26 Comments

1. 

   Oggie on October 27, 2009 at 10:44 am

   “Paul Disputed…” Acts 17:17, etc.

   from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6797

   by Hunt, Dave
   May 28, 2008

   Newsletter Graphic

   One need not read far in the Bible to realize that it is definitely not an ecumenical book. In “the Great Commission,” Christ commanded His disciples to make disciples of “all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” (Mat 28:19-20). This is a sacred trust from Christ himself that places a grave responsibility upon everyone who claims to be a Christian.

   If language has any meaning, then every true disciple today must be a disciple of a disciple of a disciple…all the way back to the original disciples, and obligated to obey the same commands Christ gave to them. No one was ever authorized by Christ to change this commission–and certainly not to change the gospel–yet this has been and is being done. What must our Lord think of church leaders despising His Word?

   Truth is independent of time, space, and matter, and never changes. It has no location in the physical universe; it exists in the nonphysical realm of the soul and spirit. The indisputable fact that the brain is not the mind, with which we understand truth, provides one of the simplest proofs that we are nonphysical and eternal beings living temporarily in physical bodies. This solemn fact raises a question that most do not like to face. Preferring to give their attention to pleasures and plans related to this temporal world of the five senses, that which is of paramount importance is put off to “a convenient season” (Acts 24:25), which never comes. Every person must answer the great question: Where will my soul and spirit (the real “I” that is my unique self) be when this temporary dwelling in which I have lived these few years lies “moulding in the grave?”

   To deny the existence of soul and spirit, materialists (which all atheists are) attempt to identify mind and all thought and ideas with the physical brain. Declaring that “materialism is dead,” physicist Sir Arthur Eddington proves that fact quite simply:

   In science…law…means a rule which is never broken….Thus in the physical world what a body does and what a body ought to do are equivalent; but we are well aware of another domain where they are anything but equivalent. We cannot get away from this distinction….The laws of logic do not prescribe the way our minds think; they prescribe the way our minds ought to think….However closely we may associate thought with the physical brain, the connection is dropped as irrelevant as soon as we consider the fundamental property of thought–that it may be correct or incorrect.

   Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Truth does not change, thus “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8). Yet many church leaders in our day (like multitudes of others throughout history) have taken it upon themselves to change almost everything. Some have done so by rewriting the Bible, as did Eugene Peterson in The Message; others, such as Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller, by “positivizing the gospel,” and others by “modernizing” Christianity. The Emergent Church movement has done so under the guise of restoring “original Christianity.” They have only restored earlier traditions of men, which, in the days of the apostles, were already far from the truth. Only the New Testament–not “early church history”–gives the record of true biblical Christianity.

   There is no justification to say, “Times have changed” so we now need “new truth” to meet the challenges of today’s post-modern world. It is a delusion to imagine that going back to the thought and practice of the “early historic church” will make us more spiritual or restore first-century Christianity. Searching through “ancient church history” is not going back far enough. We need to go all the way back to the Bible.

   Each true disciple has been given a sacred trust, having received in an unbroken line of succession through earlier disciples Christ’s original “commission” to His first followers: to obey and to teach others to obey everything Christ taught them. No research is needed–only a simple understanding of, and faith in, God’s Word-to recognize the brazen revision of the Great Commission underway. This is seen in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of many Protestant denominations, and especially in the Roman Catholic system, which the original humble fishermen-disciples would denounce were they here today.

   Incredibly, John Hagee, in a letter dated May 12, 2008, to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, “apologized for calling the Roman Catholic Church ‘the apostate church’ and ‘the great whore.'” But that’s what Luther and all the Reformers called it in keeping with God’s Word! Nor was this a recent off-the-cuff remark but a consistent declaration over many years. In a shameful “about-face,” Hagee declared, “I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.” Isn’t Christ a “rock of offence” (Rom 9:33) and His cross an “offence” to unbelievers? Must we apologize for offending with the truth? Must we withhold the truth of the gospel to avoid offending those who need it? Isn’t the Bible (not the hurt feelings of sinners) our unchangeable standard?

   Let’s be honest–Hagee’s apology that denied the truth was political fence-mending by “one of John McCain’s highest profile supporters from the religious right.” It was not for the sake of Christ but for the presidential hopes of McCain. In apologizing, Hagee called the use of these terms in Revelation “a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary.” Now he must apologize to the Lord for calling “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him” (Rev 1:1) “anti-Catholic rhetoric”! It is only fitting that on May 22 McCain distanced himself from Hagee, who then withdrew his endorsement.

   Instead of remaining true to Christ’s commands, many of today’s church leaders teach and practice “Christianity” as though the Great Commission were, “Go into all the world and try to find as much agreement with the major religions as possible, being careful not to criticize any ‘faith,’ but join with them in ecumenical union to abolish poverty, hunger, and disease.” That sounds so appealing and it seems such a worthy cause that entire denominations have been swallowed up by this satanic heresy.

   Isn’t “satanic” a bit strong? No. Satan was the first to ask, “Yea, hath God said?” His followers are identified by ignoring, defying, or changing God’s unchangeable truth. One might be put in jail for such harsh language. Not now, but that day may yet come sooner than we imagine.

   To claim to know what God has said, to follow it, and to boldly oppose the errors taught by those who diverge from God’s truth, is today’s unforgivable sin both in the world and in the church. The mood worldwide is definitely toward both political and religious unity at any cost. As this movement gathers increasing momentum, anyone who has the moral and spiritual integrity to uphold the Bible will be seen as worthy of imprisonment and eventually death for standing in the way of global unity, the one hope to which the world and church still cling in desperate partnership.

   As for true Christians, any compromising ecumenical agreement is rendered impossible by Christ’s firm declaration, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). There is no way to soften that statement. True to their Lord, the apostles declared: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). As their successors, we must proclaim the same.

   In contrast, Satan’s religious lackeys, true to their master, cry, “You can’t say that!” His many other servants in legislative bodies and courts are determined to make it an international crime to suggest that any recognized “faith” (no matter how contradictory to every other) could possibly be in any error. The Bible could soon be outlawed as condemnatory of all non-Christian religions. But this is the nature of the Bible, and for that we make neither apology nor “religiously correct” adjustments. Simon Greenleaf, one of America’s greatest legal minds, who turned from agnosticism to faith in Christ, declared nearly 180 years ago:

   The religion of Jesus Christ aims at nothing less than the utter overthrow of all other systems of religion in the world; denouncing them as inadequate to the wants of man, false in their foundations, and dangerous in their tendency….These are no ordinary claims; and it seems hardly possible for a rational being to regard them with [merely] a subdued interest; much less to treat them with mere indifference and contempt.

   We do not follow anyone except our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles. Paul declared, “Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me…even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor 4:16; 1 Cor 11:1). Our Lord continually referred to and quoted the Old Testament, the only Scriptures that existed in His day and all that was needed to proclaim the gospel then and now: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Lk 24:27).

   We should follow His example in witnessing for Him, as Paul did. He preached “the gospel of God (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:1-4). The true gospel is founded upon hundreds of prophecies that cannot be changed. Woe to those who tamper with “the gospel of God”!

