But before we begin, and so you can fully grasp this lesson, you must carefully read the following passages from Leviticus 26:1 and Exodus 20:4-5 (respectively):

“You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God.“

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,”

Now, let’s begin.

To see if you think like a Roman Catholic, what is your response to each of the the following pictures (the “proper” Romanist responses are indicated below each image).

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

To see if you’ve been successfully conditioned to think like a Roman Catholic, we’ll conclude with one last picture.

Examine the following photograph carefully. The worshipers in the picture are from India, a country dominated with the worship of countless idols of Hindu gods made from stone and wood. So, are the people in this picture merely offering veneration, or are they pagan idol worshipers violating God’s prohibition of such activity found in Leviticus 26:1 and Exodus 20:4-5?

The answer: They are Roman Catholics, so therefore, their actions are only that of veneration.

If you answered this correctly, you are thinking like a Romanist, if you answered incorrectly you either need to start again at the beginning of this post, or you’re simply one of those fundamentalists who takes God’s prohibition against idolatry literally and seriously.

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Revelation 21:8

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

It is important to remember that every true believer is actually called to be on a mission for the Most High Sovereign Creator of heaven and earth. May Christ be exalted through the proclamation of His word and to each listening ear.

Church description – “A 20,000 ft high survey of missions – 1. It is all about God through Jesus Christ – 2. Jesus then gives it back to God the Father – 3. Missions=the entire creation we rule over – 4. It is all about bringing everyone together under Jesus.”

The Bible’s View of Missions – Part 1

Those who have studied Mormonism’s history have seen that much of the Book of Mormon was written largely in part thanks to other sources that were available to Joseph Smith at the time he lived.

The two most notable examples are Joseph Smith’s plagiarism of the King James Bible, and Joseph Smith’s not-so-unique tales of native American Indians being ancestors of Israelites. The former was the standard translation of the Bible used in America at that time, and the latter was a popular notion advanced in numerous books during Joseph Smith’s time.

Even Mormons (including LDS general authority member and apologist B.H. Roberts) have had to concede the uncanny similarities between the Book of Mormon and other works of men available to Joseph Smith at the time.

In fact, there’s been much discussion about writings by Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith which are eerily similar to that of the Book of Mormon and predate the Book of Mormon. 

 You can read more on Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript here, and view the numerous similarities between Ethan Smith’s work and Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon here.

But the Indians-are-Hebrews stories aren’t the only tales that were circulating during Joseph Smith’s time

There is another Mormon teaching that was espoused by early Mormon leaders that–like the Indian/Hebrew theory–was also not original to Mormonism. I’m speaking of the Mormon teaching that the moon was inhabited by men.

Oliver B. Huntington, who was a close associate of Joseph Smith and remained a faithful Mormon his whole life, said:

Astronomers and philosophers have, from time almost immemorial until very recently, asserted that the moon was uninhabited, that it had no atmosphere, etc. But recent discoveries, through the means of powerful telescopes, have given scientists a doubt or two upon the old theory. Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do, that they live generally to near the age of a 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and–to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes. Young Woman’s Journal, Volume 3, pages 263-264, 1892

Huntington also said the following of Joseph Smith’s teaching regarding  moon people:

The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the quaker style and are quite general in style, or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years.” This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could “see” whatever he asked the father in the name of Jesus to see. The Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, Volume 3, Page 166

William A. Linn had this to say about Martin Harris, one of the three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon:

Daniel Hendrix relates that as he and [Martin] Harris were riding to the village one evening, and he remarked on the beauty of the moon, Harris replied that if his companion could only see it as he had, he might well call it beautiful, explaining that he had actually visited the moon, and added that it “was only the faithful who were permitted to visit celestial regions.” William A. Linn, The Story of the Mormons, Page 35,  1902

Of, course, not to be outdone by all the grandiose claims, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young went even farther by alleging that there are solar inhabitants as well:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed “the man in the moon,” and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Page 271, 1870

So where did early Mormon leaders devise such tall tales about moon people and sun dwellers?

Well, all of the above quotes from Mormonism arose after 1835, the year when a tale of lunar habitation by humans was being spun by a paper called the New York Sun. A tale that later became known as The Great Moon Hoax.

In August of 1935 (just two years before Oliver B. Huntington said Joseph Smith began talking about inhabitants of the moon) the New York Sun (a paper from Joseph Smith’s own home state) reported that British astronomer Sir John Herschel discovered people living on the moon (as well as unicorns and hut-dwelling, fire-wielding bi-ped beavers).

Of course, thanks to advancements in astronomy, we now know for certain that men do not live on the moon (or the sun) and modern Mormons have since back-peddled from these teachings (painting over them with a veneer that these were only their leaders’ “opinion”). But even though they recognized the foolishness of these teachings, they still believe in extra-terrestrial habitation on other planets . . . just not on our moon or sun.

Mormon prophet Brigham Young said:

Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species. Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, Page 285, 1859

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth prophet/president of the Mormon organization, said:

We are not the only people that the Lord has created. We have brothers and sisters on other earths. They look like us because they, too, are the children of God and were created in his image, for they are also his offspring. Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, Page 62

Recognizing the prophets’ errors of claiming the moon and sun are inhabited is honest and the right thing to do, but why still cling to the idea that other planets are inhabited?

I’m still waiting for LDS apologists to finally concede that the Book of Mormon was just Joseph Smith’s “opinion” as well since advancements in archeology have not revealed one city, town, sword, shield, coin or other artifact or location in Book of Mormon history; advancements in DNA science have proven that American Indians are not descendants of ancient Hebrews as the Book of Mormon claims; that there is not one ancient manuscript to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon; that the “Reformed Egyptian” language Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Book of Mormon from has never existed; and that the Book of Mormon (called “the most correct of any book on earth”), has undergone 3,913 documented changes, corrections, and alterations since it’s original 1830 publication.

But I suppose, even in the face of all that evidence, the odds of Mormons admitting that the Book of Mormon was a fabrication is as slim as finding Quakers living on the moon.

“The Exodus Event is often appealed to by the advocates of a “liberation theology.” They wish to redefine the Christian doctrine of salvation to center on political liberation. They call Christians to take up arms against oppressive regimes in the name of Christ. (Usually the oppression they wish to resist is from right-wing rather than left-wing regimes.) They criticize the church for “spiritualizing” the exodus, making it an analogy for salvation from sin rather than an instance of social and political liberation.”

- Edmund Prosper Clowney Jr.

(1917 – 2005)

From: “The Unfolding Mystery – Discovering Christ in the Old Testament”, 1988, P&R Publishing, pg 96. Former president of Westminster Theological Seminary 1966-1984

“Narcigesis” is a term I recently heard to describe the sermons being pumped out of many Christian churches these days. It’s short for narcissistic eisegesis which is when a pastor reads his own ideas into the text with a primary focus on the self, rather than God. This is a perfect example from a Joel Osteen style pastor by the name of Kevin Gerald.

As far as I know, Ken Silva coined the term, “narcigesis” – I think it’s highly descriptive of what passes for preaching in far too many churches.

May God have mercy on the people sitting and listening to this man.

“The priest speaks, and Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

- “Father” John O’Brien

The Faith of Millions

“Jesus died to institute the priesthood. Had he not died, where should we find the victim that the priests now offer? It was not necessary for the Redeemer to die in order to save the world; a drop of his blood, a single tear, or prayer, was sufficient to procure salvation for all . . . but to institute the priesthood, the death of Jesus Christ was necessary.”

- Alphonsus Ligouri

The Dignity and Duties of the Priest

Your sermon of the week is Sovereign Election, Israel & Eschatology (a.k.a. Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist) by John MacArthur. This is the message that caused a stir a few years ago when MacArthur delivered it at the Shepherd’s Conference.

Not all the contributors on this blog agree with MacArthur on this subject, but I wanted to make it available here for those who have not listened to it yet.

You may also want to hear the opposition’s position to the Premil view posted last week by ATG.

For a more in-depth examination of this subject, I highly recommend MacArthur’s six -part series found on this previous post. (I actually prefer MacArthur’s six-part series as he has more time to unpack his points, and makes a more convincing argument for the Premil position, than he does in today’s single message.)

You can download this week’s message by MacArthur by going to the page found on this link, or just right-click and save this link.

Image from StormBringer

- Erwin Lutzer

I’ve had trouble putting my finger on why this bothered me. Everything she was saying was technically true. Today is the day of salvation, and anyone can die at any time. However, it seemed she was coming off as a salesperson trying to convince a reluctant prospect.

As always the question to ask in evangelism is: “What did Jesus and the apostles do?”

It seems Jesus never tried to close the deal. He would command people to repent and believe the gospel, or believe in Him, or come to Him, or eat His flesh and drink His blood. He never asked anyone to repeat a prayer after Him. When the rich young ruler walked away (Luke 18), he didn’t chase after Him. He trusted the message to do its work, along with the Holy Spirit, even if it meant he would never repent.

Maybe the clearest example is Acts 10 when Peter went to Cornelius and his family to give them the gospel: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message” (Acts 10:44).  He never had to close the deal or get them to make a commitment of some sort. God saved them while he was busy talking.

So what should we do when someone appears broken by the message? Exactly what Jesus and the apostles did. Deliver the message faithfully, and trust the Holy Spirit. We don’t have to push the individual for a decision or commitment of any kind. Maybe God is saving the person as we speak.

Two years ago

“Much of the Catholic traditions and writings have been influential in my formation of faith and to be quite contradictory of what was stated earlier, I’ve found much inspiration there.”

Of course, my pointing this out went over like a lead balloon with many professing Christians. Daring to bring to light (or even make mention of) the biblically antithetical theology, leanings, and/or admitted influences of any of their beloved entertainers will always incur the wrath of the American evangelical. (That same post also spoke of David Crowder’s ties to contemplatives too, but for some reason that has never been much of a point of contention with Crowder’s defenders.)

I received numerous responses of defense for Crowder from tons of professing Christians telling me how stupid I was for pointing out Crowder’s obvious Roman Catholic leanings. In the estimation of his defenders, I was just jumping to conclusions, making mountains out of mole hills, and seeing things that were simply not there.

But was I?

(I still wonder how Crowder defenders would have reacted if he had said “Much of the Mormon traditions and writings have been influential in my formation of faith . . .“.) 

Apparently I have to venture outside the whitewashed, happy, clappy realm of Americanized Christianity to find someone else who can add 2 plus 2 and come up with 4. 

Marc, a Roman Catholic who blogs at Bad Catholic, is one of those out there who also read Crowder’s interview and saw the same handwriting on the wall. On his latest post praising David Crowder, Marc writes what’s so obvious as the noon-day sun to him (and me) but seems to escape the comprehension of so many professing Christians:

“So, remember that time I invited David Crowder to become Catholic? Yeah, that might have been redundant. . . .  I’m happy as can be, and praying for Mr. Crowder, hoping he comes into full communion soon, though it seems his heart is already there.”

Although Marc and I will disagree on many (many) things regarding theology, we can at least both agree on what we’re seeing coming from the “evangelical” entertainer, David Crowder.

Marc also wrote an open letter (an open invitation) to David Crowder to invite hm to finally “enter into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church.”

Because of Crowder’s most recent album, Marc has said that he finds himself “in one of the most incredible moments of my music-loving, Christ-worshipping, Roman Catholic existence” and that “To the Christian, this is awesome. To the Catholic, well, this is freaking fantastic.”

