rejection of any claims to absolute truth. A postmodernist interpretation requires the reader of the Gospel to think like Pilate.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
(Joh 18:37-38 KJV)

Postmodernism says Jesus Christ was either ignorant, crazy, or a liar when He speaks about truth.

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
(Joh 14:5-7 KJV)

Postmodernism is the doctrine of the Serpent, friends. "God didn't really tell you the truth. For he knows that when you interpret the Bible the way you want to read it, you'll be as gods and be wise." Brian McLaren is subtle, because his only conviction is that truth is relative. The way of the Emergents is the way of subtlety.

We'll take a look at what the King had to say about the Kingdom in the next post.

The Emergent Confusion

2007-11-05T19:17:00.001-06:00

I constantly find myself astonished at the heresies being proclaimed by so-called Christians. I'm beginning to think we could study a different popular heresy every day for the next year and not run out of them. The Emergent Church is the Al-Queda of Christianity. It's an infestation that seems to have the marks of an Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ cult.

A brother by the name of Phil Perkins has been blogging on the Emergent church for some time. I must admit that I had heard the term 'emergent church' many months ago. I didn't pay enough attention then to even find out what the term meant. I first heard of it from a very liberal fellow who claims to be Christian. He is a rather undiscriminating critic of Christianity in general, so I took it as undeserved epithet.

But I ran smack up against an Emergent web site tonight while looking at tools for Bible blogging. I could not believe what they were saying about making God's dreams come true. How arrogant can they be? Gee, aren't you glad that somebody has figured out that God is too puny to make his own dreams come true?

Notice that these people fancy themselves as 'kingdom builders'. Osama and Mahmoud are kingdom builders too. They don't like the current order of things either. Emergers have the notion that they are going to evangelize the world through good works while purposely down-playing the Gospel. Their gospel is a social message. They claim that the Church has alienated the rest of the world by proclaiming the message of sin, righteousness, and judgement. Emergers hope to restore Christianity to its 'authentic' form.

I found that Emergent web site through a blog about a new bible translation, The Books of the Bible. It seems to be a version tailored for Emergers. The following bullet points are very interesting;

chapter and verse numbers are removed from the text (a chapter-and-verse range is at the bottom of each page)
individual books are presented with the literary divisions that their authors have indicated
footnotes, section headings and other supplementary materials have been removed from the text (translators’ notes are available at the back of each book)
the books of the Bible have been placed in an order that provides more help in understanding, based on literary genre, historical circumstance and theological tradition
single books that later translations or tradition divided
into two or more books are made whole again
(example: Luke-Acts)
single-column setting that clearly and naturally presents the
literary forms of the Bible’s books

Ah how refreshing! Yes, nominal Christians aren't reading their Bibles, so we have a few tricks to fool them into thinking it's just another book. Who knew that footnotes, verse numbers, and chapters were hindering Christians all along? This will fix everything that is wrong with the church!

It's late and I need to call it a day. There are so many things wrong with this movement that I can't hope to scratch the surface tonight.

What does love have to do with it, Mr. Osteen?

2007-10-31T20:46:00.001-05:00

I've been distracted lately with several things, the deception of Joel Osteen not being the least of them. Before I say anything more about him, let's look at what he said in an interview with Larry King on June 20, 2005.

Weak on Sin and the wages of it

KING: Is -- have you always believed?
OSTEEN: I have always believed. I grew up, you know, my parents were a good Christian people. They showed us love in the home. My parents were the same in the pulpit as they were at home. I think that's where a lot of preachers' kids get off base sometimes. Because they don't see the same things at both places. But I've always believed. I saw it through my parents. And I just grew up believing.
KING: But you're not fire and brimstone, right? You're not pound the decks and hell and damnation?
OSTEEN: No. That's not me. It's never been me. I've always been an encourager at heart. And when I took over from my father he came from the Southern Baptist background and back 40, 50 years ago there was a lot more of that. But, you know, I just -- I don't believe in that. I don't believe -- maybe it was for a time. But I don't have it in my heart to condemn people. I'm there to encourage them. I see myself more as a coach, as a motivator to help them experience the life God has for us.
KING: But don't you think if people don't believe as you believe, they're somehow condemned?
OSTEEN: You know, I think that happens in our society. But I try not to do that. I tell people all the time, preached a couple Sundays about it. I'm for everybody. You may not agree with me, but to me it's not my job to try to straighten everybody out. The Gospel called the good news. My message is a message of hope, that's God's for you. You can live a good life no matter what's happened to you. And so I don't know. I know there is condemnation but I don't feel that's my place.
KING: You've been criticized for that, haven't you?
OSTEEN: I have. I have. Because I don't know.
KING: Good news guy, right?
OSTEEN: Yeah. But you know what? It's just in me. I search my heart and I think, God, is this what I'm supposed to do? I made a decision when my father died, you know what? I'm going to be who I feel like I'm supposed to be. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Not the end of the world if I'm not the pastor ...

Pastor Osteen, lets look at a Bible verse that many children know.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

If you are truly a pastor, Mr. Osteen, then your job is to teach that verse along with the verses that come after it.

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:17-18)

You see, Mr. Osteen, God says that people are condemned already. The message of hope that you are supposed to give them is that Christ died on the cross to atone for the sins of whoever might believe in Him and receive Jesus as their Savior.

