Frames of Reference - Doctrine

Social Justice and the Counterfeit Christian Gospel

yeager — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:39:17 +0000

If you watch cable news at all (no matter the channel), you’ve heard of Jim Wallis and the issue of “social justice” pop up. Mr. Wallis appears on MSNBC, Huffington Post and of course his own blog. No matter your leanings, you’ve likely heard his comments about social justice and the Gospel; allow Jim Wallis to define the gospel the way he sees it:

… The issue here is he actually said social justice is a perversion of the gospel. I believe it is at the heart of the gospel. (MSNBC Countdown) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/35845729#35845729

You said social justice was a “perversion of the gospel,” and I countered that to assert that, instead, it is at the heart of the gospel and part of the core meaning of biblical faith. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/another-invitation-to-gle_b_497278.html

Social Justice is integral to Biblical faith, it’s at the heart of the Gospel. (MSNBC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoD0ceZxRH4

… I invited him to a public dialogue to discuss the true meaning of social justice, which I said was at the heart of the gospel and integral to biblical faith. http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/06/glenn-beck-immigration-and-social-justice/

Mr. Wallis repeatedly states social justice lies at the heart of the gospel he promotes. The first question becomes what is social justice? After finding out what social justice is, the next question becomes is it the essence of the Gospel? These questions become surprisingly easy to answer — in other words, it’s not a gray area or disagreement of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.

Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Economic egalitarianism is a state of economic affairs in which equality of outcome has been manufactured for all the participants of a society. It is a founding principle of various forms of socialism, communalism and cooperative economic organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_egalitarianism

Allow the Center for Economic and Social Justice to weigh in with their definition:

Social justice encompasses economic justice. … Within the system of economic justice as defined by Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler, there are three essential and interdependent principles: The Principle of Participation, The Principle of Distribution, and The Principle of Harmony … The principle of participation describes how one makes “input” to the economic process in order to make a living … The principle of distribution defines the “output” or “out-take” rights of an economic system matched to each person’s labor and capital inputs … The principle of harmony encompasses the “feedback” or balancing principles required to detect distortions of either the input or output principles and to make whatever corrections are needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all. http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/economicjustice-defined.htm

In other words, social and economic justice can be summarized as “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, with some group deciding how much “output” you’re allowed to have from your “input”; you’ll frequently hear this expressed as someone stating a group or person doesn’t “need” something — or so much of something — and it should be taken from them and given to another. To do so is “justice” and “fair”, at least in their eyes.

Mr. Wallis’ views are clear — he believes the foundation of Christianity (oops, he said Biblical faith, not Christianity) begins with social justice, and exists as the heart (i.e. essence) of the Gospel. Unfortunately Mr. Wallis’ opinion is factually incorrect. Before continuing, ask yourself what is the Gospel?

When Jim Wallis associates social justice with the Gospel, we don’t have to accept his opinion as the Bible (specifically Paul) exactly defines the Gospel.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures … (1 Corinthians 15:1–4 NKJV)

Strange. No mention of social justice, or regulating inputs and outputs; Paul must have been negligent in failing to mention the heart of the Gospel.

Paul negligent? I don’t think so. Every word, every detail of the Bible exists by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It’s not the Bible in error, it’s those attempting to redefine the Biblical Gospel to fit their political goals; social justice isn’t anywhere to be found in the Biblical definition of the Gospel. In case it’s not clear, here’s the Gospel:

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
He was buried.
He rose again, according to the Scriptures.

Now that’s the good news; no mention of social justice.

Mixing social justice with Christianity (economic justice, equality of outcome, etc) eliminates God from the Gospel. In Jim Wallis’ definition of the Gospel, God isn’t even required at all (just government or other agency enforcing social justice). Is eliminating God now part of the Gospel? Where did Paul say that?