Here is an excerpt from Marc’s article regarding Crowder’s latest album, an album that has at least one Roman Catholic all abuzz:

“So when your album started with a man walking into a Church, and the voice of a priest saying ‘Grant them eternal rest, Lord, and let perpetual light shine on them…’ (in Latin!) I fairly well freaked out. That prayer is not merely a memory of the dead, it is a prayer for the dead, that they might be granted to enter into Heaven.”

Here is Marc’s invitation to “evangelical” entertainer, David Crowder: 

“Though I’m sure you’ve been invited before — and if not, I take this opportunity to apologize for it — I’d like to invite you to enter into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. You’ve been in my prayers and the prayers of my friends for some time now. We heard when you said that many ‘of the Catholic traditions and writings have been influential in [your] formation of faith,’ and about your love for St. Francis when you granted LifeTeen an interview, and we got pretty pumped.”

So, I guess I wasn’t alone with what I concluded in that interview David Crowder gave to LifeTeen; even Marc and some of his Roman Catholic friends understood it and have not only been praying for Crowder, but were “pretty pumped” by what Crowder said. It’s the cultural Christians who have their fingers in their ears and their eyes slammed shut refusing to examine whether or not the CCM emperor is wearing clothes.

I also find it ironic that the very first comment Marc received on his open invitation to David Crowder came from a Roman Catholic who claims to have actually worked with David Crowder and his band, and knows them on a personal level. This commenter scolded Marc, informing him that he’s not giving David Crowder enough credit for his Romainst leanings:

“I’m a Catholic who’s worked with the Crowder band up until their recent retirement. I was standing there when they walked off stage for the last time in Atlanta two weeks ago, and I know all the guys on a personal level. . . . [Y]ou have absolutely no idea what Dave does or does not know about the Catholic faith. Without that knowledge, I’m finding it hard to understand why you chose to write a manifesto about our faith as if you were telling him things he doesn’t already know. It sounds to me you’ve made an awful lot of assumptions here. Dave has a very healthy knowledge of the Catholic faith. He knows much more than you and others are giving him credit for. When the idea of this album came up, Dave sought out Catholic musician Matt Maher and asked for his input and in depth perspective regarding the Catholic funeral liturgy.”

I’ll conclude with a short video posted on Marc’s blog of David Crowder talking about his latest album, “Give Us Rest or (A Requiem Mass in C [The Happiest of All Keys]),” a video in which the first commenter on Marc’s post wrote:

“Did David Crowder, the renowned Protestant musician, just use the words ‘Liturgy’ ‘Latin’ ‘Mass’ and ‘Eucharist’ in that video??! I’m failing to see how this could lead anywhere other than into the welcoming arms of Holy Mother Church.”

What is this all about. Controversy and serious disagreements swirl endlessly around the study and beliefs of the End Times. In this lecture, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger poses a logical, Biblical, and literal argument for the Amillennial Two Age Model. With an honest listen, this should give all dispensational/premil folks reason to pause and examine their view a little closer. The Two Age Model is a LITERAL and BIBLICAL doctrine related to the End Times that overwhelmingly supports the Amillennial position and leaves dispensationalism looking for proof texts. Dr. Riddlebarger delivers this lecture in an enjoyable and understandable way with great respect and honor towards the Dispy brothers that he disagrees with. Enjoy!

Sermon Audio Link for Lecture here: What’s a Thousand Years Among Friends?

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California. He is visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California and a frequent contributor to Tabletalk and Modern Reformation. Among his publications are A Case for Amillenialism: Understanding the End Times, and The Man of Sin. Kim also edits the Riddleblog devoted to Reformed theology and eschatology. Kim is also one of the hosts of the White Horse Inn Radio Program with Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, and Ken Jones.

Kim’s blog:    www.riddleblog.com

White Horse Inn

Kim’s book

Pagan Christianty?

By Frank Viola and George Barna

Reviewed by Stuart L. Brogden

The thesis statement of this book is found in the Preface, written by Viola, on page xix: “we intend to show how that organism (the first century church) was devoid of so many things we embrace today” and on page xx: “We are seeking to remove a great deal of debris in order to make room for the Lord Jesus Christ to be the fully functioning head of His church.”

In the Preface, he repeatedly refers to “the contemporary church” as their foil – no doubt most reformed Christians would also take issue with many things done in that name. Reinforcing what I infer as a mystical view of God and Truth revealed in the thesis, Viola tells us, “the New Testament vision of church best represents the dream of God.” and “The normative practices of the first-century church were the natural and spontaneous expression of the divine life that indwelt the early Christians.” (page xix) Their mystical view of the body of Christ is fully spelled out later in the book. Also on page xix, the author’s beloved “organic church” is described thusly: “An organic church is simply a church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership.” We will see that “Spirit-led” means “everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes”. In the delving Deeper section on page xxxi we are told that their “goal is not to develop a full description of the organic church but only touch on it when necessary.” See – we get explicit wrong-doings by the contemporary and institutional church but only vague and partial descriptions of the proposed answer to those evils.

Viola shows his misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit of God, ascribing (page xix) His actions as “the natural and spontaneous expression of the divine life that indwelt the early Christians”. The Bible is clear that God is a God of order, not chaos; He is not a natural expression of what is in man (Psalms 50:21). He is not “spontaneous” – acting on whimsy; He has planned and has ordered all things to the fulfillment of His plans (Psalms 135:6 and Ephesians 1:11).

In Barna’s Introduction, we discover the authors see themselves – and the Lord Jesus – as Revolutionaries, working to correct the centuries-long trial of errors foisted upon us by religious men. He rightly identifies legitimate problems in many churches (mega-churches, satellite campuses, affinity and age segregated groups, etc.) on page xxvii – and then reveals that this book is our trustworthy guide to find out God’s will for the church. He concludes by telling us that he wants the reader “to think carefully and biblically about how you practice your faith with other Christians.” Barna concludes with, “We pray that this book will help you to do your part in straightening out the crooked path of the contemporary church.” We shall see.

The “Jesus” of the OC is manifested by “open sharing” in all church meetings – this is the normative method that “is completely scriptural”, especially if the only scripture one reads is 1 Corinthians 14:26 – 29. They have an unbiblical view of Jesus Christ and an unbiblical view of the church – which they consider (page xxviii) to be “Himself in a different form. This is the meaning of the phrase “the body of Christ”.” Deep in the appendix, on page 268, we read, “When each member of His body shares his or her portion of Christ, then Christ is assembled.”

Wayne Grudem sheds a better light on this concept on page 858 of his Systematic Theology: “In 1 Corinthians 12 the whole body is taken as a metaphor for the church, because Paul speaks of the “ear” and the “eye” and the “sense of smell” (1 Cor 12:16 – 17). In this metaphor, Christ is not viewed as the head joined to the body, because the individual members are themselves the individual parts of the head. Christ is in the metaphor the Lord who is “outside” of that body that represents the church and is the one whom the church serves and worships.” There are, as Grudem goes to point out, different uses of the word “body” as a metaphor for the church – the context in which each metaphor is used reveals its meaning. Barna and Viola appear to hold to the Roman Catholic view of the church as the “continuing incarnation” of Christ rather than properly viewing Christ as reigning in heaven in addition to dwelling among us. As for the biblical view of the church, one cannot comprehend that unless one studies the Pastoral Epistles – and there’s no indication the authors have even read them.

Consistently in this book, the method of “proving” their case builds on setting up a straw man they call the “institutional church” (IC) – a seemingly equivalent term for the “contemporary church” – and presenting an ill-defined “organic church” (OC) as the only Christ-honoring alternative. This IC straw man is constructed from mostly undocumented sources of history, which reflect the main line record of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no evidence that the remnant of God which did not follow Rome (as in Andrew Miller’s Church History) was ever considered by the authors – for therein one would find local churches without many of the errors that have crept into most churches since ~ 400AD. Too many reformed churches have forgotten “Semper Reformda!”, stagnating in partial reform that still has a lot in common with Rome. These present day vestiges of Rome ought to be critiqued and Protestants should repent and reform to the Biblical model. Some of this book’s critique rightly applies to some churches, but does not warrant the radical, semi-biblical approach advocated.

Chapter 1 – Have We Really Been Doing It by the Book? In their scenario about Winchester Spudchecker, they pose several questions that one might have in any given church, such as “Where in the Bible are we told to dress up for church?” There is a paragraph of similar questions on page 3, followed by the statement, “Interestingly, the question Winchester had that day are questions that never enter the conscious thinking of most Christians.” No reference to the research that must have taken place in order for this statement to be credibly made; no indication that this is anything more than an anecdotal observation. This is quickly followed up with another similarly broad statement on page 4: “almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible.” The balance of the book tried to prove this point. On page 6, the sloppy use of history is displayed – as they try to demonstrate that it must be only the pagan culture we learned our religion from, they forgot that many Jewish Christians were dispersed all through the then known world – providing much biblical commentary about the problems their Jewish customs caused in the early churches. These Jewish Christians had a significant impact on life in the early church. Nobody reading any version of ancient church history would come away thinking all was well and there was no worldly influence therein. Such wasn’t the case while the New Testament was being written.

Chapter 2 – The Church Building. Here we see one characteristic of this book that makes it impossible to merely it write it off as worthless. Again, using the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as their foil, the authors point out legitimate concerns about idolatry as it relates to the design, construction, and use of buildings. Constantine is hailed as the father of the church building with this summary: “Truly, a pagan magical mind was at work in Emperor Constantine – the father of the church building.” (page 21). Throughout this chapter, the influence of the RCC and its syncretistic mixture of spiritual and temporal is documented in many features common to modern church buildings. Christians ought to examine why we want architectural features in our churches – with an eye towards truly honoring the Lord.

Yet in their zeal to condemn everything in the IC, Viola and Barna are prone to over-reach and make unsupported assertions, such as their contention that sermons were not preached until the IC had its “bishop’s chair” and formal altars. Guess all those sermons recorded in the New Testament were “spontaneous expressions of the divine life”.

When they get down to the placement of furniture, we find interesting assumptions: it’s pagan unless the chairs can be moved around on the spur of the moment (page 38). The authors apparently believe the modern living room is the spiritual and physical equivalent to the ancient home and, therefore, the best – dare we say sacred – place to help “us understand the tremendous power of our social environment.” On page 40 we are told that one’s home is “the organic meeting place” while a church building “creates a sit-and-soak form of worship … emphasizes fellowship between God and His people via the pastor!” While Roman Catholics may be deceived into thinking their priests stand between them God, I know none among evangelical protestants who think their pastors do so. We do tend to comprehend what the Bible says about order and worship and teaching – something that seems to be missing from the authors’ organic church.

We then see a false comparison between the bad IC and good OC on the cost of buildings. It’s clear that ICs spend money on church buildings – and early Christians didn’t. So it’s bad to pay money for a building – as if the home providing comfort and shelter for the 30 or organic Christians costs nothing. In the IC, the many contribute for the common use building. In the OC, apparently only the homeowner pays. When it’s all said and done, “The building is an architectural denial of the priesthood of all believers.” And “If every Christian on the planet would never call a building a church again, this alone would create a revolution in our faith.” Wow. In all their haranguing people over the use of church buildings, they give no thought to the fact that every home has some of the same issues – a fixed location with operating expenses.

