David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics has recently posted "An Open Letter to Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad" on the Answering Muslims blog.  In his posting, he asked that people help him to publicize this letter.  Since I also find the recent actions of Haddad and others in Dearborn (Michigan, USA) to persecute Christians disturbing and despicable, I wanted to be sure to post that open letter here. What follows is Wood's full posting:

"Welcome to Dearborn, the city where Muslims are free to assault Christians, where hate messages abound, where Christians are arrested for holding discussions on public streets, where police harass and bully Christians who try to distribute copies of the Gospel. Leading the charge for Sharia in Dearborn is Police Chief Ronald Haddad, who refuses to return our illegally seized video cameras. As of this posting, it's been two and a half weeks since Haddad's officers stole thousands of dollars worth of video equipment, and more than two weeks since he was informed that his actions were illegal. There's been no response from Haddad yet. Please help me publicize his campaign against the Constitution." 

     This week, I received a surprising and disturbing call from an individual that I had never met who had a number of concerns about an organization called the Messianic Bureau International (MBI) and its leader, Daniel Akans.  The caller had wandered upon a couple articles that I had written back in 2009 in which I responded to a list produced by MBI called “Major Errors of Historical Christianity and Judaism” (Note: this is the current title, when I wrote about it in 2009, it was named simply “Errors of Christianity”[i]).  At the time, Akans responded to my post by accusing me of fabricating the information.  His actual comment was as follows:

Shalom, 
I am Rabbi Daniel Akans, the president of MBI. In response to your issues with MBI here. I have no idea where you got this information. This is why we have such a difficult time with christians. You use your own fabricated ideas to try and produce the illusion of truth in order to pretend to know the truth. Shame on you and your agenda. I hope you are someday able to educate in order to give an educated opinion. As a believing Jew, you give christians a bad name. By the way, MBI is not so small. Again you are not aware of the facts.... 
Rabbi Daniel Akans

Note that Akans accused me of using my “own fabricated ideas” and not being “aware of the facts.” I replied to his comment as follows:

In response to Rabbi Akans. Thank you for your comment. You have said, "I have no idea where you got this information." That is puzzling to me since I included links to your website and quoted directly (as anyone can check). Of particular interest to me was your list of the "errors of Christianity". I see this list as a series of attacks upon historic Christianity and have simply taken the time to respond to each point. Feel free to actually debate these points with me or else remove the list from your site. If, of course, messianic.com isn't an official website of MBI, I welcome you to disavow it in this context.

http://www.messianic.com/articles/errors.htm

Thus far, you have accused me of fabrication. Please specify what I have fabricated. As for my agenda, it is to bring the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ to people of all nations. I'm sorry that you find that shameful. 

Finally, according to your own website, MBI consists of about 16 congregations in the U.S. I suppose size is a matter of perspective, but I don't think I'm speaking too wildly to describe your organization as small. It isn't meant to be a slight.[ii][iii]

     Unfortunately, Akans chose not to respond to my questions.  However, edits were made to the “list” that included a kind of disclaimer which reads: “This chart points out historical institutional errors which have been followed unknowingly by many.” I appreciate that amendment and consider it an improvement upon what had previously been a rather unfair generalizing of Christians and Christian theology.  Nevertheless, the list is still greatly flawed in a number of respects.  My previous comments on this list still warrant answers from Akans and MBI.  You can read those here:

The Christ-Follower & The Law (Part 4 of 5): A look at Messianic Bureau International

The Christ-Follower & The Law (Part 5 of 5): Another look at Messianic Bureau International

     Looking at the list as it now appears on MBI’s site, I would classify the first and fifth “errors” (on the Christian side of the chart) as basically critiques of institutional Catholicism.  These do not at all reflect the views of the vast majority of Evangelical, Reformed, Pentecostal or Anabaptist denominations.  It is unfair to represent them as doing so.  The second and fourth “errors” primarily relate to the very Biblical concepts of contextualization and the believer’s freedom which I have explained in the above posts.  The third and sixth “errors” are not reflective of any major Catholic or Protestant denomination that I know of.  On the contrary, I believe that by listing these as “errors” MBI is hinting at their own aberrant views on the Law and the inspiration of Scripture.  But again, I’ll simply refer you to my previous articles linked above.

     Now, since I wrote about MBI in 2009, the list of so-called “errors” has been expanded to include a seventh, eighth and ninth item.  Let me just briefly comment on them below.

“7. Messianic Jews forced into Gentile Assimilation”

     For me, this is a particularly curious accusation.  Especially in light of the newly added “disclaimer” which states that the list reflects “historical institutional” errors.  That is, MBI is suggesting that Christians have instituted policies throughout history that have forced Jewish followers of Jesus to assimilate to Gentile culture and customs.  I assume that MBI does not mean simply that this has happened once or twice at some point in history.  Rather this appears to be a claim that most Christian institutions throughout history have had policies forcing this assimilation.  If this is the case, I call upon MBI to produce evidence to this effect.  I personally cannot speak from the perspective of all Christians.  However, as a member of the largest non-Catholic denomination in North America, I can say that Southern Baptists have never had such a policy.  Further, as a part of the Lausanne Movement which represents well the heart of global Evangelicalism, I can say that Lausanne has never had such a policy.       

     As a matter of fact, there is a rather large number of Messianic Jewish congregations within Evangelicalism and even within the Southern Baptist Convention. Actually, there are more Southern Baptist Messianic congregations than there are congregations associated with the Messianic Bureau International.  The Southern Baptist Messianic Fellowship (SBMF) website lists at least 30 congregations and a number of Messianic Jewish ministries in their network.  Since the SBMF has as one of their stated objectives “to encourage Jewish believers that their ethnic and historical heritage need NOT be lost upon their commitment to Yeshua”, I find that this accusation that Christians are somehow forcing Messianic Jews to assimilate to be simply at odds with the facts.  It is also worth noting that on MBI’s list of “Major U.S. Messianic Organizations”, the SBMF is not mentioned.  It does however list the International Federation of Messianic Jews and, of course, MBI both of which have fewer congregations than the SBMF.  Not that I want to emphasize size as an essential marker of significance, but one does have to wonder what exactly is meant by “major” on the MBI site.  Should list rather be entitled “MBI Recommended Messianic Organizations”?

     A final word here on assimilation.  It is clear that the MBI has a formal policy of assimilation built upon the assumption that gentiles must become Jews in order to be recognized as part of God’s people (cf. article 14 of their statement of faith, note the phrase “those believers who were formerly gentiles”).   So, while MBI falsely accuses Christian institutions of having a consistent, historical pattern of forcing Jewish followers of Jesus to assimilate to non-Jewish culture, they themselves actually do have this as a stated policy and belief.  It is clear that MBI believes that all believers of Jesus Christ must assimilate to “Hebraic” culture in order to be considered legitimate.  It causes me to wonder how far this goes.  What is the MBI’s position on circumcision? Will they, for example, ordain as a minister one who is not circumcised?  Can one who is not circumcised be considered a member in good standing?

“8. Replaced Israel with non-Biblical concept of church”

     I hope that the problem with this so-called “error” is readily apparent to most of our readers.  Forget about the whole “replaced” issue and hone in on the fact that MBI believes that the Church is a “non-Biblical concept.”  The Greek word ἐκκλησία appears more than 100 times in the New Testament.  In most of those appearances, the word is referring to the Church—the global and historical body of Christ-followers.  Now, I don’t mind the debate over whether or not the Church is Israel or that Israel is something that exists at least somewhat distinctly from the Church.  However, to say outright that the Church does not exist as an institution of God flies in the face of Biblical witness.  It calls into question MBI’s position on the inerrancy of the New Testament. 

     On their website, MBI says that they believe that the New Testament is inerrant.  However, there is not much elaboration on this point.  I’d like to know if the MBI would agree to the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”  Further, I’d like to know if MBI or Akans would be willing to state clearly whether or not they believe any major Christian denominations are legitimate. 