Obviously mixing social justice with the Gospel isn’t just wrong, it’s waaaaay wrong. Factually. Without possible disagreement. As wrong as claiming the sky is pink. Or 2+2=5. Or the earth is flat. Or the moon is made of cheese. Those are errors of fact, not disagreements of opinion. This doesn’t mean taking care of the poor, or church potlucks, are bad. They’re not necessarily (that should go without saying), but the church must fight against replacing the Gospel as groups attempt to achieve political ends, not spiritual ones.

In light of the attempt to substitute the Christian Gospel with a false one for political aims, we must consider the seriousness of re-defining the Gospel, as Paul warned the Galatians.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6–9)

Or in the New Living Translation:

I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who in his love and mercy called you to share the eternal life he gives through Christ. You are already following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ. Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed.

For those replacing Paul’s (and thus the Bible’s) Biblical Gospel with a social one which doesn’t require God, a review of 1 Corinthians 15 is in order to understand what the Gospel is, the nature of sin, the need for salvation, and then heed Paul’s warning to the Galatians regarding the error of accepting those who twist and change the truth into another gospel sharing little with the true Gospel but the name.

Christians are called to share the eternal life though Christ, not social justice, thus social justice can’t be the essence of the Gospel as a matter of fact. For those mixing social justice with the Gospel, you’re following an ideology which pretends to be the Gospel (good news), but lacks truth. You’ve been fooled (and who is the father of lies?); it’s time to return to the truth as social justice has nothing to do with the Gospel — not even a little.

What do you think? Have you heard a phony Gospel preached? Leave a comment with your experience, we’d like to hear about it. As always, comments are invited as long as they’re polite (read our comment policy if you’re unsure).

Biblical roles of Men and Women

yeager — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:04:15 +0000

Captain, we’re drifting into dangerous waters! All hands on deck! Sound the alarm!

Perhaps nothing differentiates “modern” (read that: liberal) and traditional Christianity more than the role of men and women. Those promoting a modern social justice version discard parts of the Bible not fitting their position, frequently by arguing those parts have historical meaning only. Does that make sense? Can we pick and choose what is God’s Word and what isn’t? If so, how can that be done, and who gets to make the rules (since it isn’t God)?

Those minefields present themselves to the social justice liberal redefining Christianity in their image (only using parts of the Bible) instead of God’s.

The traditional view the church held for almost 2,000 years was women could not hold one position in church: senior pastor; discarding orthodox theology only recently developed. One recent article by Sara VanScoy appeared in Sojourners magazine (the magazine of Jim Wallis promoting the social justice version of Christianity).

The prophet Joel said that when the Spirit comes, sons and daughters would prophesy (that is, preach). … Any sort of gender ordering is the result of fallen humanity. When churches regard women as second-class citizens, they are espousing an ideology that is less than God’s ideal! http://blog.sojo.net/2010/06/30/patriarchy-in-the-church-and-its-effects/

Rarely has so much wrong been said in so few words. First, prophesying and preaching (teaching) aren’t the same thing. Second, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 already mentions women prophesying in the church, so Joel and Paul don’t have any disagreement between them. Third she claims women as second-class citizens, an idea with no Biblical support. Where in the Bible did it say women are second-class? She’s arguing against something which doesn’t exist (at least in the Bible).

The problem with “modern” (we’d say corrupt) social justice theology remains quite simple — unequal does not imply inferior; a common mistake stems from the difference between “A” and “B” means either “A” is inferior to “B” or “B” is inferior to “A”. Not so; difference and/or inequality does not mean inferior.

Men and women are not equal, yet that does not imply one is inferior. Ms. VanScoy made the basic mistake that anything not the same means one must be superior over other. That’s illogical (and quite wrong). Is an apple superior to a carrot? Of course not, they have different uses in the body, and it’s the differences that makes both fruit and vegetables required.

Men and women differ not from the carrot and the apple (we’ll leave it to the reader to determine which relates to which). In the body of Christ, both are required, and both differ in their strengths and weaknesses. But that does not mean all roles can be performed by each, just as if your physical body has scurvy (a disease from lack of vitamin C), you’ll require an orange much more than a carrot.

Ah ha! Using Ms. VanScoy’s logic, that means the carrot is inferior! A second-class food! Why oh why are carrots so maligned?