Chapter 3 – The Order of Worship. Early on in this chapter, page 50, we read, “The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation. … it was often unpredictable.” They offer up as examples 1 Cor 14 1 – 33 and Hebrews 10:25. Their use of intense adjectives is a tip-off that they are trying too hard. Pointing the reader to Hebrews 10:25 leads one to conclude that there are no Scriptures beyond 1 Cor 14 that can be interpreted to support their OC. I also wonder how they incorporate verse 33 (For God is not a God of confusion but of peace) and why they leave off verses 34 – 40, which includes restrictions on women speaking in church and ends with “But all things should be done decently and in order.” Are they following Thomas Jefferson’s example of ignoring those parts of the Bible they find offensive to their theology?

They trod through this chapter picking at the RCC, Martin Luther and other Magisterial Reformers – all of whom held onto to some of what Rome had taught them. They summarize, on page 59, “the most damaging feature of Calvin’s liturgy is that he led most of the service himself from the pulpit. … in stark contrast to the church meeting envisioned in Scripture. … In 1 Cor 12, Paul tells us that Christ speaks through His entire body … under His direct leadership … vital for the spiritual health of God’s people and the full expression of His Son on earth.” Missing in this diatribe is any cognitive recognition that not all the body parts in 1 Cor 12 speak: ears, hands, feet, etc. serve according to the gifting of the Holy Spirit and the offices of the church. The message of this chapter of Scripture is not a celebration of the individual’s participation in a worship service; it’s exhortation to live in unity for the glory of God and the good of His people even though we have differences. And what of the Pastoral Epistles – are they not in Viola’s Bible?

Not quite finished, the authors demonstrate their intent to smear as many people as possible through false association and vagary. Page 65 reports “The popular notion that “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” became prominent after Whitefield.” I found no record of that phrase prior to the 1950s, some 180 years after Whitefield died. Why associate this phrase with Whitefield, other than to paint him as a fellow traveler of Charles Finney? To whom the authors give much grace, saying on page 67 “Perhaps the most lasting element that Finney unwittingly contributed to contemporary Christianity was pragmatism.” Unwittingly? What biographies do these two read? Viola and Barna then provide some observations on various religious movements that many would benefit from – but they again betray their false view of the Lord Jesus and His church on page 74: “… in placing the book at the center and head of their gatherings. Unfortunately, neither the Catholics nor the Protestants were successful in allowing Jesus Christ to be the center and head of their gatherings. Nor were they successful at liberating and unleashing the body of Christ to minister to one another.” In the minds of these mystics, Jesus is subject to humans and He is not fully revealed in the Scriptures, but in His people. Having the Word taught restricts rather than liberates and unleashes, which happens when people share expressions of Jesus. Strange world these authors inhabit.

The authors continue proclaiming their OC to be the best way to return to authentic Christianity, claiming (page 76) “open sharing in a church meeting is completely scriptural” and “the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ.” And again – “Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator.” “The Lord is stifled from manifesting Himself through the other members of the body.” How pathetic is the god of the OC, He is stifled by Christians who do not speak at meetings.

On page 77, liturgy is declared unbiblical, supported by making grossly exaggerated comments as to how it “hinders spiritual transformation” (there’s another evidence of the power of man) by encouraging passivity and limiting “functioning”. In Viola’s mind, one cannot listen actively; being asked to read from the Bible is not adequately expressing his Jesus, who is properly expressed by spontaneity. Bryan Chapell’s book, Christ Centered Worship, defines liturgy as “the public way a church honors God in its times of gathered praise, prayer, instruction, and commitment” (page 18)”, leaving one to realize that even the OC has liturgy.

In the delving Deeper section of this chapter, the authors reveal more of their mystic view of Christ in the answer to question #6 (page 82), where men dictate the role of the Lord Jesus and each man determines if “the Lord Jesus Christ puts something on our hearts to share with the rest of His body.” This has more in common with Quakers than biblical Christianity.

Chapter 4 – The Sermon: Protestantism’s Most Sacred Cow. The authors’ view of this “sacred cow” is: “Every Sunday morning, the pastor steps up to his pulpit and delivers an inspirational oration to a passive, pew-warming audience.” (pages 85 – 86). In the middle of page 86, this assessment: “The sermon actually detracts from the very purpose for which God designed the church gathering. And it has very little to do with genuine spiritual growth.” Again – they build up a weak, unbiblical model as their foil, and then tear it down. A biblical sermon, as opposed to “an inspirational oration”, is front and center in the biblical gathering of God’s people and foundational to their spiritual growth.

On pages 87 – 88, Viola and Barna assert that modern sermons are regular, cultivated, monologues while Old Testament preaching was extemporaneous, characterized by interruptions from the audience, sporadic, and fluid. Nehemiah 9 shows structure, order, officers presiding, and solemn reading/confessing while the people stood and listened. The authors then point to Jesus – He “did not preach a regular sermon to the same audience”; His messages “were consistently spontaneous”. Jesus was not the pastor a church, and did not have a local assembly that we see later in the New Testament. And I do not even know what is meant by the phrase “consistently spontaneous”. But we do see some of His sermons as monologues preached to “pew-sitting, passive people” (Matthew 5 – 7 for example). They go on (page 89) to assert that the preaching of the disciples and Apostles was sporadic, for special occasions, extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure, “most often dialogical”, and impromptu. The theme continues to emerge – lack of structure in all aspects is the goal. Not until the second century, they declare (page 89), did any record emerge documenting “regular sermonizing”. (This subtle reliance on first century church fathers is evident throughout the book.) We do see, in Acts 8 for example, God’s people being scattered and preaching the Word as they went. This does not provide, however, any reasonable warrant to take this as the prescribed model for the New Testament church. We read in Acts 14 how Paul had regularly taught in the Jewish synagogues and city markets, both Jew and Gentile were saved, God was building His church – and Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in every church. And we see in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 that the early church regularly met on the Lord’s Day – not very sporadic.

Paid elders are thrown out (Pages 91 & 176), without paying attention to 1 Cor 11 or 1 Tim 5:17 – 18; and our authors continue to use the Roman Catholic Church as the example they respond to, pointing out the egregious errors of Rome in the deployment of church officers and worship practice and holding them up as normative.

The section entitled, “How Sermonizing Harms the Church” (beginning on page 97), describes 5 major points in support of this assertion. They begin with a stereotype of a “conventional sermon”, which focuses on the alleged hampering, freezing, imprisonment, suffocation, stalemating, smothering aspects therein. Our authors appear to think church members have no function when they are apart from the gathering and they also come across as having no confidence in the Word of God but much confidence in people. Pastors de-skill, repress, and deprive their people; whereas “New Testament-styled preaching and teaching equips the church so that it can function without the presence of a clergyman.” Their understanding this “New Testament-styled preaching and teaching” (described on top of page 99) once again reveals an open canon view of Scripture – God continues to reveal Himself beyond what He has preserved in His Word. Lastly, we see how modern sermons lack practicality – “preachers speak as experts on that which they have never experienced.” A pastor can study the Bible, become somewhat of an expert on the life of Jacob – know about the sin in his life, how he raised his children – without having experienced the polygamy, idol worship, and underhanded ways of Jacob. Being taught and having this lesson rightly applied to the Christian is not practical? Viola and Barna lust after experiential faith – anything else fails to satisfy.

Chapter 5 – The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning. The chapter titles are meant to be provocative, as is the entire book; in this they succeed. Right off, page 106, they declare, “There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor!” They are hung up on the word “pastor” and they have in mind the undefined boogeyman of “the modern-day pastor”. This chapter shows a lack of understanding about the singularity of office described by the various words we see in Scripture – pastor, elder, bishop, overseer are one in the same. And while, on page 108, they declare “First century shepherds were the local elders (presbyters) and overseers of the church.” they then tell us on the next page, “Up until the second century, the church had no official leadership.” They quibble about “leaders” versus “official leadership”, as they launch into a review of the evolution of the Roman Catholic Church and its serious errors.

When they look at the practice of ordination of elders, their reaction against the practice of Rome prompts them to conclude that no ordination as valid, rather the “recognition of certain gifted members is something that is instinctive and organic.” (page 124) How “instinctive and organic” is Acts 20:7 or Titus 1:5? Men who were leaders appointed men who were qualified. The work of God to equip and nurture a man to serve in the church is not the work of man – if that’s what they are trying to describe, why not use biblical terms that reflect God’s sovereignty and care for His people instead of terms that reflect something natural and base? And as they do work their way up to The Reformation (beginning on page 127), they focus only on the Magisterial Reformation and completely ignore the Radical Reformation. In this section, on page 134, they seek to debunk what was “known as the “cure of souls”” and see nothing of merit in the Bible on this, as if Hebrews 13 is missing, especially verse 17. Did they choose this phrase “cure of souls” specifically to dismiss the entire notion of pastoral care of souls? A godly man knows it is God alone who can cure a soul, but this does not eliminate the biblical responsibility pastors have to care for souls – and for Christians to work to make this pastoral job less burdensome.

And we continue to see how the god of the OC is subject to man (page 136), as “the pastoral office has transformed us (people of God) into stones that do not breathe.” They do not understand the difference between the priesthood of the believer and the elder, nor do they understand the nature of God or the person of the Lord Jesus. On page 137: “By his office, the pastor displaces and supplants Christ’s headship by setting himself up as the church’s human head.” Remember Wayne Grudem’s discussion about this metaphor? Viola and Barna apparently cannot be bothered to read anything that does not agree with their presuppositions. Their use of extremes as the means to point out error is clearly manifested on page 138 – 141 as they embrace an unbiblical model for the pastor as a lone-ranger who carries too much and burns himself out; and then use that to “debunk” the office in toto! No comprehension of plurality of elders nor of biblical shepherding of God’s people. Displaying more of the self confidence revealed in the Introduction, on page 140, Viola and Barna recommend articles they have written as the prescription for this pastor problem. The problem is the lone-ranger pastor, the solution is to eliminate the role of pastor. God forbid we should see in His Word the biblical model of two or more elders in each church. They do favorably cite Watchman Nee in the delving Deeper section of this chapter – something that does not surprise at this point.

Chapters 6 – 8 discuss three aspects of church practice that I think most Christians – including elders – need to think more deeply about: clothes, music, and giving. The authors condemn clerical robes and the like – who would disagree? Too many pastors (using that term as loosely as possible) implicitly endorse a uniform – either suit & tie or very casual. To the degree that a pastor is trying to influence the people by his wardrobe, he is in the wrong. If a pastor enjoys fine clothes – fine, to a point; for the Bible does warn us about being to flashy in what we wear (1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 & 4) and the tendency we have to be misled by such (James 2). In the discussion about music, there is much to lament revealed in the high church history and in modern contemporary music. About which they rightly observe (page 165), “Typically, the focus of the songs if on individual spiritual experience. First person singular pronouns – I, me, my – dominate a good number of the songs.” Amen! Their prescription, again, reveals the same false view of Christ – waiting on humans to be allowed to do His part (page 166) – and a selective look into Scripture to support their “trained spontaneity” (They use this concept on page 167 and it aligns with their view of Christ’s preaching as “consistently spontaneous”. The tension is more than I bear!)