“9. Anti-Semitism: Called Jews ‘Christ-killers’ and relegated them to a rejected people”

     Again, claiming that anti-Semitism is a matter of institutional policy for most Christians is unfair.  Still, of the nine so-called “errors” listed, this is the one that I have the least amount of trouble with.  Far too many who call themselves Christian have had anti-Semitic tendencies.  Despite the fact that I know of no major Christian denominations today that have policies of anti-Semitism, I agree that there are too many individuals that do.  The term “Christ-Killer” is rightly applied to Jews only if it is applied to all peoples.  I am truly a “Christ-Killer” because of my own sin.  I’d like to reference and commend to you here the “Ethical Statement Relating to Jews and Gentiles” of the Southern Baptist Messianic Fellowship, quoted below in its entirety:

Ethical Statement Relating to Jews and Gentiles:

Since we believe that Yeshua is the true Jewish Messiah Who takes away the sin of the world, and that we are Scripturally obligated to present this "good news" to everyone, we resolve that:

1.       We will try to present the message of redemption through the atonement of Messiah Yeshua with love and compassion to Jews and Gentiles throughout the world.

2.       We strongly condemn anti-Semitism and all derogatory statements or actions against any ethnic, racial, or religious groups.

3.       We will abstain from the use of trickery or deception in presenting the message of salvation through Messiah Yeshua. Also. it is not our intent to forcibly present this message during our attendance at traditional Jewish places of worship. Religious gatherings, or at public or private events which are organized by the traditional Jewish community.

4.       Since it is commonly accepted in the Jewish community at large that "it is not what you believe that makes you a Jew, but who you are." Those of us who are Jewish and believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the true Messiah of Israel will continue to identify ourselves as Jews.

5.       Those of us who are Jewish believers in Messiah Yeshua and follow the cultural ways of our ancestors will not claim to represent Traditional Judaism.

Who is “Rabbi Dr. Daniel Akans”?

     Before I leave the topic of Messianic Bureau International, I’d like to just take a moment to inquire publicly about the man who currently serves as the president of MBI, Daniel Akans.  A number of very serious concerns have been brought to my attention.  To be fair to Akans, I will not repeat any of them here as I have not been given any kind of evidence to substantiate the accusations that have been made against him.  They may very well have been completely fabricated. Let me say clearly that there is a significant difference between the various theological concerns that I have raised on my blog and accusations of wrong-doing regarding an individual’s personal life and conduct.  Aside from what was in my opinion a rather snippy comment that Akans posted on my blog a year ago, I don’t have any direct knowledge about his personal character and activities.  In light of that, I would like to just publically give Mr. Akans an opportunity to answer a few questions that will perhaps shed light on who he is as a person.  I ask here because I have not been able to find very much in the way of biographical information about Akans on the MBI site.

1.       Mr. Akans represents himself as “Rabbi Dr. Daniel Akans (PhD).” I am interested to learn more about the nature of Akans’ doctoral work.  In which institution did he study?  What was his focus of study? Is his dissertation available for review?

2.       Is Mr. Akans currently licensed as a counselor of any kind in the state of Michigan?  Has he ever been?

3.       Under Akans’ leadership, will MBI be relocating in any sense outside of Michigan?  What is the purpose of this?

4.       What does the MBI equivalent of “church discipline” and/or “member assimilation” look like practically?  Is ostracism from an individual’s family members every encouraged or enforced? How would Akans respond to an accusation of sociological cultism in this regard? 

5.       Does Akans know of any doubts that have been raised about his personal character or conduct that he would be interested in addressing here?

Again, it is not my intention to unfairly cast doubt upon the personal character of Akans.  He may well be a man of great character and honor.  Having worked for a number of years in cross-cultural ministry, I can attest to the fact that behavior deemed immoral or deviant in one cultural context may be perfectly acceptable in another.  However, I do want to give Akans every opportunity to address publicly any issues of a sociological or personal nature that he may feel have unfairly criticized by others.  Since my MBI-related posting a year ago, as insignificant as my blog is, it has become a kind of landing point for people who have concerns about MBI and Daniel Akans.  From that perspective then, it makes some sense for Akans to use this venue to respond to the theological issues that have been raised as well as any personal issues that he’d like to speak to.

     Okay, that’s all.  At this point, I still cannot recommend Messianic Bureau International as being a healthy, Biblical expression of the Christian faith (Messianic or otherwise).  For those interested in Messianic Judaism however, I do commend to you the Southern Baptist Messianic Fellowship (referenced above), a great organization called “Chosen Peoples Ministries”, as well as the old standard “Jews for Jesus.”

Take the 5-Point TIBM-Cape Town Challenge!

      Fresh back from my trip to the US-Lausanne pre-congress meeting, I had a chance to offer a report, words of encouragement, and set of challenges to the TIBM family this past Sunday night in our house church gathering.  I’ll admit that in my excitement, it was difficult to present things in an organized fashion, but I think that most people got the idea.  Well, I won’t rehash the whole report here, but I did want to outline the five-point “TIBM-Cape Town Challenge” that our team/church is taking on in 2010.  This is our way of preparing for the 3^rd Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization and engaging in a work that we feel may be the defining Kingdom-work of our generation.

     Wow, I’m really tempted to just go on and on here, but I’ll restrain myself.  Let me get right into the challenge and ask you to join us in this.

1.      Read, study, teach, and memorize the book of Ephesians

All 4,000 on-site participants are being challenged by the Lausanne leadership to soak in Ephesians in the months leading up to Cape Town.  We are also being asked to teach it and preach from it in our various mission contexts and even to memorize it.  The official Cape Town 2010 study guide for Ephesians is simple and helpful.  You can download a pdf for free here.  At Trinity, we just finished a multi-year study of spiritual warfare that had us focused a lot on Ephesians 6.  Nevertheless, we’ll take up this challenge and take a significant amount of time in the book this year.

2.      Prayer for and memorization of all nations

The 3^rd congress will be the most diverse gathering of Christians the world has ever seen.  Some 4,000 delegates from 200 nations will come together to pray, worship, commune, and discuss the most critical issues of our time.  The leadership of the US delegation has specifically asked us to pray for all these nations and to memorize their geographical locations on the earth.  This challenge was quickly amended in the recent Dallas meeting to, “Well, just do all the nations.”  So, I’ve begun to do so and invite you as well.  To pray, I am using a tried and true resource called Operation World that, fantastically, is available online for free.  Just go there and click on “pray today.”  Do it every day.  To memorize the locations of all the world’s nations, I’ve been using a geography quiz site that works well, is free, and is actually helping me.  You can check it out here.  Again, try doing one quiz every day.

3.      Study the Lausanne Covenant

The Lausanne Covenant is a document that resulted from the 1^st Lausanne congress in 1974 and has served as a “rallying point” for evangelical Christians the world over who are passionate about the “whole Church taking the whole gospel to the whole world.”  It is something of a statement of faith, but one that is fundamentally grounded in the missional calling and nature of God’s people.  One of the most influential documents in the history of evangelical Christianity, it is something that I want to lead my team in studying, understanding, and interacting with.  There are some terrific resources available for free on the covenant including the actual text itself as well as a study guide entitled For the Lord we Love by John Stott that can be helpful in an individual and group context.  I plan to do personal study as well as to lead TIBM in corporate study of the covenant.

4.      Fully engage the 6 crucial issues of the congress

The 3^rd Lausanne Congress is not being convened simply because we haven’t done it in a while, but in response to a global outcry from Christians who see that God’s Church is facing a number of extraordinarily difficult challenges.  AIDS, postmodernism, Islamic fundamentalism, the southern shift of the church, and other weighty issues are matters that simply cannot be ignored. The passion of Lausanne 3 is to gather the leaders of God’s worldwide church to earnestly seek the will of Christ through prayer, repentance, worship, communion, study, and conversation.  Our hope is to come away from the congress with an Acts 15 kind of declaration, “It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit that the Church . . .”  In particular, through a multi-year process of prayerful and informed discernment, six crucial issues have been put before us.  These are:

·         How do we make a case for truth and the uniqueness of Christ in a postmodern, pluralistic world?

