2007 Triad Apologetics Conference

While I'm taking a break from blogging, I want to notify our readers of a big announcement. If you will be in the Piedmont Triad area of North Carolina, you are more than welcome to join us for our first Triad Apologetics Conference. This conference will be FREE OF CHARGE and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Our speakers this year will be J.P. Holding, Dr. R.K. MacGregor Wright and Rob Lundberg.

J.P. HOLDING

Mr. James Patrick Holding has earned a Masters' in Library Science from Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. He recently completed the Christian Apologetics Instructor Certification with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mr. Holding is the founder and director of Tekton Apologetics Ministries , an evangelical ministry committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. J. P. has been published in the Christian Research Journal as well as The Journal of Creation and has published two books, The Mormon Defenders and The Impossible Faith. J. P. has taught on apologetics, cults, and Biblical reliability issues for numerous church related events and is a member of First Baptist Church in Leesburg, Florida with his wife Susan..

DR. R. K. McGREGOR WRIGHT and JULIA CASTLE

Dr. Wright holds a B.D. from London University, a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Ph.D. from Denver University/Iliff School of Theology. With his wife, Julia Castle MA, and a qualified Mediator, he co-directs the Aquila and Priscilla Study Center, a Bible and Apologetics teaching ministry in East Tennessee. From 1977-85 they developed the International Student Ministry of a Baptist Church in Denver, with emphasis on witnessing to Muslim students, then founded the Aquila and Priscilla Study Center, concerned with developing Apologetics, Church History and Theology Seminars for Evangelical Churches. Bob is currently preparing books for publication, and is the author of No Place For Sovereignty (IVP, 1996) critiquing "Openness" theology of Dr. Clark Pinnock.

ROB LUNDBERG

Mr. Rob Lundberg has earned a B.A. in Pastoral Ministries from Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee OK, an M.Div. from Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He is currently working on the Christian Apologetics Instructor Certification with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mr. Lundberg is the founder and director of Reasonable Faith Ministries , an evangelical ministry set forth in equipping ambassadors for Christ to reach and challenge those that shape the ideas of culture with the credibility of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rob has taught courses on apologetics, comparative religions and cult evangelism for church related events as well as at the academic level. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Rob is also a member of a local church in the Spotsylvania area with his wife and daughter.

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Saturday, November 10, 2007
1:00-1:40 pm Rob Lundberg - Responding to Cultural Relativism
1:45-2:25 pm Rob Lundberg - Responding to Religious Pluralism
2:30-3:10 pm Rob Lundberg - Understanding Worldviews
3:15-3:55 pm J. P. Holding – Trusting the New Testament 1
4:00-4:40 pm J. P. Holding – Trusting the New Testament 2
4:45-5:25 pm J. P. Holding – Trusting the New Testament 3
5:30-6:20 pm R. K. MacGregor Wright - What IS "Islam? Introductory Considerations
6:25-7:05 pm R. K. MacGregor Wright - What is "Jihad"? Political Correctness vs. The Documentation

Break for the evening

Sunday, November 11, 2007
10:15-11:05 am R.K. MacGregor Wright - Muhammed and His Qur'an
11:10-12:00 noon Julia Castle - Is The Muslim My Neighbor?
12:00-1:15 pm Agape Meal (Lord's Supper Meal and Fellowship)
1:20-2:10 pm R.K. MacGregor Wright - Reaching the Muslim Mind. Islamic Apologetics

Have a question or a comment about what you've read? Let us help.

The Essence of the New Heart - Part III

INTRODUCTION

^NAU John 13:34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

In our last series of teachings on the essence of the new heart, we have learned that in order for us to love one another even as Jesus loved us that there can be absolutely no hierarchy of Christians in the NT. This is because a hierarchy of believers in the church can ultimately lead to a bunch of burned-out “holy guys” doing all the work of the ministry with everyone else, sitting on the sidelines as half-asleep, non-involved “pew-potatoes.” It is true that the NT does make a clear distinction between those who are gifted to be spiritual leaders and those who are not (cf. 1 Thess.5:12-13), but this distinction also assumes that all believers are priests that have the responsibility to grow in their faith and minister to each other by using their spiritual gifts to do good deeds for each other and to each other.

And so, since the NT teaches that the ministry of elders and deacons is to be viewed as merely one part of the ministry of all believers in the body (1 Cor. 12:21-24; Eph. 4:12), then it naturally follows that there can be no clergy/laity distinction in the body. All Christians use their spiritual gifts to minister to one another in differing ways (Eph. 4:12), all Christians are priests before God (1 Peter 2:5, 9), and Jesus said that the “authority” of those who are greatest in the Kingdom is to be like that of a slave and a child. Jesus Himself said so when He declared,

^NAU Matthew 20:25-27 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. ²⁶ “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant (Gk. diakonos), ²⁷ and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave (Gk. doulos); ²⁸ just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

^NAU Matthew 23:8-12 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. ⁹ “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. ¹⁰ “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. ¹¹ "But the greatest among you shall be your servant. ¹² “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.”

^NAU Mark 10:43 “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; ⁴⁴ and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.”

^NAU Luke 22:26 “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.”