   Declaring that the gospel he had preached was “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4), Paul affirmed once again that the gospel is so firmly founded in the entire Old Testament that it could not be altered without destroying the Scriptures. This is the testimony of the entire Bible. Those who dare to change God’s Word in any way have denied God himself. They are saying that God did not know the future, that His plan of salvation is no longer adequate for modern man, and that today’s theologians must patch up the mess in which Christ has left His church. In other words, the God of the Bible is not the true God. As T.A. McMahon has pointed out (02/08 ; 03/08 ), the Emerging Church leaders have declared that everything must “be reinvented” to arrive at a new theology adequate for our day.

   Paul did not seek religious or political rapprochement with anyone. He and Silas were accused of having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). The apostles made no alliances; they followed the orders Christ had given them. They knew and uncompromisingly proclaimed “the truth [as it] is in Jesus” (Eph 4:21) with boldness and great power and with much disputation.

   Disputation? Yes! That word describes much of the apostles’ life and ministry, and especially Paul’s, but is being trampled under the boots of the marching “seeker friendly” ecumenists. The fact that Paul and the early church leaders and martyrs spent so much time publicly disputing tells us much about what is lacking among Christians today, or shall we just call it Christianity Today? Consider these religiously incorrect, uncompromising, “negative” declarations-founded upon prophecy:

   STEPHEN: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost….[w]ho have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:51)

   PETER: “Thy money perish with thee….Thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness….” (Acts 8:18-24)

   PAUL: But Saul…confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. (Acts 9:22)

   PETER: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)

   PAUL: “Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus….For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day…fulfilled them in condemning him…. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree….” (Acts 13:23-29)

   PAUL, as his manner was…reasoned with them out of the scriptures…(Acts 17:2); Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him (Acts 17:17); He reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and Greeks. (18:4; Acts 18:19)

   APOLLOS mightily convinced the Jews…publickly, shewing [proving] by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 18:28)

   PAUL went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading…” (Acts 19:8); …disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus [for] two years; (Acts 19:9-10); “I…by the space of three years…ceased not to warn [about coming apostasy] every one night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31); And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled (Acts 24:25); Persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets.” (Acts 28:23)

   I recently engaged in three debates in Toronto: with a Hindu leader of a large temple, with an atheist philosophy professor, and with a Muslim imam, who debates Christians worldwide. Is this what Christians are supposed to do? Is it productive? How can we obey “live peaceably with all men” (Rom 12:18) while disagreeing with opposing beliefs? (The DVDs will be offered in July for August delivery.)

   The scriptures above show that disputing with unbelievers was Paul’s life and ministry. He said we are to follow him. How else can we faithfully fulfill our commission?

   There is no revelation more affecting than this, that God is of such a nature that the misery of fallen man has constrained Him to lay aside His heavenly glory, to become man, to bear all our sin and sorrow, and by death vanquish death and give to dying sinners eternal and divine life. Everyone who by faith receives this life is under the same necessity as He from whom he derives it, so that, on this account, every Christian is naturally a missionary. He hears in his soul as an impelling command, the words: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (E.M. Broadbent, from The Pilgrim Church )

   Each true disciple must heed the Great Commission to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Pt 3:15). The Lord will give those with willing hearts the opportunities, wisdom, humility, grace, and power to be true to His calling. TBC

   Quotable

   It is a tremendous thought that even God Himself cannot…prevent me from defying and denying Him, and would not exercise His power in such a direction if He could, and could not even if He would.

   A.T. Pierson, A Spiritual Clinique

   Now I leave off to speak any more to creatures, and turn my speech to thee, O Lord. Now I begin my intercourse with God, which shall never be broken off. Farewell, father and mother, friends, relations! Farewell, the world and all delights. Farewell, meat and drink. Farewell, sun, moon, and stars! Welcome, God and Father! Welcome, sweet Lord Jesus, Mediator of the New Covenant! Welcome blessed Spirit of grace, God of all consolation! Welcome, glory! Welcome death!

   With the noose around his neck, having already been tortured mercilessly, and having testified for Christ to the throng of onlookers, these were the last words of Hugh MacKail, 25-year-old Scottish minister, hanged for refusing allegiance to the British king as head of the church and unflinchingly remaining true to Christ alone.

   Q & A

   Question [Composite of several]: I was greatly troubled by statements in April’s article that only believers will be resurrected physically. Why then does it say “first resurrection” (Revelation 20:5)? If this is the “first resurrection,” does that not imply a “second”? You mentioned John 5:29 and said, “but it couldn’t be [that unbelievers] will be resurrected.” But the verse says the dead “shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then there’s Acts 24:14-15. “And have hope toward God…that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” The Old Testament is also consistent in noting that “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).

   What about Mat 18:8-9, which talks about cutting off the hand or the foot rather than the whole body being cast into hell? Revelation 20:13 very plainly says “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.” This does not sound like scriptural support for only the saved having a physical resurrection. You have always been so consistent in upholding the Scriptures. Don’t you think you should reevaluate your position?

   Response: Neither biblically nor logically can it be argued that the term “first resurrection” necessarily implies a “second.” In fact, the phrase “second resurrection” is not found in Scripture. In John 5:28-29, Jesus said, “All that are in the graves…shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” The implication is certainly not that these resurrections are similar. Because the resurrection of life involves the body, that does not imply that the resurrection of damnation involves bodies at all. The term “first resurrection” is found only in Revelation 20:5-6. It is described there as including only “them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark” (Rev 20:4). This can’t include “the dead in Christ” resurrected seven years earlier at the Rapture (1 Thes 4:13-18). Since that resurrection occurred prior to the one mentioned here, why is this called “the first resurrection”? It can only be to show that this is not a separate second resurrection but the culmination of the “first.”

   The “resurrection of damnation” is not even mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. Wouldn’t it seem odd, if you are right, that “the resurrection chapter,” which provides the most detailed discussion in the Bible of a bodily resurrection, says nothing about a physical bodily resurrection of the damned? Everything this chapter says could apply only to the redeemed, not to the damned. For example: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:42-44). This “spiritual body” is the resurrection body of the redeemed, exactly like Christ’s “spiritual body.” It could be seen and handled and could ingest food, yet it could walk through walls and go anywhere, including heaven, in a moment.

   Man is body, soul, and spirit–a triune being reflecting in part the triune nature of his Creator. The moment Adam sinned, he died (“In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die”-Gn 2:17). His body, soul, and spirit were instantly cut off from God, the Creator and only source of life.

   Adam and Eve immediately knew that the Spirit of God had left them. The moral and spiritual image of God in which man had been created (Gen 1:26-27) was irreparably marred, a fact that quickly manifested itself. Adam blamed both Eve and God (“The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree”-3:12). Eve blamed the serpent (“The serpent beguiled me”- v. 13). The “don’t admit guilt, excuse yourself, blame others” game continues to this day. The body also died instantly, though the process of dying that begins the moment we are born took much longer then than now.

   You misquote me as saying, “but it couldn’t be [that unbelievers] will be resurrected.” In fact, I wrote, “Nothing is said in these passages about ‘the dead’ having bodies. How could those standing before God in judgment be described as ‘dead’ if they had been raised body, soul, and spirit?”

   Another passage refers to the resurrection of the damned: “The sea gave up the dead that were in it…death and hell gave up the dead which were in them…” (Rev: 20:13). This scripture says nothing about bodies. Certainly the rich man didn’t have a body to come out of hell; there are no bodies in graves or in the sea. They’ve all been consumed. Then what came forth? The souls and spirits of the dead, which are all confined to Hades, no matter where they were buried. What about the bodies? Nowhere does it say that the bodies of the damned are raised. Ask yourself why this must be?