·         How do we articulate and demonstrate the power of the gospel in the midst of suffering and strife?

·         How do we respond redemptively to religious fundamentalism – Islam and Hinduism in particular?

·         What should be our priorities with respect to the unfinished task of world evangelization?

·         What are obstacles to world evangelization within the church and how can those be addressed?

·         How should the Church in the US partner with the Church in the rest of the world?

So then, the challenge is to prayerfully and studiously, thoughtfully and actively, locally and globally engage these six critical issues.  I believe that any local church or Christian organization in the world today that has a truly global vision will be able to find significant points of intersection between these issues and their local ministry.  So, I have decided to seek to make the work of Lausanne 3 the work of TIBM.  Here are a couple concrete ways we plan to engage these challenges.  First, I am calling upon the TIBM family to engage in the growing global conversation around these issues that is being hosted online by Lausanne and Christianity Today.  You can do that too by going directly to this site. I believe that God may have tremendous plans for this site.  Engage now.  Secondly, TIBM will be using a number of our Sunday night house church gatherings to focus on these issues.  We’ll take time to unpack each of the 6 issues and then prayerfully discuss them in our group.  In particular, we’ll frame our discussion with these questions:

 ·         How does this global issue impact and intersect with our local ministry?

·         How is God calling us to engage in this issue globally? How is God calling us to engage in partnerships around this issue?

·         What things make our involvement challenging?  Hopeful?

·         What resources do we have for the wider church and what resources do we need from the wider church concerning this issue?

·         What concerns should we bring before the Lord regarding this issue?

5.      Develop a Strategy for Mobilization and Prophetic Leadership

Cape Town 2010 is not an end in itself.  It is, Lord willing, the beginning of renewal, reformation, and recommitment for the global Church.  Those who engage in the work of Lausanne 3, have the responsibility to mobilize, equip, call, and lead the whole church to take the whole gospel to the whole world.  As the Lord speaks to us in global community about these 6 critical issues, we then must speak to those in our spheres of influence.  We don’t know now what that will need to look like.  However, we know enough to pray and prepare ourselves for a work that will continue long after the Cape Town delegates have gone back home.  So, pray now.  And consider now how God may be calling you in leadership and in service around this work.  How should your gifts (teaching, giving, prayer, administration, service, mercy, etc.) be put to use to support the work of Lausanne right now?

 

 

 

A friend of mine recently sent me a couple articles that I thought were worth passing your way.  The first here is an article by Lisa Miller entitled "We are All Hindus Now."  It appeared in an August issue of Newsweek this year. Miller's basic argument is that while Americans still tend to self-identify as Christians, their worldviews are becoming much more Hindu than Biblical. Miller's position is that America is on its way to becoming Hindu in terms of the worldview shared by most of the population.

In an October article published by Break Point entitled "Are We Really Hindus?", Regis Nicoll provides a well-conceived rebuttal.  He doesn't totally dismiss Miller's contentions, but provides a balanced perspective that should give the follower of Christ pause.  In Nicoll's mind, Americans aren't really becoming more Hindu.  Rather the problem is that American Christians have traded in a belief system based on creeds for one based on personal needs.

I thought both articles were interesting.  At the end of the day, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot for my daily life as a follower of Jesus engaged full-time in God's global mission of redemption.  Lost is still lost, regardless of the label.  It is essential to understand an individual's worldview and background, sure.  But I feel that believers sometimes read these kinds of articles in a doom and gloom sort of way. Like they'd be happier if people were lost but didn't believe in reincarnation.  I don't get that.

As for the question at hand, "Is America becoming more Hindu?" I'd like to suggest a totally different option.  That is, maybe no one is really Hindu.  Now, wait, I'm actually a little serious.  The word Hindu itself has very little meaning.  It is a term that was coined, it seems, by Persians to refer to the Indus river valley and the people who lived there.  Later generations of Arabs and other foreigners to India used the appellation to refer collectively to everyone living in "Hindustan" (India) regardless of their religious beliefs. It was only in relatively recent times that Europeans started using the term as a religious label, but they did this somewhat uncritically -- lumping different religious groups together that often had little in common. 

Literally, "hindu" just means someone from India, but the Hindi / Sanskrit word for India isn't even "India".  It is Bharat.  So, if "India" is no more than what foreigners call Bharat, can we really say that anyone is from India?  Are there really any Hindus?

More seriously, "Hinduism" can claim no universal tenets, doctrines, practices, or literature that explain why Buddhists are not Hindu, BAPS devotees are, and Jains are kinda-sorta.  Just try. Just try to explain what makes a Hindu a Hindu and not a Christian, Scientologist, Taoist, or Muslim.  Try.  Really, I'm not looking to be difficult, but I'd love to get a conversation going. 

 

 

Today, I give you the final installment of our three-part series called "The Islamic Dilemma."  In this lecture, Sam Shamoun presents many claims of the Lord Jesus that conflict with the teachings of the Qu'ran.  After watching the video, be sure to leave your comments, questions, or challenges in the comment section.

 

 

This entry is the second of a three-part series called "The Islamic Dilemma" featuring apologist Sam Shamoun.  TIBM has been helping out with the ministry of Islamic Dilemma from the beginning and we are pleased to make these lectures available to a wider audience through our website.  In this lecture, Sam looks at the testimonies of Biblical prophets and Muhammad concerning Jesus Christ.  The conclusion: The Messiah is God and has come to save people from their sin!

 

 

Sam Shamoun is a friend of ours who has presented a series of public lectures entitled "The Islamic Dilemma."  As the title suggests, in these lectures Sam presents what he feels is an impossible logical dilemma for Muslims who wish to be faithful to the teachings of the Qu'ran.  It this post, I am including a player that will allow you to view Sam's first lecture.  In it you will see how the Qu'ran itself attests to the truth of Christianity.  After you've had a chance to watch the lecture, please leave your comments.

Hi Cody, 
     I hope everything is going well. I have a question to ask you. We were talking about this last night during a class at church that I am taking and  . . . I thought maybe you would know the answer because none of us really could explain it.
     The question is, If God COMPLETELY knows the future. How do we have free will? Also what are the verses that would back this up? This was just a question that was asked during conversation, but none of us really knew the answer. I also think it is a question for thought as well.

Thanks for your help,

Heather

      Thanks for the question, Heather.  Your question assumes that we must have "free will." But, if by "free will" you mean literal autonomy, I would simply ask that you start by finding Bible verses that establish that humans truly have "free will" in a libertarian sense. I would argue that the Bible denies this and in fact suggests that humans are bound in slavery to sin and Satan.  2Tim. 2:26, in fact, describes the situation of a lost person (someone who hasn’t been born again through faith in Jesus Christ) as one who has be captured by Satan to do his will. Add verses that describe the unsaved as “in slavery”, “blind”, “living in darkness”, being “led astray”, etc . . . there is little question in my mind that humans in general have no "free will" in the way you are thinking. Their wills are being controlled by sin and Satan. 
     When the Bible does describe freedom, it doesn't describe it in terms of libertarianism or self-autonomy. To be “set free” means to be freed from slavery to sin and Satan so that we can be "free" to serve the will of God. Romans 6 talks about being set free from sin so that we can become slaves of righteousness and slaves of God.
     In the end, the concept of libertarian free will, can be found all over the literature of Western philosophy, but it cannot be found in the Bible. On the other hand, the concept of God's omniscience (that He perfectly and completely knows the past, present and future) and sovereignty (that He has perfectly and completely planned and rules over the past, present and future), is easily and plentifully found in the Bible. We must be very careful that in our zeal to hold on to Western philosophical values, that we not sacrifice God's eternal truth. There are those doing so now on this very issue with a heretical doctrine called "open theism". Proponents of this view, in an effort to preserve and defend "free will" at all costs are sacrificing the omniscience of God by suggesting that God doesn't, in fact, know the future.  I, for one, think that's far too high a price to pay to hold on to a notion as Biblically indefensible and as philosophically problematic as "free will."