See how absurd the modern liberal logic is? But she won’t stop there, instead promoting her view of ignoring whatever she doesn’t like in the Bible — compounding poor logic with designer religion.

These same people who cling to a literal interpretation of the pastoral epistles fail to use that same hermeneutic when reading Matthew 25 (whatever we do for the least of these), John 4 (the Samaritan woman at the well’s encounter with Jesus and her subsequent evangelization of an entire village), or the prophet Joel and the apostle Peter (which tell us sons and daughters will prophesy). Why is it that only certain portions of Scripture are interpreted literally? http://blog.sojo.net/2010/06/30/patriarchy-in-the-church-and-its-effects/

None of what she cites has anything to do with women pastoring a church, so she’s quite a bit off target. If that’s proof of the position, there’s nothing to stand on for the abandonment of traditional theology at all.

Once you begin throwing out parts of the Bible as Ms. VanScoy desires, who gets to decide what should be included and what should not? Perhaps Ms. VanScoy would approve if her husband decided the teaching about adultery didn’t apply today (it was just a cultural situation), and shouldn’t be taken literally today as we’ve grown beyond the harsh limits of the first century (then again, she probably wouldn’t).

Once you decide to ignore portions of the Bible, you’ve got to figure out who’s going to determine what should be followed, and what should be ignored. Of course, she’s already saying she’ll accept some of the Bible, while rejecting other parts. Why? Who gets to make that determination? What makes her choice of what applies today and what doesn’t better than anyone else’s? Her position holds nothing more than value relativism (meaning no absolutes exist, just whatever you feel like at the moment).

As Ms. VanScoy and her ilk boldly proclaim they know what parts of the Bible apply today and what don’t, they’ve placed themselves in the position they rally against — those claiming superiority in the church. Naturally, they miss the irony of their position.

In another article on Sojourners, Anne Eggebroten continues the I’ll-ignore-what-I-don’t-like thought as well.

To conclude that women should be silent and not hold office in the church … you must ignore evidence that the “pastoral epistles” (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were written in honor of Paul long after he died and reflect a second-century debate over women’s roles in the church… http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj1007&article=the-persistence-of-patriarchy

How convenient! By ignoring those letters, you ignore Paul’s statement “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)”. Thus, now you’re free to pick and choose whatever you want.

Hurry Hurry hurry, step right up and don’t be late, you can now create your own designer religion! Just pick the parts of the Bible you like, and discard parts you don’t! Now we can create sects like:

The Swingers Bible — just ignore all those pesky parts on adultery. While you’re at it, get rid of all the marriage stuff, it’s so confining!
Bill and Ted’s Bible — delete all the warnings on drugs. Excellent! Party on dude!

But wait, there’s more! If you change your mind later, just change the rules. We don’t want to be tied down to any interpretation, be flexible! It’s all a cultural thing, you know.

Wait a minute, someone will say, you can’t just cast aside verses you don’t like just because you want to cheat on your wife and use drugs.

Exactly. So why do these people do it to support their agenda? If they can ignore verses they don’t like, anyone else can ignore the verses they cite to support their bizarre views. Thus, it quickly degenerates into a designer religion as each person makes up whatever they want.

Do you think God would approve of that?

Frequently these argue against something the Bible doesn’t promote. The Bible doesn’t say women should be slaves (an accusation Sara made). The Bible doesn’t say women should stay in an abusive relationship. The Bible doesn’t say women are inferior. The Bible doesn’t say women can’t serve in the church. Anne Eggebroten even blames domestic violence on traditional orthodox theology.

These people fight against something which doesn’t exist (at least in the Bible, if a church holds those ideas, that’s another matter).

OK, so what is the proper relationship?

Once you understand you’re in a spiritual war, and the army of God has a particular order in it (or should), these problems with inferiority disappear. It’s not a question of holding someone down, or placing them as second-class citizens, rather it’s regarding military order.

Paul states one area off-limits to women; we’ll quote our book beginning with the passage that frequently begins the problem (it’s likely one verse not included in the modern liberal cut-and-paste Bible anyway).