   Obviously Matthew 18:8-9 do not refer to physical hands and eyes and bodies. Jesus is not suggesting that hands be literally cut off nor eyes literally plucked out. Therefore, neither is He saying that physical bodies are literally thrown into hell. That was not true for the rich man, and we know that there are no bodies in hell. Consequently, Christ’s figurative language cannot provide the basis for saying that the physical bodies of the damned come out of the grave.

   As for the bodily resurrection of the redeemed, that is as essential as Christ’s bodily resurrection. Why? The wages of sin is death, the body dies, and “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:26). Christ conquered death by paying the full penalty for our sins and rising triumphantly. If the bodies of the redeemed are left rotting in the grave, death has not been conquered. Would the damned also be physically resurrected because Christ conquered death? Do unbelievers share in the power of His Resurrection?

   Of course not! They are still in death’s grip as they are brought forth to judgment: “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened…and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works” (Rev 20:12). “Dead” seems a strange designation for those who have been resurrected body, soul, and spirit. The resurrected redeemed are never called “dead”!

   Christ conquered death for the redeemed, not for the damned! This “working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead” (Eph 1:19-21) was the greatest display ever of God’s power. The redeemed share in Christ’s triumph and therefore are raised bodily.

   In contrast, the damned could not have been raised bodily, or death would not have conquered their bodies. Nor can death, the penalty for sin, ever release their bodies because they have rejected Christ, “the resurrection, and the life” (Jn 11:25).

   The only possible argument for a bodily resurrection of the damned would be so they could be eternally tortured in physical flames. So say Islam and Catholicism, but that is not biblical. The torment of the damned will mean something that physical pain could not produce: the terror and guilt of being confronted with the “exceeding sinfulness” of their sin in the presence of Christ who died for their sins. Like Adam and Eve after they rebelled, the damned will have nowhere to hide from God’s justice. The overwhelming moral and spiritual conviction of the exceeding wickedness of their hearts will burn for eternity in the conscience that God gave them and that they refused to heed but can no longer escape.

   How could physical fire “try every man’s work of what sort it is” (1 Cor 3:13)? It couldn’t! Then how could the fire of God’s holy wrath against sin be physical? Everyone knows that to spank teenagers would not bring correction but anger and resentment. Is that because teenagers can stand the pain? No, but it is because physical pain has no moral or spiritual benefit.

   The damned will be eternally tormented by the conviction of the sin of trampling upon the blood of Christ, accompanied by the hopeless realization that their doom didn’t have to be, that God and Christ did all they could to rescue them by paying the full penalty for sin and pleading with them to receive the pardon and salvation Christ purchased and freely offered–and now it is forever too late.

   Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 15, the “resurrection chapter” (or anywhere else in Scripture) is there anything about bodies of the damned being raised. The bodily resurrection of Christ is offered as proof that the redeemed will be raised bodily: “they that are Christ’s at his coming” (15:23). How could it be proof that the damned will also be raised bodily? Christ’s resurrection signals the destruction of death, “the last enemy” (15:26). The damned have no part in Christ’s triumph over death and are repeatedly spoken of as “the dead,” never as “the living”!

   What kind of triumph over death would Christ’s resurrection have procured for the damned to be raised bodily so they might be tortured endlessly in physical flames? This doctrine gives occasion for those who hate God to denounce Him.

   No one can complain against the justice of the damned being tormented eternally by the horror of what they have done, from which there can be no release. Otherwise, Hitler would have escaped the judgment by committing suicide. But what is either the purpose or justice of being tortured physically for eternity? I can’t find a single biblical explanation.

   I hope this answer has helped to explain what I believe the Bible teaches on this matter. As always, you must be as the Bereans and search these things out for yourselves and come to your own conclusions based on what the Lord shows you in His Word.

   Question: I was wondering if you might share your interpretation of 1 Peter 2:8 regarding the use of the word tithemi as applied to the faithless apeitheo. How does this reconcile with the clear statement in 2 Peter 3:9 that God does not will anyone to perish? I searched for a reference to this in your book What Love is This? (which I found very helpful) but couldn’t find it.

   Response: In 1 Peter 2:8, Christ is called a “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient [apeitheo]: whereunto also they were appointed [tithemi].” Yet 2 Peter 3:9 declares: “The Lord is…not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

   Putting these verses together, you ask how God can simultaneously will that no one perish yet appoint some to stumble at His Word? Or, to phrase it differently, how can God “not be willing that any should perish” yet appoint some to disobedience and thus to judgment?

   First of all, one must realize that God does not control all behavior and beliefs of men. Such teaching is an unbiblical Calvinist doctrine that makes God the author of evil, robs man of the power of choice and thus of the ability to love, and robs God of His love. He allows men to pursue their wicked ways on earth and only intervenes to rescue the righteous or to draw sinners with the gospel–which He continually does for all mankind, though most refuse His offer of salvation. Of course, God can overrule man’s will to effect His own purposes, but He cannot change the rebel’s heart. If He could, then the “first and great commandment…Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Mat 22:37-38) is of no purpose. Why would God command men to love Him if they have no free choice but must be programmed to obey Him?

   The fact that God doesn’t will for anyone to perish doesn’t mean that no one will perish. The prayer Christ taught His disciples to pray, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Mat: 6:10), is proof enough that much if not most of what happens on earth is not God’s will. God does not will that anyone sin; men sin freely of their own will. The fact that He has appointed rebels to judgment does not mean that He caused them to sin so that He could punish them for their disobedience.

   The very few scriptures that seem inconsistent with God’s love and man’s power of choice must be interpreted in the context of the overwhelming number of scriptures (scores of them) that clearly echo “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” (Jn 3:16). Yet Calvinism declares that God could have all of mankind in heaven if He so desired but that He sovereignly chooses to send the vast majority to the lake of fire. What Love Is This?!

   Let’s take another closer look at the clause, “being disobedient [apeitheo]: whereunto also they were appointed [tithemi].” Apeitheo clearly means willful, deliberate disobedience. Therefore “appointed [tithemi]” cannot mean that God predestined, much less caused, their disobedience. It can only mean that He allowed it.

   News Alert

   Sandusky Register, 2/16/08: Santeria gains ground in Catholic Venezuela [Excerpts]-The man says he is possessed by a god. He shouts, his body trembles and he lifts a sacrificed lamb to his lips, drinking its blood from the jugular. This initiation ceremony…has become increasingly common in Venezuela, as the traditions of Santeria and other folk religions gain followers.

   The rituals have become an attractive option for Venezuelans seeking a unique spiritual path….In Venezuela, many shops have sprung up in recent years selling animals to be sacrificed. [H]undreds of white-clad believers…recently crowded into a Catholic church, praying before a…manifestation of the Virgin Mary, who they said represents a patriarch in the pantheon of Yoruba gods.

   Santeria was born in Cuba among Yoruba slaves from West Africa [who] fused their beliefs with Catholicism. Catholic leaders consider the rituals idolatrous, but have come to tolerate the popular practice.

   “Santeria is on the rise because there are many people who need the help of higher powers to overcome their problems,” said Belkis, a 51-year-old “santera.”

   [TBC: People indeed need help, yet few want it on the terms of the only true and living God. That makes them ripe for “seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1).]