Lastly, in these chapters, they examine tithing and clergy salaries. I like how they address tithing, page 172: “yes, tithing is biblical. But it is not Christian. The tithe belongs to ancient Israel. It was essentially their income tax.” Many pastors teach tithing because they do not trust God to lead the people to give generously – and because they care not what the Bible says about tithing. The discussion of “clergy salaries” is not so clear or biblical. As noted above, they do not take into account 1 Cor 11 or 1 Tim 5:17 – 18; how can they present a biblical case of compensating elders otherwise? They maintain that the clergy salary was born during Constantine’s rule, when he amalgamated the church and state. Perhaps Viola and Barna are drawing a line between compensation and a full-time salary, it’s hard to say. But if they argue there’s no case for a pastor to be paid, what of 1 Cor 9:14, which seems to say a gospel preacher should be on salary? Their argument, again, lies on the response they imagine in the church (page 180) – “Since the pastor and his staff are compensated for ministry, they are paid professionals. The rest of the church lapses into a state of passive dependence.” His assertion is loaded – “pastor and his staff”; this reflects the all-too-common corporate view of church, rather than the biblical view. It’s easier to refute the extreme errors, much more difficult to refute the purer practices found in some churches.

Chapter 9 – Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Diluting the Sacraments. While much of their critique of modern church practice in this chapter is pretty much on target, they continue to rely on mere assertion to build their case. On page 188, they write, “it is typical in most contemporary churches for baptism to be separated from conversion by great lengths of time.” Considering most churches have long held to infant baptism, how could baptism follow conversion by any amount of time? On page 189, we read, “unbelievers in the first century were led to Jesus Christ by being taken to the waters of baptism.” What we read in the Bible is people hearing the Word, believing on Christ, then being baptized. In discussing baptism and its implications, Viola and Barna provide some good insight into the importance of the church – in contrast to the individualistic perspective most westerners have. Yet they say (page 191), without a footnote, “According to New Testament teaching, what the Father was to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is to you and me.” This is at odds with their statements surrounding this comment, wherein they rightly understand our son-ship under God the Father because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Further, God the Father’s relationship is the same eternally, so their use of a past tense verb is troubling.

The discussion about the Lord’s Supper starts off (page 192) with the familiar home church perspective that this ceremony is supposed to be a full meal – “essentially a Christian banquet.” Yet all the biblical accounts show the bread and cup being taken after the meal – not being part of it. They denigrate the warnings in 1 Cor 11 (page 193), rendering the unworthy taking of the Lord’s table to the act of “not waiting for their poor brethren to eat with them, as well as those who were getting drunk on the wine.” Further down this page, they allege pagan influence separated the bread and cup from the meal – “it is more likely that the growing influence of pagan religious ritual removed the Supper from the joyful, down-to-earth, nonreligious atmosphere of a meal in someone’s living room.” How can the Lord’s Supper be nonreligious? And which perspective is more biblical – a “down-to-earth, nonreligious” banquet or a joyful yet sober remembrance of why Christ died and what that means? Is 1 Cor 11:27-33 focused on the temporal or does it use the temporal to draw our focus to the eternal?

Chapter 10 – Christian Education: Swelling the Cranium. This chapter is an argument against Christian education institution, in which they also denigrate the intellectual aspect of learning. The authors view of first-century apprenticeship (page 200): “It was a matter of apprenticeship, rather than of intellectual learning. It was aimed primarily at the spirit, rather than at the frontal lobe.” Although we do not learn how one aims teaching at the spirit, our authors do clarify what they mean, in the next paragraph: “They learned the essential lessons of Christian ministry” – by which they mean having had “life experiences”. The Bible tells us to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Peter 1:5 – 7 and 3:18). This growth is certainly to take place in the local church (which they advocate on page 200), but it is not devoid of intellectual growth. Their overview of institutional Christian education is interesting, revealing (page 206) the common yet mystical view that one learns different things with one’s heart than with one’s mind: Aquinas “preferred the intellect to the heart as the organ for arriving at truth.” Our authors disagree with this view, citing a quote from Blaise Pascal with approval: “It is the heart which perceives God, and not the reason.” If the point intended is to recognize that man cannot by human reason apprehend spiritual truth, we agree. But one’s heart cannot believe nor perceive truth – it can only rightly be used as a metaphor for the total man: mind, emotion, and soul. But they do not let us know what view of the human heart they hold – methinks it’s a mystical perspective – as this quote from page 216 puts it: “In the process, out theology rarely gets below the neck.”

Their assessment of Sunday School is well reasoned and agreeable Page 213): “As a whole, we don’t view the contemporary Sunday School as an effective institution.” They then cite a quote from David Norrington’s book To Preach or Not to Preach, emphasizing parental responsibility in training their children. But the motive for this is not as healthy as these quotes – their goal is to deconstruct elder ship, preaching, intellectual advancement, and order. This is clearly revealed in the last paragraph of this chapter, page 218: People who listen to sermons, “were the very same people who were struggling with self-esteem, beating their spouses, struggling as workaholics, succumbing to their addictions. There lives weren’t changing. … We were taught that if you just give people information, that’s enough!” No Christian rightly believes that people just need information – this is a false standard Viola and Barna all too easily attack. All people need the transforming work of God in their lives – and He has ordained the proclamation of Gospel and the teaching and preaching of His entire Word as the means we are to deploy to that end. Information is what too many “sermons” consist of – no wonder people are left in their sin!

Chapter 11 – Reapproaching the New Testament: The Bible is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle. This chapter is an expose of their faulty arguments throughout this book! They teach that a basic understanding of the biblical context is essential for proper understanding the New Testament (page 231). They have failed to do this very thing in the way they handle 1 Cor 14:26 – 29 and several other passages. But to demonstrate their acumen in New Testament comprehension (page 234), they warn would-be home church leaders, “Birthing a church that maps to New Testament principles takes a whole lot more work that opening up your house and having people sit on comfy couches to drink java, eat cookies, and talk about the Bible.” If it ain’t that, what is it? Next paragraph leads off asking that very question: “What do we mean by a New Testament-styled church? It is a group of people who know how to experience Jesus Christ and express Him in a meeting without any human officiation.” They see “church planters” as viable human officials, but only temporarily and sporadically. With their mystical Jesus-as-head, no regular human leadership is needed, nor can their Jesus perform in the presence of such. They tell us, on page 237, that “Unlike Christians today, the early Christians did not share Christ out of guilt, command, or duty. They shared Him because He was pouring out of them, and they could not help it! It was a spontaneous, organic thing – born out of life, not guilt.” We, once again, see a false contrast, one that denies human responsibility and leaves one thinking Paul, Peter, Stephen, James, John and the others simply “let go and let God” – while they were just carried along for the ride.

While they refute the biblical model of the church throughout the book, on page 238 they rebuke many home church folk. Their point is that no man build a church. Their conclusion is, “The church of Jesus Christ is a biological, living entity! It is organic; therefore, it must be born.” And this organic birthing takes place when “a traveling church-planter … preached only Christ. There are no exceptions. The church was raised up as a result of the apostolic presentation of Jesus Christ.” Seems to me, they are describing the work of God through His apostles and their elders: as they went preaching the Gospel (not as exciting as “presenting Jesus Christ” – nor as mystical), God saved people and called them together into local churches. And the apostles and elders appointed elders in each church. These authors take the body metaphor and warp it a new way, to present the church as if it were a person. True – the church is not a corporation, but not the same as a person, either. Their conclusion, that individual verses must be taken in context, is sound – even if their application of that maxim is faulty.

Chapter 12 – A Second Glance at The Savior: The Revolutionary. This term, revolutionary, is an unhelpful term; apparently designed to stir emotion. The current cultural context in which live brings to mind iconic men such as Caesar Chavez, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro – not admirable men. On page 246, the authors list several biblical actions and attributes of Christ that were and are certainly not culturally normal – then or now. The last of these: “He also came as Revolutionary, tearing apart the old wineskin with a view to bringing in the new. Behold your Lord, the Revolutionary!” The Bible does not say that Jesus tore apart the old wineskin – He cautioned against putting new wine into one. New wine must be put into a new wineskin – this is a parable about salvation: a person not regenerated cannot receive the Holy Spirit. One must be made new before he can receive the Spirit of the Living God and faith to believe in Christ. Yet Viola and Barna tell us this, about that parable: “It is simply an expression of our Lord’s revolutionary nature. The dominating aim of that nature is to put you and me at the center of the beating heart of God.” How hard they must work to come with unbiblical phrases that will vibrantly capture the attention of people not satisfied with the Bible.

On page 247, they emphasize – without references – the fact that the early church met daily, describing what sounds like a commune. And they contend that for the first 300 years, as the church met in homes, they were “void of ritual, clergy, and sacred buildings.” The church has never been without pastors and some ritual – the Bible reveals this. Biblical churches do not, today, have sacred buildings – cults tend to do this. In the delving Deeper section, page 252, the authors express much confidence in church planters – whose “job is to equip members to function in a coordinated way.” This seems to run contrary to their professed love and belief in the spontaneous and sporadic nature of their esteemed organic church.

In the “Final Thoughts” appendix, page 268, Viola describes a meeting of an organic church in which everyone “shared his or her experience with the Lord that week (what – a weekly meeting? How pagan!). … As the meeting was winding down, the unbeliever fell to his knees in the middle of the living room and cried out, “I want to be saved! I have seen God here!”” Nothing in his description reveal whether the gospel was proclaimed. The man may have had a spiritual experience, the question is the nature of that experience. He goes on to say, “This is one of the things that occurs organically when Jesus is made visible through His body.” citing 1 Cor 14:24 & 25. This Bible passage does not “make Jesus visible”; it mandates clear teaching of biblical truth. So once again, at the end of this book, these guys prove themselves to be mystics rather than satisfied with the Bible. Folks who seek experience are of the same mindset as those who seek after signs in Scripture, not well spoken of therein.

While this book does contain some thought provoking content, the main focus is off track. We must test all things in light of Scripture – so we can learn from all of this book, but most of the conclusions do not align with the Word of God and must be rejected. May God have mercy on anyone misled by the teaching in this book.

From the Christian Post:

The Rev. Robert H. Schuller, founder of the historic Crystal Cathedral Ministries in Garden Grove, Calif., has spoken out about the sale of the church to a Roman Catholic diocese, reassuring concerned observers that the church’s beliefs are not going to suddenly change.

“The Roman Catholic Church isn’t going to change its theologies,” Schuller said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times published Sunday. “I trust them.”

The ministry’s decision to sell the famous building to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County raised some controversy at first. In the Sunday interview, the 85-year-old minister said he has always respected the Roman Catholic faith and considers it the “mother church.”

Read the rest of the article, Robert Schuller Trusts Catholic Church With Crystal Cathedral, here.

For the glory of God and the good of His people.

I have never personally met a parent that did not wait with joy to hear those words, or words equally as poignant, “It’s a Boy!” All the parents I have met have been thankful that a safe delivery has been made and they will now begin the transition of raising that little one whether it is a boy or a girl.

This documentary begins with a culture that in many ways I cannot fathom, yet, I should because it is not really that far removed from the culture in which we live here in the West. The first words heard in short trailer for the documentary notes, “Today, India and China eliminate more girls than the number of girls born in America every year!”

One interviewee notes, “But what this is, is an entire system, a social machinery that says, ‘We don’t want females.’”

A distraught couple are shown speaking about the birth of their new baby and the father describing the marks around the little girl’s neck. She had been strangled!

