Thanksgiving was a Christian Holiday

When you look at some of the history behind the American Thanksgiving holiday, it is clear that it was originally intended to be a time when Christians gave thanks to God for taking care of them and meeting their needs. Consider a few historical facts from America's Christian Heritage by Gary DeMar:

• "On Thursday, September 24,1789, the First House of Representatives voted to recommend the First Amendment of the newly drafted Constitution to the states for ratification. The next day, New Jersey Congressman Elias Boudinot proposed that the House and Senate jointly request of President Washington to proclaim a day of thanksgiving for 'the many signal favors of Almighty God.' Boudinot said that he 'could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining, with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them.'" [The Annals of the Congress, The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Compiled from Authentic Materials by Joseph Gales, Senior (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834), 1:949-50 quoted by DeMar on p. 77.]

• "Roger Sherman spoke in favor of the proposal by reminding his colleagues that the practice of thanksgiving is 'warranted by a number of precedents in holy writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple . . . This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion.'" [Annals of the Congress, 950 quoted by Demar, pp. 77-78.]

• The early colonists aboard the Mayflower gave thanks to God for His provision: "Twice en route the passengers participated in a fast, and once (two days after sounding ground beneath the Arabella) a 'thanksgiving'. When the sailing season ended with all ships accounted for, 'we had a day of thanksgiving in all the plantations.'" [David D. Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 166, quoted in DeMar, 78.]

• "In 1610, after a hard winter called 'the starving time,' the colonists at Jamestown called for a time of thanksgiving. This was after the original company of 409 colonists had been reduced to 60 survivors. Extreme hardship did not deter the survivors from turning to God in thanksgiving. The colonists prayed for help that finally arrived by a ship filled with food and supplies from England. They held a prayer service to give thanks. . . . This thanksgiving celebration was not commemorated formally on a yearly basis. An annual commemoration of thanksgiving came nine years later in another part of Virginia. 'On December 4, 1619, thirty-eight colonists landed at a place they called Berkeley Hundred [in Virginia]. 'We ordain,' read an instruction in their charter, 'that the day of our ship's arrival . . . in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.'" [Jim Dwyer, ed., Strange Stories, Amazing Facts of America's Past (Pleasantville, NY: The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 1989), 198 quoted in Demar, 78.]

• "Edward Winslow, in his important chronicle of the history of the Plymouth colony, reports the following eyewitness account of the colony's thanksgiving celebration: 'Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might, after a special manner, rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, among other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming among us, and among the rest their greatest king, Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted; and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation, and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.'" [Edward Winslow, How the Pilgrim Fathers Lived, 2:116. Emphasis added. CD Sourcebook of American History (Mesa, AR: Candlelight Publishing, 1992). Also see Mourt's Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims of Plymouth, ed. Jordan D. Fiore (Plymouth, MA: Plymouth Rock Foundation, [1622] 1985, 67-69 quoted in DeMar, 79.]

• While these quotes do not show that thanksgiving was a nationally recognized holiday (the U.S. was not yet formed as a nation), they do show that these celebrations were specifically Christian in origin and purpose. "Thanksgiving began as a holy day, created by a community of God-fearing Puritans sincere in their desire to set aside one day each year especially to thank the Lord for His many blessings. The day they chose, coming after the harvest at a time of year when farm work was light, fit the natural rhythm of rural life." [Diana Karter Allelbaum, Thanksgiving: An American Holiday, An American History (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1984), 186 quoted in DeMar, 79.]
• Abraham Lincoln declared the last Thursday of November to be a nationwide celebration of Thanksgiving on October 3, 1863. He said the following at his declaration of this new national holiday: "No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy . . . I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday in November next as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent father who dwelleth in heaven." [DeMar, 79.]
  

• So when did the original intent of Thanksgiving start to change? Later in American history, Franklin D. Roosevelt changed Thanksgiving to the third Thursday in November "to give more shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas." [Edmund H. Harvey, Jr., ed., Reader's Digest Book of Facts (Pleasantville, NY: The Reader's Digest Association, [1985], 1987), 125 in DeMar 79.] Also, public school textbooks have eroded the original intent of Thanksgiving by selectively omitting critical facts about the holiday so as to avoid any association of it with Christianity. Paul C. Vitz noted that that one elementary school textbook had thirty pages devoted to the Pilgrims, including the celebration of their first Thanksgiving, but there is nothing whatsoever mentioned about the religious foundation of this holiday. He notes that one little girl came home and told her mother that "Thanksgiving was about when the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians." The mother called the school principal and informed him that Thanksgiving was primarily about when the Pilgrims thanked God for His provision and the principal said that was only her opinion and that they had to teach what was in the textbooks and nothing more. [Paul C. Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in our Children's Textbooks (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1986), 3. Information summarized from DeMar, 80.]