And so, because the modern ministry of pastors and deacons has drifted so far from the simple and humble example set forth in the NT, ministry opportunities that would normally be available to anyone who is gifted for them are ruined by such top-down authority structures. These unbiblical authority structures carry with them the idea that only “qualified professionals” like pastors and other spiritual gurus are really qualified and able to do the work of the ministry. As I’ve said before, nothing could be further from the truth! Because body ministry is mutual ministry to one-another, we then focused on how Jesus said the world would know that we are His people,

^NAU John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

The last time we came together, the practical implications of John 13:35 led us into the beginning of a discussion on the subject of the importance of “loving one another” as Jesus loved us, and how that works itself out in our local church practically (John 13:34-35). Jesus is speaking of body-love here, and we learn how to exercise this body love when we come together regularly to think carefully about how we can “ . . . stimulate one another to love and good deeds, ²⁵ not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another . . .” (Heb. 10:24-25). Paul says that we are to “. . . admonish one another.” (Rom. 15:14), “comfort one another . . .” (1 Thess. 4:18) and “encourage one another and build up one another” and “always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people . . .” (1 Thess. 5:11-18). And so, we are to diligently seek the good of our fellow Christian, especially those in our body.

A harmonious church that exhibits body-love by doing the “one-anothers” of Scripture will also will be a light to the world, attracting unbelievers to the light of salvation through trust in Jesus (John 12:32). Jesus indicated that the unbelieving world would be able to recognize Christians out of all the other people in the world by their love for each another. From the perceptions that unbelievers have of the church, it is pretty clear that they don’t see this kind of love amongst professing Christians nor are they themselves experiencing a winsome and attractive neighborly love from professing Christians. My friends, if we can’t fulfill the new commandment of John 13:34-35, we have no business calling ourselves Christians. And so, I want to continue our discussion of what the Bible says about how we are to practically work out this special type of deep, intimate love in our body and so that the world will know that we are Christians by our love.

TEACHING/APPLICATION

“Be Devoted to One Another in Brotherly Love, Outdo One Another in Showing Honor” (Rom. 12:10 – literal translation)

One of the most amazing goals of Christ’s work is set forth in 2 Corinthians 5:15, “and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” One of the unending lessons of discipleship is to take up our cross daily and follow Christ, to deny ourselves consciously by the Spirit’s power. This happens when we stop living for ourselves and serve Him and His people. In terms of our life in the body of Christ, one of the key ways we demonstrate a selfless life is to put others’ needs ahead of our own. Think about it. If each believer was preferring others ahead of himself, everybody’s needs would be met. There would be no need for welfare or government aid because we would all be looking out for each other. No one would be forgotten. It sounds so simple, but we all know that body life does not work out that smoothly because each of us sinfully desires to put ourselves and our selfish wants ahead of others.

In terms of our life together as believers, and in light of our responsibility to work things out in the body, one of the central ways we avoid self-centered living is by listening carefully to the concerns and burdens of others. James 1:19 says, “This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger” Some commentators see in James’ remark a corrective to what was occurring in early Christian church meetings. Curtis Vaughn and Earl Kelly note, “There may be an allusion [in James 1:19] to the free and unstructured worship of the early Christian assemblies.”[1] Further, “It is possible that contentious Christian babes were taking advantage of the informal style of worship in the early Christian church to produce wrangling.”[2]

The point is that in our dealings with one another each of us must first of all “be quick to hear.” Obviously, in any group of Christians there will be those will want to talk a lot, those who are very reluctant to do so, and others in-between. Those who have the gift of gab should take to heart James’ admonition, “be slow to speak.” They should prefer others ahead of themselves, and be sure that they do not stifle the input of others, either by dominating the discussion, or by coming across in such a dogmatic tone that no one feels up to contributing their thoughts. The verbally timid should be encouraged to share their insights by the rest of the group, realizing that each one of us has the potential of adding edifying content to the church meeting or in private fellowship (1 Cor. 14:26). As William Barclay observes about the meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14, “The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and obligation of contributing something to it . . . . Obviously this had its dangers for it is clear that in Corinth there were those who were too fond of the sound of their own voices.”[3]

In light of the exhortation for each of us to be “quick to hear,” I am listing some vital attitudes that we must cultivate in our body relationships:

1. We must be open to learning from each other. Many Christians, especially mature Christians and even seasoned pastors, rule out the possibility being able to learn anything meaningful from anyone in their body other than another seasoned pastor or theologian.

^NAU Proverbs 1:5 A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,

^NAU Proverbs 9:9 Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser, Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning.

2. We must be open to learn from Christians in various traditions. We all tend to stick to a denominational party-line and turn our heads away from information outside of our comfort zone. A.N. Groves wrote in 1833 concerning his relationship with J.N. Darby, “I do not think we ought to propose to be modeled unlike every sect, but simply to be like Christ; let us neither seek nor fear a name. I wish rather to have from every sect what every sect may have from Christ.”[4] Are we willing to “listen” to multiple sources and discern from them what might help us discover the mind of Christ? Are we really open to be challenged by others to search the Scriptures and see what is indeed so? Thomas Dubay notes in this regard: “Since no one of us mortals, affected as we are with original sin, is perfectly pure in his desire for truth, no one of us is exempt from some degree of close-mindedness. It is only our God who is truth than can cure our reluctance to embrace all of his truth, however he speaks it.”[5]

3. “We need to be humble,” says Dubay, “small in our own estimation. Finding the solution to a mathematical problem is possible without humility, but finding God’s will is impossible without this virtue. James 4:6 tells us that God resists the proud but gives grace (and light) to the humble”.[6] Whenever a group of believers bathed in humility gather together, great things can be expected; but, as James 3:16 notes, where “jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.” The truly humble believer puts others ahead of themselves, and they can do this when they carefully listen and pay attention to what they hear from others.