     As an extra resource here for all of you, I’m adding a great little lecture from Bruce Ware on this topic.  He describes well the “compatiblist view” of freedom that I think is much more thoroughly Biblical.

 

 

 

     While I was away, a question was asked during one of our 1Stone Noonday events.  The question had to do with murder, killing, war, etc.  In essence, it seems that the question had to do with why killing/war seemed to be okay in the Old Testament but bad in the New Testament.  Actually, the question seemed to be asked from the perspective of assuming that killing and war are always fundamentally wrong.  I’m not really sure how the question was answered at the time, but let me reflect on it a bit here.  Enjoy!

     God is consistent when it comes to punishing sin.  He uses various means, but the wages of sin has always been death (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 6:23).  Sometimes those means are what we might consider supernatural, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 20:23-29), Egypt (Ex. 7-12), or Herod (Acts 12:20-23).  But at many other times, God uses human agents to carry out His punishment of sin.  Examples of this abound in the Bible, including the entire book of Judges, scripture recounting the downfall and exile of the Israelites, and the execution of the two thieves who were crucified on either side of Jesus.  In each of these cases, God used human agents to mete out the punishment that the sins of other humans deserved (Lk. 23:41).  Of course, the ultimate example of this is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  In this case, God punished the only truly innocent person for the sin of humanity.  And God used human agents (e.g. Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, etc.) to carry out that punishment.

     When people object to the conquest of the promised land, they usually do so without seriously reflecting on the entire Biblical narrative.  First, they fail to see that most of the suffering and death recorded in the Bible is against the people of God.  When various enemies attacked and oppressed the twelve tribes during the Judges period, when the Assyrians wiped out the northern kingdom, and when the Babylonians conquered Judea, they did so as agents of God’s wrath (Jer. 25:9).  I’ve never heard a skeptic complain about this fact, but the reality is that God brought about the death of more Israelites than perhaps any other ethnic group in the Old Testament.  Does this make God anti-Semitic?  Of course not.  But it does make clear that God takes sin very seriously and is committed to obliterating it. 

     Thus the conquest of Canaan must be understood as a case of God using the Israelites as his agents to carry out the punishment of the sin of the Canaanite people.  This is exactly what the Scripture teaches.  Note that in the Abrahamic covenant, God promises that Abraham’s descendents will inherit the land of Canaan.  But God also says that they cannot inherit the land right away.  They would have to wait for many years (over 400) for “the iniquity of the Amorites” was not yet “complete” (Gen. 15:16).  That is, God made his chosen people wait hundreds of years (even in great suffering and exploitation), before finally punishing the inhabitants of Canaan (generally referred to as Amorites).  To put it another way, the Canaanites had more than 400 years to repent from the time Abraham was living among them as a witness to the day Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan river.

     Some people, of course, have a problem with God commanding the Israelites to conquer cities and regions, killing the inhabitants.  But the only real difference between this and the Babylonian conquest of Judea is that the Israelites knew they were God’s instruments of punishment.  And knowing this was simply a product of their covenant relationship with God -- the very relationship that the Canaanites had consistently rejected since the days of Abraham.  To be sure, there were some Canaanites who repented of their sin.  These were spared (e.g. Jos. 6:25). 

     Others may object to the fact that children were included among those who were killed during the conquest of Canaan.  But this simply reflects the more collectivist worldview of the Bible versus a more Western, individualistic worldview.  There are cases in the Bible when children were to be punished along with adults if the punishment was against an entire family or society.  This could happen just as easily to the Israelites as to non-Israelites (e.g. Josh. 8:22-26).

     It is important to state outright that these Biblical events should not be seen as a justification for genocide or for “holy war.”  There is no standing command in the Bible that instructs the people of God to wage war against the unfaithful.  The standing commands we have are to love our neighbor and to proclaim the way of salvation to all peoples and nations.  At the same time, Jesus doesn’t represent a philosophical break with the God of the Old Testament.  While it is tempting for us to view Jesus as a ultra-pacifist hippie that wants to “make love, not war," we must remember that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament.  He specifically said that he came not to bring peace but a sword (Mat. 10:34), he was more commonly mistaken to be a radical revolutionary that would overthrow the Romans than an ascetic hermit that wanted everyone to just get along, and he was not above using violence to get his point across (Jn. 2:15).  Jesus Christ hated sin and came into the world to destroy it.

     Finally, let’s keep in mind that there is a difference between murder and killing.  This is most clearly seen in Genesis 6 when we see that anyone who sheds the blood of another human will have his blood shed by a human.  Surely this doesn’t mean that then the executioner will have to be executed and on and on until the human race is wiped out.  No, in the law of Moses, regulations are established for the punishment of sin which include the death penalty.  Jesus didn’t forbid the death penalty during his earthly ministry, but rather submitted willingly to it.  Moreover, the apostolic witness indicates that governing officials should continue to “bear the sword” as instruments of God’s wrath against sin (Rom. 13:4).

     The truth is, as human beings, we delight in the punishment and eradication of evil.  I just watched the movie Valkyrie last week which is the story of a failed attempt to assassinate Adolph Hitler.  Now, I would venture to say that nearly everyone in that theater was cheering for the people who were trying to assassinate Hitler.  Why? Because we hate evil.  There is something in us (perhaps the image of God) that cries out to God for sin to be eliminated.  We hate injustice, oppression, deceit, greed, abuse, etc.  Even now, if a pedophile or a terrorist is punished, we are glad.  So why do we cringe when God punishes sin in the Bible?  In particular, when God uses the Israelites as his agents to punish the Canaanites, why do we feel upset?  My guess is that we have tended to misunderstand sin.  In particular, our culture has taught us that certain sins such as sexual immorality, murder, and racism are especially heinous while others aren’t particularly bad.  But the first and greatest command is to love God.  So it would follow that the first and greatest sin is to not love God.  Now if that is true, we understand that the person who rejects God is engaging in sin that is more severe than the Holocaust or 9/11. 

     Well, I’m going to stop now.  Need to move on to other things.  Think this over, I look forward to your feedback.

 

 

 

 
Cody:  Let me continue my response to Messianic Bureau International’s list of  “errors” of Christianity.  I dealt with the first two “errors” last time and will finish the list here.  Again, this is a list of the ways in which MBI believes Christians have erred during the past 2,000 years.  For ease of reading, I’ll put the words of the Messianic Bureau International in ALL CAPS:

 

1.        CLAIMED TORAH (GOD’S LAW) WAS NOT VALID ANYMORE AS A STANDARD FOR CHRISTIANS.

 

     This is not an orthodox Christian argument.  Torah is as valid as ever to demonstrate to all men that they are law-breakers who deserve the wrath of God (Rom. 3:20).  It is as valid as ever to help the regenerate person to discern the law written on their hearts – that which pleases God – and to faithfully obey it.  It has never been a law that provided salvation (Gal. 3:21)

 

2.       DEPICTED MESSIAH YESHUA (JESUS) AS EFFEMINATE, NON-JEWISH, AND A BREAKER OF TORAH.

 

     Hey, don’t like a lot of Jesus paintings either, but bad painting isn’t exactly heresy.  Besides, this statement really seems to reveal a fundamental ignorance of art history and anthropology.  People have always tended to portray Jesus as one of their own.  By way of example, Try these on for size.  The doctrine of the incarnation and the call to be all things to all men for the sake of missions (1 Cor. 9:19-23) should challenge us to consider what it must mean for the Word to take on flesh in any and every culture.  Contextualization people! 

     And, effeminate?  Really? Are you sure you don’t just mean Italian?

 

3.       TURNED THE GLORY OF MESSIAH OVER TO POPES; MARY AS THE “QUEEN OF HEAVEN.”

 

Yeah, I agree, that was stupid.  But again, I didn’t do that.  I wonder if MBI is familiar with the Reformation.