   Letters

   Dear Dave,
   Just re-read the book [Judgment Day!]. Extremely well-written and important. I have agonized over these issues for years and am convinced that this view of Scripture and the unfolding of history is the only one that even begins to make sense. May God raise up an army of preachers willing to tell the truth. JC (email)

   Dear TBC,
   I’d just like to encourage all of you to keep up the good work. I’m dismayed at the number of people that, while calling themselves followers of Jesus, castigate you for the slightest presumed error, unwilling to give you the benefit of doubt, exhibiting harsh, unforgiving attitudes. Please remember, not everyone is like that. Some of us know how to disagree in love and are humble enough to know we also could be wrong. R&RS (email)

   Dear Dave, T.A., and Fellow Bereans,
   Your 2008 issues have been exceptional! I have been a reader since the…mid ’80s when [I read] Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust. I got saved in 1985 after many years in the New Age…. Jesus Christ has been everything He promised. His Word is alive and ministers to every need. MU (PA)

   Dear Friends,
   I am an avid…reader of your awesome free newsletter The Berean Call. I read many things. However, I am able to do without all these other things except for two. First, the very Word of God and secondly, your wonderful newsletter. CW (prisoner, NC)

   My dear friends in Christ,
   I am a missionary in [Eastern Europe]….After Dave ministered in one of the churches here, I was by his side as the pastor of that church asked him, “What would your positive message be?” Dave thought before he answered and during those few seconds there was a growing eagerness in me–This is an answer I have got to hear!–knowing instinctively that it would be important for my own spiritual growth. Dave’s answer, “Why, ‘Set your affection on things above not on things upon the earth, for ye are dead and your life is hidden with Christ in God!'”

   That conversation took place at least 10 years ago, and Dave’s answer has been one of the truths that God has been resounding in my mind throughout these years. It has been a catalyst that He has used in my own spiritual walk, as I am daily “setting my affection on things above….”

   Why do I share this? I want to encourage all those reading not to shut TBC out of their lives because it may appear to be “too negative.” The example I have cited above brings out this point: If you are having difficulty in hearing the positive message in what they say, simply because it also has the accompanying negative, then just ask!

   Thank you Dave and Ruth…T.A. and Mrs. McMahon…TBC Staff! God knows how much He has used your ministry to minister His truths to my spirit, surely beyond whatever I could begin to tell. Anon by request (Europe)

   Dear TBC,
   I was at the debate in Whitby, Ontario [Toronto]. What an eye opener! I have re-decided to follow Jesus…as a deacon in my church. HK (Canada)

   Dear Dave,
   What an honor it was to see you again and hear you speak at Bayside Community Church last Sunday. Your topic, “Knowledge, Understanding, Reason, and Faith” was timely and so much where I am these days. After coming out of the Word-Faith movement a few years ago, I have committed to sound doctrinal positions using reason and objective thought as opposed to the subjective that is so prevalent today. Again, thank you, Dave, T. A., and the whole BC staff for your excellent biblical ministry. BM (FL)

   Dear Dave,
   Having come to Christ only ten years ago, I have a lot to learn. Your articles have lifted me to a whole new level, for which I thank you. God pointed me to the Bereans in Scripture, and a fellow Christian pointed me to your publication, for which I will be eternally grateful. BM (email)

   Dear TBC,
   I have begun to be very concerned about some of the teaching in the church I’m in. The emphasis on Scripture and good solid music is heartening, but the increasing amount of legalism as demonstrated by strict guidelines on what believers must wear is certainly a concern. There are no elders and the pastor is the sole authority in the group. RS (CO)

   Dear Mr. Hunt,
   As a Jew, I am humbled by your love and understanding of the Jewish people and their long struggle with humanity. I am married to a Christian woman and we…pray through Jesus that Israel will be a land for the Jewish people so that Christ may…come back to earth. The world must understand, as you do, that the Jews are God’s chosen people and together Jews and Christians will make this world a more wonderful world….I lost many family members in the Holocaust, and Israel and its Christian support means more to me than any material object in the world. Thank you again for being such a wonderful teacher/prophet and for your support of the Jewish people. NK (email)

   TBC Notes

   Your Letters

   Please don’t be upset if you take the time to write to us and don’t receive a reply. Though we continue to grow as a ministry, we are trying nevertheless to keep TBC’s operation small and personal as well as economically efficient. Three of us answer letters among our many duties. Every letter is read and its input greatly appreciated; but we cannot answer them all.

   It is our desire that our newsletter, radio programs, and website, along with the books, CDs, and DVDs that we recommend, will continue to be the minstry’s primary information resource. The reprints of back newsletter issues have also proved to be tremendously valuable to our readers, providing answers to a great percentage of questions.

   Executive Director
   T.A. McMahon

   Reply
2. 

   Oggie on October 25, 2009 at 12:32 pm

   How Christians can handle offenses and insults for the gospel:

   “. . . The biggest fools of all appear to be those who
   have once been wholly possessed by zeal for Christian
   piety. They squander their possessions, ignore
   insults, submit to being cheated, make no distinction
   between friends and enemies, shun pleasure, sustain
   themselves on fasting, vigils, tears, toil and
   humiliations, scorn life and desire only death–in
   short, they seem to be dead to any normal feeling, as
   if their spirit dwelt elsewhere than in their body.
   What else can that be but madness? And so we should
   not be surprised if the apostles were thought to be
   drunk on new wine, and Festus judged Paul to be mad.”
   — the great Christian Humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam

   Reply
3. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 8:46 pm

   In V.29, Paul took one point of similarity and dismantled their mindset by concentrating on the unknown God, the real one that they did not know. Thus, there was really no bridging to what they falsely believed, but what they didn’t believe nor know. Because of what Paul presented to counter their idolatry, he argued to conclude that

   “we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s devising.”

   That is, it is to be absurd to suppose that the original source of our existence can be like gold, and silver, and stone, inanimate objects. We are living and intelligent being. Our nature is more excellent than the works of mans hands, since we are like him formed by God.

   In V.30, Paul’s challenge and invitation was for the proud pagan philosophers to heartfully repent, to have a total change of heart and mind, to clearly show that he was not approving of anything they were doing. God is the creator of men, but to identify God with something man has made is ignorance (Rom. 1:22-23).

   He indicted them calling these wise philosophers ignorant was a strong accusation — A CLEAR TRUTHFUL OFFENSE TO THEIR PAGANIC, PHILOSOPHICAL PRIDE. As Paul said in Romans, these philosophers were “professing to be wise, but they became fools” — a very offensive accusation that can break the pagan philosophers’ pride.

   In times past, God has overlooked this blindness, but no longer when Paul preached to them of His gospel. It was their time to be offended by the truth, so that they had to make decisions regarding the truth — to believe it or not. He commands men everywhere to repent, especially of their ignorance and idolatries, not just a message for the Greeks but for all people in every nation. It is at this point that Paul went back to the Bible and preached a righteous judgment coming by Christ Who is the only man that was raised from the dead to eternal life.

   In V.32, some offended hearers mocked, some said we will hear him later on what he spoke, and some went with him. He had to change the peoples belief system, even offending their pretenses, presumptions, and pride, to bring them up to date with Christ. Their belief system was challenged and offended first. The message of the Jesus Christ goes out with only a few, not many responding.