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Paul begins navigating yet another mineﬁeld — what about men and women and proper roles in the church? Again, the Corinthian church experienced problems in this area, and those problems remain today; Paul’s teaching remains as relevant today as it was in the ﬁrst century AD. […]

First off, if you don’t know men and women aren’t equal you need a biology lesson. Seriously. Let that sink in a bit, and be sure you’re convinced of the absolute truth before continuing. For example, in general, men possess more strength than women. That means if I take a statistically valid sample, the men will outperform the women as a group. It does not mean you can’t ﬁnd a woman who will be stronger than a man. Men and women are not equal — but that doesn’t imply superiority or inferiority, and it’s a mistake to make it so; be sure you understand inequality does not imply inferiority.

One view of this passage prohibits women from being involved in the church in an active role. Of course, that makes no sense as Paul mentions women prophesying and speaking in verse ﬁve, and that necessarily means women do prophecy and speak in church. Remember the theme of the chapter — military order. Only one job Paul states clearly women are not to have in the church, as he told Timothy.

But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:12)

That verse causes big problems as well — does it apply today? Or is it just a cultural argument for Paul’s time? How can you ﬁnd out? Common sense — examine why Paul says that in the next few verses. Remember, don’t confuse the principle with the argument supporting it. The principle in verse 12 restricts women from holding the ofﬁce of leadership — pastors.

It might be popular to allow women pastors today, but it’s not Biblical. Those ignoring Paul’s principle in verse 12 claim it was only a historical and cultural issue which doesn’t remain today. Oh really? Those groups haven’t done their homework as they blindly cast off Paul’s principle, without considering how Paul supported his principle in the next two verses to Timothy.

For Adam was ﬁrst formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13–14)

Paul’s support for verse 12 comes from history, and unless history changes (hint: it can’t) his point stands for all time. Thus, the restriction applies today. If you want to create your own designer religion which conﬂicts with the Bible you’re free to do so. But since Paul’s support comes from unchanging history, it’s ludicrous to claim the principle doesn’t apply today, for it surely does. Don’t shoot the messenger, it’s Paul writing God’s Word so you should take it up with them.

Paul’s discussion remains valid for all time as the validation for it comes from unchanging history, not changing cultural values. Does that mean women are second-class citizens? Of course not. Those attempting such foolishness remain in error as much as those claiming the passage doesn’t apply. The Troubled Church, page 119,121–123 ISBN 9781452823980

For more, get the book on 1 Corinthians to examine Paul’s letter, as well as the MP3’s for free on the web.

In the end you’ve got a choice, accept the Bible, or pick and choose whatever you want, creating your own religion in the process. That path leads to much fighting as everyone disagrees on what from the Bible must be applied, and what can be ignored, harking back to the time of Judges where everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

You’re free to create whatever religion you wish, but don’t call it Christianity as it has no relationship to Christianity at all.

Christians and Government: Romans 13

yeager — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:24:16 +0000

In our previous article on Christians, the tea-party, and Libertarianism (prompted by Reverend Jim Wallis’ article disparaging the tea-party movement) one area left un-discussed was the issue of Christians and Romans 13. Since Jim Wallis used it to justify particular actions by government, it’s time to take a look to see what it says in context. First, Mr. Wallis’ argument.

In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God’s plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/27/how-christian-is-tea-party-libertarianism/

Wallis attempts to Biblically justify his particular brand of government as blessed by God (and we should enthusiastically pay taxes for), and then using Romans 13 have everyone bow down to it. But let’s review Romans 13.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (Romans 13:1–7)

What government did Paul refer to? Who was in power? Rome — and their stance toward Christianity at the time wasn’t exactly friendly. Wallis seems to imply government acts like a “good guy” helping God doing His work; an interpretation which doesn’t mesh with the time Paul wrote.

Wallis’ attempt to misuse Romans 13 to promote specific government actions as “God’s approved plan” distorts the text; later in the article he also says:

… let me just say that private charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion. When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.