In stark contrast, a short few seconds later, one smiling mother from India is shown and tells the camera while seeming to laugh, “I killed eight girl children!”

To our polite, cultured, civilized Western minds, our souls recoil at such brutality. Where are the police to stop these savage killers? Why doesn’t the government step in to address the wholesale mass murders of approximately 1.5-3 million babies EVERY year?
Why such numbers? Simply because the baby was a girl.

To seek to put this into perspective, a document published a few years ago by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces stated,

The number of the ‘missing’ women, killed for gender-related reasons, is of the same order of magnitude as the estimated 191 million human beings who have lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of all the conflicts and wars of the 20th century—which was, with two world wars and numerous other murderous conflicts, the most violent period in human history so far.

A sustained demographic ‘deficit’ of 100-200 million women implies that each year 1.5-3 million girls and women are killed through gender related violence. In comparison: each year, some 2.8 million people die of AIDS, 1.27 million of malaria. Or, put in the most horrible terms: violence against women causes every 2-4 years a mountain of corpses equal to the Jewish Holocaust.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? In our minds, they are brutal savages. They do not deserve to be parents. The bile rises in our throats as we consider the above quote from the Geneva Centre document. Do they not realize the truth of Scripture? Psalm 139:14, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.” Ps. 127:3 continues, “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.”

Planned Parenthood and several United Nations groups have long sought to provide “equal” treatment of women around the world. They have touted the desire for all women to have the freedom of choice and to be given the power to make decisions for themselves. They continue to remind us that we should have the lofty goals of raising these women out of the dark ages to a life of enlightenment. Have we really empowered them to live a life of great ideals based on these goals?

As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe that false religion and lack of biblical knowledge has created a depraved and warped view of women. Only in and because of Christ will people find freedom from bigotry, hatred, and gender discrimination.

This documentary “It’s a girl!” will find many up in arms. It will generate a firestorm of hatred against such brutality. The movie will probably accomplish very little in places like China and India though where it will like the baby girls killed each year never see the light of day. Some will clamor for our government to intervene in some way. Maybe we can withhold foreign aid until they stop all of the senseless killing. What if we rescind their seat on the Human Rights Committee’s in the United Nations until the Chinese and Indian governments step up to the plate and assume the responsibility of saving the lives of these helpless, defenseless little girls that nobody seems to want?

AMERICA, how about if we STOP WITH THE HYPOCRISY!!

Why should our stomachs revolt in horror at this unknown holocaust? Who are we as Americans to try and police the human rights abuses around the world? What gives us the right to throw condemnation on India and China as though we are a self-righteous nation of Christians seeking to ensure that women in their countries have the same benefits as women in America have?

What about us as true believers? Does this not make us weep as we think of all the parents who would love to adopt a little girl into their family, but struggle to do so? Do we not have great concern for the physical, mental, and spiritual health of these women who murder their baby girls year after year?

Yes, I have no doubt that we do weep, and I have no doubt that we have great concern for them and the 1.5-3 million little ones being murdered every year simply because the doctor says, “IT’S A GIRL!”

But, we are hypocrites. Americans are two-faced cowards who refuse to face reality. Since 1973, Americans have killed approximately 50 million babies by means of legalized abortion, more commonly known by God as MURDER! This equates to almost 1.3 million per year!

Excuses here include: “I’m just not ready for a child.” Or, “I want the pleasures of a sexual relationship but not the responsibilities.” Or, “Well, the doctor says it MIGHT be deformed in some way!” The reality is that what women of this country are saying is, “God, You have no right to be the Giver of Life. I want to be, and MUST be, in total control of everything about me including my body!”

Our land is polluted with the blood of innocent victims just as greatly as the lands of China and India. The main difference is that we stand in greater judgment for we have the precious Word of God. Our people have heard and know the truth, yet choose to ignore it. Many of our churches have bought into the idea that women have the freedom to do whatever they wish with their bodies. Pastors no longer preach “Thus says the Lord.” Churches do not practice discipline against those who would allow an abortion to take place. Instead, we have allowed our government to dictate policy to us, and we have also endorsed the idea that there can be exceptions allowed for killing a baby, for example, in the case of rape. So, for the sins of the father, our churches are telling us that God will turn a blind eye while we commit another sin. We are informed that murder is justifiable in such cases!

True believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, it is time that we returned to our knees and asked God for mercy. It is past time that we stand up in defiance at the wholesale bloodshed being perpetrated on 1.3 million boys and girls every year in America. It is time that our churches and pastors return to preaching the entire counsel of God, no matter what it costs. The matter of abortion is NOT a political issue, but a moral issue and therefore a spiritual matter. It is out of the heart that depravity spills forth out of the mouth and in the actions of the body.

This in no way is meant to demean the gravity of the situation in India and China. I have no thoughts that the world will ever read this blogpost, and it is not meant for them anyway. It is for we who know and claim the name of Jesus Christ. We must share the good news of the gospel even with those around us for they are just as savage and pagan as the countries to which we send missionaries.

One final note, God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son into the world. The reason is because of sin. We must learn to love those who sin. We must be willing to share the truth of God’s Word in such a way that they will see the difference Jesus Christ makes in the life. To condemn is easy, but to love is painfully difficult. That woman who killed her eight precious little girls needs to hear about Jesus Christ, just as the woman who lives next door to you here in America and killed her baby through legalized abortion does. Whether they admit it or not, hearts are scarred and only Jesus Christ can bring true healing.

Yes, God’s Word makes it clear that killing baby girls in India or China is MURDER. But, His Word also makes abundantly clear that abortion of any kind and for any reason is also MURDER. May God have mercy on us.

What if humans are merely another species of animal that has evolved? If we are, again, God’s Word could no longer be trusted. If we are, then we should have no reason to fear death and “the great circle of life.” If we are, then Charles Darwin should be feted with great honor and even worshipped for revealing the truth of who we are to a poor world who for millennium had the audacity to believe God’s Word was true.

What if the Great Flood was actually only something copied from the myths and fables already found in other ancient cultures? If it was, then again, God’s Word is with error for it could not have come from the Holy Spirit. If it was, then mankind need have no fear of the judgment of a God who cannot keep His promise to destroy the wicked. If it was, then the rainbow is merely a quirk of nature, not something given by God as a promise.

What if the children of Israel really are not a people sovereignly protected by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If they are not, they have to be some of the luckiest people in the world. If they are not, their should not be any real outcry if a more highly evolved society determines that a lower society in the chain should be exterminated. After all, isn’t the reality of life that is should be based on the survival of the fittest? If they are not, then the promises and covenants established by an everlasting God hold no value, and if they hold no value, then NO promise and NO covenant is to be held in reverence.

What if the Ten Commandments are merely suggestions dreamed up as society has evolved? If they are, the Ten Commandments would have no true value because they define a morality that did not come from a just and holy God. Killing, stealing, and adultery merely become defined by what each society considers them to be for their people. If they are, then there are no absolutes to control the world in which we live.

What if the Word of God really is just a book compiled by men through the ages instead of a book divinely inspired by a holy and righteous God? If it is, then centuries have been wasted studying a book that should hold no more value than the works of Plato, Homer, or Shakespeare. If it is, then it is full of lies that drive men to worship what they cannot see, to believe what they can never truly know, and to trust in a God that is untrustable.

What if Jesus Christ was merely a good man as taught by many religions?

What if Jesus Christ was merely a good teacher and prophet as taught by the Muslims?

What if Jesus Christ did not provide full atonement on the Cross as taught by the Mormons?

What if Jesus Christ was not the Saviour of mankind?

What if Jesus Christ is not coming again one day in the clouds of glory?

What if Jesus Christ is not the eternal, only begotten Son of God as taught by the JW’s?

What if Jesus Christ must be sacrificed over and over again as taught by the Catholics?

What if Jesus Christ is not the ONLY Way, the ONLY Truth, and the ONLY Life?

What if Jesus Christ never really died and rose again on the third day?

If He did not do these things, if He was not all these things, if He will not perform what the Word of God promises He will, if He is not the ONLY Way to heaven, if He really did not die and rise again the third day, if we truly can have no hope in Christ….

Then…

“WE ARE OF ALL MEN MOST MISERABLE!” – 1 Cor. 15:19


1 Cor. 1:18, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

I found the following article at Beyond Grace:

Word-Faith (WOF) teaching, identified with Ken Copeland and Ken Hagin, is the foundation for today’s prophetic/apostolic movement. Several years ago Tricia Tillin wrote an article on the Top Ten Reasons for rejecting Word-of-Faith doctrine.

REASON ONE:
It requires ‘revelation knowledge’.

REASON TWO:
It makes the Almighty God and Creator a weak ‘faith-being’ who is at the mercy of His own universal laws.

REASON THREE:
It makes the Divine Son of God into a born-again man who had to die in Hell to pay the price for our treason.

REASON FOUR:
It elevates man to equality with Jesus.

REASON FIVE:
It makes man a god.

REASON SIX:
It makes the redemption into a restoration of dominion for mankind.

REASON SEVEN:
Its goal is the transformation of the earth by spiritual dominion.

REASON EIGHT:
It replaces prayer with confession, and God’s will with the manipulation of ‘forces’.

REASON NINE:
It denies the reality of sin and sickness.

REASON TEN:
It focuses on self and the world instead of God and Heaven.

 

-          Mike Gendron

In my own ministry of the Word, I have appreciated what I have learned from Alistair Begg. This message is part of his available series entitled, “The Pastor’s Study, Volume 2.” While it is labeled as part of a series for pastors, this message is convicting and challenging for all true believers. Your sermon of the week for January 15th is The Centrality of the Cross.

In his article, Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents, Alex Jones writes:

“Over the past few months, I have written several articles dealing with the coming cashless society and the developing technological control grid. I also have written about the surge of government attempts to gain access to and force the use of biometric data for the purposes of identification, tracking, tracing, and surveillance. Unfortunately, the reactions I receive from the general public are almost always the same. While some recognize the danger, most simply deny that governments have the capability or even the desire to create a system in which the population is constantly monitored by virtue of their most private and even biological information. Others, either gripped by apathy or ignorance, cannot believe that the gadgets given to them from the massive tech corporations are designed for anything other than their entertainment and enjoyment.”

Continue reading Jones’ article here.

“And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.  Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.”

- Revelation 13:16-18

vs

Christian apologist Walter Martin takes on Mormon apologist Van Hale in a debate entitled Is Mormonism Christian? It is another fine job by Walter Martin in defending the faith from those who would seek to pervert it.

Years after this debate, Van Hale publicly announced (in 2005) that he cannot accept the Book of Mormon as real history about real people (see here). I’m not sure if his debate with Dr. Martin helped bring him to that point, but it is an interesting piece of history.

You can download all three parts of this debate here:

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part One)

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part Two)

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part Three)

______________________________________

Check out another great debate between Walter Martin and anti-theist Madalyn Murray O’Hair here.

I often hear the lament from anti-theists about Christian hypocrisy as the impetus behind their rejection of God, but rarely is atheist hypocrisy ever mentioned. So let’s look at two glaring hypocrisies of atheism, part one today, and part two coming soon.

________________________________

I recall a time a few years ago when I posted a gospel tract on the community bulletin board of a local coffee shop.