   The success of the gospel is not in raking many shallow followers, but only in courageously proclaiming the truth, through the power of the Holy Spirit, even if those who hear will be offended, and only few can truly repent, believe, and become true disciples of Christ! The proclaimer, as God’s co-worker, only has to do his best, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

   “The cross was foolishness” to the Greeks, they had no background to this concept, especially the dead living again. Telling people only the good news of Jesus and not what is wrong with their religion or belief system rarely works. The apostles did not do this, and this was not what Paul did at Mars Hill despite that many use it as an example of making bridges. Methods of evangelism that don’t work are those that do not deal with the issue of sin that a culture has ingrained in its society and God’s command to repent. You can’t just preach the gospel if the people don’t understand the language you are using. If they don’t understand the terminology how can they understand the solution? The bad news from Genesis needs to be presented first before the good news from the New Testament can be explained, just as Paul did in principle to the Greek philosophers. Paul started with the Bibles revelation and ended with the Bible’s revelation.

   Reply
4. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 8:31 pm

   Paul utilized their poets’ points for a similarity of what he was conveying that is wrong, not what is right. Paul utilized their own poets against their idolatry. He was not condoning their poets’ words as truth equal with the Bible’s revelation, but dismantled their own views by utilizing it as similar points to present the Bible’s revelations.

   Reply
5. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 8:27 pm

   Paul used another pagan source to confirm the truth of the Bible, not the reverse, he was showing them how even their own poets had some knowledge (though corrupted) of the God he was speaking to them of that they do not know. If he was saying their poet spoke truth, then he would be endorsing Zeus a false god, the very thing he was trying to prove to them. Paul used even the philosophical savvy of the Greeks through their philosophies of their poets to point out to the truths of the Scriptures, which at that time, was only the Old Testament, since the whole canon of the Bible was not yet finished.

   In V.28, he said: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being.”, which is a quotation from their poet. God is the very source of our existence: the principle of life comes from him: What Paul did not mean is that we are all part of God or God is part of us. What he quoted was directly opposing the views of the Epicureans. Here, Paul is citing poets who they respected and brilliantly turned it on their idolatry they now practiced. Paul had made a case that as men we have a necessary dependence on this God they do not know nor see. He inserted their own poet’s statements as an added incentive to consider that their worship was wrong. He juxtaposed what was said in the past for what is being practiced in the present.

   If Paul meant they we actually God’s offspring, He would be agreeing with the gods of Greek philosophy. He did not! Even if Paul used their philosophy in proclaiming the truth of the gospel, it was to further clarify to them their need of God, and for them to put faith in the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ.

   This is poetry he quoted, not doctrine, nor Scripture. Paul meant that all men are God’s offspring in the sense that they are His creatures and dependent on Him for life. There is no Biblical teaching of the universal fatherhood of God and a brotherhood of all men (John 1:12; Paul teaches we must be adopted in God’s family in the book of Ephesians).

   Reply
6. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 8:19 pm

   Therefore, even offending proud pagan philosophers, Paul courageously told them that the gods whom they worshipped in their temples was not the true God. Paul’s basis was the Old Testament

   Isa. 66:1-2
   Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist,” Says the LORD.

   Paul basically mocked the absurdity of their blind idolatry. He was making them feel foolish by even quoting their own revered poet. In v.25, he told them God does not need anything from man. In fact, we are the ones who need Him, as He is the giver of life. God gives life, He is the fountain of all he gives breath, to both the animal and men.

   Paul also taught that divine worship is not enacted and established for GOD, but for the use of His creatures: He needs nothing that man can give Him. For man only has what he received from the hand of his Maker. Therefore, what they have made for God cannot be a fair or accurate representation of Him, who is way, way more than what they can imagine or invent Him to be. This can offend the pagan mindset blinded by the deceptions of his religion.

   In V.26, Paul told them that He had made of one blood (meaning Adam) all nations of men. Paul’s emphasis was to show our common origin and the right way. This same thought that appears in Acts 14:17 in the speech to the Greeks at Lystra. Paul told them that God is in control not man. Certainly, these intellectually elite men, being knowledgeable on all the beliefs of their day, would have heard about the Hebrews belief of Genesis or the flood.

   In V.27, Paul said that the Gentiles were not familiar with God and His ways and needed a revelation, until then they grope after God. The true God is Spirit, therefore He is not an idol, as imagined and invented by the pagans. He is closer than they think. In one sense, He is farther off from us because He is the creator of all, yet in another sense, as Spirit, hH is closer. Therefore, using even their kind of philosophical logic, he was saying they did not know of this God he was speaking of, though He may be revealed to them, if they only would seek Him.

   Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 in Rom 10:20 But Isaiah is very bold and says (and can offend the blind and deaf idolaters):

   “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”

   Paul’s giving them a principle that God had made known for Jeremiah also writes

   “And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart” (29:13).

   It is in this attitude he courageously appealed to the proud pagan philosophers on Mars Hill.

   In V.28, Paul told them that for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

   They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one—The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But you are not dead; you live and abide forever, For in you we live and move and have our being. (poem Cretica written by Epimenides (ca. 600 BCE)

   In other words, Paul told them that we should not think of God as ordinary man, He cannot die like men. Contrary and offensive to men’s pride and independence, Paul told them that we are dependent on Him for our own mortal life.

   Therefore, with fearless courage, even in offending his hearers, believers need to understand Paul’s speaking to philosophers that he was trying to give them the meaning of their poets saying, but now in the light of the gospel, which can offend the proud pagan philosophers.

   Reply
7. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 8:01 pm

   With the pagan philosophers in Mars hill, Paul simply told them that humans are just created beings, directly countering the Greek thought that men were gods. A sensitive or bigoted philosopher can surely get offended by what Paul said. That’s why, in some places where he preached, the offense of the gospel to the pagan ears just led to Paul’s persecution, or being stoned, or being beaten, that one time, he had to escape from the lynch mob chasing him.

   Are present-day Christians willing to pay the exhorbitant cost of discipleship (may even cost their lives, reputations, relationships, friendships, etc.) by having Paul’s courage to do what Paul did in fearlessly proclaiming the truth of the gospel, even if it would offend the hearers, who can persecute or execute the proclaimers?

   Reply
8. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 7:54 pm

   Even if Paul’s sermons may offend his hearers or readers, Paul never watered down nor compromised the truth!!! It was his passion and compassion as fruit of his love for the Lord, and love for people that motivated him to uncompromisingly tell the truth, even if what he said can create some disturbance in the social structure of his hearers. His preaching led to the burning of occultic books of the Ephesians, and anywhere he preached the gospel, the impact of his powerful message empowered by the Holy Spirit really turned the world upside down. Indeed, only the truth can set people free from the deception and darkeness of their ignorance, immoralities, iniquities, inequities, and idolatries!

   Reply
9. 

   Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 7:49 pm

   When Paul preached on the Mars Hill, Paul simply told the truth about Jesus, even if what he said may offend the biases and beliefs of the pagan philosophers he was trying to win, as can be read in:

   Act17:22-34
   22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

   23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

   24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

   25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

   26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

   27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

   28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

   29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

   30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at;
   but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

   31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

   32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].