Weak on Heaven and Hell

KING: So it's self-fulfilling. Billy Graham was here last Thursday.
OSTEEN: I saw.
KING: Might have been his last interview. Is he a hero to the evangelists?
OSTEEN: He is a hero to us all. His life of integrity. Somebody that can stick with for that long and just stick with his message. What I love about Dr. Graham is he stayed on course. He didn't get sidetracked. That's what happens to so many people today. It's a good lesson for me, a good example for me to say, you know what, Joel, you may have a lot now but I want to be here 40 years from now sitting with you.
KING: Do you share Billy's beliefs of life after death in a sense of going somewhere?
OSTEEN: I do. I do. We probably agree on 99 percent. I do. I believe there's a heaven you know. Afterwards, there's, you know, a place called hell. And I believe it's when we have a relationship with God and his son Jesus and that's what the Bible teaches us. I believe it.

Osteen is weak at best on heaven and hell, but I don't expect much from a man who refuses to put a cross in the sanctuary of his 16,000 seat church. But I think much more is going on here. Read that last bit carefully. He says that he believes there is a heaven, and afterward there is a place called hell. And then he goes on to say something about Jesus and the Bible, but he isn't clear on what they have to do with heaven or hell.

I can see why some are tempted to call this man an agent of Satan. At the final judgment, the condemned are going to stand before the throne of God to be judged. They had better get their heaven here on earth, as Osteen seems to suggest, because there will be hell afterward. They'd better get their best life now, because they might be surprised to learn that they weren't saved after all.

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:11-15 KJV)

Too bad there isn't a man in the pulpit at Lakewood Church in Houston who cares enough to make sure they know the basics of salvation (sin and the cross). But Osteen won't preach on these things. He has willfully decided not to tell people about what they need to do to get into the Lamb's Book of Life. He'd have to preach about the cross to do that. No, he'll just toss the Book of Life into a sermon occasionally to have something encouraging to say.

By the way, Mr. Osteen, I know a little something about Billy Graham. You could learn a lot about preaching from him. He was never weak on heaven and hell. You are a poor substitute for Billy Graham. You ought to take lessons from him.

Feels bad about the Bible

KING: But it (Your Best Life Now) doesn't quote a lot of biblical passages until the back of the book, right?
OSTEEN: It doesn't do a whole lot of it. My message, I wanted to reach the mainstream. We've reached the church audience. So I just try to, what I do is just try to teach practical principles. I may not bring the scripture in until the end of my sermon and I might feel bad about that. Here's the thought. I talked yesterday about living to give. That's what a life should be about. I brought in at the end about some of the scriptures that talk about that. But same principal in the book.

Gosh, I guess that is the hazard when you try to teach popular psychology from a pulpit. People playing church expect you to say something gratuitous from the Bible once in a great while. I'm sorry you feel bad about it, Mr. Osteen. Perhaps you could get away with leaving the Bible out altogether if you quit calling yourself a pastor?

He wants a relationship with Jesus, but doesn't think it is necessary

KING: Because we've had ministers on who said, your record don't count. You either believe in Christ or you don't. If you believe in Christ, you are, you are going to heaven. And if you don't no matter what you've done in your life, you ain't.
OSTEEN: Yeah, I don't know. There's probably a balance between. I believe you have to know Christ. But I think that if you know Christ, if you're a believer in God, you're going to have some good works. I think it's a cop-out to say I'm a Christian but I don't ever do anything ...
KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?
OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...
KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?
OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

It must be great to have some kind of vague conviction about needing a Savior, Mr. Osteen. Too bad that you've decided not to share God's doctrine of salvation with those poor saps in India, or Houston, or the millions who watch you on TV. You must really have a ton of faith to trust that all those people have heard the Gospel somewhere else before you get your clutches on them. I guess as long as they believe in whatever, who are you to tell them different?

Why to hear you, Mr. Osteen, I can almost hear (bar) Jesus. "Rise and walk, thy sincerity hath made thee whole. Go and doubt no more"

Love has everything to do with it, Mr. Osteen

The right way to teach people about the love of God, Mr. Osteen, is to tell them that Christ died on the cross so that they might have eternal life by believing on Him. The cross is an essential part of the love of God, which you purposely leave out.

From the foundation of the world

2007-10-28T21:23:00.001-05:00

"I want you to get a bigger vision. There are exciting things in your future. Your future is filled with marked moments of blessing, increase, promotion. God has already ordained before the foundation of the world, the right people, the right opportunity. Time and chance are coming together for you. Why don’t you get your hopes up?" Osteen tells his audience. "Why don't you start believing that no matter what you have or haven't done, that your best days are still out in front of you." -- Joel Osteen from video clip featured in an October 2007 interview on the CBS program, 60 Minutes

Joel Osteen tells his listeners that God has ordained earthly prosperity for them. He says that God has set up people and opportunities from the foundation of the world for them to get an increase or a promotion. Does the Bible say that? Lets see...

The phrase "foundation of the world" is found in ten places, all in the New Testament. It is used to speak of secrets that Christ taught in parables; a kingdom to be occupied by believers after the judgment of the sheep and the goats; blood for which Israel is judged, love between the father and the son, ...etc. The references are listed below. And none of them refer to opportunities appointed to specific believers to reap prosperity.

things which have been kept secret (Mat 13:35)
the kingdom prepared for believers (Mat 25:34)
the blood of all the prophets, which was shed (Luk 11:50)
the love of the Father for the Son (Joh 17:24)
believers chosen (Joh 17:24)
the works (of God) were finished (Heb 4:3)
blood of an inferior sacrifice shed many times (Heb 9:26)
Christ, the lamb (1Pe 1:20)
Christ, the lamb slain (Rev 13:8)
names were not written in the book of life (Rev 17:8)

Osteen admits that he isn't qualified to teach the Bible and he doesn't feel called to do that. He wants to be a life-coach to the Church. He apparently doesn't mind making up doctrine to motivate Christians to do what he thinks they ought to do. He spent $100 million remodeling a basketball arena for preaching, but he forgot to include a cross in the sanctuary. He doesn't think he needs one, answering "I don't know" when asked why a cross isn't there.