 

4.      GAVE MORE IMPORTANCE TO PAUL’S WORDS THAN YESHUA’S WORDS.

 

     I find this to be a really troubling statement.  On the one hand, it is just ignorant.  There have been plenty of Christians throughout the ages who have proposed a “canon within a canon” in which the “actual words of Jesus” are emphasized over and above other words.  Martin Luther, for example, did this.  Moreover, every red-letter Bible is essentially doing this very thing.  I mean why are they red?  Any 3-year-old who looks at a red-letter Bible is going to assume that there is something special about the red words.  And what is it?  Why, they are the words of Christ!  But isn’t the whole Bible the word of God?

     The fact of the matter is that the whole canon of Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).  John 3:16 is no more the word of God than Zephaniah 3:16.  The word of God is the word of God.  Suggesting otherwise is inching towards heresy.

 

 
My Friend:  I have been researching a lot on Judaism and Christianity. Something that really bugs me now is the Statement of Faith that I read from the Messianic Bureau International (www.messianic.com). It seems to me that the Messianic Jews actually got it right. There might have been many elements of the pagan world that are incorporated into Christianity today.

Cody:  MBI is a rather small and obscure group that I don’t think is a fair representative of the larger Messianic Jewish population.  I have a friend that serves with Chosen People Ministries and can also recommend the folks from Jews for Jesus.  Try checking them out at http://www.chosenpeople.org and http://jewsforjesus.org .

     MBI, at first glance, seems a little radical and perhaps pharisaical for my taste.  Their list of “errors” of Christianity just sounds reactionary and paints all Christians with the same brush.  I’m sure you’ve seen the list, but let me respond to it below.  Basically, this is a list of the things MBI believes that Christians have erred in during the past 2,000 years.  For ease of reading, I’ll put the words of the Messianic Bureau International in ALL CAPS:

 

1.         ACCEPTED THE CHURCH COUNCILS AS DIVINE AUTHORITY

 

     I didn’t do that, did you?  Here’ s just the first example of painting all Christians with the same brush.  It is the legacy of the Reformation – which I as a Baptist follow – to affirm sola scriptura.  As helpful as the teaching ministry of the Church and historic councils may be, they are not divinely inspired and are, thus, susceptible to error.

 

2.       CHANGED SEVENTH DAY SABBATH TO SUNDAY; CHANGED PASSOVER TO GOOD FRIDAY; CHANGED FIRST FRUITS OF BARLEY (RESURRECTION DAY) TO THAT OF THE GODDESS EASTER (ISHTAR, ASTARTE, ASHEROT); CHANGED BIRTH OF MESSIAH FROM FEAST OF TABERNACLES TO THE PAGAN SOLSTICE (CHRISTMAS).

 

     I’ve already mentioned the Sabbath.  The Good Friday thing is all about Christ’s death and I wasn’t really around to weigh in on the date of Easter.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t worship Astarte on Easter, I worship Jesus Christ.  And what Biblical evidence is there that Christ was born on the Feast of Tabernacles? 

     I get these holiday arguments often from Jehovah’s Witnesses and others.  I find them kind of silly and laced with heavy doses of ignorance.  First is Scriptural ignorance.  We have freedom in Christ to honor Him any day we want to.  If I want to invent a new holiday tomorrow to celebrate the feeding of the 5000, I can (Rom. 14:5-6).  Next is anthropological ignorance.  Symbols change all the time and their “original” meaning can often be superseded by a new one.  The Lord Jesus himself did this with the Passover meal at the “Last Supper.”  If we were to analyze how much pagan symbolism is in the everyday life of MBI people or Jehovah’s Witnesses, it would be scary.  I mean do they ban the eating of Lucky Charms cereal?  Do they have bridesmaids at their weddings?  Wedding rings?  Do they use the word “God”?  Do they use the English names for days of the week in their conversations?  Where do they get off worshiping the one true God on Saturday, a day named after the pagan god Saturn?  I am adamantly for taking over pagan holidays and symbols and transforming them into things that honor Christ.  Someone may criticize me for decorating with a Christmas tree, claiming that it is an old pagan custom.  I respond, “It isn’t in my house.  In my house it is all about Jesus Christ and the death he died on a tree to give us everlasting life.”

 

     The last two points of the doctrine of creation are as follows:

 

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

 

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

 

     It is here, I think, that Biblical theology comes most in conflict with macro-evolutionary ideas.  There is such a concept as “Theistic Evolution” which essentially claims that there is no necessary contradiction between Biblical theology and Darwinian-type evolution.  And, I suppose that if Darwinism is communicated in a way that doesn’t assume atheism or deism (that is, that it doesn’t contradict either of the first two points of the doctrine of Creation), then, up to that point, theistic evolutionists are correct.  One may hold to the principles of macroevolution and still believe that God not only started the process of creation but has remained involved in it throughout history.  However, points 3 and 4 are just much more difficult to reconcile with a Darwinian worldview.

     First, to be faithful to Scripture, one must believe that a radical distinction exists between humans and other forms of biological life.  There is the imago dei (the image of God) concept to contend with in the Bible.  I find it difficult to conceive of a view of humanity that preserves both the belief that humans alone are made in the image of God and that they the biological descendants of other species of primates.  Things get trickier when we move fully into point 4.  According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were made directly by God in his image.  It was an event – this creation, this bestowing of life, this depositing of the imago dei.  If you are an adherent to theistic evolutionary views, I would really like to hear your theologizing on this issue.  If humans are the product of a slow and gradual process of transmutation, when does the image of God come into play?  At what point is a human being a bearer of imago dei and thereby radically distinct from all creation?  I suppose a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium could lend a hand – which could also help us to get two real ancestors of the human race (i.e. Adam and Eve).  But I think that is really stretching credulity.

      A final word here on the importance of point 4.  You may be wondering why is it necessary to affirm that Adam and Eve really were the first humans – our real ancestors.  I know that there are some that read the first several chapters of Genesis metaphorically.  Others try to read it as a science text book.  I don’t think either approach is exegetically honest.  For example, it seems to me that reading chapter one as being about a sequence of 6 literal 24-hour periods is forcing a modern, Western, monochronic view of time upon the ancient, Middle-Eastern, and polychronic audience to which Moses was writing.  Not to mention God’s limitless ability to make what is a “day” to him seem like billions of years to everyone else (2 Pet. 3:8).  But on the other hand, metephorizing the entire contents of the early chapters of Genesis not only reduces the contents to fairytales in the worst way but also ignores the tenor with which the chapters were written.  The person who reads Genesis 1-11 can’t help but confess that the contents were meant to be believed – they were written as history.  There are ages and genealogies, measurements and boring details.  One might take the position that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true, but that it was written to be believed as actual fact seems self-evident.  Moreover, it seems clear that the New Testament authors, and Jesus himself, believed these early chapters to be genuine historical records (e.g. Mt. 23:35, 24:37, Mk. 10:6, Lk. 3:38, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Heb. 11:7, 1 Pet. 3:20, 1 Jn. 3:12, Jude 14).

     Of course, the biggest problem with denying our literal descent from Adam and Eve is that doing so wreaks havoc to the essential doctrine of original sin.  The doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were made sinless, bearing the untainted image of God.  They then sinned by rebelling against God’s command, thus corrupting the nature within them.  Original sin* refers to the fact that since we are all descended from Adam, we have all inherited a sinful nature.  We are, like David, sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5).  We are not sinners because we sin.  Rather, we sin because we are sinners by nature.  Sin and death, and with it our just condemnation, have spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12-21).  The doctrine of original sin highlights our inherent and emphatic need of a savior.  We cannot please God, seek Him, or become justified in God’s sight apart from the free and sovereign work of His grace in our lives – without the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:9-20, Eph. 2:1-10).

     So, how can theistic evolutionists reconcile macroevolution with the doctrine of original sin?  If there wasn’t a literal Fall, if there is no literal descent from Adam, where does our sinful nature come from?  I think this is a huge problem for the concept of theistic evolution, and I cannot conceive of a way around it.  One thing is certain, that from birth human beings have an innate proclivity to sin is far more observable than the transmutation of species.   And, at the end of the day, I reject macroevolutionary principles because I don’t find the weight of evidence in favor of Darwinism so compelling as to warrant the kind of theological gymnastics that would be required for reconciling those principles with what I already know to be true – God’s infallible word.