Where does the Bible state government should forcefully impose their view of charity on the country (“social justice”)? And what does Mr. Wallis desire by his idea of social justice?

Those can be loaded words (and require definition), meaning a range of anything from traditional private charity to forced government redistribution (socialism/communism). We’d be interested in further words from Mr. Wallis on this, as if he refers to private charity as Jesus spoke, he’s on solid ground and we’d agree, but if more of the second (as it appears), he’s wandered into areas totally lacking any Biblical support whatsoever.

We’ll agree God’s plan uses government (that government can be good or evil), just as every person, every situation, and every atom of the cosmos does. But Wallis’ mistake comes from applying it to state Christians should follow particular government action as “God’s approved plan”.

A difference exists between God allowing an act, and God approving it; Wallis fails to understand the distinction.

Wallis’ idea makes no sense when considered in light of the times Paul wrote. Did Paul really mean to state Christians should get behind and support Rome and the persecution? Of course not; Wallis’ conclusion is wrong.

Wallis’ argument isn’t new, in the 1770’s as the colonies struggled with separating from England many made the same argument — it’s called “Divine Rule of Kings” theology. Simply put, it’s a misapplication of Romans 13 to imply any government action must be supported by Christians and not opposed, lest they oppose God.

Naturally, it’s supported anytime the government wants to take action they like, but those same fade into silence when government takes action they don’t like. Did Mr. Wallis (who appears to lie on the liberal site of the spectrum) use the same idea to support President Bush’s policies? If not, he provides nothing more than grandstanding and hypocrisy.

In any event, the issue isn’t new, as the colonies struggled with the same question; what did the Founders proclaim?

Even John Dickinson (not only a signer of the Constitution and the Governor of Pennsylvania, but also a devout Quaker and thus a member of a denomination favorably disposed toward the King) recognize the spiritual basis for the position taken by the Americans:

We claim them [rights] from a higher source—from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. “Original Intent-The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion” David Barton, page 92–93

What happened during the colonies struggle against England for Independence? Hear the words from the past…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Rights don’t come from government, they come from our Creator. We can’t say it any better than the Declaration of Independence — governments exist to secure and protect those rights only, not grant them.

So what does Romans 13 state? After all the discussion, it’s rather simple. Christians should follow the law, unless that law violates Biblical principles.

Peter said in Acts 5 “We ought to obey God rather than men”. Romans 13 in proper context means Christians should follow government law unless it violates God’s law (a point Mr. Wallis didn’t mention). It does not mean government should not be changed, nor that all actions taken by the government are correct. Simply put, Christians should follow the law (or change it) unless it conflicts with God’s law, at which point it must be discarded, or as the Founders said:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The issue was settled long ago (not in favor of Mr. Wallis’ view). Read the Declaration of Independence as it’s a perfect rebuttal of the view Mr. Wallis attempts with Romans 13 to justify specific government, or the idea Christians should unconditionally support all government without question. Such a government ends in tyranny and oppression of its people.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

In short, Wallis’ attempt to use Romans 13 to justify his particular brand of social justice (government should step in and forcefully take from some people to give to others as it sees fit, instead of charity being a private matter) is woefully misguided, and stems from a misunderstanding of Romans 13.

Christians should (must?) be involved in political matters. From the founding of the country, Christians formed the basis of government; today we have a heritage and a responsibility Christians largely ignore. As Paul reminded us, stewards must be faithful.

Yet some don’t like to be involved because politics exists in a cesspool of corruption. We certainly agree, but we’ve been passed a great legacy, and it is required in stewards that they be faithful. Don’t let a renegade interpretation of Romans 13 prevent you from standing up for Biblical principles in government, working to change those that aren’t.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. Attributed to many people, but commonly Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, the “Tytler Circle”

The Founders took us from bondage through spiritual truth, courage, and liberty. We soon found abundance, but in the last 50 years moved to selfishness and complacency. How close are we to moving to the last stages? And the bigger question: can the circle run in reverse, back to liberty and courage?