People claim that he preaches the Gospel, but how can he do that when he leaves the cross out of it?

Conversations with God

2007-10-23T19:34:00.000-05:00

I've been spending gobs of time extracting the "words of God" from the Holy Bible. It's not as easy as it sounds but I find it very rewarding. I am using FreeMind to build an outline. I've gone entirely through Genesis and Exodus so far. I'm working on Leviticus, Numbers, Matthew, and Revelation.

I guess I started to do this after completing my evaluation of the Kersey Graves book. That was kind of hard to do, because it required digging into pagan religion, which I find repulsive and ridiculous. There was a time when I found the Holy Bible repulsive and ridiculous and would have enjoyed the pagan theology. I thank God that he didn't let me have my way to chase after false religion. Anyhow, I guess I needed to get back into heavenly things on a deep level after wrapping my mind around the unclean things.

Two things really stand out so far. God has much more to say to His people than He does to those who reject Him. And He chases after redeemed people who stray. Those two things don't stand out in Genesis as much as they do in Exodus, but there was a lot of grace in Genesis.

Paul tells us in Romans that there was grace before the law was given, and that is what we find in Genesis. God tells Jacob in Shechem, to go to Bethel, where God met him years earlier (Genesis 35). But law becomes foremost after the children of Israel prematurely promised to keep it (Exodus 19). We don't find Joseph conversing with God at all (Genesis 37, 39-48), but he has the most godly things to say to his repentant brothers.

The conversations we find are not between God and the most godly saints, they're between God and sinful men. We see God speaking to Cain, but not to Abel. He converses with Balaam (Numbers 23-25), but not with Joseph. Those are extreme examples, but they illustrate the basic truth. This modern world, having the access to the Bible in abundance while rejecting it, is in danger of the greater condemnation. Jesus himself said that Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, having witnessed His mighty works would suffer the greater judgment (Matthew 11).

J. Vernon McGee made the observation that Peter and John probably weren't close to Jesus because they were the best apostles. McGee said they probably needed the most discipling, like babies that need to be carried everywhere. I was reminded of that after doing this conversation study in Exodus. God speaks to Moses from the mount, but moves to the tent of meeting, just outside the camp , after the transgression of the golden calf (Exodus 33).

I wish the Church would teach the Old Testament the way it deserves to be presented. I can't remember the last time the pastor of my church spent much time outside of the New Testament. The Church seems to be missing a lot of what God has to say to it.

Stupidity in the Information Age

2007-09-18T20:23:00.001-05:00

I marvel at the gross stupidity of my people in an age where so many of us have information available at our finger tips. When I say 'my people', I mean that in the biblical sense. As a son of God in Christ, all people are my people until the day when the LORD of the Harvest will separate the wheat and tares.

I've blogged elsewhere about Kersey Graves' book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors". I've been reading the book, but I've not gotten very far through it, because I've got several fires burning at once. I also constructed a mind-map for an outline to use as an exploration tool as I keep notes. I can read Graves' book on the Internet and check his information as I go along. This is great!

So I start my research in earnest by trying to dig up information on 'Hindoo Sakia", one of the savior that Graves cites in the book as being a forerunner of Christ. I put 'Hindoo Sakia" into a Wikipedia and I draw a blank. I turn to Google for a search on the same name, and I get several web hits that cite Graves' list of phony saviors verbatim. But I don't find any solid information on 'Hindoo Sakia'.

The astonishing thing about this is that I find basically two groups of people quoting Graves' list, atheists and pagans. It's no secret that atheists and pagans regard Christians as stupid. It is amazing to me that people who claim that logic and knowledge trump faith and 'superstition' are so quick to lean on something that they're too lazy to hold up to light. But that is what they do, friends.

I would think, after all, that those who claim to have a superior intellect would have made my job easier! They only make it harder, because I can waste hours going down blind alleys looking for solid information. Regurgitated lists don't help at all!

Now having said all of that, I'd much rather be researching my way through Higgins' book, "Anacalypsis". Debunking Graves' book is already like shooting fish in a barrel, though I still have much to do in that endeavor.

Please take a look at my results so far.

Mind-mapping

2007-09-17T19:22:00.000-05:00

I've recently become aware of free mind-mapping software. I've wanted to find something like this for laying out complex relationships. I have been working on mind-maps for my research on heresy and other topics in apologetics. I am still exploring the present capability of this software.

If you could use some good free bible software, then you should take a look at e-Sword.

The Work of God - part 2

2007-09-09T13:53:00.001-05:00

I've struggled with discouragement as I contemplate Christian work. It was through that struggle that I came to gain a better perspective on how the work of the Church relates to God's Work. I am beginning to learn what my ongoing place in the work might to be.