   33 So Paul departed from among them.

   34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which [was] Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

   from: Matthew Henry’s commentary

   Here, we have a sermon to heathens, who worshipped false gods, and were without the true God in the world; and to them the scope of the discourse was different from what the apostle preached to the Jews. In the latter case, his business was to lead his hearers by prophecies and miracles to the knowledge of the Redeemer, and faith in him; in the former, it was to lead them, by the common works of providence, to know the Creator, and worship Him. The apostle spoke of an altar he had seen, with the inscription, “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” This fact is stated by many writers. After multiplying their idols to the utmost, some at Athens thought there was another god of whom they had no knowledge. And are there not many now called Christians, who are zealous in their devotions, yet the great object of their worship is to them an unknown God? Observe what glorious things Paul here says of that God whom he served, and would have them to serve. The Lord had long borne with idolatry, but the times of this ignorance were now ending, and by his servants he now commanded all men every where to repent of their idolatry. Each sect of the learned men would feel themselves powerfully affected by the apostle’s discourse, which tended to show the emptiness or falsity of their doctrines.

   The apostle was treated with more outward civility at Athens than in some other places; but none more despised his doctrine, or treated it with more indifference. Of all subjects, that which deserves the most attention gains the least. But those who scorn, will have to bear the consequences, and the word will never be useless. Some will be found, who cleave to the Lord, and listen to his faithful servants. Considering the judgement to come, and Christ as our Judge, should urge all to repent of sin, and turn to Him. Whatever matter is used, all discourses must lead to Him, and show his authority; our salvation, and resurrection, come from and by Him.

   Reply
10. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    On the danger of not offending with the truth and not contending for the faith once delivered to the saints:

    from: NEW AGE Pathways in the church
    http://www.letusreason.org/current86.htm

    The New Age has married into our post modern age, and it ran through like the rising waters from a broken dam, and soaked everything in its way. Now we are paying the price of our openness to spiritual ways beyond holy writ, we can’t dry out, we have been soaked.

    If you are convinced by an experience it is very hard to be talked out of it with reasoning or Scripture. This is why those who get immersed in meditation or what we know as mind altering practices (the emergent church movement) are so hard to reach, because they no longer recognize what is right or wrong, what is biblical or not. The lines are blurred from being diapraxed, their mind has been altered. It is a form of cognitive dissonance that most are unaware has taken place; they do not know they are deceived. Unless they question their experience in light of the word where truth resides there is no way of reaching them and helping them exit the darkness they are enveloped in. They become blind to their own self inflicted deception. A false light fills their being that is powerful enough to slant their worldview and keep them unbalanced. As a man thinks in his heart so is he is certainly apropos for what has taken place.

    Unfortunately, Churches today are just as ill equipped to answer the New Age- Occult infiltration as they were in the 80’s-90’s, but at least back then they were interested to learn more so they can both protect the church and reach the people. Today they are less able to cope with those who get saved out of the new age and help them transition into sound Christian doctrine. It’s not hard to figure out why we, when one is aware of the change inside the churches at large. It’s a reality that must one faced that one can find themselves inside a church doing the very same practices they did outside, only calling it by a different name. The leadership must be equipped to protect and provide answers even if they take the stand alone. As a friend of mine made the point as we were discussing the changes taking place, “People go insane together in a crowd but they only regain their sanity one at a time.”

    Reply
11. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Not to offend for the sake of sentimental love and unity at the expense of the truth is a New Age attitude to encompass all other belief systems into a global blob of messed-up and mixed-up belief system.

    Related ideas can be read at:

    NEW AGE Pathways in the church
    http://www.letusreason.org/current86.htm

    with an excerpt below:

    “When my wife and I were part of the movement known as the New Age we once practiced a non-judgmental attitude toward error and falsehood. We believed that everyone’s path was there own choosing and that it was all from God. So we could never say someone or some thing was wrong. This same lie of tolerance for the sake of “getting along” with each other is practiced in the world today- its called diversification. It may be acceptable by those who have no clue about absolute truth but it should not be found inside a church that is supposed to be the pillar and ground of truth.”

    Reply
12. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    from: http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor112.htm

    Nowhere in scripture did Jesus Christ express more outrage than when he confronted hypocrisy. There’s simply no room for it in the Church or in the Christian business community. It is deceitful, dangerous and disobedient to the Word of God.

    “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully…” – Jeremiah 48:10

    Part of being a witness for Jesus Christ is encouraging the brethren to hear and obey God’s Word and calling the unwashed to repentance and faith. That’s not being unloving or arrogant – that’s being faithful. As I’ve said many times before, the most loving thing you can do for someone is tell them the truth; and by telling them the truth with firm and loving convictions, we carry out our calling as followers of Jesus Christ. When we do this, the Holy Spirit often enables the lost, the wayward and the confused to see the error of their ways and repent as we point them toward the Cross of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

    “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” – 1st John 1:9

    Reply
13. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    from: http://www.lighthousetrails.com/fa_ch3.pdf

    If Paul had been adjusting (contextualizing) the Word of God to fit the culture and context of the lives of those he spoke to, he would not have said “the aroma of death leading to death.” He took the spiritual state of these people very seriously, and he had full confidence that God’s Word, unaltered and unchanged, could reach into the heart and soul of any person who would receive Christ by faith. Whether a person is young, mentally challenged, or of a different culture or ethnic group, the Gospel is God’s Gospel, and He made it so that all who receive it by faith will understand His love and forgiveness and have eternal life.

    Reply
14. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    from: http://www.lighthousetrails.com/fa_ch3.pdf

    On political correctness versus confronting with the truth:

    Christians should not do or say anything that might offend unbelievers, even if that anything is truth and Scripture.
    The fact is, Jesus did confront people with the truth, as did His disciples (as well as the Old Testament prophets)…

    There is no question about it, the Word of God is offensive to the unbeliever just as I Corinthians 1:18 states:

    For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

    And again in II Corinthians 2:15-16, when Paul explains the attitude he encountered when witnessing to unbelievers:

    For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.

    Reply
15. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    Luke 7:23
    And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be OFFENDED in me.

    Reply
16. 

    Oggie on October 24, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    The believers have authority from the written word of God to be courageous in offending the unbelievers with the truths of His words, as fulfillment of His Great Commission, and to be separate if the unbelievers would be unrepentant of their unbelief. A scripture text related to this is given by:

    2 Corinthians – Chapter 6

    14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

    15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

    16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,

    18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

    from: Matthew Henry’s commentary

    It is wrong for believers to join with the wicked and profane. The word unbeliever applies to all destitute of true faith. True pastors will caution their beloved children in the gospel, not to be unequally yoked. The fatal effects of neglecting Scripture precepts as to marriages clearly appear. Instead of a help meet, the union brings a snare. Those whose cross it is to be unequally united, without their wilful fault, may expect consolation under it; but when believers enter into such unions, against the express warnings of God’s word, they must expect must distress. The caution also extends to common conversation. We should not join in friendship and acquaintance with wicked men and unbelievers. Though we cannot wholly avoid seeing and hearing, and being with such, yet we should never choose them for friends. We must not defile ourselves by converse with those who defile themselves with sin. Come out from the workers of iniquity, and separate from their vain and sinful pleasures and pursuits; from all conformity to the corruptions of this present evil world. If it be an envied privilege to be the son or daughter of an earthly prince, who can express the dignity and happiness of being sons and daughters of the Almighty?