The Pilgrims did indeed thank the Indians for their helping provide them more food rations, but the historical record shows that their thanksgiving was made ultimately to the Triune God of Scripture. Appelbaum sums up the historical situation surrounding that first thanksgiving accurately, "Governor Bradford, with one eye on divine Providence, proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to God, and with the other eye on the local political situation, extended an invitation to neighboring Indians to share in the harvest feast . . . This 'first Thanksgiving' was a feast called to suit the needs of the hour, which were to celebrate the harvest, thank the Lord for His goodness, and regale and impress the Indians." [Appelbaum, Thanksgiving, 9. Quoted in DeMar, 80.]

The early practice of Thanksgiving along with the original intent of it are clear: Americans wanted to glorify God by showing gratitude to Him for taking care of them through giving them enough food to keep them alive. Most Americans today are not interested in this history since Thanksgiving is seen as just another time to eat, drink, and be merry. Would to God that we would see revival and God would restore to us the gratitude that we have lost for His gracious provision.

John MacArthur on the Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration

By John MacArthur

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

John MacArthur

Why do Calvinists Co-Belligerize?

UPDATE 11-24-09: Dr. James White responds to the Manhattan Declaration here.

Steve Camp chimes in here.

Back in October we were reminded of the doctrinal compromise that was to take place at the 2009 National Conference on Christian Apologetics. Sadly, this has been happening at this conference for years. The first time I learned of it I wrote a letter to Dr. Norman Geisler asking him why Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft was chosen to be a plenary speaker. My basic question went something like this: "How can a gospel denier teach gospel defenders how to defend the very gospel that the denier denies?" Well, if you are an evangelical that has already embraced Rome's philosophical and soteriological foundations, namely the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas and the synergism associated with semi-Pelagianism, then having a Romanist preach peace when there is no peace isn't too radical since you are already half-way across the Tiber river anyways.

But this one I heard about today just doesn't make a lick of sense at all: The Manhattan Declaration of Christian Conscience

An overview on the homepage tells us this:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

From the Preamble:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000­year tradition of proclaiming God’s word,… After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture.

It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries… Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel…

The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that people are saved by God through His grace alone; by faith alone, in the finished work of Christ alone, and that this has delivered us from His wrath and transferred us into the glorious freedom of the sons of God. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both teach that salvation is through faith in Christ + meritorious works. The first is the true gospel and the latter is a damnable heresy according to Paul (Galatians 1:6-9).

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that these two beliefs are not the same. So why would men who have a better grasp of church history, the Reformation, and the true gospel than I do sign a document that essentially says that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism all have the same "gospel" and are a legitimate form of Christianity? (i.e., ". . . Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel…" Emphasis mine - DSS). So let's ask some really basic and fundamental questions: What is a Christian? What is the Gospel? What has become of the Protestant Reformation? Finally, why are Calvinists who ought know better signing this document? These men include:

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Ky.)

Dr. Wayne Grudem
Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix)

Here's what Dr. Mohler said to justify his actions:

I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process.

It seems as if Dr. Mohler is implying that he doesn't trust the sovereignty of God to work through doctrinally sound ministries to preach the gospel in order to change the hearts of the wicked; hence, we must engage in evangelical co-belligerism by yoking arms with those who are preaching a false gospel in order to effect a change in society. The problem can be simply put: we are never commanded by God to effect change in society for the sake of moral improvement, we are commanded to preach the gospel and trust God to regenerate people in His time, not ours (Matt. 28:19-20). Contrast Mohler's response to a letter recently written by a Calvinist Baptist pastor to a Roman Catholic friend who expressed genuine concern over this pastor's adamant unwillingness to take up arms with Roman Catholics in order to fight against abortion:

Before I continue on, please let me state that I desire to maintain a cordial, loving relationship with my Catholic friends. Today, very few people of differing religious convictions have the ability or desire to sit down and do the hard work of calmly discussing their differences so as to arrive at a greater understanding of the truth. Most of us want to remain comfortable with our understanding of reality, especially if it has been ingrained in us from the time we were children. I on the other hand believe that we should pursue truth at all costs even if it means giving up cherished beliefs and that we should seek to foster relationships with those that we think are in great error for the purposes of forwarding the truth of the gospel. This is important because according to the Holy Scriptures, our understanding of the gospel (or lack thereof) will determine whether we spend eternity in Heaven or Hell. This means that while our church desires to speak the truth in love with clarity and conviction, we desire to do so without compromising the gospel (Colossians 4:1-4). Hard-hearted, prideful sinners cannot understand the grace that is extended to them in Christ Jesus unless they first see how wicked they are in comparison to God’s holiness. Because our church believes that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in making the gospel come alive in the hearts of His people, we endeavor to make our proclamation clear while trusting that God will draw His elect to Himself in His time, not ours. In light of those doctrinal convictions, our church unashamedly believes and teaches that the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel because the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century anathematized those who hold to doctrine of justification by faith alone. When Trent did this, they condemned the very gospel of Christ and forever separated themselves from those Christians who desired to bring Rome into conformity with the Holy Scriptures (Romans 4:1-8; Galatians 1:6-9; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7). To add injury to insult, Vatican II not only upheld Trent, but also teaches the following heresy in section 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.[1]

This plainly contradicts the teachings of the Lord Jesus (John 14:6), St. Peter (Acts 4:12), and St. Paul (1 Timothy 2:5) and provides further evidence that Rome has rejected the truth and made shipwreck of the faith. Because I love my Catholic friends, I have always sought to speak the truth to them in love about these issues because according to St. Paul, their eternal destiny depends on it (Galatians 1:6-9; Ephesians 4:15). This letter is an effort toward that end.

Notice that this pastor believes that no ecumenical cooperation is possible whatsoever between biblically faithful Protestants and Catholics because Rome preaches a false gospel. How can two walk together lest they be agreed? (Amos 3:3 NKJV) More importantly, if we are not agreed on something as fundamental as how a man is to be made right with the God of heaven, then how can we justify yoking together with false teachers for the purposes of fighting against social evils. As Christians, we are forbidden to yoke ourselves together in ministry with anyone who preaches a false gospel, even if it means that a common moral agenda is not promoted in our society or world. In closing, we would all do well to once again consider the words of the Apostle Paul:

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. 18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18 NASB 95)

---

[1] http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#III

Why People Don't Get It - by Jim Elliff

Note: Have you ever felt like pulling your hair out after trying to explain the gospel to someone? If you feel that way, you are not alone. The article below is helpful in reminding us why lost people of various stripes ultimately don't "get" the gospel after we have continually explained, pleaded, illustrated, loved, preached, and lived it. Simply put: the reception of Christ as Lord and Savior is a gift of God. Enjoy! PD
*********************************************************************************