     So that’s where I end my review of the four principles of the Biblical doctrine of creation.  This is where the apologetic battle must be fought for Christ’s sake.  Active creative theism, the imminence and transcendence of God, the imago dei, and the doctrine of original sin are pillars and essentials of the faith one for all delivered to the saints.  And it is the responsibility of every follower of Jesus to earnestly contend for and proclaim these transforming and life-giving truths (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude  3). 

     In a few weeks, we’ll examine the concept of the image of God and attempt to answer the question, “What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?”  But now for something completely different . . . .

 

[*For more on the doctrine of original sin, read “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin” a brief article by John Piper.]

    

  

     The second point of the doctrine of creation is as follows:

 

2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

 

     And when it really comes down to it, I think this is the main reason why many people are so adamantly opposed to the idea of intelligent design or the possibility that there could be a supreme being ruling over the universe.  Really, there must be some explanation for the astoundingly virulent attitudes of many of atheism’s greatest proponents.  Just take atheistic figurehead Richard Dawkin’s comments for example:

 

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”   (Quoted on Dawkins sycophant Steve Wells’ blog from The God Delusion)

 

     So what’s the cause of all this outright hostility towards the idea of God and towards Christians in particular?  Natural selection? 

     No, I really think it has to do with the implications of point 2 of the doctrine of creation.  I’d be willing to bet that most of these guys (and gals) wouldn’t have very much at all to say about belief in an intelligent creator if that’s all there was to it.  After all, it’s not unusual for them to posit that very thing in the form of some kind of extraterrestrial “seeding” theory (here’s Dawkins on this).  If the creator simply “seeded” biological life on earth and then zipped away to some far off galaxy in their flying saucer, then well and good.  The problem is that the Bible teaches (and science really does affirm*) that God not only created at the beginning, but stuck around afterwards.

     This is the idea that sinful people (myself included before I met Christ) have always shuddered at.  The idea that there is an omnipotent God ruling over the entire universe and prying into your personal affairs is just pretty scary when you think about it.  Moreover, when it turns out that this God actually cares about things like right and wrong, holiness and obedience, love and justice – well, YIKES!  There is a sense in which Dawkins is right in calling God unpleasant.  For those who live their lives in enmity towards God, nothing could be more unpleasant than to realize that it all matters.

     It seems to me that atheism is the ultimate crutch for those who don’t want to face the fact that God sees and cares.   Atheists like Dawkins are on a boat to Tarshish, and what they don’t seem to understand is that sleeping in the cabin won’t make the storm go away. 

     We need to be ready and willing to try to persuade such people to believe in God and the salvation that he offers through his son, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:11).  But we also must persistently pray for our atheistic friends and family that God will mercifully pursue them, granting them faith and repentance that leads to a life-giving knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25).

 

 

[*There is a good scientific discussion of this in The Case for a Creator.]

 

     In my previous post,  I presented four major principles taught by the Bible with respect to the doctrine of Creation.  I want now to reflect a bit further on these ideas. 

 

1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

 

     I won’t spend much time on this idea because I feel like I’ve already addressed it to some extent.  The bottom line is that if you push them far enough, Darwinists find it impossible to get around the need for an intelligent designer.  As I said previously, they just can’t get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key.  Or, if you prefer, they can’t roll the Yahtzee. 

     Now, what ends up happening, is that the atheist will almost always respond to this dilemma by asking who created God.  The rationale is that if the complexity of a protein molecule requires an intelligent creator, surely the greatly more complex creator needs an even more intelligent source.  It seems that the attempt is to make the teleological argument for the existence of God seem unreasonable. 

     I have heard Christian apologists respond to this, but I haven’t found their responses all that compelling.  To me,  all this question does it require us to assume that the ultimate source of creation must be itself eternal and self-existent.   Maybe I’m missing something, but I do not get why that doesn’t make sense to the atheist.  It is completely reasonable to assume that there is an intelligence that is responsible for the origin of the universe and that this intelligence is eternal and has aseity.  And it just so happens, that the Bible describes God as having those attributes (e.g. Ps. 90:2).

 

     Have you encountered other arguments that you find difficult to respond to?  Post in the comment section and we’ll talk.

 

Blessings!

     Before we leave the topic of creation, I want to spend some time talking about where the real battleground is for those who want to be faithful to the Scriptures.  That is, I want to talk about the Biblical doctrine of creation.  As we encounter Darwinists in our attempt to communicate spiritual truth, I think it is critical that we know where exactly we should be focusing our apologetics.  There are certain battles that we simply don’t need to be fighting. 

     It has often been the case in church history that Christians have picked the wrong fights, often claiming that the Bible teaches things that it does not.  For example, when Galileo Galilei supported the Copernican view of a heliocentric universe, he was charged with heresy and forced to recant his claims.  The Roman Inquisition incorrectly believed that the Bible taught that the earth was in the center of the universe.  This exegetical blunder has long been one of the great historical and unnecessary embarrassments of the Church.

     It is absolutely essential that we understand what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of creation, so we don’t find ourselves fighting silly battles that are at best a waste of time.  In short, I find that the Scripture teaches four key truths regarding creation that we must understand, believe, and vigorously defend.  I have listed these principles below with several scriptural texts that  support them:

 

1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

 

2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

 

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

 

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

 

      To the extent that Darwinism challenges any of these principles, Christians who desire to be faithful to the Bible have a serious theological motivation for engaging in debate.  Indeed, we must be willing and ready to give a defense of these essential Biblical truths (1 Pet. 3:15).   The good news is that some really great resources like the Case for a Creator, Expelled, and the Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution are available to help us in this battle.

     Now, beyond these four points, I don’t believe there is a strong Biblical exegetical or theological reason for arguing with non-believers.  No one is being kept out of God’s Kingdom because they believe in an old earth or that dinosaurs weren’t contemporary to humans.  There are plenty of “in-house” debates that Christians can have on these kind of side issues, but it is the essentials that we must proclaim and defend in our various mission contexts. 

     To be sure, Darwinism as it is commonly delineated is clearly heretical, a worldview that is undeniably anti-Biblical.  It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective.  But it is worth remembering that on a completely different level, the scientific, Darwinism falls short of glory.  Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any.

     Over the next few blogs, I plan to reflect a bit more on the four principles of the doctrine of creation mentioned above.  For now, I invite you to let me know in the comment section if you think there are parts of the doctrine that I have overlooked and that you feel should be included among the other four.

 

     In my review of Ben Stein’s Expelled, I kind of opened the can of worms that is the creation science debate.  I’m really not a scientist.  I enjoyed my undergrad astronomy and biotechnology courses (got an “A” in both, thank you), and had a good junior high science teacher (shout out to Coach Hamilton), but beyond that, I’m really trying to quit.  Biblical theology, on the other hand, is a different story.  So, what I thought I’d do here is begin by recommending a couple nice lay-level resources for those of you that really want to dig deeper into the whole intelligent design debate.  Then, in my next blog, I’ll move on to some Biblical thoughts about where we really need to be fighting this battle with Darwinism.

     The resources I like are first a DVD called The Case for a Creator.  This is a Lee Strobel documentary inspired by his book by the same name.  Here you have what is essentially a well-reasoned summary of the case in favor of intelligent design.  It is a well-made film that is both interesting and compelling, so you won’t have feel embarrassed showing it to your church, kids, friends, or whoever.  You will have a hard time finding it at your local rental store or even your public library, so you’ll need to just buy it, but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

     Secondly, I’d recommend a book by apologist Hank Hanegraaff called The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution.  Hanegraaff is a master at presenting strong apologetic arguments in a memorable form.  In The Face, which I read years ago, some of the most basic arguments against Darwinism are presented.  Please don’t misunderstand what I mean by “basic.” I don’t mean simplistic.  I mean that these are arguments that are simple to communicate and grasp but nearly impossible to answer.  For example, one of Hanegraaff’s chapters is on chance.  Atheistic Darwinism simply has no choice but to rely on random chance to explain the origin of biological life.*  Hanegraaff provides a compelling argument based on statistical analysis to demonstrate that “chance doesn’t have a chance.”