Not many weeks ago, I finished a 7-year Bible study program. I served the last three of those seven years in their children's ministry. The study is rather demanding and serving in the children's program made it harder. It's not US Marine Corps boot camp by any means, but I wouldn't be surprised if they borrowed a few things from the Marines in setting things up. The organization that runs the ministry is has weekly classes across the US and in several foreign countries. Their's is a very rigid program which some have compared to a seminary level Bible study. I am reluctant to mention the name of the organization here, because I don't want to hinder the work. Despite whatever criticism I have against their rules and methods, I am convinced that God is working through that ministry to bring people closer to Him. He did that for me, and I pray He'll do it for others as well.

Well, I finished that study feeling broken and worn out. I was stricken with debilitating lower back pain for a few weeks after we finished our last class for the 2006-2007 program. I had been ignoring back pain for weeks, getting by with over-the-counter pain remedies. But the intensity of the pain rendered those remedies useless. Within a couple of days after that last Bible study class, I was struggling to walk. I found relief in sitting and lying down, but getting in and out of a chair or bed was a major challenge.

I was also engaged in a mental struggle over the circumstances that had brought me to that condition. My opinion at the time was that the the rigidity and rules of the organization were more that one ought to bear or tolerate. I worked with a partner in teaching a class of 8-9 year-old children. In accordance with the rules of the organization, we each had specific responsibilities which rotated each week. We had to attend a worker's meeting at 5:30 AM on the Saturday before each weekly evening class. If either of us missed the Saturday meeting then that person could not teach the following class. That also meant that the burden fell on the other man to teach the whole class. The one who missed the Saturday meeting could be there, but trust me when I say that it would probably be better for everyone if he were not there at all during the class. So it was do or die just to be there for the meetings. I could go on about more specifics, friends, but I think that should suffice in the way of details. It seemed like legalism was a big part of the work in that organization.

To be continued in part 3.

Where is Jesus?

2007-09-09T09:50:00.001-05:00

First things first. I've turned off comments on this blog. People are going to hate that. We've lionized 'debate' in our American culture. People piously talk about debate as if all views ought to be heard. Debate is fine, but God's way of debate is dictatorial. That's right, God is a dictator! When your read about the prayer of the Church in Jerusalem in Acts 4:24, we find them saying "Lord, thou art God". The word Lord given to us in the Greek manuscript is 'despotes'. He's a despot! God is holy and sovereign. A man who is a dictator can't be trusted, but a holy God who delights in saving men by grace can be trusted. Put your trust in Him, and you'll find out that He can be trusted. God says to a disobedient and proud nation, "Come now, let us reason" (Isaiah 1:18). God speaks to them and tells of blessing for those will to be taught by Him. He speaks of judgement for those who refuse to be still and listen. He mentions forgiveness of sins. Though He says that judgment is something He doesn't enjoy, a strange work, but we're told that He will perform it.

Books could be written on God as a dictator, but I'd better move on. Those who will look for the word 'despotes' relating God, using a concordance with dictionary, in the Holy Bible will be blessed.

I will agree that truth ought to always hold up under scrutiny, but we have an Adversary who loves debate. It's very difficult to debate theology without being tempted to go too far. Serious debate will always bring temptation with it. I find, in the heat of an argument, that I'm sorely tempted to take things too far and respond in some fleshly way. God is not going to use the Flesh, friends. He'll use clay, but He won't use flesh.

Don't get me started on comment spam. It's evil. So comments are out.

Some folks are going to wonder where Jesus is in all of the discussion here. The reader can hopefully see that I'm writing on topics that involve a Christian world view. But some will think that a web log with the name 'Jesus Only' shouldn't deal with everything under the sun. Well, there isn't anything under the sun that God is not prepared to deal with. All things work for the good of us who love God, and are the called according to His purpose.

I intend to mark out subjects that the Church should deal with while we're in this world. We ought to be able to defend the truth. We've allowed ourselves to become weak when it comes to engaging the enemies of our faith. God didn't tell the children of Israel to stay on the other side of the Jordan and organize car washes, dinners, and rallies. He told them to go in to the promised land and engage the enemy.

And let's be clear about who the enemy is; the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. It's not people. Our enemies are the rulers of darkness in this world and spiritual wickedness in high places.

If the Church is going to take a stand in this world, then we need to prepare. We must deal with sin in our lives, because it is poisonous. We need to take a good look at what we're doing. If something we've been doing hasn't born fruit in due season, then we need to examine it. That may mean refocusing our efforts. Jesus said that those who hear the Word and will let it take root, they are going to bear much fruit for His Kingdom.

For those of you who don't know where Jesus is, He is at the right hand of His Father in Heaven interceding for His Church.

My people perish for lack of knowledge. (A Letter to an American Family)

2007-09-05T12:55:00.000-05:00

Dear Family,

I just came back from visiting you in another State. I was encouraged by the opportunities I was given to witness and minister, but I am discouraged by the sad condition of my people.

I saw you living in conflict, each one fighting to be the one in charge. The youngest son, 9 years-old, has learned how to set traps for his parents. He's learned how to divide his mother and father against one another. Momma and Poppa don't need any help with that. They're divided already. The wife has put the children first in her household. Father is assumed to be under suspicion, but the children are assumed to be blameless. The older son, 15 years-old, wasn't raised any better. He is liable to sit by and watch Dad be condemned by Mom and little brother for committing made-up crimes. Big brother might have first hand knowledge of Dad's innocence in the matter at hand, but it might be to his strategic advantage to keep silent. Though I have not seen big brother do that, I know that he used to practice the same manipulation as little brother. I was once a victim of big brother's schemes. I saw a train wreck of a family, and it breaks my heart.