I talked with a charter member of the church I attended in another town that Sunday, a church with less-than-conservative views on the Bible. The question I asked was designed not only to give me information, but also to engage my new friend in thinking about his beliefs. "What is your church's view on the Bible?" I posed. "Well," he answered, "I'm a chaplain for the Masons and I think we have a little stronger view of the Bible there than here. However, understanding the Bible is not easy. You have to know Hebrew, Greek and Babylonian to really get it." (Babylonian?) He must have assumed that his pastor knew Babylonian, because he avidly soaked in his senseless and untethered homilies. As I returned on a few occasions to this active religious gathering, I could tell the pastor's Babylonian wasn't actually working. He always missed the meaning of the texts he attempted to explain—and not by a little. If he did say something biblical, it was entirely by accident. I don't think he was insincere, but rather, he just didn't get it. And, as the saying goes, "When there is a mist in the pulpit, there's a fog in the pew." Why don't people understand the truths of the Bible? I'm not speaking of the finer points, but the basics, or that which a person needs to be justified. Why don't they get it? To find the answer I went to the book of John, a book written to help people believe. John interplays with this notion of understanding versus blindness as an intentional theme. We hardly begin reading John's gospel before he alerts us to the sad fact that Christ was "in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own [the Jews], and those who were His own did not receive Him" (1:10-11 NASB). God was standing there in the person of Christ, yet was not perceived. "Receive" here means that they did not understand who He was, even though His actions and words repeatedly displayed it. Later Jesus tells the religious leaders, "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He has sent" (5:38). When these leaders appealed to their confidence in Moses writings over His words, Jesus said, ". . . if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words" (5:46-47)? In fact, Jesus taught that it was impossible for these people to understand. "Why don't you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word" (8:43). He got even plainer when he said: "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe in Me. . . . He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God" (8:45,47, emphasis mine). In other words, if Jesus had spoken deceptively, or untruthfully in some way, they might have believed Him. But precisely because He spoke unadulterated truth, they could not understand. John is not describing people who just aren't bright. Many of these Jewish leaders were scholars, masters of both the Law and the commentaries. And they were reading the Law in its original language. One of Jesus' most colorful depictions of man's inherent blindness comes in His famous treatise on sheep in chapter 10. He explains that He has "other" sheep yet to come in. "But," speaking again to some Jewish contenders, "you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (10:26-27, emphasis mine). Believers don't become sheep; sheep become believers. So what does all of this mean? It means two things: First, it is impossible for a person to be His sheep without believing His Word. When it is all said and done, true believers embrace God's words (the proximate object of faith) as well as His person (the ultimate object of faith). A person who disbelieves the Bible may never rightly be considered a Christian. Second, it means that God must remove blindness so that a person can understand and believe. Though we preach and argue the case, persuade and compel them to come (as we must, for this is the means God uses), the ability to understand is first granted by God.* God has to be teaching through your teaching (6:44-45). You cannot merely educate people into the kingdom. The hope in this, however, is that even the most estranged person may, by an act of God that is sometimes sudden, understand so as to embrace Christ—both words and person. "Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (5:24). __________________ *(Here are a few of the many passages that speak of this: Romans 3:10-11; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Acts 16:14; Mathew 13:11; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6) Copyright © 2005 Jim Elliff Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc. Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in unedited form including author's name, title, complete content, copyright and weblink. Other uses require written permission. www.CCWtoday.org

Darwin's Bulldog was Right!

I have always appreciated consistency, even when it comes from unbelievers. Thomas H. Huxley was a man that appreciated consistency too. Being the main propagator for Charles Darwin's evolutionary philosophy in Darwin's day, Huxley, an avowed agnostic, had no room for professing Christians who compromised the gospel by supporting evolutionary naturalism. He wrote the following in this regard:

I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands? [Huxley, T., Science and Hebrew Tradition, Vol. 4 of Huxley’s Collected Essays, ‘The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science’, (1890), pp. 207–208, , 18 March 2008. ]

Huxley also said that,

". . . the Universality of the Deluge is recognised, not merely as a part of the story, but as a necessary consequence of some of its details." [Ibid, 214.]

And concerning the attempts of theologians to say the Flood was only a local event, he wrote,

A child may see the folly of it.[Ibid., 225]

He went on,

When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him? [Ibid., 232-233]

Concerning Matthew 19:5 [‘Have you not read, that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’], Huxley wrote,

If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?’ [Ibid., 235-236]

And regarding 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 [‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’], Huxley wrote,

If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic? [Ibid]

Summing up the position of theologians who compromised the words of the Bible, Huxley observed that "the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable". [Ibid.] Huxley was right: The Christian faith makes no sense if we give up the first 11 chapters of Genesis and other Old Testament historical narratives by redefining them as allegories, meaningful myths, or fables. The faith once for all delivered to the saints stand or falls on the historical realities of these Old Testament events. Give that up, and you have no basis for the resurrection of Christ, if you have no resurrection of Christ, then you have no hope (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

Putting Your "Krav" Into Action

Note: This post was originally produced for a martial arts/fitness newsletter for Allen Branch's Fitness One Training Systems.

“Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle”. Psalm 144:1

In Psalm 144:1, King David praises God for giving him the necessary skills for protecting himself and his nation. The word translated “war” in the above verse comes from the Hebrew word “qerab” (קְרָב) from which we get the “krav” in Krav Maga. Most of the people reading this article have never experienced military action on a battlefield, but the man who wrote this verse was well acquainted with combat, bloodshed, and the devastating effects of evil (2 Samuel 12:10-15). When King David praises God for giving him the skill to prepare for war in this verse, he does so because he understands that any success that he has in warfare only comes because God has given it to him. As God’s appointed king, he understood how important it was to be rescued by the Lord’s enabling power through his God-given ability in warfare. This leaves no room for boasting in his own self-made skill as a king and warrior (1 Corinthians 4:7). David knew that his wellbeing and the future safety of his nation depended upon his God-given ability to fight, strategize, organize, lead, anticipate countermeasures, and to implement various other means to protect his nation and her posterity. David could not afford to be lazy, depend upon his own strength, or avoid the hard work, sacrifice, and necessary preparation that goes into defeating the enemy. The cost was too high and the risks too severe to not put the next “krav” in the trustworthy hands of the Lord.

But how does David’s situation apply to us today? What kind of “krav” do we face in our daily lives? While we are not being commanded by God as kings to protect a physical nation through physical warfare, we are commanded by God to engage in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:10-20). In this age of the New Covenant, God has sent His promised Messiah, Jesus Christ to forgive people through repentance and faith in Him (Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7; 52:13-53:1-12; Acts 20:21). All those who are united to Messiah Jesus have the God-given ability to withstand evil both from within and without through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 6:11). This is the critical piece needed to deal with the daily spiritual “krav” that assaults all of us and it is the only way that a person can win this “krav” (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:6-13). All other measures will prove futile because all other measures depend upon man’s strength and not God’s (Psalm 118:8; 147:10).

Today, very few people seriously “train” to prepare for their daily “krav”. Worse yet, many see no need to think deeply about spiritual things nor do they see a need to prepare and “train” hard for eternity (Hebrews 9:27). Instead, many people work so hard to make plans for things that may never materialize (Luke 12:20). So many people work their fingers to the bone making sure that they have their college funds ready for their children, that their house be paid off in a reasonable amount of time, that their retirement packages will develop into a fat nest egg, and that they have plenty of financial peace, yet they never carefully consider what comes after retirement and how to prepare to meet their Creator. Have you considered that your life is like a vapor hovering over the dew of the grass in the early morning? It appears for a short period of time, then it disappears quickly as if it was never there (James 4:14). If you sense the urgency those last two sentences, then ask yourself this question: Is my spiritual training regimen preparing me to meet God or am I concerned only with the things of the world? Jesus said it best in this verse, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26)

I thoroughly enjoy Krav Maga. I relish the training, the discipline, the strategy, the exercise, and the hard work and discipline involved to achieve the goals necessary to be successful in the event that a physical “krav” should ever occur. However, the attainment of physical skill will not prepare me for everything that I will encounter. Should I live long enough, my body will wear out, my eyes will grow dim, and my reflexes will fade. The same goes with my “stuff”, for eventually, it too will fade away. Training to prepare for a physical “krav” so as to protect myself, my family, and my property will not prepare me to meet my Creator. A different type of “training” is required for that encounter. This training requires that I relinquish all rights to myself and submit wholly to God through His Son Jesus Christ. For only those found in Him by faith, will receive a righteousness that they can never attain by human effort or merit, a righteousness that comes by faith (Philippians 3:9). That comes through complete surrender to Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords (Philippians 2:5-11). For we all will bow the knee to King Jesus. We will either do so willingly now, or we will have our knees bent for us as we are assembled before Him on that Great Day. For those of us that struggle with pride and self-will, this is a sobering thought.

So, I implore you to prepare to meet your Creator. Pursue a life that causes you to cast aside all things that keep you from fighting that good fight of faith and all the idols that drag you away from the One True God. Grab hold of eternal life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ so that true peace will be granted to you, not the fleeting type of peace that the world gives, but peace in knowing that you are rightly related to God through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus His Son (1 Timothy 6:12).

Encouraging you to put your “Krav” into action!