     I like to think of the chance argument in Yahtzee terms—a game that we just don’t play enough anymore.  All of you who have played know how hard it is to role a Yahtzee (all 5 dice showing the same face).  I mean it happens, but not every game—and you get three rolls per turn.  Now, imagine you only got one roll.  Well, now rolling a Yahtzee is going to be more like a once-a-year phenomenon.   Now double the number of dice and all the sudden rolling a Yahtzee becomes a once-in-a-lifetime event.  Make it, say, 50 dice, and now rolling a Yahtzee will simply never happen.  Even if that’s all you did over and over again without so much as a potty break, you just are never going to be able to put 50 dice in a cup and have them all come out with the same value.  Now, I’ll leave it to higher minds to figure out just how many dice you’d really have to put into the cup to accurately parallel your chances of “rolling” a single protein molecule.  I just know it’s more than 50.

     At the end of the day, this is really the old “watchmaker argument” (or teleological argument), rehashed.  I once heard a Darwinist say so as if simply identifying it as “the old watchmaker argument” actually defeats the argument.  It doesn’t, by the way.  It is amazing how questions that are never adequately answered just don’t go away.  The simple fact is that the Darwinist is in trouble on this issue because they cannot get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key. 

     So, check out these resources and let me know what you think.  Also, if you have read or watched something that you found helpful on this issue, let us all know in the comments section of this blog.

 

Blessings.

 

 

 

[* Yes, I am aware that some Darwinists posit a theory of origins that suggests that biological life was “seeded” on our planet by some highly evolved organism—think: Mission to Mars, the Gary Sinise movie.  This is essentially a space alien theory, which, silliness aside, only kicks the can down the road a bit further.  I mean, how did the aliens come into existence?]

 

 

     I just finished watching Ben Stein’s documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and wanted to post a quick word about it as it will now be appearing on TIBM’s recommended resources page.  In short, I found the film to be compelling, entertaining, and just well-made.  You probably are already aware of the gist of Expelled, so I won’t belabor that here.  It’s enough to simply mention that the film is a exposé of the current conspiracy within mainline academia to suppress the concept of intelligent design (ID).  Stein does a great job of showing how academic freedom is under attack in this country by the Darwinian lobby.  He really makes that the central issue of the film.  Actually, I don’t see this as a movie about ID as much as it is a movie about censorship.  Stein’s real argument is that ID-based discussion, inquiry, debate, argument, and instruction is being systematically and unreasonably banned from academic institutions in the United States.  The opponents of ID featured in Expelled seem to agree that such a ban is in effect, but they deny that this is unreasonable.

     Well, is it unreasonable to “expel” ID from our nation’s academic institutions?  This is undeniably the case.  After all, ID is essentially a theory of the origins of the universe (and especially of biological life).  Darwinian evolution on the other hand is not a theory of the origin of life.  Darwinism rather attempts to argue that all species evolved over time from a common biological ancestor.  How that earliest ancestor came into being in the first place, however, is not answered by the theory.  Even if we were to accept the idea that all life in our world evolved from a single living cell over billions of years, we still must ask where that cell came from.  So, at the very least, I’d say it is unreasonable to ban a scientific theory without providing something in its place.  Of course, even as I write these words I notice how scary and, well, un-American the phrase “ban a scientific theory” sounds. 

     Before I leave this topic, I thought I should give you a heads up of the kind of feedback you might get from Darwinists that hate Stein’s film just because it exists.  If you chose to make use of this film in any kind of outreach or apologetics training setting or if you try to get your skeptic friends to watch it, you are eventually going to get negative feedback from ID opponents.  I just want to warn you to be careful about how you pick your battles.  Mostly, it seems that people want to criticize Stein and make allegations about how the film was made.  They call Stein ignorant, a meanie, and charge him with using unethical methods for obtaining interviews, etc.  This just simply isn’t where the war should be fought.  For all I know, Ben Stein could be a complete horse’s rear who interviewed people at knifepoint.  But really, what does that have to do with anything?  Is Richard Dawkins claiming to not believe what he is quoted as saying in film?  Is anyone else?

     The bulk of the arguments that you get from Darwinists, of course, aren’t really arguments at all.  Here’s a nice sample quote:

 

“Stein is arguing for a position that no one who knows what they are talking about agrees with.  Intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific position . . . if it wasn’t for the Bible, we wouldn’t have this intelligent design ****.”  — Neotropic9 (YouTube Vlogger)

 

I hope you can see how this isn’t an argument.  It’s like saying to a person who doesn’t agree with you, “Well, you’re just stupid and I’m not going to be your friend anymore.” Now, I’m not a scientist, but on what basis is ID not a legitimate scientific position?  Well, Neotropic9 would just have us take his word for it.  And of course, if the force of your completely unsupported claim doesn’t convince someone to believe your position, you certainly should cuss a little bit. A potty mouth is always a sure sign of an intelligent argument.

     Well, if you haven’t watched the film, go rent it or buy it.  If you have, I’d love to know what you think.  Leave your comments below!

 

[By the way, although I don’t necessarily recommend it, if you want to watch Neotropic9’s vlog response to the Stein film, follow this link: Neotropic9 on Stein. It’s a nice teaching tool on how not to debate.]

 

 

     I recently engaged in an online debate with two individuals on the correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:6.  The debate began as I was being challenged to defend the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity on a YouTube comment thread*.  Since “tis the season,” I thought it might be a nice little Christmas blog for me to share with you the content of that debate here.  Keep in mind that we were commenting back and forth in a format that only allowed a maximum of 500-characters per post.  I tried to keep the debate focused as a result, but it was difficult.  The screen names of individuals I’m debating are Samc023 and Manuaim. Both claim to be Christians but deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ—meaning, of course, that they aren’t Christians in any Biblical sense of the word.  I’m presenting the debate here without editing for grammatical errors, spelling, etc.  My own comments are in purple so that it is easier to follow what’s going on.  But first, the scripture in question:

 

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”  —Isaiah 9:6

 

cclorance:   I'm still waiting for your Isa. 9:6 response where Jesus is called "mighty God" (El Gibbor - used only here and in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18)

 

Samc023:  If you're going to be honest, should not the proper way to translate that is "mighty one " or "mighty power"?

 

cclorance:  No, that isn't the proper translation. It is "El Gibbor" which is well translated as mighty God. "Gibbor" means mighty, powerful, or strong and modifies "El" which is a word Isaiah uses for God often. It is clearly a word for divinity in Isaiah as he uses it to contrast God and humans in 31:3. There is no serious question that "El Gibbor" is a divine title. The exact phrase is used by Isaiah only one other time and that's in 10:21. Again, no question there that the people return to God.

 

Samc023:  I'm not questioning your use of Gibbor, I question the use of El. While it is used most often in regards to the true God of Israel its not strictly limited to only Him. Is not the same word used to describe strength in men and pure might? And regardless it would still only be a title.

 

cclorance:  What is more, it is pretty clear from the context of chapter 10, that El Gibbor is YHWH (or as some incorrectly pronounce it Jehovah). 
     There is a reason that every major Bible translation (including Jewish versions) translates this phrase as "mighty God." Even the very poor NWT concedes this point. So, Sam (and Manuaim, who still hasn't responded to this verse), what say you?

 

Manuaim:  Pt.1-Let me at him Samc023 lol I got him! Mighty=1368-gibbor=Champion/va liant...And God=410=el-mighty; especially Almighty (BUT used also of any deity): God(god), goodly, great, idol, might(-y, one) power, strong.
     I gave u "el" almost word 4 word 4 a reason Man is called el-410 in Job.41:25; Ps.82:1;Eze.31:11 & angels r called "el-410" in Ps.89:6...
     That was 2 break down the "Mighty God" part... cclorance, many believers miss this very important KEY parts to this verse: 2 bctnud 2 Pt.2 : )

 

cclorance:  Manuaim, this is almost completely nonsensical to me. How does this address Isaiah's use of "El"? Isaiah didn't write Psalms, Job, or Ezekiel so I don't see the relevance of citing these other passages. Do you deny that "God" is the first and major meaning of "El" in the Bible?  Are you suggesting that "El Gibbor" should be translated "mighty mighty?" Would you do the same in Isa. 10:21? Why or why not?  My friend, cutting and pasting from a public domain lexicon is not the same as understanding Hebrew.