I'm pretty sure that each one of you; Mom, Dad, and the two boys consider yourselves to be Christian. But you treat each other much too often like you don't know Christ at all. You act like you are ashamed of the Gospel. You've clearly bought into the notion that the Bible is a book of old stories that has no relevance to your lives. Yet you feed on practically all of the pig slop that this American culture serves up. Your hearts and minds are far from God, as demonstrated by your interactions with each other. If only you knew what Christ said the about the human heart and hypocrisy!

If only Mom and Dad knew what God says about marriage, family life, and how to raise up children. But you don't want to hear about it, because you think you're good people. Never mind the fact that you treat each other with contempt. Each one is convinced in his or her own mind that the other one is the problem. You are smart, but it would be better for you if you were humble.

If you truly knew Jesus Christ, then you would be concerned about sin, righteousness, and judgment. You should be alarmed that the fruit of the Spirit is absent in your dealings with one another. You'd practice forgiveness and restoration instead of vengeance and division. Christians would bless and encourage one another, not curse and lash out at spouse or child. Only God knows if you truly believe. Your actions indicate that you have little love for one another, which is a sign of unbelief.

I love you dearly, but who else is going to speak the truth to you? I don't know. I'd rather be an outcast and lose the relationship I have with you, than to say nothing and see you continue on this way.

Dad, Mom, and boys...you ought to be concerned about your relationship with God. Christians are supposed to act like God's people. He doesn't save you, because you're good. He offers you salvation in Christ, because you're a dirty rotten sinner and you're condemned. He saves you, because you can't save yourself. He says that a believer is going to demonstrate their faith in action. He says that the world will know that you belong to Him, because you'll have love for one another. If you believe, then you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you to accomplish these things in your lives. Where is the Spirit in your lives? What will He say about your heart when you stand before Him?

You know that God sees into your heart, don't you? You should know that, because the Bible tells us so. (See the later part of John chapter 2 for one of many places where that is given). Have you thought about what Christ would say about contents of your heart? He says that what you say and do comes from your heart. He says that you lie when you say you are His, but then you turn around and act like a child of the Satan.

What is the sum total of your Christian life? The answer to that is an indication of whether you are a believer or a make-believer. Do you know what else He says about one who says they believe and yet acts like a devil? He says that you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven for others by making a mockery of the Gospel. You may not care about your eternal soul, but what about the others?

I write these things knowing that others will gladly contradict them. You'll have no trouble finding someone who will tell you that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. You can find pastors and priests who will tell you what you'd rather hear. After all, how do you think we've come to this sad condition as a people?

Have you noticed any positive change in me since I became a Christian ten years ago? Have I been a blessing to you? If there is anything good in me, then it is by the grace of God and His work in me through the Holy Spirit. God will do the same for you if you turn to Him. The kindness of God is meant to turn you to repentance. Why don't you ask Him to teach you to bless each other? Ask in honest faith and it shall be given unto you.

I run the risk of becoming a laughingstock and a stranger to you because I'm concerned for you. I'd rather be outcast than see you continue to reap judgment. God will restore honor to your house through you, if you will only submit to Him.

Love,
REB

PS: I haven't actually sent this letter to you, my family. You won't understand, because you're in darkness. I just hope and pray God will continue to give me opportunities to speak the words of life to you so that you might hear and believe.

God must have a sense of humor.

2007-08-14T21:45:00.001-05:00

I have been considering something I read in Chapter 2 of Dowling's heretic gospel. Dowling claimed to have received his false gospel from the Akashic Records. That non-existent "book" is supposed to be in Sanskrit. But when Dowling mimics the Gospel of Luke, he stupidly calls Jesus by the Greek name "Jesus".

I would think that someone translating from Sanskrit to English would not lean on Greek for words to express the original language. Obviously, I don't know Sanskrit, and I don't know any Greek apart from my Bible and Concordance. But I know enough to ask these questions. Isn't there a word in Sanskrit for savior? Why not use that in stead of a Greek word?

Perhaps it is to fool stupid people who don't want to receive the the true Gospel anyway?

Well, the reason I think it's strangely funny is that the fake "book of life", the Akashic Record, is supposed to be in Sanskrit. This book that Dowling's fake gospel claims to have come from does not exist! There are no manuscripts of it. It is supposed to be a book that you read out of thin air through ESP. That alone is quite funny, but the kicker is that it is supposed to be in Sanskrit!

Sanskrit means 'self-made', or 'made up' if you please. How's that for a punch line?

A person would have to be pretty stupid to take that made-up hogwash over the Holy Bible. Even many of the Gospel-mocking liberals recognize that we have ancient manuscripts of the Bible.

Somebody is going to ask, Do you really think that God would laugh at someone being fooled? Why not? He says that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Jesus said that we can't do anything without Him (John 15:5). Everybody gets to choose, and if they insist on choosing foolishly, He won't stop them. Friend, you prove God right when you reject Jesus Christ and then want to complain that he allowed you to do it. By doing that you prove yourself to by your own problem. He says you're a problem for yourself. Why don't you listen to Him?

'Self-made'. Get it?

The only trouble is that in proving God right you prove yourself to be wrong. I'll agree, that isn't so good. That's a bitter pill to swallow!

PS: There is a concept of salvation, in the general sense, in Hinduism. Sanskrit words exist to describe it. It's nothing like the concept of salvation in Christianity or Judaism, but it's there nevertheless. So there is good reason to believe that Dowling could have provided a name for Jesus (Savior) from Sanskrit. It's funny how the simplest things tend to betray a lie for what it is. That is certainly the case for Dowling's phony Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Greatest Impact of Heresy? (Whence hath it tares?)