4. We must always have a willingness to be changed by what is going to be said.[7] One listens wholly only if he is willing to modify his present position if the Biblical evidence warrants it. People who are set in their thoughts and determined not to change their behavior do not listen to contrary evidences (Dubay, p. 11). If we admit that we don’t know anything like we should, then we will be open to new light from our fellow Christian. We must listen to possible new evidence that has escaped our attention. As I’ve said earlier, the church must always be open-minded toward God’s truth as objectively laid down in the Scriptures, no matter who is delivering that truth!

5. We must “grow in awareness that the person speaking is important, even a precious one of “God’s beloved” (Rom. 1:7). We pay attention to important people. To the proud person other people aren’t important and so he is not inclined to take them seriously nor listen to them. Even more, we value the opinions of those we love. If you don’t really care what your brother in Christ thinks, do you really love your brother? (1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15; 4:20) I have seen so many situations in churches, on the internet, and in e-mails where those who articulate things with razor-sharp logic bulldoze over the little person, and pooh-pooh any concerns they have. You may think that a question or concern coming from another is immature, or ill-timed, or very low on your list of priorities, but if you really love that person you must give your ears and heart to that fellow-believer who is precious to Christ. That takes work and patience. We must highly esteem the input of every part of the body, or we run the risk of missing the voice of Jesus speaking through them in our midst. In Christ’s body we are instructed to heap more honor on those parts that seem to be weaker and less honorable (1 Cor. 12:21-24).

A huge chunk of not living for ourselves, but for Jesus, is displayed in how we defer to one another in the body of Christ. Without apology I say that to the degree a committed body of believers by God’s grace follows the perspectives set forth in this teaching, they will fare well and be able to tackle the inevitable bumps that come in the course of church life. If these perspectives are forgotten, neglected, or rejected, then a body will more than likely eventually self-destruct or resort to programs to keep the shell of the church alive long after the Spirit-filled organism of the church has died. This is the sad state of most churches today. Functioning together in the ekklesia is like holding a bird in your hand. If you hold it too tightly you will kill it. If you hold it too loosely it will fly away. If believers are fueled by the love Christ had for them on the cross – “as I have loved you” – then they can successfully keep the bird alive by loving one another fervently. After considering what has been said about body life, you may be thinking: “There is just one thing wrong with the biblical view of the church which we have been sketching: it does not seem to exist. The definition is fine, but the phenomenon it describes is missing.”[8] I think those of you who have had anything to do with Shepherd’s Fellowship for any length of time know that that simply isn’t true.

CONCLUSION

It is true that Shepherd’s Fellowship strives to do the work of Jesus by “one-anothering.” But the truth that these attitudes and perspectives are the obvious will of Christ by the Spirit will give us great confidence that they can become an even greater reality in our assembly through loving each other, patiently listening to each other’s concerns, and a determined willingness to work out our differences so as to push for the unity of the saints in the bond of peace, for the glory of God (Eph. 4:15; 1 Cor. 10:31).

“Lord Jesus, please enable us to give ourselves to the life of love you have revealed in your Word. Drive us to our knees in repentance when we have failed to show love for our fellow Christian. Convict us quickly when we do not listen carefully to our fellow Christian and are rude, arrogant, and interruptive. May we show forth your grace in our speech, behavior, and love for each other. In Your name we pray, Amen.”

---

[1] Curtis Vaughn and Earl Kelly, James: A Study Guide, (Zondervan, 1960), 35.

[2] Ibid., James: A Primer for Christian Living, (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 69.

[3] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians, (Westminster Press), 149-150.

[4] Roy Coad, A History of the Brethren Movement, 114-115.

[5] Thomas Dubay, “Communication in Community,” Searching Together, Winter, 1985, 11.

[6] Ibid.

[7] It goes without saying, of course, that there is to be no compromise or sacrificing whatsoever of genuine, essential doctrinal truths or practical Christian living principles.

[8] John H. Yoder, "A Light to All Nations," Concern #9, March, 1961, 17.

Be a Reasonable, Rational, and Consistent Atheist!

Many atheists would object to what is portrayed above and as as result, we are glad that they are inconsistent with their own presuppositions. This is just another demonstration of the image of God peeking out of them, the very thing they continually try to suppress (Rom. 1:18).

An Interaction with an Apostate

Introduction: What follows below is the first e-mail interaction I had with the apostate friend I mentioned since my last post about his apostasy on 10-10-07. His statements below are typical of those who have been brainwashed by "freethinkers" and are easy to counter from an apologetic/intellectual standpoint. However, what is impossible is making a believer out of him. That's where prayer, proclamation, a firm trust in the sovereign God of heaven, and most importantly, a demonstration of love for him as my friend and as a person made in the image of God comes into play (Eph. 1:4-5). I hope what you read below is instructive and provides a warning for those of you who are quick to be tossed here and there by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14).
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi [Dusman],

Missed you at ______________ Friday as I visited to do the routine calibrations. I hope your life is peaceful and joyful.

I found myself trying to argue FOR the Christian faith I thought I was in favor of some years ago with a colleague of mine. The frequent discussions caused me to think...and feel...strongly about many unanswered questions. Questions about Christianity I have had since I can remember. Unfortunately, the many, many, many discussions and Q&A's I've encountered throughout my life regarding Christianity always led to the final answer..."you've just got to believe, man. You've got to have faith."