Dustin S. Segers, Elder

Considering Other Believers: Part III - 1 Corinthians 8:8-13

Wouldn’t it be awful if someone stood up in this fellowship and publically declared that they desire to willfully hurt and unnecessarily offend one of our brothers or sisters in Christ? That would be not only hurtful, but hateful. Such activity is the stuff of infidels and no true believer would ever knowingly do such a thing (cf. 1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15, 4:20). Our first teaching in this series defined and explained the problem of the “grey areas”, a study that is concerned with the limitations of Christian freedom and how that freedom should be exercised. Any discussion about the “grey areas” boils down to this issue: Because many behaviors practiced today are neither explicitly condemned nor condoned in the Bible, just how far can a believer go before he sins? Because many believers feel that these questionable practices are wrong yet are not specifically condoned or condemned in Scripture, debates have raged since the early Church regarding the freedom that believers have to engage in certain behaviors and practices. These types of issues are not “black or white” issues, meaning, they are not clearly defined in Scripture as sin and it’s not always clear whether such things will quickly lead to sin. These issues are neither black nor white; they are the “grey areas”. Confusion about how to Biblically handle the “grey areas” has led to legalism on the one hand, and license on the other. For the legalists, everything is black and white, sin or no-sin, regardless of the situation. These folks tell you what you are to wear, what you are to eat, and when and how you are to worship. Their slogan is, “We don’t drink, dip, or chew, or go with people that do.” Now, for the licentious person, everything not explicitly condemned in Scripture is grey. Various cultural and contextual differences don’t matter and cannot lead to sin, so those who are offended by their “freedom in Christ” should basically get over it and mind their own business. Their slogan is, “It’s all good, so go for it!”

Both views are opposite extremes of the Biblically-balanced position, which is summed up in this general principle: When our Christian freedoms cross the conscience of a weaker believer, especially when those freedoms are not necessary in our service to the Lord, we can incur sin and lead to the ruin of the weaker believer. In answering a question about food sacrificed to idols, Paul gives the Corinthians this general principle that can be applied to all doubtful behaviors throughout the Church age, regardless of the culture or context. The good news is that when we learn the general principle and apply it correctly to non-sinful activities, we avoid sinning against the brethren and our Lord (1 Cor. 8:12). Remember, the central theme of Paul’s instruction is this: “. . . take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9) And so, before we exercise our Christian liberty in an area that is not forbidden by Scripture, we should carefully consider how it will affect others, especially our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. We will conclude this series by looking at verses 8-13 with this general principle in mind under the followings headings: (I) Food Doesn’t Commend Us to God, (II) A Word on the Conscience, and (III) Applying the General Principle.

TEACHING/APPLICATION

I. Food Doesn’t Commend Us to God: Verse 8-9, “But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.” Eating or not eating food has no spiritual significance in itself. Neither act will “commend us to God”. To “commend” means to make us presentable. Eating or not eating certain types of food has nothing to do with making us presentable to the Lord. We cannot get closer to Him by eating certain types of food or avoiding others. Jesus made it very clear that “there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” (Mark 7:15). God’s command to Peter for him to “Get up . . . kill and eat” was both symbolic, referring to accepting Gentiles as equal participants in the gospel, and literal, referring to eating food that was previously considered unclean (Acts 10:10-16; cf. v. 28). Paul also told Timothy that he was to receive all types of food with gratefulness (1 Tim. 4:4). Doing non-sinful things has no significance in our relationship with God because these things are spiritually neutral. So, even though non-sinful activities will not commend us to God, we still must “take care that this liberty” of ours “does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (v. 9).

This is because verse 10 says, “For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?” If an immature believer sees us doing something that bothers his conscience, his spiritual life can be harmed. We should never influence a fellow Christian to do anything that the Holy Spirit, through that person’s conscience, is protecting him from. The mature Christian knows that “dining in an idol’s temple” or attending some family or community event is not necessarily bad in and of itself. He can associate with pagan people because he is spiritually strong (i.e., “knowledge”), he just abstains from any pagan beliefs or practices that are associated with it. This is a benefit to the mature because they understand their freedom in Christ and they use those situations as an opportunity to preach Christ. But if a weak believer sees the mature Christian eating in a temple, he may be tempted to go against his own conscience and eat in the temple himself.

Verses 11-12,”For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.” This is an example of how it can be dangerous for a believer to go against his own conscience. The Christian who goes against his own conscience can be “ruined” because he is placed in a situation that he cannot handle without being tempted to sin. This is a “brother for whose sake Christ died”, and we dare not “ruin” his spiritual condition by causing him to contradict his own conscience by asking him to bear up under a load of temptation that we know he cannot bear. We must always remember that the redeemed elect are not expendable on the altar of our Christian freedom.