 

[Directed towards Samc023:]

 

     The issue is not whether the word "El" can occasionally be used in other contexts with other meanings, the question is how is Isaiah using the word here. Isaiah uses the word "El" 23 times in his book. 16 of those times the word refers to the one true God. 7 times it refers to idols. It never means "strength" or "power". Not once. So, your only real option is to accept that Jesus is the one true God or to suggest that Isa. 9:6 calls Jesus "wonderful, counselor, mighty idol, prince of peace."

 

Samc023:  Which doesn't negate its broader meaning. You say otherwise because its convenient for your doctrine.

EL

1. god, god-like one, mighty one
a. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
b. angels
c. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
d. God, the one true God, Jehovah
2. mighty things in nature
3. strength, power

So why would it say mighty idol? that would mean every El is God or an idol.

 

cclorance:  I'm not sure if you understand how translation works. God is the proper translation of El in Isa. 9:6 whether or not it is convenient for my doctrine. I begin with what the Scripture says and build my doctrine upon that. It says "mighty God." You are suggesting that every major Bible translation in the world is wrong and that you are right. Isn't that a bit difficult to believe? It might help if you updated your 100-year-old BDB lexicon.

 

Samc023:  That's because the word itself means God. When the El in question or context if referring to the Supreme being then naturally we would translate it as God. A literal translation of El if it refers to God would be mighty one, but the word clearly has a broader use.

     Oh come on, don't start sinking in to being childish or patronizing. At the end of the day its not like I'm expecting
you to change your beliefs. I do expect you to act like the senior pastor you claim you are and be civil and respectful. Which includes refraining from your arrogant and condescending rebuttals as if you're bible knowledge is superior to everyone else. I'm just explaining why I don't share your views, thats all.

 

Manuaim:  Pt.2-cclorance: I'll capitalize 4 emphasis! Isa.9:6-For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: AND THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER:
     Who's government is being put upon Christ shoulder? & N order 4 the government of THE FATHER 2B put upon the SON the son has 2b equipped with the FATHER's-8034-NAME which means character & or authority.  Focus on the fact that A GOVERNMENT WAS PUT UPON HIS SHOULDER so he had 2 be EQUIPPED 4 that government..Which means what?

     Pt.4:cclorance: AND HIS NAME-8034 shall be CALLED...Now when we DEFINE what NAME means...NOW u hv a clear BIBLICAL EXPLANATION behind Christ being called Gibbor-1368, El-410! 
     When u ingrain the CONTEXT of a government being given unto him "PUT UPON HIM" now u understand why he is being called a NAME that was given unto him! C Jn.5:43-I come in my FATHER's NAME-3686-NT same as Isa.9:6 NAME-8034! So those names Christ r being called speak of that which was GIVEN unto him!

 

cclorance:  Did I miss part 3? I'm sorry Manuaim, I'm really trying but I simply can't follow your flow of thought here. Pretend I'm really stupid and just give me a couple complete sentences. I honestly don't know how to respond to you because I don't understand you.

 

Manuaim:  Sorry about that I try 2 keep everyone following from the sidelines in quietness nformed bcuz they R listening! 
     Simply put...Christ came in his FATHER's NAME-3686:Jn.5:43 this is why Isa.9:6 PROPHESIED what his "NAME-8034" shall b called! 
     I always tell ppl Christ was GIVEN Power that he NEVER HAD...Power belongs 2 GOD Ps.62:11 but Christ was given POWER i.e. Government put upon his shoulders-Isa.9:6, also Mt.28:18 if he IS Co-EQUAL why was he GIVEN anything if he was already GOD ALMIGHTY?

     Pt.5cclorance: U R a trinitarian why is Christ called the EVERLASTING FATHER? Bcuz he came in the FATHER's name, & the FATHER was with us in Christ..etc. I could go deeper but I'll gv u a chance 2 respond! 
     & I did not go 2 some public domain & cut & pace anything I typed it right from my OVERSIZED CONCORDANCE lol! 

     I know el is used DOMINANTLY 2 the FATHER & him alone but I told u Christ came n the NAME of the FATHER!Not the spelling of YHVH but the CHARACTER & AUTHORITY of YHVH C.Rev.19:13-16

 

cclorance:  "Everlasting Father" means "Father of eternity" -- that is, Jesus is the originator of and sovereign over time.  Isa. 9:6 does not teach that Jesus is the Father.
     I completely and rejoicingly believe that Jesus came in the name of the Father. It is a wonderful Trinitarian truth. 
I'd love to settle Isa. 9:6 b4 going elsewhere. Manuaim, are you conceding that this passage calls Jesus "mighty God"?

 

[To Samc023:]

 

     Do you deny that you just pulled a cut & paste from the Brown-Driver-Briggs without citation? Do you deny that the BDB is a 100-year-old lexicon? Do you deny the possibility that some rather significant advances in Hebraic studies may have been made in the past century?
     I don't see what's childish or arrogant about challenging your source material. I also don't mean to hurt your feelings, but it could be very important for you to know where your Biblical understanding is weak.

 

Samc023:  What? What exactly did I cut and paste? are you referring to my El definitions? what?

     Oh trust me, you didn't hurt my feelings, you give yourself far to much credit. And my understanding is far from weak as you certainly appear to be on the defense. So rather than (assume) I'm cutting and pasting as well as give off the false pretense that you yourself are a scholar why don't you answer some of the questions we posed.

 

cclorance:  Is there a question that I have avoided?  Please remind me of it and I'll gladly deal with it.

 

     At this point in the debate, Manuaim ran away from Isaiah 9:6 into a million other directions.  He never answered my question about whether or not he was willing to concede that “El Gibbor” in Isaiah is properly translated as “mighty God.”  Samc023, on the other hand, send me a personal message in which he called my charge that he “lifted” material from the BDB lexicon “a baseless accusation.”  He went on to chide me for thinking that I know more than everyone else about the Bible.

     First things first, I encourage you to compare Samc023’s definition of “El” above to the entry in the century-old Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon entry.  You will notice that the definition is a word-for-word copy.   Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly fine with a person using the BDB provided you not pretend you didn’t and that you are aware of the tool’s limitations.  Now, for the record, I don’t think that my Biblical knowledge is superior everyone else’s.  I’ve got good friends, like Sam Shamoun and Rob Gallagher that can run circles around me.  However, I do recognize that I understand the Bible better than Samc023.  I mean, I know I heretic when I see one.

     At the end of the day, rest assured that “El Gibbor” is properly translated at “Mighty God.” The phrase appears in only two other places in the Bible (Isaiah 10:21 and Jer. 32:18).  In both cases, mighty God is the very clear meaning.  There is no serious question that the child to be born in Isaiah 9:6 is the one true God.  Thus, every major English Bible translation translates the phrase as either “Mighty God” or “God the Mighty.”  Even those publishers who deny the divinity of Jesus (e.g. The Watchtower Society and the Jewish Publication Society) aren’t willing to butcher “El Gibbor” by translating it otherwise. 

     And, well, was there every any doubt?  Jesus Christ is “Emmanuel” – “God with us.” Christmas time is the time for us to celebrate with great vigor the time when God the Son entered into his own creation by taking on human flesh and dwelling with us.  Rejoice that the one who was born in Bethlehem’s manger was indeed the Creator of the universe, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

[* I provide here a link to the thread on which this debate took place.  I don’t at all recommend watching the stupid video that all the comments are in response to.  But if you want to look at some of the debate, please do.  And if you have any questions about this issue, please post them in the comment section of this blog and I’ll gladly respond.]