My beloved friend, everybody starts with presuppositions that are not empirically testable through the procedures of natural science. By logical necessity, everybody has a "faith" of some sort that they start with, whether its founded in a particular world religion, an ideology, a philosophy, or a New Age mystic's ideas about ultimate reality.

I am an independent thinker because that's who God created me to be. The questions and uncomfort I have always experienced while trying to force myself to succumb to religious dogma is normal. For me.

I understand. However, you're not an independent thinker per se, simply because you think in accordance with your own nature and likes/dislikes, just like the rest of us. Your nature, according to God's word is enslaved to its own sinful desires (John 8:44). As you know, according to Scripture, you are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do and are doing. This is evidenced by your adamant autonomy. I would admonish you to consider the weighty implication of Christ's teaching in John 8:44. Also, you're also not an independent thinker because if evolution is true, then your thoughts and actions are, by default, nothing more than the product of the workings of your DNA and your social conditioning.

For others, blind faith is normal and comfortable.

This is a straw man that no knowledgeable and intelligent Christian holds to.

I respect that because I now know that God accepts ALL.

Upon what basis do you know this? Upon the basis of Walsch's *revolutionary* mystic book?

God does not judge anybody.

(1) Which "god" my friend? (2) Again, how do you know? (3) How can I know that this non-judicial god exists apart from your own mind? In other words, what revelation, information, or evidence do you have to offer that this god exists apart from your own imagination? (4) If this god doesn't judge, then apparently, he/she/it wouldn't mind me doing whatever makes me feel good, which as terrible as it sounds, might include raping little girls then killing them by stabbing them 12 times with a golden pitchfork.

I know this is hard for some Christians to accept, because they are no different than Jews or Muslims as they believe their religion to be right, and the others misguided. You cannot dispute this, [Dusman], because part of Christian dogma is to be "fishers of men", to bring others into your way of thinking...to save them. Rather arrogant in my view.

Apparently you know one thing my friend and it is this: YOU are right and everybody else is "misguided." Assuming your standard above, this is "rather arrogant in my view." Truth is, (1) either you are right and everybody else is wrong, (2) you are wrong and somebody else is right, or (3) nobody is right, which then means that everybody [including you] is wrong.

If # 1 be true, then give us the "gospel" brother! Show us how it comports to reality in a non-contradictory way. "Show us the money" by offering objective evidence, data, information, or revelation of this "god" that has "talked" to you.

If # 2 is true, you're certainly wrong and probably damned (depending upon whichever world religion is right).

If # 3 be true, then (a) you've no right telling anybody that they are "misguided" because they think they have a corner on exclusive truth in the realm of religion/ultimate reality because when you tell them such, you've just made an exclusive truth claim and are doing the very thing you've criticized others for! (b) You also can't formulate any critiques of other's ideas about religion/ultimate reality because to make such a statement means that you can know ultimate, absolute truth, and that this truth is objective, which contradicts the entire conclusion of # 3, namely, you can't know.

This has always been foolish nonsense to me. Why would God create "his" beloved people to have free choice -- freewill -- and would then punish them for making "wrong" choices. This is not the actions of a loving God, rather those of a madman. And please do not try to answer this question for me, my brother, for you do not have the answers. Nobody does. For one to think they do self-righteously puts them on an even par with God. Again, very arrogant.

1. How do you define "freewill" and upon what basis can it exist given Darwinian evolution?

2. How do I determine the difference between a madman and a sane man according your understanding if there is no objective standard (other than your own culturally conditioned opinion) by which I can measure the difference between right vs. wrong behavior?

3. If nobody has the answers then how do you know that "nobody" has the answers? You apparently know that no one has the answers! How do you know this?

4. And following question # 3 above, if you know that nobody "has the answers" then you, at least know that fact. Because you know at least this truth (i.e., nobody knows) how do you prevent yourself from being accused of doing the very same "self-righteous" thing that you accuse other religionists of, namely, knowing truth about religion/ultimate reality?

The earlier mentioned conversations with a specific friend led him to recommend Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. If you believe God speaks to you, as I do, then you should have no problem with the notion of God speaking to others. If you believe this, then you may find what you read in CwG to be refreshing, enlightening and, if you allow it, liberating.

Liberating in comparison to what? Again, what standard are you using? Your own? Well, if so, then upon what basis can you say that this would be liberating for me since I'm a Christian and don't find apostasy liberating? Also, how do you know that it is a god "speaking" to you? Why can't this be your own imagination, your own thoughts, a demon influencing your non-material mind? How would you tell apart from an objective standard that exists outside of yourself? Using this type of subjective approach, I could just as easily say that a "god" told me to fly planes into the Trade Towers or that a "god" told me to hit you upside the head with a trench shovel in order to send you to heaven. How do you know the difference between your subjective "impressions" about how you think god should do things (prompted by Walsch's thinking of course) vs. how anybody else who has a subjective "impression" thinks that god should do things.

When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear.

[Dusman], I hope you allow yourself the gift of these materials and are able to read them with an open mind and an open heart. They are not for everybody, as the Bible is not for me. In fact, ANY material that proclaims itself as the sole authority should raise red flags with anybody.

"In fact, ANY material that proclaims itself as the sole authority should raise red flags with anybody."

You mean like you?

All the best, my brother.

You too my friend. I pray that you'll rethink your ideas about Jesus as He is the only One that can give you rest (Matt. 11:28).