II. A Word on the Conscience: The conscience is a gift from God. It is a special, internal instrument used by the Holy Spirit to warn us and protect us from danger. If a believer’s conscience is weak it is because he or she is spiritually immature. Our conscience is like a radar that warns us against going places and doing things we ought not do. As we grow in our faith, our conscience allows us to do more things because we have a greater understanding of our faith and we possess greater strength in Christ. John MacArthur describes the conscience well when he likens it to the maturation of a child over a long period of time. He says,

A small child is not allowed to play with sharp tools, to go into the street, or to go where there are dangerous machines or electrical appliances. The restrictions are gradually removed as he grows older and learns for himself what is dangerous and what is not. [John MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on 1st Corinthians, (Chicago, Ill: Moody, 1984), 196.]

The conscience of a believer is like that. As they grow in their spiritual maturity, their conscience will allow them to do more for the Lord. A person should never do more than their conscience permits. We must also remember that new believers may not be able to participate in some of the things that more mature Christians are able to do and so, we should not compel them to participate in something that we know might offend their conscience. This is why Paul goes on to say in 12, “And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Causing a brother to stumble isn’t just a sin against him; it’s a sin against our Lord. That is a strong warning that all of us should consider, especially since none of us would want to “sin against Christ”. We should always be willing to set aside our freedoms to help a weaker believer. Christ died for them, He loves them, and we should too; especially when it comes to showing our love by avoiding behaviors in from of them that we know will cause them to stumble.

Verse 13, Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”

III. Applying the General Principle: If we need to know how to put the tires of this teaching onto the road of life, we need to be reminded that problems occur when we (1) tread on others with our freedom, or (2) our freedom to participate in a non-sinful activity turns into idolatry. This is why Paul warns us against encouraging weak believers to participate in any non-sinful activity that goes against their conscience since it causes us to run the risk of sinning against them and Christ (v. 12). We should never practice a non-sinful activity in front of another believer again if it causes them to stumble. Thus, when we are trying to decide whether or not to participate in any doubtful behavior, we should first consider the following Biblical principles:

1. Is it excessive?: Is the activity necessary or is it something that isn’t really important? Is it an activity that we can easily give up? Hebrews 12:1 says, “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .”

2. Is it expedient?: Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable,” or expedient (1 Cor. 6:12).

3. Does it emulate Christ?: Are we following Christ with our actions? If so, we can be guaranteed that what we are doing is not only acceptable, but also godly and true. “. . . the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:6)

4. Does it provide a Christ-like example?: Are we being a godly example for others to follow, especially for weaker believers? If we follow Christ’s example, other believers will be able to follow our example. Paul said to Timothy, “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:12)

5. Does it hinder evangelism?: Will unbelievers be attracted to Christ by my words and deeds? Will I turn unbelievers away by what I am doing? Will my actions allow me to say that I have conducted myself “with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.” (Colossians 4:5)

6. Does it edify?: Will both I and other believers be built up in the faith by my actions? Paul said, “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)

7. Does it exalt Christ?: Can the Lord be glorified by what I’m doing? Scripture teaches that God’s glory and exaltation should be the motive behind everything we do, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

CONCLUSION

Do you remember the question I asked at the beginning of this teaching? “Wouldn’t it be awful if someone stood up in this fellowship and publically declared that they desire to willfully hurt and unnecessarily offend one of our brothers or sisters in Christ?” I said that such behavior is the stuff of infidels, and so it is. While it is true that such a thing would constitute a verbal display of hatred of the worse kind, what about when we engage in practices that we know will offend weaker believers and lead to their spiritual ruin? How is that any better? Why are believers quick to express outrage over one Christian verbally assaulting another, yet when it comes to using our “freedoms” to abuse weaker believers, we sometimes try to justify our unnecessary and offensive actions? The answer is because sometimes we are selfish and we want to protect our functional saviors even though our conscience tells us we are wrong. Instead of being loving and humble by setting aside the offending practice for a time, we partake in front of the weaker believer and ruin them at the expense of our “freedom in Christ”. That’s just plain horrible and it’s the height of hypocrisy! But yet it happens all the time. Worse yet, we sometimes do these things without realizing we’re doing them. The cure to such selfishness is to replace it with Christ-like self-less-ness. This is the put-off/put-on principle that brother Paul teaches us about in Colossians 3:1-17. This means that you must be willing to set yourself, your desires, and sometimes your “freedoms” aside so that another believer might flourish in Christ. This is what King Jesus did and He is your Grand Exemplar. In conclusion, let us all take note of what Paul says about our Master’s example in Philippians 2:3-11,

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.