Shortly thereafter, as I sat sipping my hot beverage, a woman in her thirties entered the shop and made her way over to the bulletin board. Upon seeing the tract, she quickly removed it and promptly found a table where she sat and thumbed through the little booklet. Her behavior led me to speculate that she was familiar with what she held in her hands, and I watched from a distance. 

Then this woman took out a pen and began to write on the tract (both the front and rear covers). This greatly piqued my interest of course, and I continued to observe.

A short while later another woman entered the establishment and approached the table where the first woman sat. The second woman greeted the first and the first woman gleefully showed the second woman the cover of the tract. The second woman gave a smirk while the first had a grin ear to ear. She then promptly returned the tract to the bulletin board.

My party and I left at the same time as the two women did but my curiosity got the best of me so I returned to the bulletin board inside the business and retrieved the tract. And there I read what the woman in all her giddy-like-a-school-girl excitement had written on the tract.

On the front:

“There is no God!”

On the back:

“Shame on God!”

There you have it . . . classic anti-theist hypocrisy: “Shame on the very thing I believe doesn’t exist.”

How can someone say on one hand, “There is no God!” then on the other hand say, “Shame on God!”? That is either blatant hypocrisy or a mild case of schizophrenia.

You can’t claim that someone or something doesn’t exist, then offer an opinion on that someone or something. Let me offer an example.

If I said that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, but then warned you that you should be careful while swimming in Loch Ness because the Monster might get you, would you not be justified in questioning the truthfulness of my original claim that Nessie doesn’t exist?

So I came to the realization that most self-proclaimed atheists aren’t atheists because they disbelieve the existence of God, but it’s simply because they hate Him. They don’t want to be limited or prohibited in their lifestyle choices, nor be confronted with their sin, so they self-inflict a seared conscience upon themselves.

I would prefer if these professing atheists would be upfront and honest about their beliefs and come to terms with the fact that they simply hate God and His laws, instead of hiding behind a pretentious facade of pseudo-intellectualism in their declaration that the very thing they hate does not exist.

A little honesty and candor is all I’m seeking. Is that too much to ask for?

I am happy to present another powerful and convicting message by Akash Sant Singh as your sermon of the week: God’s Audacious Grace.

By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Jan 6, 2012 in AM Missives, Current Issues, Features, Southern Baptist Convention Note: videos that should make you weep are on Ken’s web site at the link above.

Apprising Ministries has been warning for years concerning the evil effects of the neo-liberal in the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that right from its hatching in hell corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), such as that taught by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster along with his spiritual twin and Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard, was a core doctrine.

Spreading as a spiritual cancer throughout apostatizing evangelicalism, we even see that it’s slithered all the way into the New Calvinst neo-reformed camp e.g. as in Acts 29 Network And Reformed Counter Reformation Spirituality? One of the fruits of CSM is a blurring of doctrinal lines, which is particularly dangerous in this time of postmodernism and growing spiritual blindness.

It’s also giving rise to a rebirth of Pietism; this isn’t surprising when you consider that CSM flowered in the antibiblical monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism. As the evangelical fad of CSM expands there’s a decided charismania also developing, which is producing a syncretism where Word Faith heretics like Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes are essentially considered mainstream now. With all of this has come more and more people claiming to have direct experience with God.

The end result is making the climate more condusive for things like Beth Moore Recommending “Jesus Calling” Book Claiming Direct Divine Revelation. This is the backdrop upon which to better see what’s happening as you watch the video clips to follow below from the Passion 2012 Conference. This conference has been going on in Atlanta, and was largely aimed at young adults and students.

Hosted by Louis Giglio, pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta, Passion featured an interesting lineup of speakers such Francis Chan, Beth Moore and New Calvinist mentor John Piper. Not surpisingly the conference had a distinctive charismatic and even contemplative flair; e.g. prayer walking. After one session the crowd was urged to break into “love groups” and go out to pray and “take back the city of Atlanta.”

Years of emerging bombardment of pro-CSM propaganda aimed at younger sectors of the Christian community fired right out of evangelical publishing houses has also had much effect upon the broader culture of the more charismatic/emotion-driven side of the church visible as well. To serve as an illustration, below we have SBC Lifeway-sponsored Beth Moore praising an apostate (at best) Roman Catholic mystic and the crown jewel of CSM.

If you didn’t know, this is a form of meditation in an altered state of consciousness commonly known as Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP):

Moore’s admitted practice of some form of CCP, which is actually divination, has opened her up to even receive direct revelation and visions from God. Below from a 2002 series called Believing God, available right now at Lifeway’s website, Moore describes a vision God gave her concerning His Church.

Sounding not too unlike Word Faith wingnuts she tells us God took her into some kind of dimension where she was able to see the Body of Christ as Jesus sees it:

Apparently the Protestant Reformation was really some sort of horrible mistake because Moore’s Jesus sees the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. This becomes clear below as Moore demonstrates what she saw in her vision from God:

Yet despite this obviously false vision ten years ago, there was Beth Moore preaching to thousands alongside New Calvinists John Piper and Francis Chan. I guess we really should expect this because Piper has told us before: “I’m Happy To Learn From Beth Moore.”

Who knows, perhaps he even shares Moore’s view that men like John MacArthur are guilty of teaching extreme error in the Body of Christ:

By the way, the other extreme teaching in the Body of Christ that Beth Moore sees is what she calls “sensationalism.” Something I personally think she’s now become involved in. The CSM being dabbled with now in mainstream evangelicalism is producing a rebirth of Pietism; an emotional, sentimental, emotion-driven form of worship. What you saw at Passion 2012.

Christian apologist Bob DeWaay is dead-on-target as he explains:

Pietism is difficult to define because it can be taught and practiced in an unlimited number of ways. Some versions appear to be innocuous while others are so radical that most people would see that something is wrong. I now know that no version of pietism is actually innocuous. If a teaching is called pietism but teaches no more than what God has always used to sanctify Christians, then it is not really pietism. Real pietism always harms those who embrace it.

The essence of pietism is this: It is a practice designed to lead to an experience that purports to give one an elite or special status compared to ordinary Christians. The Bible addresses this error in the book of Colossians. The false teachers in Colossae claimed to have the secret to a superior Christian experience that would cause people to rise above the bad “fate” they feared. Paul went on to explain that they already had everything they needed through Christ and His work on the cross. Another way of stating this is: If after having fully trusted Christ’s finished work on the cross, you are told that you are still lacking something, you are being taught pietism.

Church history is littered with misguided pietistic movements. Many of them are linked with mysticism… Pietism can be practiced many ways including enforced solitude, asceticism of various forms, man made religious practices, legalism, submission to human authorities who claim special status, and many other practices and teachings.
(Online source)

In closing this, for now, I’ll show you something that gives us real cause for concern in the seeming dangerous drift of Beth Moore and John Piper. Following are clips from Session 5 of Passion 2012 where we were to enter into the silence to let God speak to us, not only through Scripture, but directly inside of us as well. However, this is language actually straight out of CSM and can also refer to the TM-lite of CCP.

Beth Moore, John Piper et al each took turns reading from the Book of Ephesians; then they each would ask for silence and say something along the lines of: “Be still and let Jesus speak to you.” This is Beth Moore:

Now John Piper:

Finally, here’s Louis Giglio closing out Session 5. Any doubt about what’s been going on in the silence is dispelled at :20 below. To all but the most naive it will become clear to you that, contra the proper Christian spirituality of sola Scriptura, Giglio is talking about direct encounters with God in addition to Holy Scriptura:

“How many of you heard the voice of God speak specifically, clearly, directly, and personally, to you? Can you just put a hand up? I’d like you to share it. Can you put a hand up for a minute?

Just want you to look around; that’s people saying, “God Almighty (pause) the Maker of heaven (pause) the one Who’s sitting on the only throne (pause) that’s not under threat (long pause, audience cheers)—He spoke to me. He spoke to me.”

“God spoke to me.” (long pause) Don’t let the voice of the darkness, tell you that you are not (pause) worth (pause) that God would not speak to you. (pause) Don’t let him tell you, you don’t matter. (pause) God spoke to you.

Perhaps this is why more and more in the charismatic camp have been embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination; like Rome, they now also have the Bible…plus…

See also:

THE PUSH FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC DENOMINATION AND THE SBC’S RUSSELL MOORE

CHARLES SPURGEON: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE MASTERPIECE OF SATAN AND THE QUEEN OF INIQUITY

LET’S LOOK AT THE GOSPEL

“Courageous” is a film which centers primarily around four law enforcement officers who must deal with a tragedy in their lives. The synopsis provided by the Sherwood Pictures website states:

Four men, one calling: To serve and protect. As law enforcement officers, Adam Mitchell, Nathan Hayes, David Thomson, and Shane Fuller are confident and focused. Yet at the end of the day, they face a challenge that none of them are truly prepared to tackle: fatherhood.

While they consistently give their best on the job, good enough seems to be all they can muster as dads. But they’re quickly discovering that their standard is missing the mark.

When tragedy hits home, these men are left wrestling with their hopes, their fears, their faith, and their fathering. Can a newfound urgency help these dads draw closer to God … and to their children?

Filled with action-packed police drama, COURAGEOUS is the fourth film from Sherwood Pictures, the moviemaking ministry of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia. Viewers will once again find themselves laughing, crying, and cheering as they are challenged and inspired by everyday heroes who long to be the kinds of dads that make a lifelong impact on their children.

Protecting the streets is second nature to these men. Raising their children in a God-honoring way? That’s courageous.”

As a law enforcement officer of thirteen years, I can attest to the strain and stress the job brings into our lives, and the effect it has on our families. “Courageous” addresses how fathers in this field can be in the home, yet fail to in our children’s lives. Additionally, it brings a Christ centered answer to what it means to be a father, not just spending time with our children, but raising them to be then men and women God has called them to be.

While this film addresses the issue of biblical fatherhood from a law enforcement perspective, it’s message transcends that arena and addresses fathers in all walks of life. I recommend that Christians watch this film for the very fact that it addresses something our modern day cultures loathes to admit, that fathers are needed in the home, that children need to learn under their tutelage and that God has called men everywhere to raise up the next generation to love and honor the Lord.

This film releases to DVD and Blu-ray on January 17, 2012. Please take the time to purchase, rent or borrow this film and watch it. It is most definitely worth it.

A Case for the Pre-Existence of the Son of God

Defining Who is the Son of God and Proving His Eternal Existence

INTRODUCTION

            Over two-thousand years ago in the small village of Bethlehem, made famous as the boyhood home of King David (1 Sam 16:1, 17:12, Luke 2:4), a baby was born. Only a few miles from Jerusalem, the epicenter of the Jewish religious culture of the time, this baby would grow up amidst swirling controversy regarding who he was. Who is this child? He would be called many things, however, one title condemned him for blasphemy by the High Priest Caiaphas and the Council of scribes and elders who arrested and tried him and led to his execution (Mt 26:37, Mt 26:62-66, Jn 19:7). The question came from Caiaphas, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus answered directly, “You have said so.”You have stated the truth. Caiaphas tore his clothes[1] – a forbidden act by the High Priest – as a display of extreme grief for blasphemy.[2] Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and he was executed for it.