    Reply
17. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    from: http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/test

    Bad News – Good News

    Rejection of the Christian worldview — or in other words, disobeying God’s will as written in the Bible, also known as sin — is ultimately the root cause of all the conflict and injustice within individuals, families, communities, nations, and the world.

    The good news is that anyone who repents of their sin against God and places their faith or trust in His Son, Jesus Christ, as paying the required sacrifice for their sin and then follows Him as Lord, can be reconciled to God and then begin the life-long process of developing a Christian worldview to the praise and honor and glory of God.

    Reply
18. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    from: http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/past-shows/page/4

    As the Apostle Paul made clear in writing to the Corinthians, the preaching of the Gospel has always been considered offensive by those who reject it. When Paul spoke of the cross as “foolishness” and a “stumbling block” [1 Corinthians 1:23] he was pointing to this very reality–a reality that would lead to his own stoning, flogging, imprisonment, and execution.

    At the same time, Paul did not want to offend persons on the basis of anything other than the cross of Christ and the essence of the Christian Gospel. For this reason, he would write to the Corinthians about becoming “all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” [1 Corinthians 9:22].

    Reply
19. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    “People have the fundamental right to take an argument to the point where somebody is offended by what they say. It is no trick to support the free speech of somebody you agree with or to whose opinion you are indifferent. The defense of free speech begins at the point where people say something you can’t stand. If you can’t defend their right to say it, then you don’t believe in free speech. You only believe in free speech as long as it doesn’t get up your nose.” — Salman Rushdie

    Reply
20. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    “The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions,” — Salman Rushdie

    Reply
21. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Christians must not only contend for the preservation and protection of free speech–essential for the cause of the Gospel–we must also make certain that we do not fall into the trap of claiming offendedness for ourselves. We must not claim a right not to be offended, even as we must insist that there is no such right and that the social construction of such a right will mean the death of individual liberty, free speech, and the free exchange of ideas.

    from: http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/past-shows/page/4

    The Culture of Offendedness?

    Author: Dr. Albert Mohler | July 27, 2009

    Reply
22. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    from: http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/index.php?s=politically+correct+Christian
    Cultural Faith…Is It Real Faith?

    February 24, 2009 by Guest Blogger
    Filed under The Latest from Our Blog

    Leave a Comment

    GUEST BLOGGER: Lee Duncan, Dean of Administration, The Master’s College.

    Every four years the United States goes through the democratic, sometimes painful, election process to select a new president. Television and radio ads inundate the electorate with every conceivable spin that promotes certain candidates while denigrating others. Many Americans stop answering their phones at home because they cannot take any more pre-recorded sales pitches. Every day we hear news reports, read articles, or receive mail about everything from foreign policies to economic policies to educational reform ideas…all with the theme of how to bring “change” to America.

    In recent elections there has been a much greater emphasis on the personal faith of the candidates, including how often they attend church, who is their pastor, what they think about God, and how their faith might influence their leadership and decision-making. A new kind of politically correct version of faith is emerging among many candidates and it prompts a question…is it real faith?

    Not that long ago “faith” was a word that described a particular set of doctrinal beliefs that identified a person’s convictions that affected their lives and decisions. People would claim a certain denomination or doctrinal view as “their faith,” determined by allegiance to some written authority or church teaching. Even though not everyone agreed what source was the ultimate authority, at least most people agreed that an outside source was needed as a basis of truth. That is no longer the case in America. Today the term faith is used to say that a person believes in something of their own choosing; it does not rely on an external source but each creates his own truth. Political candidates can stand up and say they have faith without having to submit to the authority of God or Scripture; their faith is their own and frankly, they tell us, it is none of our business what specifically they believe because is it personal. This is not genuine faith, it is a cultural faith.

    Our modern American culture has changed faith into a personal, nebulous, changing, and relative expression of spirituality. Political candidates stand up and say, “I have faith and it is personal.” From the position of an outsider, one might conclude that almost every candidate is a Christian who is committed to God. However, after further review, their faith is nothing more than an admission that they believe in something that they don’t want to talk about. Unfortunately, that seems enough for the average citizen because to most Americans religion is personal and we certainly don’t want to pry! Modern Americans are willing to accept that one who has faith is religious, regardless of what that faith entails. In reality, to state that you have faith today simply means that you consider yourself a spiritual person and that you have the right to believe whatever you choose. Faith is without accountability.

    Biblical faith is something altogether different; it is based on an outside authoritative source that identifies that truth comes from God and is totally consistent with His Word, the Bible. The essence of the word “faith” is that it is a belief or trust in a higher power. Faith is a moral and spiritual quality of fidelity to God and confidence in His Word. “Faith is not simply the assent of the intellect to revealed truth; it is the practical submission of the entire man to the guidance and control of such truth” (Unger, 1957, p. 341). “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Faith is based on evidence that we can’t see (Heb. 11:1) and is a gift from God. God grants faith and then sustains faith through His eternal power. True faith submits to the Word of God; it is God’s view that we follow, His Word that we obey, and His will that we seek.

    Political candidates, and yes, most Americans, see faith as something that is individual and that allows every person to believe whatever he or she thinks is right. All they have to do is say, “I have faith,” or “I am a person of faith,” and they are excused from explaining what they believe and by what authority they make claims to truth. Politicians say that God’s Word is informative, it is comforting, it is motivating, it is inspiring, but never will you hear one of them say, “It is authoritative.” Americans like their faith the way they define it and don’t want to be confined to a set of writings that has been handed down through the centuries. This is how political candidates can claim to be Christians but promote views that absolutely disagree with the Bible. They have faith all right, but not a biblical faith. Their faith is of their own making and there is no outside authority to which they must submit. It is a convenient faith, an easy faith, but ultimately, a coward’s faith because they never have to be accountable for what they believe.

    Cultural faith is taking over America; in fact, if you just arrived from Pluto or Saturn you might believe that almost everyone in America is a Christian. Faith is not faith unless God affirms that it is. Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6), God is the only source of truth (John 17:17), and God’s Word is His inspired message to mankind (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Unless faith is connected to these truths, then it is not faith at all. I am sorry, but faith is not a freedom to express your own views about life, abortion, alternate lifestyles, creation vs. evolution, etc. Our views only matter as they agree with God’s views. If you have true faith, your views must come from the one authoritative source that God has given us, His Word the Bible. Any other faith is simply a cultural faith…and that is not faith at all.

    Share This

    Reply
23. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    from: http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/index.php?s=politically+correct+Christian

    How to be Courageous in Your Convictions

    April 25, 2009 by David Wheaton

    Who would have ever thought that a beauty pageant would turn into a national controversy when a question about same-sex marriage was asked to Miss California by a homosexual judge? Miss California courageously gave a biblically correct answer rather than a politically correct one and it resulted in her losing the crown.

    Meanwhile, Rick Warren, well-known evangelical leader and pastor of Saddleback Church in San Diego, recently stated he had apologized to the gay community for his previous support of Proposition 8, the successful 2008 California ballot initiative that defines marriage in that state as between one man and one woman.

    In Hour 2, we’ll discuss why a young woman has the courage to state her convictions while an experienced pastor folds on the same issue.

    Reply
24. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    “In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.” — Reverend Martin Niemoeller

    Reply
25. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/tolerance.html

    THE NEW TOLERANCE

    It’s politically correct, but does it hold danger for followers of Christ? Is love the same thing as tolerance?

