Morality: Evolved or Created?

“All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.” – Voltaire

“Morality is herd instinct in the individual.” – Friedrich Nietzshe

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred North Whitehead

If you watch a debate with Christopher Hitchens involved, you will see an interesting argument that surrounds the issue of morality, and ethics in general. Mr. Hitchens, an Atheist, will say that he does not need God to know what is good and to do good. He states that he can just as easily send a check to a poverty stricken area, just as much as any religious person. He would say that he can feel empathy for those hurting, just like Christians. If he can figure this out on his own without religion, then why do we need a God for our moral standard?

In one respect Mr. Hitchens is right, that a committed Atheist can do good acts just as much as a religious person. An Atheist can also lead a “good” life just as any Christian could, and act just as nice as any Wiccan or Muslim. The goal of this post is not to prove the idea of a Christian God, but to demonstrate in some instances that to have any consistent morality within society it presupposes a God or Intelligent Designer.

One could spend an entire book on the subject of morality in general, and many have, but since this is a blog, it needs to remain more concise and just impose some thoughts as to why there has to be a God for morality to even exist. Can there be any sustaining morals that are standard for every society if there is no God? If there are, how do we go about figuring out what those are?

C.S. Lewis on his journey to become a Christian dealt with this from one direction. One of his biggest struggles was the issue of evil and how can an all Good God allow evil and suffering in the world. The more he pondered this, the more he started to wonder how he knew something was evil at all. If there was no ultimate ideal of good then how can one know there is evil? Don’t read this argument too fast, and take time to let it sit in, because it is very deep, though only a few sentences long.

Every culture does not like to have their stuff stolen, and feel that it is a “bad” thing to have happen. Yes, I know there are cultures out there that have a “share” mentality, in that if it is out in the open within the tribe then it is the tribes as a whole and anyone can take it. But. . .if someone outside the tribe were to do this then it would be seen as an unjust act by the clan. Again, they see stealing as an act of evil done against them. Even cannibalistic societies view the murder of their own tribes as an evil and will seek revenge against the other tribe. These are just two examples of “evils” that can be seen across cultures around our world. There are many more when taken to their core meanings.

Going back to C.S. Lewis, how do all these societies know that having something stolen from them is evil? How do we know it? You can try to say that we were taught it, but it started somewhere and again this crosses all cultures, so it is not just some random rule brought about by a majority vote somewhere and imposed on society. No, we naturally do not like things being stolen from us. Just look at a child and how fast they learn the phrase “mine!” They were not taught that, as most parents teach the opposite, to share their things. Where did the natural concept of “mine” come from? The child feels there is an evil committed, because someone took something from them without their permission, which is the basic definition of stealing. How does the immaterial emotion evolve? Was there a time in history where there were no emotions like this? History does not seem to think so, as there have been wars and turmoil over such things as far back as we can trace human history, no matter where you draw your sources.

These moral laws seem to be natural and ingrained in us from our beginning. If they are ingrained or natural, and we naturally make these moral standard arguments, then maybe there is within us a natural inclination toward the ultimate good. An infinite Good that we base these ideals on whether we want to admit it or not. Maybe think of it like this: You walk into someone’s house and you see this 52” flat screen TV hanging on the wall. You say, “That is the biggest TV I have ever seen.” Why did you make the statement? You based it on other TV’s that you have seen. You based it off an ideal of a TV that was in your mind. And saying “that you have seen” clarifies that there could be bigger out there, but you have not seen it yet. There could be some TV out there even bigger and not just based on what is seen before you.

Now take it a step further and while you were there someone else came in and started to unhook the TV and remove it off the wall. They tell you that they are going to take it because in their culture stealing is alright. What do you say? Okay, since that is your culture, then I cannot judge you and you can take the TV. No way, you call the police or take the matter into your own hands, because you know that stealing is wrong. I bet many of you even reading the part of the sentence, “because in their culture stealing is alright,” even had a hard time computing it. It just does not read right and immediately red flags go up in your head. Why, if morals are culture based? Again, you can’t say because it is ingrained in you, as I just go back to the two year old that knows intrinsically about stealing without being taught. I will even argue that a nine month old realizes this when you try to take their favorite toy. They will cry, making grunting noises and even shake, because somehow they are mad that something was taken from them that is theirs. How?