Apostasy - The Inevitable Fruit of a Spiritual Meltdown

Yesterday, I spoke with an old friend that I had not spoken to in over 2 years. This man had visited a church plant that I was involved in, and I specifically remember that he was armed with questions that I tried to answer to the best of my ability. He struggled with questions like "What about those who have never heard the gospel?" and "What about other religions . . . can they also be considered legitimate ways to get to God?" Sadly, I found out yesterday that this man never accepted the answers I gave him nor did he even try to test them in light of the Scriptures, but after reading one shallow evangelical rag after the other (like when he told me several years ago how excited he was to read The Purpose Driven Life) he finally came across Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch.

As I started to ask my friend how his walk with God was going and where he was going to church, he quickly continued talking with excitement, not allowing me to get a word in edgewise. I specifically remember how my friend always exuded a truly amazing joy that he gladly attributed to his love for Christ. However, as he continued talking, he joyfully informed me that he was no longer attending church, no longer believed that Jesus was the only way to get to heaven, all major world religions have it wrong at some points, and that all human religions have evolved so as to keep up with mankind's social evolution and postmodern conceptual scheme. Now, I've never read Walsch's book, and really don't care to, but what happened in front of my eyes yesterday was my friend's joyful, glad-hearted testimony of the self-perceived freedom experienced through his own apostasy from the one true faith (Jude 3).

Since listening to his sad testimony, I was reminded of what Jesus said in Matthew 13 when explaining the rocky-ground hearer in the parable of the sower,

NAU Matthew 13:20-21 "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away."

And in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."

My friend is a typical rocky-ground hearer. He heard the gospel (or maybe a typical, evanjellyfish perversion of it) and received it with joy, but he had a non-saving, temporary faith because after affliction arose via the cognitive dissonance that developed in his own mind, he fell away because he had no firm root grounded in the truth of God's word and didn't persevere because he was never preserved by the power of God's Spirit. Just like the proto-gnostic heretics of 1 John 2:19, he went out from the church because he was never really a part of the church. He had a sham faith, a sham conversion, as well as a sham Christian experience, and as a result, he has jumped from the frying pan of false conversion into the fire of false philosophies (Col. 2:8).

I told the men's group in our church about my friend's apostasy because it directly applies to our church situation since (1) we are working through and challenging our men's group with John MacArthur's book Hard to Believe - which is an excellent treatise on self-examination, false gospels, and false conversions and (2) we may have unconverted false professors in our church who will eventually end up like my friend. So how will we know whether they are the genuine article or not? MacArthur sums up my sentiments well,

"True believers long, like babies, for the mild of the Word and Christian worship and fellowship. They love the Lord and His People." Hard To Believe, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 116.

Just like my friend, many people in church joyfully receive the good news only to fall away later. The biggest difference between them and my apostate buddy is that many of these folks continue in the church and suck it dry of all of churches resources by wearing out the elders with their sin, creating division and other hardship in the body, and just generally being a leprous sore in the body of Christ. They have no real desire for the teaching, exhortation, and sin-killing work of the Word of God nor do they love the church, for it they did, they wouldn't hate their fellow Christian by gossiping their way straight into hell (1 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 3:14). They will not accept doing the "one-anothers" of Scripture because they don't have the Spiritual equipment to do it (Rom. 8:7-8, 12:10, 16, 15:7, 14; 1 Cor. 1:18, 2:14; Heb. 10:24-25). Sadly, my friend's due end, lest he repents, is that of every false convert,

NAU 2 Peter 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."

NAU Hebrews 10:26-27 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

May God have mercy upon my friend and you as well if you have forsaken the truth and created a god in your own image.

Michael Horton on Joel Osteen

Here is the information for the CBS 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Michael Horton of the Whitehorse Inn. This interview will air this Sunday, Oct. 14, regarding the "ministry" of Joel Osteen. Be sure to have your discernometer ready for action.

I absolutely abhor the false, word-of-faith, prosperity gospel teachings of Osteen. Coming from the charismatic movement originally, I have personally ministered to those who have been so royally screwed up beyond repair by this type of doctrinal error. This is because it joyfully and aggressively sows the seeds of idolatry by telling people that if they have enough faith they'll be automatically blessed with all of the gaudy "bling bling" thingies that the world has to offer, whether cars, cattle, chateaus or a nice rendition of "The King of Bling" (see below).

This false teaching breeds a grossly misplaced hope in their own efforts and exertions, which inevitably leads to spiritual failure because when people don't become healthy and wealthy they start to blame themselves instead of taking joy in the eternal decree of the Sovereign Christ in the midst of their dire straits. It also is built upon a sandy foundation soaked with a false understanding of the nature of healing, wealth, and other blessings because it does not understand the "already/now/not yet" nature of salvation (cf. Rom. 8:29-30). I frequently see known unbelievers at my workplace with a copy of his book "Your Best Life Now" given to them by some undiscerning professing believer. What's worse, is I get inadvertently labeled by unbelievers and undiscerning Christians as sympathetic with Osteen's shenanighans. After all, Joel's such a nice guy right?

When, and if, unbelievers actually read, listen to, and consider what Osteen is saying, I wonder if their thoughts are something along the lines of "This guy is an idiot and the people following his 'pastor's cult' are idiots too because they can't see right through him and he's fleecing their bank accounts worse than Enron; but it's all the name of religion. This guy is nothing more than a slick willie con-man wanna be Tony Robbins; and he ain't even that good at it and worse, he probably charges more for his 'services'."

Cruel Logic

Brian Godawa, the Christian director who wrote the script for ‘To End All Wars’ and is now hard at work developing another movie, ‘Cruel Logic‘.