As Chuck Missler says, ask people what presents the bigger problem in the country: ignorance or apathy and you’ll get the response “I don’t know, and I don’t care”.

It’s time for Christians to stand up. Whatever your political leanings, all Christians can agree standing up for the Biblical principles the country was founded on remains correct. Don’t let anyone tell you the country was not founded on Christian principles.

For almost 200 years since the founding of the country, those principles existed and flourished. It’s a recent development groups desire to change what the founders left us into something they’d never recognize. Change may be the popular political buzzword of the day, but that doesn’t make it right.

Even a casual study of Romans 13 in the context of the time written completely destroys the idea Christians must blindly support whatever government exists without question; if you’re interested in studying this further, begin with these resources:

Our commentary on Daniel 9; begin with repentance.
Get the book on Daniel from Amazon to see where we’re going.
Find out what separation of church and state really means—very few people understand it in proper historical context (freedom to, not freedom from).
Read David Barton’s book “Original Intent”. Much of this you will have never heard of, if all you’ve experienced is history class in school.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV)

The Nature of God: Infinity

yeager — Wed, 12 May 2010 01:00:57 +0000

Infinity represents one of the characteristics of God—a being with no beginning and no end, existing completely outside of time. Not always an easy concept to understand, but James gives us a surprising scientific and technical explanation in his letter.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:17 KJV)

Variableness in the Greek is παραλλαγή (parallagē, Strongs 3883), and only appears in the New Testament here. It’s a relative to parallax.

Parallax is an apparent displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. The term is derived from the Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning “alteration”. Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

The easiest example comes from your eyes (don’t laugh at the illustration, mathematicians aren’t graphic artists you know).

The green circles on the left represent your eyes. As you can see, the nearer box makes a larger angle than the box further away. Using a process called triangulation it’s easy to determine the distance to either box, or the distance between the boxes.

But that’s all for finite distances, what if, as James says, God doesn’t have any variableness or parallax to Him? Then He exists at infinity. James’ description of God existing without parallax uses a mathematical method of describing an infinite God.

The Trinity Part II

yeager — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:33:18 +0000

In part one on the Trinity we discussed problems arising in the Bible if you deny the Trinity as some groups do: stating Jesus as a created being, a brother of satan, or something else non-divine. In this second part, we’ll consider the scientific reasoning behind the trinity from a passage in 1 John.

θεός (God-theos) ἐστί (is-esti) φῶς (light-phos) (1 John 1:5)

John states plainly God is light. If you have any background in Physics, you immediately think of the wave-particle duality of light. In brief, light can act as either a particle (like bullets shot from a machine gun), or a wave (like waves in a pool).

Physicists created the famous two-slit experiment for light, which clearly demonstrates light acting as a wave — the wave interference pattern clearly visible. But more interesting, if you tweak the experiment a bit, you destroy the interference pattern, and get only the particle aspect.

What’s going on? We won’t dive into the details here, the second page of the two-slit experiment article has a good introduction to the phenomena. For our purposes, it’s sufficient to state light acts as both a particle and a wave, with the interesting effect you can’t see both at the same time, no matter how hard you try.

Light is a two-in-one if you will, a duality. John says God is light. In the Gospels it’s also clear God is a trinity.

Whoops. Houston, we’ve got a problem here. God is light, God is a trinity, but light is a duality. Tilt.

What to do? This should bother you, for if the Bible is inerrant, something else must be going on. And of course it is, and it’s the apostle John himself giving you the solution in his Gospel.

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. (John 16:13 NKJV)

The Holy Spirit never speaks of Himself, His job is to testify of Jesus. In other words, while God is a trinity, one of the persons only appears speaking of the others — i.e. the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus.

For those physicists attempting to unlock the secrets of the universe, they’d best investigate light as a trinity, but one of those natures only manifests itself as either a wave or particle.