2007-08-14T18:10:00.000-05:00

I'm caught up in an ever-expanding search to identify heretics and heresy in recent times. I am beginning to see that heresy and hypocrisy in the Church have a two-pronged effect. It causes distress and doubt within the Body of Christ. And it obscures the person of Christ by "scrambling" the message.

These heretics, like Levi Dowling, blend a lot of leaven with a little bit of God's Word. Some of this trash will be quite palatable to the average church member. It will seem like scripture to the average so-called Christian who rarely steps foot in a Gospel-preaching church. It will become the "bible" for those looking easy feel-good religion. Others will just decide all religion is foolishness, because paganism seems to permeate it all.

I was just reading a bit about Rosicrucianism and a connection was implied between that heresy and Lutherinism. And for a moment I wonder if Christianity hasn't been utterly corrupted? -- I don't believe it has, because we have a wonderful Shepherd. He told us about the tares growing with the wheat (Matthew 13), so we'd know that He knows about them, and we don't have to lose faith over this kind of nonsense. -- But I can see that heresy is meant to cause confusion within and without.

Well Christian brother or sister, it's up to you to be sure of those things which you have received in Christ. The Holy Spirit is given to you for that purpose. He'll take the things of Christ and show them unto you. He's the author of the Word, and you have Him to help you understand it. He'll also convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Read the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Accept no substitutes!

Yikes! Many birds in the mustard tree.

2007-08-13T19:29:00.000-05:00

I was writing articles for this web log when I began to uncover a string of heresies and heretics. I decided to start another blog to organize thumbnail sketches of what I was finding, a catalog of heresy if you will. My quest began with Levi H. Dowling and his "Aquarian Gospel". I found Dowling's heresy through Jim E. Bakers "The Source" cult. I stumbled onto "The Source" cult when browsing through videos to rent at Amazon.

One of my latest encounters along this line involves L. Frank Baum. He wrote the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz about 3 years after he joined the super-cult of Theosophy. How many children of my generation (an increasingly godless group) grew up watching The Wizard of Oz year after year on television. I also think back to my own rejection of the Catholic faith of my early childhood, and my investigations in to the occult and mystery religions. I've begun to wonder what real and specific connections between the growth of apostasy in the last century and the rise of influential heretics are going to turn up?

I just discovered that Alfred Kinsey had ties to Theosophy. I already knew, through the work of Judith Reisman, that he was a hideous sexual pervert. I had also stumbled on to Alice Bailey, and her ties to the United Nations, three years ago. It's interesting to start seeing connections between them and their fowl works.

It's also rather overwhelming to consider.

The False Aquarian Gospel

2007-08-11T22:51:00.001-05:00

It has been said that Satan has entered the church through the side door. Jesus taught the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven in parables, and He painted pictures of the church being influenced by the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. If you don't agree, friends, then just read Matthew 13 very carefully. The LORD gave the keys of correct interpretation to his disciples. Use those keys to gain understanding, friends!

Jesus taught that apostasy would enter the church. Matthew 13 is all about the work of the Church, the efforts of Satan to hinder the work, and of coming judgment. The tree that grows from a mustard seed (Mat 13:31-32) is a picture of the organized church. Mustard is an herb. It doesn't grow on trees. The tree Jesus is speaking of is a new creation, supernatural if you please. The birds of the air are a picture of Satan's disciples (Mat 13:19) . What are they doing in Matthew 13:32? They are lodging in the tree. Satan's disciples are in the organized church, and they've been there from very early in the history of the church. Eusebius and others wrote about them. They were busy in the early church teaching heresy.

They've been busy in recent times too. The Aquarian Gospel Of Jesus The Christ is an excellent example of syncretism and idolatry. It was written by a very religious fellow by the name of Levi H. Dowling. Dowling (1844-1911) was a publisher of Sunday school materials. He was a Chaplin in the US Army. Dowling preached and pastored a small church. He was involved in the prohibition movement. Many of his time would consider Dowling to have been an outstanding Christian. But his driving goal was to "build a white city", a task which he claimed to have received in a series of visions. Dowling interpreted the "white city" to be the false gospel he was to write.

Levi H. Dowling was a fraud as a Christian worker. He claimed to have received the vision of the "white city" early in life. He rejected the notion of Hell as a child. Despite whatever he taught or professed as an active church member and worker, Dowling culminated his life by publishing a work that denies all of the essential doctrines of the Holy Bible and of the Church. His book preaches a created Christ, not divine, who did not die for the sins of anyone. The Christ that Dowling's gospel proclaims is merely an avatar. Men who trust in such things worship several of the kind. Dowling's bible was a pagan "book of life" intended to supplant the Lamb's Book of Life (Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27). The Aquarian Gospel comes from that false book, according to Dowling.

As one who trust's in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, I say it comes from the pit of Hell!

But someone is going to say; That was a long time ago, what about now? Let me ask you a question; What are liberals preaching today? The Jesus Seminar boys preach a Christ that was merely human. Their Jesus did not have the power to work miracles, die for the sins of the world, or rise from the tomb. Their Christ is not virgin-born, nor is he God. They say that the Gospels are full of false information. Liberals say that the Holy Bible is rife with error. They say that we can't rely on the Bible. Folks, biblical errancy is a cornerstone of the movement to legitimize open homosexuality in churches!