No Absolutes. No Guilt. No Remorse.
Cruel Logic
A Postmodern Killer for a Postmodern World

“Herman Mudgett is capturing distinguished college professors and debates with them. His proposition: “Give me one valid reason why I should not kill you, and I will let you go.” As Mudgett dismantles their reasoning, he proceeds to dismember his victims, recording it all on video.

“Cruel Logic is a story about human nature, the problem of evil, and one man’s attempt to regain his sanity in a world without absolutes.”

Here’s the award winning short which will eventually be a full-length motion picture. Here's the ‘Cruel Logic’ novel available for online reading here. Interestingly, one of the lead characters is Detective "Van Til."

HT: Atheism Sucks

Learning Debate Tactics from Monty Python

Is this video clip parody typical of what occurs in most internet apologetic debates and interactions? I think so, how about you?

The Actions and Thoughts of God in Relation to Time

Introduction: The subject of God’s thoughts and actions in relation to time is a deep, complicated, and often confusing subject to broach. In what follows, I offer a response to a Christian friend who, like many thinking Christians, struggles with the idea of God being “eternally timeless” while the Scriptures seem to present God not only as thinking and acting sequentially throughout history but also in heaven and in His own self-existence. My response will follow his comments and questions in blue.

My confusion arises when I consider that for God to act in some way, that act must take up time. If time does not exist for God, then I don't see how finite things could exist, even if God were to, in one eternal divinely "present" act manifest all finite things. If God is eternally timeless, then by necessity, (it seems to me,) finite particular things must have existed in some form eternally.

I think that the problems you have developed are grounded in your statement, ". . . if God is eternally timeless . . .". There are two primary views amongst Calvinistic theologians regarding God's thoughts in relation to time. The first view, that of those in the classic theological tradition of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas says that God's thoughts are eternally timeless, meaning that there is no succession of thought within the mind of God because His thoughts are one eternal now. Adherents of this view insist that since God is omniscient He can have no temporal succession of thoughts in His mind, (which would undercut His omniscience) and so His thoughts should be properly be considered “timeless”. Gordon Clark is representative of this view,

“If there is a succession of ideas in God’s mind, then the ideas that succeeded today were not present yesterday, and presumably some of yesterday’s ideas have now passed by. But this means that God did not know all things yesterday, neither is he omniscient today.

Is it not clear that a temporal succession of ideas in God’s mind is incompatible with omniscience? Man is not omniscient precisely because his ideas come and go. Man’s mind changes from day to day; God is omniscient, immutable, and therefore eternal.”[1]

The second view within Calvinistic circles says that the succession of time is an aspect of God’s eternality and His thoughts only if time is defined as the idea in a knowing mind (note: not simply a finite mind, but a knowing mind which would also include God’s mind) of the “before and after” relationship that is naturally associated with the passage of time. Let me explain. If time is defined as the idea in a knowing mind of the “before and after” relationship in durational succession, there is no problem in saying that time eternally resides in the mind of God and is descriptive, on the one hand, of the relationship between His thoughts and His creative actions (the former preceding the latter in durational sequence) and, on the other hand, of His knowledge of the relationship between any single divine action and a second divine action (one divine act preceding or following another in durational sequence).

This would mean that for God, while He himself is ontologically unaffected by durational sequence (that is, His own consciousness of His sequential duration in no way impinges negatively upon His divine nature or “Godhood”) and while His thoughts themselves (that is, His wisdom and knowledge) are eternally intuited, comprehensive, and teleologically ordered and not arrived at chronologically through a process of learning and discovery, nevertheless, the concept or idea of the possibility of “before” and “after” in durational sequence or succession is a distinct epistemological category applicable to Him as it is to His creation.

As a result, not only does He know a creature’s past, present, and future as past, present, and future (instead of one eternal now, per position one above) but He also knows His own thoughts on the one and His actions on the other as related to each other, the former to the latter, in the “before and after” relationship in durational sequence (i.e., in Eph. 1:4 where it says, “He chose us . . . before” the creation of the world.). He knows as well that His actions stand related to each other in durational succession (for example, He knows that He created the stars and planets before he created man per the sequential creation account of Genesis 1). Affirming this allows the Christian to hold that the everlasting God, though He is at any and every moment immanent in His world, is still the sovereign Creator and Lord over it, that the world (including its future) is in no sense foreign or unknown to him, and that history – past, present, future – is the product of His eternal decree, creative activity, providential preservation, and common and saving grace. Why would some Calvinists hold this second position over and against the traditional position? Here are three main reasons:

I. If we say that with God, there is no distinction between past, present, and future, but all things are equally and always present to Him as an eternal now, then this seems to reduce every temporal reference in Scripture of His acting and thinking within heaven as well as within history to nothing. Thus, we would have to take every verb form that appears in Scripture telling us of God’s actions (whether in history or eternity) as timeless participles, which would render the use of these verbs in Scripture meaningless for us and for Him.

II. Second, the classical position essentially renders meaningless the significance of the following bolded prepositions and verbs:

^NAU Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

^NAU Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

^NAU Joshua 24:5 'Then I sent Moses and Aaron, and I plagued Egypt by what I did in its midst; and afterward I brought you out.

^NAU Jeremiah 12:15 "And it will come about that after I have uprooted them, I will again have compassion on them; and I will bring them back, each one to his inheritance and each one to his land.

^NAU Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

^NAU Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him . . .