The Trinity Part I

yeager — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:26:00 +0000

One concept causing problems for new believers and various other groups is the concept of the trinity — one God revealing Himself in three persons. Many groups deny the trinity, as they deny the deity of Jesus Himself, which causes problems in the Bible. We’ll consider the trinity in two parts. First, we’ll consider a Biblical problem which only can be solved by the trinity — if you reject the trinity the Bible contains an error as you consider these two verses in John’s gospel.

If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. (John 5:31 NKJV)

Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true (John 8:14 NKJV)

Whoops! The Pharisees jumped on these two statements (as any good skeptic would) as a contradiction. But of course it’s not as the Bible has no errors. So what’s going on? The answer appears later in John’s gospel:

It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me. (John 8:17–18 NKJV)

I and My Father are one. (John 10:30 NKJV)

If Jesus bears witness of Himself, it’s not true. But since God is a trinity (three in one), He doesn’t bear witness by Himself, as the Father also testifies of Him. One God, but three distinct persons. In John 5 Jesus refers back to the Mosaic law which said one witness was insufficient to establish a matter. However, due to the trinity, in John 8 Jesus can speak Himself, as both he and the Father testify of Him.

Thus, Jesus can say in John chapter 8 His witness is true. However, for those groups rejecting the idea of the trinity, you’ve got quite a problem to explain.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy. 6:4)

Next time, we’ll dive into the phrase “God is light”, and de-mystify the trinity with a physical example.

Atheism and the Poison of Liberal Theology

yeager — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:54:46 +0000

For some reason, atheists aren’t happy unless they convert religious people to their dogma. Why? I don’t know, but they frequently display intolerance, expressing a deep conviction to win converts to the religion of atheism. Here’s a statement which isn’t very remarkable, except for the revelation of the methods atheists should use to win converts.

If we want to change the mind of the believer then the most effective way is to drive a wedge between their arguments for the existence of God (i.e., natural theology) and the other things they believe based in the Bible.

Once we do this the believer will see very soon afterward that those arguments for God’s existence don’t make a good case. What I’m doing undercuts their faith at the most fundamental level.

And so first we must make them liberals, then agnostics and then atheists. If we attempt to argue them from Christianity to atheism in one fell swoop we will not do it.

Make them liberals? We’re not talking politics, liberals means liberal Christians, and may or may not relate to a political view. “Liberal Christianity” might not be familiar to you, but it’s taught in major seminaries across the country. For them, denying the foundational concepts of orthodox Christianity is all in a days work, and these people exist as Christians in name only.

Atheists do quite well creating liberal theologians. Just watch any show “investigating” Jesus, the Bible or similar and you’ll see professors from national seminaries denying the inerrancy of the Bible, resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, and more. These aren’t in any meaningful way Christians, as atheist Christopher Hitchens says I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Those “liberal Christians” aren’t Christians, any more than calling yourself the President gets you a ride on Air Force One.

The cult of liberal theology is dangerous and heretical. As Paul warned Timothy these have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. These liberals are ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:7), with corrupt minds, and disapproved concerning the faith. They may have a PhD and other accolades, but they’re utterly unqualified in basic Biblical knowledge.

Liberal Christians may posses the warm-and-fuzzy felling of religion, but share nothing with Jesus except ripping off his name.

Once you start accepting liberal theology like Isaiah didn’t write the book bearing his name, replacement theology (where the church replaces the Jews and Israel in God’s plan), Daniel was really written later or other liberal theology garbage, it’s at that point you’ve denied God and become an atheist, not later. Liberal theologians deny most of the major tenets of Christianity — how can they call themselves Christians?

The progression from orthodox Christianity, to liberalism, finally arriving at atheism can be subtle, as the change to atheist actually comes in the first step after rejecting the foundational tenets of Christianity, not the last small step to atheist.

In a warning, the atheist notes his techniques don’t work on the traditional Christian, those who reject liberal theology and stand firm on the Word of God. But if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything — including the cult of liberal theology.

Stand firm on the truth, and reject liberal theology which has nothing in common with Christianity except the name — liberal scholars have created their own religion and abandoned Christianity. For more information, Walter Martin has a message titled “The Cult of Liberal Theology” available at http://waltermartin.com.