    Not long ago, the word ‘tolerance’ meant ‘bearing or putting up with someone or something not especially liked’. However, now the word has been redefined to ‘all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal’.1 Denying this makes a person ‘intolerant’, and thus worthy of contempt.

    Where does this leave Christians? Jesus said,

    ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6).

    And the apostle Peter said,

    ‘It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:10-12).

    The new definition of ‘tolerance’ makes the Christian claims to exclusivity ‘intolerant’, which supposedly justifies much of the anti-Christianity in the media and the education system.

    But this argument is glaringly illogical and self-refuting. That is, if these ‘tolerance’ advocates reject Christianity, then they are not treating this belief as ‘equal’. So, in practice, to paraphrase George Orwell in Animal Farm, all beliefs are equal, but some beliefs are more equal than others. The result is extreme intolerance towards Christianity from people who talk so much about tolerating all views. In short, they are intolerant of intolerance, so logically they should be intolerant of themselves!

    The hypocrisy of the new tolerance was shown recently at two universities. At Texas Tech University (Lubbock), Michael Dini, professor of biology, said he would not recommend any students for medical school if they did not believe in evolution. Dini’s university rushed to defend him on the grounds of ‘academic freedom’.2

    Contrast that with what happened at Sydney University in Australia. A number of top academics signed the following statement in a full-page student newspaper advertisement:

    ‘On any criteria, Jesus Christ is one of the great figures of history. More than that, his claims to be the Son of God, who has made God known and taken away the sins of the world, bear up under the closest scrutiny. This is our conviction, and we urge every student to thoroughly investigate this unique figure, Jesus’.

    This evoked hysteria about religious intolerance and misuse of academic freedom. Some anti-Christian students even raised paranoid fears about discrimination.3 Yet the above statement said nothing of the kind, unlike Dini’s overt intolerance and discriminationagainst biblical Christianswhich was happily tolerated.

    Author: Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis. Excerpted from “The Tyranny of ‘Tolerance’,” Creation, Vol. 25, No. 4 (September 2003), p. 6. Text Copyright © 2003, 2004, Answers in Genesis.

    Danger in the general philosophy of tolerance

    There is a great danger lurking in the general philosophy of tolerance. In Australia, a group formed and called itself Toleration, which many Christians viewed as a harmless organization with a worthy cause. Toleration’s goal was to promote a tolerance of all religious ways, beliefs and doctrines. Their major theme was “We’ve got to stop being intolerant of other people’s beliefs. Everyone should have a right to his or her own opinion on any matter.”

    Eventually the organization issued a promotional leaflet espousing this “tolerance” of all beliefs. What did the very first page contain but a detailed list of all the things they were against! They said they were for tolerance of all beliefs, yet they were in-tolerant of the teaching of Creation and the absolutes of Christianity.

    People who teach a tolerance of all beliefs almost invariably oppose Christianity. They cannot tolerate Christians saying, “Here’s what’s right and here’s what wrong. God says it. And so that is final.” They reply, Oh, no. We can’t tolerate that. We’ve got to tolerate all beliefs.”

    What are they really doing? They are being intolerant of the absolutes of Christianity, because the absolutes of Christianity oppose a philosophy that says, “Everything can be done in accord with one’s own opinion.” It is not difficult to see that this popular philosophy is an anti-biblical way of thinking–so dangerous, in fact, that it could one day lead to the outlawing of Christianity.
    Personal opinion and following Christ

    There is yet another sad aspect to the philosophy that all people have a right to their own opinions. Not only is this being emphasized in our public education system, but it is reaching out from there and permeating all parts of our society, even our churches.

    What happens today when churches address issues like abortion, homosexuality, women’s role in the church, and so on? All too often, Christians are simply offering lots of different opinions, eagerly expressing their own ideas and beliefs. Often their leaders participate by merely summarizing these differing viewpoints and stopping short of supplying a definite conclusion about what is right or wrong according to God’s Word.

    The wonderful truth is that, as Christians, we can base our lives on something much more substantial than mere personal opinions! We have foundational knowledge from an Infinite Being, our Creator, to guide us. The record of this basic knowledge begins in the most foundational of all books, Genesis. Our Creator has not left us to find our own way; he has provided directions and specific principles by which to live. Christian leaders should be reminding people that God owns us and therefore sets the rules. What he says must be the basis for all our thinking and behavior.

    Our conclusions must be based on the foundation of God’s Word, not on fallible human opinion!

    Author: Ken Ham. Excerpted from Ken Ham and Paul Taylor, The Genesis Solution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), pp. 47-51. Text Copyright © 1998, Films for Christ.
    The difference between tolerance and Christ’s love

    Christian author and speaker Josh McDowell reminds followers of Christ that,

    We must humbly pursue truth. It may be difficult to speak the truth in today’s climate, but Jesus said,

    “The truth will set you free.”

    Pursuing truth in this context means countering the new doctrine of tolerance. It means teaching our children to embrace all people, but not all beliefs. It means showing them how to listen to and learn from all people without necessarily agreeing with them. It means helping them courageously but humbly speak the truth, even if it makes them the object of scorn or hatred.

    We must always remember, however, that when the apostle Peter told us,

    “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have,” he added, “But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

    We must aggressively practice love. Everyone loves love, it seems, but few recognize how incompatible love is with the new tolerance. Tolerance simply avoids offending someone; we must help our children live in love, which actively seeks to promote the good of another person.

    Tolerance says, “You must approve of what I do.”
    Love responds, “I must do something harder; I will love you, even when your behavior offends me.”

    Tolerance says, “You must agree with me.”
    Love responds, “I must do something harder; I will tell you the truth, because I am convinced ‘the truth will set you free.’ ”

    Tolerance says, “You must allow me to have my way.”
    Love responds, “I must do something harder; I will plead with you to follow the right way, because I believe you are worth the risk.”

    Tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. Tolerance glorifies division; love seeks unity. Tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything.

    I believe the dreadful potential of the new tolerance can be averted, but only with a renewed commitment to truth, justice and love. And, as it happens, that powerful trio of virtues can do more than prevent disaster; it can bring about true community and culture in the midst of diversity and disagreement.

    Author: Josh McDowell. Excerpted from Focus on the Family magazine (Colorado Springs, CO: 1999). Text Copyright © 1999, Focus on the Family.
    References

    1. McDowell, J. and Hostetler, B., The New Tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to destroy you, your faith, and your children (Tyndale House, 1998).
    2. Matthews, M., “Dunce cap for creationists? Texas Tech prof won’t recommend creationists,” http://www.answersingenesis.org , 14 January 2003.
    3. Contractor, A., Noonan, G. and Burke, K., “God’s quad,” Sydney Morning Herald (November 2002), p. 37, 1617.

    Answers to relevant questions

    * Aren’t all religions basically the same? Why do Christians insist that one must believe in Christ to be saved? Answer
    * Why would I want to be a Christian when there are so many hypocrites? Answer
    * If Christianity is true, why are there so many denominations? Answer
    * With so many denominations and religions, how can I decide which are true and which are false? Answer
    * Morality is relative. There are no absolutes! Answer
    * How can you claim that the Bible is truly the final authority in all matters of faith and morals? Answer
    * Don’t judge me! The Bible even says “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Answer

    Reply
26. 

    oggie on October 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    The truth, especially The Truth (i.e., our Lord Jesus Christ), can really offend the pretentions, presumptions, and pride of men!!!!

    “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.