            We have the advantage on this side of the cross, two-thousand years later, with the aid of Holy Scripture to see that Jesus was in fact the Son of God (Jn 1:1-14) and was wrongly executed by the council in a purely legal point of view. However, Jesus is God and his mission was to come to earth and be executed as a sacrifice for the sins of the children of God (Ephesians 1-2, Phil 2:5-8, Col 1:11-22, 1 Pet 1:2). Although we now have great hope in Christ, the Son of God, controversy still swirls around who he is. Several religions that claim the name of Jesus do not consider him to be God, such as the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses, but they consider Him to be a created being. Within the orthodox Christian circles Jesus is known to be God, but there is disagreement on whether or not he has been God for all eternity. Did the Son of God exist eternally, outside time and space, as the Son before he was born in the form of man before born as the baby Jesus, born of Mary? Or was it at the incarnation that Jesus came into being by becoming man generated by the Father?

            I propose that the evidence proving the Son of God’s pre-existence before the incarnation is overwhelming and inarguable for not only LDS and Jehovah Witnesses[3], but also for all within the Christian faith. Before proposing the evidence supporting the pre-existence of the Son of God, a brief description of the opposition is in order.

OPPOSITION TO THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD

            The opposition to who Jesus is and what it means for Him to be the Son of God has been argued since Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Many false doctrines were found in the early church, towards which Jesus’ beloved disciple John wrote his entire Gospel and epistles to refute (John 20:31), the Apostle Paul worked diligently to correct through his many epistles and missionary journeys (Rom 8:1-4, Col 1:15-20), as well as Peter and the writer of Hebrews (1 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 1:16-21, Heb 1:1-3). The eternality of the Son, as the second person of the Trinity was so hotly contested a few hundred years after the incarnation that the Nicene Council developed the Nicene Creed to establish a proper view on the Son and to distance themselves from the modalistic theology of Sabellianism[4] and the argument by the Arians[5] of the day that insisted that the Son of God was a created being.

            Centuries later new religions arose which claimed the name of Jesus Christ, yet they did not attribute deity or pre-existence to him. In the early 1800’s, Joseph Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints, claiming that the Son of God was merely a created being and Lucifer’s brother.[6] In the 1870’s Jehovah Witnesses arose who teach Jesus is no more than the archangel Michael[7], another created being. The LDS and the Jehovah Witness religions are rightly consider by professing Christians to be cultic and not a denomination within the protestant faith.

Another high profile stream of incorrect teaching regarding the Son of God has invaded the charismatic denominations. In particular, the televangelist T.D. Jakes with his “oneness” Pentecostal faith, author of over 30 books many of which have been on the NY Times Bestseller List, has had a worldwide stage for many years and teaches that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit and that the doctrine of the Trinity is in fact a polytheistic heresy[8]. Although no credible theologian would give Jakes theology thirty seconds of consideration, the average Christian is easily fooled by the TV shows, bestselling books, and charismatic personality. These fallacies are as important to refute as what the Fathers of the Nicene Creed were fighting against 1700 years ago.

            More interesting even yet, and much closer to home, is the change that John MacArthur has transitioned through only a decade ago. MacArthur, one of America’s greatest teachers and preachers, released an article in 2001 stating:

“…I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of ‘incarnational sonship.’ Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son Relationship. I know longer regard Christ’s sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation.”[9]

MacArthur’s abandonment of this doctrine through careful study of the Scriptures signals to us that there is a vital need for careful study and reflection on the Scriptures by every believer, even for every respected teacher, preacher, and theologian. Let us now turn to carefully considering what the Bible says about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

EVIDENCE OF THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD

            Ten proofs regarding the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and second person in the Trinity need careful consideration.

Proof (1): I Am. The most basic proof of Jesus Christ’s pre-existence as the Son of God, and an assumption that must be made at the outset, is his divinity. Jesus being fully God implies his eternality. We see from the “I am” (egō eimi) statements found in Jesus’ own words, that He is claiming to be equal to God, the Father. In chapter 8 of John’s gospel, Jesus provides a direct claim to deity and pre-existence through the most notable “I am” statement.  Jesus tells the Jews, “If anyone who keeps my word, he will never taste death,” (Jn 8:52, ESV). The Jews fire back at Jesus by asking if he is greater than Abraham. After all, Abraham died and so did all the other prophets of God. So how can this man claim to have power over death? How can he speak with authority regarding Abraham as if he knows him? Jesus, they argue isn’t even fifty years old, how can he have seen Abraham?[10] Jesus then makes the claim to deity and pre-existence: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am,” (Jn 8:58, ESV).

Jesus’ use of “I am” harkens the Jewish hearer back to the scene of Moses and the flame of fire that appears from the bush in Exodus 3. God chooses this title, “I Am,” to reveal to Moses who he is. “I am” is a name of revelation and Jesus uses it here to reveal who he is to the Jews. Thomas Schreiner expertly points out in his New Testament Theology, “I am” is reserved for Yahweh.[11] Christ is revealing to his hearers, in the same way the Father did with Moses, that he is God and he existed before Abraham.[12] This claim of deity was blasphemous to the Jews and they picked up stones to throw at him.

Let us take the “I am” statement further through a very simple analysis of the grammar and the distinctive order of the words. The use of “was” in reference to Abraham is a simple past tense meaning he had a beginning; he became or came to be. This is contrasted with Jesus’ use of “I am” (egō eimi), which is present tense in the form of “I myself am.”[13] Before Abraham came into being, Jesus eternally existed as God.

            Proof (2): The Alpha and the Omega. Robert Culver, makes a powerful impact within his discussion of the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the book of Revelation, the Apostle John reveals two inseparable facts regarding the person Jesus Christ, that come from the mouth of Jesus Christ when he appears before John. In Revelation, Christ is “the one who ‘was dead’, and ‘pierced’, yet also the Alpha and Omega, beginning and ending, who is, was, and is yet to come, ‘the Pantorkrator’” (the almighty) (Rev 1:8, 18).[14] Christ, the God-man, was pierced and died. This was his mission. However, our sacrificial lamb is also the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end. He is without beginning and he is without end. He is the eternal and pre-existent Son of God. As Guthrie simply puts it, “it conceives of the whole span of history in terms of God’s activity. There are no blank periods. This concept ties in closely with the concept of God as Creator.”[15]

            Proof (3): Voluntary Humiliation. The apostle Paul, in his inspired writing to the believers in Philippi, explains how the preexistent Christ actually stripped off his robes of majesty and glory to become humble; to become nothing. The Son of God voluntarily humbled himself, becoming like man, in order to fulfill his mission. To leave the thrones of heaven and the worship of angels[16] and condescend requires infinite humility. The Son of God’s voluntary humiliation logically requires pre-existence.

[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.(Philippians 2:5-8 ESV)

Some, like Cullman, argue that the Son being in the form of God means that he wasn’t actually God, but had the appearance of God and was the God-man before the incarnation[17], however, this opinion loses its foundation in verse 7, where Paul explains that the Son of God actually empties himself in order to take the form of a servant in the likeness of man. Emptying himself requires three major truths:

1) He had something in the first place to be emptied,

2) He had consciousness,

3) He had existence before the incarnation.

The Son was not in the form of God-man before the incarnation, he was God – majestic and divine. In order to empty himself, the Son doesn’t not leave his deity behind, but instead the act of emptying was the act of putting on the form of a servant, the likeness of man.[18]

The other foundational argument for the pre-existence of the Son of God in this passage is from the word (harpgmos) translated as “grasped” or in the KJV, “robbery”. The word is defined as seizing, taking, or robbery. Paul is assuming that Jesus was equal with God and that he didn’t need to try to seize or steal equality with God, he is equal with God. He did not “take advantage of or exploit what he already possessed.”[19] The pre-existent Son of God possessed equality with God and humbled himself at the incarnation by putting on the form of man.

Proof (4): He Was Sent. The incarnation of Jesus, as the Son of God, can be argued as an act of creation if we only look at the physical creation and birth of the baby Jesus. However, even shallow study of the scriptures will show that the Son of God was sent to Earth through the incarnation. Sending someone implies logically that this someone existed before they were sent. The same basic argument holds for the Son of God. Jesus, in his prayer to the Father in John 17[20], explicitly claims existing in heaven before the incarnation:

4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (Jn 17:4, 5, ESV)

“The glory that I had with you before the world existed.” This claim goes far beyond the incarnation and beyond creation of the world to the place of the beginning of beginnings – the Son was with the Father before everything our minds can imagine. Verse 4 of chapter 17 also classifies the Son’s work as that which he was sent to do by the Father along with:

a) John 3:34 – He who was sent utters the words of the Father,

b) John 5:36-38 – The works that the Father has given me testify to the Father sending me, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me,

c) John 7:29 – He, the Father, sent me,

d) John 11:42 – I said this for those standing around that they might believe that you sent me.

The Apostle John had crystal clear revelation from the Holy Spirit that the Son of God was sent by the Father to Earth for his work and purposes in the God-man for of Jesus.  The always encouraging Geerhardus Vos argues strongly with regard to the Trinity and the Angel of the Lord (both discussed in proofs below) that “we must assume that behind the twofold representation there lies a real manifoldness in the inner life of the Deity. If the Angel sent were Himself partaker of Godhead, then He could refer to God as his sender, and at the same time speak as God, and in both cases there would be reality behind it.”[21] The only conclusion available is that the Father sends the eternally pre-existent Son for his work in the midst of man.

            Proof 5: The Trinity, Roles and Functions. The purpose of this paper is not to outline the doctrine of the Trinity. The reality of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is assumed. Within the doctrine of the Trinity we see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God, in three persons, with three roles and functions. A major part of these roles and functions is the nature of the Son’s subordination to the Father. In the previous proof, we see the Son’s voluntarily submission to the purpose, will, and mission of the Father. Now, however we need to examine the subordination structure of the Trinity. This has been and issue that has spanned the centuries and was address well by Samuel Waldron in his book, Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. The topic was important enough in the 1680’s to include it in the Confession, and it is important enough still in our generation for further exposition. Waldron cautions the reader to distinguish carefully between three different kinds of subornation:

1)      Subordination in the modes of operation,

2)      Subordination in the modes of subsistence,

3)      Subordination in essence.[22]

Subordination in the modes of operation is the concept that the “God-man”, the incarnate Son, Jesus, is subordinate to the Father in the grand scheme of creation and his redemptive plan for mankind. The Father sends the Son, and the Son does the will of the Father (Jn 3:34, 7:29, 4:34, 14:31).

Secondly, the subordination in the area of subsistence relates to the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity, known as hypostasis. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Holy Spirit are unique and not the Father. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both.[23] Distinction between the hypostasis is a vital doctrine and strongly proves the pre-existence of Christ as the Son distinct from the Father.

Finally, the third form of subordination Waldron outlined claims that the Father and the Son are different in essence, in their level of Godhood. If the Son and Spirit are subordinate in essence, they are less God than the Father. This form of subordination is not Biblical and should be exposed as a cultic false doctrine reducing the deity of the Son.