The only difference I see between liberalism in the church and Levi Dowling is that the fruit of his work has already gone to seed. The fruit of Gospel-mocking liberalism is still hanging on the tree.

Kugel, a tasty desert or a nauseating stew?

2007-08-05T22:38:00.001-05:00

You can read about Kugel as a desert or you can read a little about James Kugel's new book. I prefer the desert.

I don't mean to pick on this guy, but I thought I'd try to find out what he's selling in more detail. Going by his "Appendix 1: Apologetics and Biblical Criticism Lite”, he doesn't offer much in the way of scholarship. I grabbed a portion from that appendix wherein he discusses Isaiah's Servant Song prophecies. This is 'scholarship lite' folks. I'll defend that comment below. In the meantime please read what Kugel says...

From a relatively early time, some researchers suggested that the Deutero-Isaiah’s references to the suffering “servant of the Lord” cannot reasonably be taken as prophecies about Jesus (even though they are explained as such in the Gospels). But this was a hard pill for many Christian commentators to swallow. So, while not arguing the Jesus connection directly, many sought to assert that these passage were somehow special, different from the rest of the book of Isaiah. Christened the “Servant Songs” (though truly, there was nothing songlike about them!), they were alleged to have been composed quite separately from their surrounding texts:[14]
The[se] songs represent a special strand within the book of Deutero-Isaiah, and therefore they did not come into being at the same time as their contexts. Nevertheless, they owe their origin to Deutero-Isaiah.[15]
They are marked out not only by a special theme, independent from that of the rest of the work, but also but the fact that they have evidently been interpolated in their present context, from which they can be removed without any resultant damage or interruption.[16]
The text itself offers no real support for such assertions, and most scholars have now come to reject them.[17] Understandably, however, it is still hard for some to let go completely. Thus, even while denying any specific connection to Jesus, commentators have continued to see the “servant of the Lord” as a messianic figure[18] – though again, the text offers no support for this – or at least to evoke the suffering of Jesus and his crucifixion in the process of commenting on Isa. 52:13-53:12.[19] As the very last of apologetic options, the identity of the “servant of the Lord” is alleged to be one of Scripture’s great mysteries:

The reason I say this is 'scholarship lite' is that I expect a lot more from a Harvard Hebrew professor. Kugel leads the reader to think that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah's suffering servant prophecy (52 & 53) is a Christian invention. I'd expect a Hebrew scholar to acknowledge the rabbinic writings on this matter and deal with them. The Babylonian Talmud tells us that rabbis interpreted these passages as being about the Messiah. There is no excuse for a biblically literate Jew to say it is a mystery, particularly one who promotes himself as a Hebrew scholar. I find the man to be a liar on this point.

Permit me to share two snippets from rabbinic sources below. Bear in mind that these are translations from Hebrew sources, and they are widely available.

The first:

Rab said: The world was created only on David's account (for Psalms). Samuel said: On Moses account (for Torah); R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? -- The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come (Gen_49:10). The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever (Psa_72:17): e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon. The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah (Jer_16:13). Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far (Lam_1:16). The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isa_53:4). -- [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b (Rodkinson; Sanhedrin, ch 11, p 311)]
Epstein , Rabbi Dr. I. (Ed.) - Babylonian Talmud, (The Soncino Press, London, 1934)
Rodkinson, Rabbi Michael L. - New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, (Boston New Talmud Publishing Co., Boston, 1903)

The second:

The fourteenth verse in the second chapter of Ruth is thus explained. 'Come thou hither' is the prediction of Messiah's kingdom. 'Dip the morsel in the vinegar,' (Rth_2:14) foretells the agony through which Messiah will pass, as it is written in Isaiah (cap. 51), 'He was wounded for our sins, He was bruised for our transgressions.' 'And she set herself beside the reapers' predicts the temporary departure of Messiah's kingdom. 'And he reached her a parched corn' means the restoration of His kingdom.--Midrash Ruth 5.
Rapaport, Samuel - Tales And Maxims From The Midrash, (George Routledge & Sons Limited, London, 1907), p. 44

Friends, why doesn't Kugel deal with all of the Hebrew sources?

Funny note on the second quote, Samuel Rapaport complained about Christians finding support in the rabbinic writings. He wrote about this in his introduction to Tales And Maxims From The Midrash. He didn't give any compelling reason other than to imply that it made it hard for him to respect Christians. I'll leave it to the interested reader to look that up.

One Kugel makes me hungry. The other makes me sick, because his work stinks.

This just in....We've been reading the Bible wrong!

2007-08-04T20:55:00.001-05:00

(Harvard Genius Decodes the Bible)...according to his publisher.

In How to Read the Bible, Harvard professor James Kugel leads the reader chapter by chapter through the "quiet revolution" of recent biblical scholarship, showing time and again how radically the interpretations of today's researchers differ from what people have always thought. The story of Adam and Eve, it turns out, was not originally about the "Fall of Man," but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. As for the stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Esau, these narratives were not, at their origin, about individual people at all but, rather, explanations of some feature of Israelite society as it existed centuries after these figures were said to have lived. Dinah was never raped -- her story was created by an editor to solve a certain problem in Genesis. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors: David did not write the Psalms, Solomon did not write Proverbs or Ecclesiastes; indeed, there is scarcely a book in the Bible that is not the product of different, anonymous authors and editors working in different periods.