^NAU John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Doesn’t God tell us that He had a plan (i.e., His eternal purpose) before He created the world? Doesn’t this information tell us that before the creation of man that God, as the God of truth, would have said to an already created angel who asked about the “when” of man’s creation: “I have not yet created man. His creation is still in the future”? And does He not now have to say as the God of truth: “I have already created man; his creation is no longer in the future, it is now in the past”? Thus, it would certainly seem that the past is the past for God, the present is the present for God, and the future is the future for God as surely as they are for His created order. And while He certainly and infallibly knows the future because He ordained it (contra open theism), it is still known to Him as the future versus being known by Him as an eternal now. Thus, it would be nonsensical to say that the creation experiences something temporally (in past, present, or future), whereas God experiences the same act in an eternally timeless state. How does an infinite mind experience a temporal act eternally?

Here’s the reduction ad absurdum: If Scripture’s use of time-indicating verbs and prepositions do not mean for God the same as they mean for us, then for Him the creation of the world may not have actually occurred yet, for Him Christ’s first coming may still be only an element of predictive prophecy yet to be fulfilled, for Him Christ’s second coming may be a past event, for Him the Christian may still be in his sin and thus still under divine condemnation, or for Him, these things and everything else may be past, present, and future all at the same time. In short, if God is timeless and if all of His acts are for Him timeless acts, then we can have no true and certain knowledge of anything except perhaps pure mathematics. This is an epistemological dilemma not caused by the Scriptures, but by unbiblical philosophical assumption that has been asserted as an explanation for understanding God’s thoughts and actions in time.

III. Third, there seems to be an internal inconsistency is saying that a timeless Being lives in an “eternal present”. This is because the word “present” has significance only for the ordering category of understanding successive duration which includes the associated words and concepts of “past” and “future”. This is why Wolterstorff said,

In order for something to be timeless, none of these ordering relationships [past, present, and future] can be applicable to that being. If a being is truly timeless, it should be impossible for it to exist simultaneously with anything else, or before anything else, or after anything else. Once it is established that a being does occupy one of the ordering relations, then that being is clearly temporal.[2]

For these three reasons it would seem that ascribing to God the attribute of timelessness (understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to His own existence) cannot be supported from scripture nor does this idea appear to be consistent even with itself. At best, this is only a fallacious inference; a confusion of the Scriptural teaching of God’s eternality with the ancient philosophical notion of “timelessness”. The three reasons above also show that a Christian should be willing to affirm that the normal ordering relationships of past, present, and future that are used to represent and identify successive relationships of time are true for God as well as for man, although the omniscient God is not ontologically affected by the passage of time like the created order nor does He undergo a discursive process of trial and error or learning. In other words, none of this means that God Himself is somehow subjected to the time aspect of the time-space-matter continuum, as if time, in and of itself is pushing history forward (thus casting doubts upon His sovereignty and government over the time-space-matter continuum). No, the idea of time as a durational succession resides in the mind of God as was elaborated upon earlier.

I reasoned that, like logic, maybe time (and space by extension) are part of Gods nature.

The passage of time is part of God’s experience but it does not affect His nature since God is not ontologically affected by durational succession; such as with the aging process in humans. You can however say that it is an aspect of God’s nature to think and act in durational succession even though God is eternal in His being, possesses aseity, and is omniscient of all his actions and thoughts eternally though those thoughts and actions themselves are carried out in sequential duration as a fulfillment of His eternal decree. In sum, God has omniscient knowledge of His eternal decree/plan for the universe but also understands those thoughts as occurring in successive duration when carried out both within and without history.

I'm probably just not thinking about the concept of "eternity" strong enough.

In conclusion, I don’t think it’s that at all. I think it’s the fact that this is a very deep issue to think about, we don’t and can’t have all the answers (Deut. 29:29), and the classical position is, at least in my own studied opinion, probably based upon an unbiblical philosophical assumption (i.e., God’s thoughts and actions are like one eternal now) rather than exegetical competence. I hope this helps you think more carefully and critically about the relationship between God’s omniscience and eternality as related to His experience of His own actions and thoughts by successive duration both within and without history.

---

[1] Gordon H. Clark, “Time and Eternity,” Against the World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988 (Hobbs, New Mexico: Trinity Foundation, 1966), 79.

[2] Nicholas Wolterstorff, “God Everlasting” in God and the Good, ed. C. Orlebeke and Lewis Smedes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 181-203.

Another Example of Atheistic Fundamentalism

In the following links, Dr. James R. White, Christian apologist and New Testament scholar, challenges his daughter's philosophy professor to a formal or informal debate. This "professor", Dr. Lee Carter began a tirade from the first day of class attacking Christianity, the Bible, and George Bush. Dr. White has posted two open letters to him on his apologetics website and has also e-mailed both letters to him now, with no response.

This is typical of the response that we have received over and over again from those who attack the faith. They want to attack Jesus, the Scriptures, and smear anything related thereto, but they never provide a platform for anyone to seriously challenge their assertions; at least not in any meaningful way. As those within our congregation well know, both of our pastors and two of our deacon-candidates visited the regular monthly meetings of the Piedmont Freethought Association and eventually, this is the same treatment we received, especially at the last two meetings we attended. People such as this can conveniently avoid the thoughtful challenges that easily dismiss their bare-naked assertions, they can set the parameters of discussion in such a way that no real discussion or critical thinking takes place but ruling out meaningful interchange and debate with Christians a priori, but they cannot run from the Judge who will demand an accounting from them on that Great Day (Heb. 9:27).