            Proof 6: The Only Begotten. Much controversy surrounds the passages claiming the Son of God is the only begotten son of God the Father. Begotten can mean born of or created from and when a shallow look is taken it confuses the issue of the Son’s pre-existence. We must eliminate the implication that the Son was created or generated at the incarnation by the Father by examining the confusing passages. For the sake of this paper, only two will be examined but not exhausted. The two passages are: Psalm 2:7 and John 3:16.[24] The Psalmist writes of Adonai, the Lord, sitting in the heavens laughing at those who have set themselves against Him tells of what the LORD – Jehovah, God the Father – has decreed. In verse 7, Jehovah, using father and son language, sets forth his eternal decree: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” We see contextually that Jehovah is speaking of the Messiah, the Son of God. On the surface this temporal language, would challenge the pre-existence of the Son. Here, I turn again to John MacArthur where in his article reexamining his position explains that the decree of the Father is eternal and it is reasonable to assume that this passage should be understood as figurative language and not a wooden literal statement.[25]

            Moving from the Hebrew figurative language in Psalm 2:7 to the Greek in John 3:16, we see a very similar English translation in many Bibles; however, the intended meaning is different in the original language. The “begotten” terminology occurs several times from the beloved disciple’s pen.[26] The Gospel of John, according to the author, has the intended purpose that the reader would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we would have life (John 20:31).  The tradition of the KJV’s “…and gave his only begotten Son,” is arguably the most famous passage in scripture but the translation muddies the water if we only look at the KJV. The NASB and many others also translate the Greek word “monogenes” the same way: “only begotten Son.”  This is not a clear translation.  We can see a better rendering in ESV, which translates “monogenes” as “…gave His only Son.” This subtle distinction does portray the Greek language meaning of the single, unique, one of a kind nature of the Son as intended by the Apostle John. The only, unique, one of a kind Son stands in great contrast to the muddy language of begotten carrying the meaning of procreation or creation. It is highly unlikely, as Dr Guthrie argues, that “monogenes” contains the idea of birth.[27] As related to Christ, the word isn’t pointing to birth, but rather to the idea of uniqueness.

            MacArthur adds another interesting piece to the pre-existence puzzle worth noting in regard to begetting with this statement:

“And indeed, there is another, more vital, significance to the idea of “begetting” than merely the origin of one’s offspring. In the design of God, each creature begets offspring “after his kind” (Gen. 1:11-12; 21-25). The offspring bear the exact likeness of the parent. The fact that a son is generated by the father guarantees that the son shares the same essence as the father.”[28]

The Son is not a created being, but he is inseparable from the Father through the Trinity and is of the same essence. In light of MacArthur’s argument: as a dog begets a dog, God the Father would beget God the Son, which is to say that the dog’s begotten is of the same essence and the Father’s begotten is of the same essence.

            Proof 7: The Demons Knew Who He Was. When our Lord encountered the demon possessed men in Matthew 8:28-34 and 9:27 and in Luke 4:40-41, we see a common theme. The demons knew who Jesus was and they were afraid of him. They called him the Son of God and the Son of David, both not only messianic titles, but evidence that they knew the Son before in the incarnation. Demons are spiritual beings outside of time and space as we know it and they had no confusion over who Jesus is. Satan, the devil himself, also knew Jesus as the Son of God and did not need to be informed of his true nature like man did. The pre-existence of the Son is the only logical reason why the demons and devil were so familiar with him after the incarnation. In addition, Matthew 1:23 builds structure around the Son’s incarnation: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means God with us.” As a reference to the prophecy of Isaiah, the man Jesus was God in human flesh to fulfill the prophecy. The demons knew Jesus to be Immanuel. If Jesus was the Son and the Son was Immanuel meaning, “God with us”, then the Son is God and we know that God is eternal and pre-existent.

            Proof 8: The Angel of the Lord. The story of Samson’s parents in Judges 13 is a fascinating testimony to the pre-existence of the second person in the Trinity, the Son. There are other similar passages in the Old Testament referencing the Angel of the Lord[29] with illusions to the Son of God; however Judges 13 is the most interesting example to examine. Samson’s mother and wife to Manoah was a barren woman. Her plight is not unique in the Bible as God uses barrenness numerous times throughout redemptive history for his purposes.[30] Manoah’s wife was visited by a man of God whose appearance was like that of an Angel of Jehovah. He appeared very awesome she told Manoah later. This Angel’s conversation with Manoah’s wife was very similar to conversations that the Archangel Gabriel had with John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, and the virgin Mary in Luke chapter 1. It would be a common error to read through Judges 13, see the wording for Angel and never see the subtly that proves the pre-incarnate existence and activity of the Son of God. These subtleties occur in four specific verses and they are as follows:  When Manoah asks the Angel if he is the man who spoke to his wife in Judges13:11, the Angel replies with, “I”. In the ESV translation and others the Hebrew word (’ă·nî) is translated as “I am”. The “I am” in Judges 13 is different than the “I AM that I AM” in Exodus 3:14 in that it is a different word; however, the response points to the deity of the one standing before them rather than referring to himself as a messenger of the Lord. This response is not enough on its own, so we must build the case further.

            Later in the story from Judges 13, in verse 18, Manoah asks the Angel what his name is and the Angel gives a curious answer. In Luke 1, the angel clearly gives his name as Gabriel and tells how he stands in the presence of God. The Angel in Judges 13, however, asks in reply, “why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” Again we see a response by the Angel pointing to his deity and his uniqueness. This is no mere angel, but someone special. In the famous passage in Isaiah 9:6 the prophet tells of a child who will be born, a son who will be given and his name is called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This Angel is referring to himself as the one described by Isaiah later. Manoah sees the truth of who he is and has a response similar to Isaiah’s response when he faces the Lord on His throne in Isaiah 6. In verse 20, Manoah and his wife fall on their faces in worship and fear and in verse 22 Manoah says, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” This phenomenal statement emphasizes the point that this Angel is in fact God. They came face to face with God. However, making the leap from this Angel being Jehovah and the Angel being the pre-incarnate Son of God is more difficult. Scripture makes it easy for us though due to two additional passages to finalize this proof.

            The Apostle John lays out the undeniable truth of Jesus’ deity and eternal existence in the first chapter of his Gospel. In defining Jesus as the Word of God, and that the Word was God and was with God, he shows how Jesus was the incarnate form of God and the separate but equal Word of God who tabernacles with His creation. To further explain that the Son is a unique person sent by Jehovah in the form of a man, he tells us in 1:18, “No one has ever seen God, The only God, who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him known.” No one has ever seen God, the only God, except the one He made known, who is the Son. No one has ever seen God. This means Manoah and his wife did not see Jehovah, but they clearly saw God as described above. Thus they saw Him whom God made known, the one who was at His side, the Son of God. This logic is further enforced by Judges 13:16: The Angel of the Lord is speaking to Manoah and tells him, “I will not eat your food. But if you prepare a burn offering, then offer it to the LORD.” Manoah confesses that he saw God in verse 22, yet the Angel tells him to offer it to Jehovah. Therefore, since we understand the Angel of the Lord in Judges 13 to be God per the testimony of Manoah and his wife, and God is telling Manoah to prepare his offering to Jehovah, we must assume that the Angel of the Lord here is the Son of God actively working well before the incarnation. Geerhardus Vos provides a succinct summary of the Old Testament references to the Angel of the Lord as pre-incarnate form of the Son and how to deal with the Angel and Jehovah both as God, but also as separate and unique in these passages:

“The problem is how to do justice to both. There is but one way in which this can be done: we must assume that behind the twofold representation there lies a real manifoldness in the inner life of the Deity. If the Angel sent were Himself partaker of Godhead, then He could refer to God as his sender, and at the same time speak as God, and in other cases there would be reality behind it.”[31]

Proof 9: The Agent of Creation. Not only was the Son of God not a created being or a new manifestation at the incarnation, but the complete opposite is true. The Son of God was the agent of creation of the entire universe – whether physical or spiritual. Scripture makes this point clear. Paul lays out in Colossians 1:16 that all things were created by the Son, all things were created through the Son, and all things were created for the Son. There is little room to argue against the pre-existence of the Son when we learn that He was the agent of creation. Logically, all of creation could be set aside for a yet to be created being, however, that yet to be created being would not be able to do the creating or be the conduit of the creation as Paul teaches in verse 16. To continue to emphasize this point John 1 and Hebrews 1 shall be examined.

In the awe inspiring introduction to John’s Gospel, we again learn in John 1:2, as mentioned above, the Word was with God and the Word was God and in verse 3 of the ESV, “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” All things were made through the Word, which is the Son, and not anything was made that wasn’t made without the Word, which is the Son of God. This passage may not make the inner workings of the Father-Son relationship of the Trinity any more comprehensible, but it does continue to enforce the Son’s pre-existence before the incarnation as He was with the Father before time began and was the one through which the entire physical universe and spiritual realm was made.

Finally, the author of Hebrews opens his sermon with the same Son exalting language. Hebrews 1:2 tells of how God the Father has chosen in these last days to speak through His Son and in order to not confuse this Son with any created being he defines the Son with, “…whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world. The Son of God the Father whom is the heir of all things – echoing Colossians 1 that all things were created for the Son – is also the one through whom he created the aion (world) representing eternity and the universe. The Holy Spirit inspired these created authors to pen these words exalting the Son as the pre-existent Son of God who is God and has existed before time began.

            Proof 10: The Son on the Throne. The last proof of Biblical evidence in the case of the Son of God’s eternality, pre-existence, and eternal generation is found in a passage that makes our heart worship in praise and makes our body tremble in reverent fear of the eternal Son of God. This is found in Isaiah’s vision of the Lord on the throne.

[1] In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. [2] Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. [3] And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” [4] And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. [5] And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” (Isaiah 6:1-5 ESV)

The prophet Isaiah comes face-to-face with the Son of God, the Lord (Adonai), on the throne. The majestic Lord sits on the throne and the seraphim around Him sing his praises. “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts!” Holy is Jehovah. Isaiah states in verse 5 that he has seen the King, the LORD (Jehovah) of hosts, and his sin is atoned for by the coal taken from the throne and touched to his lips by the seraphim. Isaiah is at the point of despair and undone in the face of the Lord. However, when the Lord asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah immediately responds, “Here I am! Send me.” The Lord sends him to speak on His behalf regarding the child to be born, the heir to the throne of David, and the one through whom we will be healed by His stripes. The Lord sends Isaiah to proclaim the Christ, the Son is coming.

            Logically, this could very well just be God the Father sending Isaiah out to speak of the Son whom is coming at the incarnation and therefore we must look at John 12:36-43 to see the rest of the story. John tells of how the people still did not believe in Jesus in verse 37, which was so that the word of the Prophet Isaiah would come to pass. In verse 41 of chapter 12 John explains Isaiah 6: “Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” We know whom Isaiah spoke of, the Son of God. We also learn here in John 12:41 that the Lord that sent Isaiah was in fact the Son of God sitting on the throne, pre-incarnate and very real.

CONCLUSION

            The Biblical evidence is overwhelming in the case of the eternality and pre-existence of the Son of God. The most wondrous and awe inspiring aspect of the Son’s eternality is the permanence of his Sonship. By looking back into the distant eternal past, we cannot argue against the evidence that He has always existed as the second person in the Trinity and if we look forward into the eternal future we see again that the Son will always be the Son. Right this very minute and until He returns, the Son intercedes on our behalf as an advocate with the Father as a propitiation for our sins, having reconciled us with our creator by His sacrifice.[32] We now and forever have the hope of eternal glory as brothers of the Son as adopted children because He died and rose again and we now eagerly await the resurrection of our bodies, the changing from corrupted to incorruptible in the twinkling of an eye where we will live in glory for the rest of eternity with the eternal Son of God.[33] This is our great hope.