Such findings pose a serious problem for adherents of traditional, Bible-based faiths. Hiding from the discoveries of modern scholars seems dishonest, but accepting them means undermining much of the Bible's reliability and authority as the word of God. What to do? In his search for a solution, Kugel leads the reader back to a group of ancient biblical interpreters who flourished at the end of the biblical period. Far from naïve, these interpreters consciously set out to depart from the original meaning of the Bible's various stories, laws, and prophecies -- and they, Kugel argues, hold the key to solving the dilemma of reading the Bible today.

How to Read the Bible is, quite simply, the best, most original book about the Bible in decades. It offers an unflinching, insider's look at the work of today's scholars, together with a sustained consideration of what the Bible was for most of its history -- before the rise of modern scholarship. Readable, clear, often funny but deeply serious in its purpose, this is a book for Christians and Jews, believers and secularists alike. It offers nothing less than a whole new way of thinking about sacred Scripture.

Apparently the poor soul who wrote this blurb has never heard of the Graf-Wellhausen theory or the Jesus Seminar. The book will appeal to liberals and posers who think it is better to just throw in the proverbial towel on inerrancy. It's "dishonest" not to cave into this so-called scholarship?

The guy who wrote this must be one of Kugel's underlings, or perhaps he is the shoeshine boy who grovels at Kugel's feet. Why he talks like they recently dug up a witness from Shechem to interview about the whole Genesis 34 incident. Dinah never raped? Really? Being scholars they must have video tape or something solid, don't you think so? Well, I'd better chuck my theology! This changes everything!

It changes nothing. This is older than Moses. This goes back to Eden. Hunter-gatherers indeed!

The Work of God

2007-08-03T22:11:00.001-05:00

I hope and pray that my struggles with faith will be mostly private. Undoubtedly, some reader will ask why I pray for that. Isn't faithlessness in vogue these days?

After all, apostates like Bart Ehrman, John Spong, and Marcus Borg make a name for themselves with works of faithlessness. All of those men are well known for their opinions on the reliability of the Bible. Their opinion is that the Bible is not reliable as a historical document or a revelation of God. They present a picture of Christianity where people are encouraged to believe in the Bible as a metaphor, nothing more, nothing less. They present a very lack-luster, watered-down, weak picture of Christ. They deny the deity of Jesus and promote a vision of Christianity that winks at sin and preaches universal salvation. It's a picture that is devoid of judgment and is extremely popular these days.

I understand that as many as 70% of Americans claim to be Christian, but one only has to look around at our culture to see that few believe in judgment. Blogspot is an excellent example of the works of a nation that thumbs its collective nose at judgement. Just flip through the blogs here and most of what you'll see is futility, vanity, or abominations. I spent some time doing that last night, and 90% of what I saw was garbage. I didn't keep statistics, but every tenth blog was a very elaborate boilerplate advertisement for pornography. Those blogs are a clear and blatant violation of the Blogger Content Policy, but I am still searching for the correct way to report them to Google. But even if I found the magic hyperlink for reporting this blog scum, I know from past experience that corporate America is not interested in righteousness. Nor do they fear judgment.

So what is the work of God? Jesus put it in a nutshell, which you can find in the 6th chapter of John's gospel. He said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." That is it friend. The work of God is saving people from eternal torment. God is doing that through His Son, Jesus Christ. He brings men to faith in Him through the hearing of His Word. So the work of God is to spread the Gospel.

That simple truth is a tremendous principal that I have struggled with.

To be continued in part 2.

Crazy Feminism

2007-08-02T13:02:00.000-05:00

I lean on Dr. Albert Mohler to keep me informed of cultural phenomena of interest to Christians. His web log is invaluable to me. I recommend it highly to all.

Dr. Mohler's July 23rd blog entry deals with some nutty commentary by Nona Willis-Aronowitz. She rejoices over the her observation that casual sex is "certifiably pop culture". Willis-Aronowitz suggest that one of the goals of feminism is to empower women by enabling them to feel good about themselves via taking the guilt out of "nonmarital sex". It's almost laughable, if not for the fact that it is tragically sad, how feminism has sown the rotten seeds of fatherlessness and marital dysfunction that seem to plague our nation today. Is feminism entirely to blame for the harvest of bastardization and sexual immorality in America? Perhaps not entirely, but it certainly led the way.

On May 31st, Mohler wrote about a UK study done on teenage boys from fatherless households. It turns out that boys without fathers generally grow to be men who have a low regard for women. They become users and fixers in there relationships with women, and develop a penchant for petty crime. It seems that single mothers stand a greater chance of raising males to be abusers and deadbeat dads, than they do in raising men who will love women and care for children. According to another article by Mohler, medical researchers are helping to further this Orwellian madness by developing sperm from bone marrow. What, we don't have enough already?

Another notable blog post from Dr. Mohler deals with insane logic used by loony liberals at the United Nations. The killing of baby girls is apparently a serious problem in some parts of the world. Some leaders are concerned that perhaps as many as 100-million baby girls have been killed through practices like sex-selective abortion. The United States introduced a resolution calling for condemnation of the practice of female infanticide, but liberals in the European Union blocked the measure. Our EU friends say that it would be wrong of us to tell women not to kill their baby girls, because we'd be intruding on the reproductive rights of those women. How ridiculous its that? It goes against the feminist ideology to protect the lives of girls if it means taking a stand against abortion!

The movement that is supposed to advance the cause of women is the worst thing for them. Feminists want to turn women into soulless sluts who raise up men that abuse women. They think it is better to decimate the female population of the world than preserve the lives of girls. It's not a liberation movement after all. Feminism is an experiment in eugenics, Nazi style.

Ye blind guides!