What follows below shows you why Shepherd's Fellowship of Greensboro focuses on systematic teaching through Bible books, apologetics (of which we have an upcoming conference with renowned apologetics speakers), and Christian philosophy/worldview issues. While many churches are turning to pragmatism and entertainment to swell their numbers, we'll continue our focus on teaching, proclaiming, and defending the faith, no matter what the cost, all for God's glory alone (Jude 3).

In light of that introduction, I trust you'll be educated by the following:

Open Letter to Dr. Carter # 1

Dr. Carter Responds (well, sort of)

Open Letter to Dr. Carter # 2

A Generous Quote and a Generous Bit O' Humor

I read this today from a "leader" of the Emergent Church movement and about puked,

"A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity."

Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, (Grand Rapids, MI: 2004), 27.

Then I sat back a few hours later and watched the video above and had a good laugh.

HT: Truth War Central

You Might Be a Fundamentalist Atheist if . . . .

Introduction: What follows is a brief response to a strict materialist college professor that likes to tout the modern atheistic party line as it streams forth from Dennet, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (see photo above). My response is somewhat direct and even harsh, but this man is not a typical unbeliever. He adamantly stands against the God of Scripture and has an eager desire to use his college lecturn as a means to preach the gospel of pop atheism. Following the lead of his masters, notice the bare-naked assertions that are indexed to an adamant naturalistic philosophy and strict materialism that undermines itself in light of said assertions. My brief responses are in blue.

My two Social Problems classes are using Christopher Hitchens's "god is Not Great -- How Religion Poisons everything" as their primary text this semester. I would like to share your response to the following inquire.

Would you also be interested in also providing these incisive critiques of Hitchens' book for your students to read, especially in the first one listed where the Great Hitchens gets Bart Ehrman's name wrong; not to mention other historical facts?

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/godisnotgreat.htm

http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/9-10_SG_2007.pdf?docID=2121

You informed me yesterday, that you find it incredible that I can't conceptualize a god that created itself.

The God of the Bible didn't create Himself; He has always existed, so this is a straw man. The truth is, the only god you willingly conceptualize is one that stares at you in the mirror every morning. Lubac has you pegged,

"We do not want a mysterious God. Neither do we want a God who is Some One. Nothing is more feared than this mystery of the God who is Some One.

We would rather not be some one ourselves, than meet that Some One!"

(Henri de Lubac, Paradoxes of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987 [1948]) 214.)

Question: Why is it not possible to conceptualize a universe (cosmos) that came into existence through natural means (hydrogen as the primary force of everything now in existence) but to be able to conceptualize "something" (alive, I assume) that came into existence with the ability to read every mind, create the universe and a hell, as well as a heaven etc;?

Let's see ___, you begin with "In the beginning, hydrogen atoms" and I start with "In the beginning, the eternally self-existent God created the time-space-matter continuum. I can rationally and theologically explain how this universe sprung ex nihilo because the all powerful God created it for His own purposes and in accordance with His eternal decree. However, you are left with either (1) an infinite regress of time before today, hence eternal matter, (2) you have to explain where the Hydrogen came from, or (3) you will have to posit that Hydrogen came from nothing, from nowhere, or was self-created. But assuming (1) then that means that you had eternal time before today and so "today" would've never gotten here. But since today is here then there couldn't have been an infinite series of units of time before today, but a *beginning* of time. My worldview accounts for the beginning of the time-space-matter universe by the omnipotent power of God, but yours is left with an infinite period of time before today and so "today" could've never gotten here. But today is here, so (1) is wrong. Assuming (2), you'll have to posit some type of creator, which contradicts your materialism and atheism, which then leaves you with (3), you assume that hydrogen came from nowhere, out of nothing, and so you violate the law of the conservation of matter and energy because you believe that no one created something out of nothing. This is what is known in logic as a "bare-naked assertion" because it has *never* been empirically observed nor logically proven via deduction or induction but is merely *asserted* on the basis of your naturalistic faith. So, we have your empirically unproven assertion that hydrogen atoms are the sole force behind the origin of the universe. And so (1) you give up your materialism in order to defend your materialism by asserting that this is the case since it is empirically unproven but only asserted on the basis of your naturalistic faith and (2) you violate the laws of logic and laws of science.

As a mutual friend says, "Kick the delusional faith." Your atheistic "faith" says that no one created something out of nothing for no purpose whereas the Christian faith says that God Almighty created something out of nothing for His own purposes and glory. My Christian faith violates no known law of logic nor a law of science. For all the brouhaha you level at Christians for their purported irrationality, you cut your own throat via your own assertions by violating laws of logic and laws of science. Your own position refutes itself because its internally contradictory.

It would appear that a naturalistic universe is far more likely (and easier to consider) than one attributed to a god that showed up from no where. Should I just tell my classes that one (you in this case) can accept the "god" hypothesis -- due to your "faith."

First off, is the above assertion provable through the procedures of natural science? Can you empirically prove the existence of sola materia (matter only)? Of course not, and so by asserting the above silliness, you assume the existence of immaterial, abstract, universal concepts, concepts, which cannot exist by default given your strict materialism.

By the way, should I just tell my church that a few atheists (you in this case) can accept the "in the beginning the Great Hydrogen" hypothesis when you have no evidence, no logic, and no argument - all due to your naturalistic, delusional, self-contradictory "faith"?

Remember: Faith -- as an imperative -- the veto against science, the lie at any price."

Another bare-naked assertion that cuts its own throat as you, like Hitchens, will lie at any price to protect your precious Darwinism (even when the scientific evidence is completely against it) and materialism.