The only way any of the above makes sense is if it was engrained or designed into our programming. There is no evolution of this moral, as we see it from the beginning of recorded history, and those that purport evolution know that there is a lot of time needed for things to evolve. There has not been enough time within human history for this type of evolution. It also doesn’t answer why it evolved into everyone knowing some things are wrong, as stealing and murder. Other emotions are demonstrated in people, as what people enjoy as hobbies or the type of personality they attract to. There are differences, but we see within morality there appears to be some set principles that cross all cultures.

I leave you with this to ponder, and it made me think more on this as well. If morals are society based and not drawn from an infinite good, then why is slavery not still around? Every culture had slaves, from England to America, from Africa to South America. It was so common that there was basically no serious debate about it for many years and then we see people like Mr. Wilberforce start to raise questions about its moral implication on the slaves. Why? He would have been brought up in a society that accepts it, taught that it was okay and that it was even very economic for the country he grew up in at the time. What made him change? Wasn’t culture or the majority changing, as it took him over twenty years to finally get the amendment passed. There had to be some set standard to compare it to, and in this case it was the God of the Bible who says to love your neighbor as yourself, and that we were all created by God deserving of the same rights as everyone else.

What if one day the majority says that it is now okay for slavery again, and it doesn’t matter what race they choose? Would those that accept culture, majority or societal morals then complain? How can you if it is what they choose? What are you deriving your concept from? You have preconceived ideas of good, but you could not trust those if there is no Infinite on which to base it. You are stuck within your own rules of majority vote. Seems to be a true slippery slope belief system because in the end it allows for everything, because without a set standard there is nothing in the end that one can truly say is wrong or right, but only what man/woman decides. Now, that is a scary thought, because we have seen what man does when they attain too much power and set the standard.

“There are two sorts of hypocrites; ones that are deceived with their outward morality and external religion; and the other are those that are deceived with false discoveries and elevation; and men's own righteousness, and talk much of free grace; but at the same time make righteousness of their discoveries, and of their humiliation, and exalt themselves to heaven with them.” – Jonathan Edwards

The Red Herring

“A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Red%20Herring).

Have you ever thought that rationality and logic are things of the past? Just watching and listening to politicians will definitely give indication of this. It seems to me that today more people have given up on thinking critically through arguments. Instead they would rather just “believe” what they “feel” is right or take the word of a professor that they know little about besides in the classroom. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of great professors out there who would make great mentors as well, but you should still think through their reasoning behind what they are teaching.

Some time ago a college student approached me and we ended up getting into a conversation about creation/evolution. I am not going to debate either right now in light of right and wrong, because there is not enough space to give my argument. It would also be me moving into a red herring, as I would be redirecting the topic to something else, however it was the central topic of our discussion. Plus, you will get an idea of my view just from the conversation.

It ended up that he could not understand why I would believe in creation, and that evolution was obviously the answer and proven. I asked how he knew this and what evidence he had. He just stared at me, and instead asked another question, because he had no idea how to respond. Instead he tried to defend his side by just throwing out a name used by many who do not actually study because everyone uses it and almost all basic science classes use his name. He asked me about Charles Darwin. Now, he did not give any evidence that Darwin gave, just asked me about him. I said I did not agree with his premises and that many scholars, even in evolutionary thought, no longer hold to much of his arguments. I then asked him if he has ever read Charles Darwin at any time in his life. Again, he stared at me and said he has read some quotes. I am betting all my evolution and creation friends are now rolling their eyes.

I moved forward and asked if he knew of the theory regarding Darwin’s Black Box, because anyone that has done some study has heard of this in one form or another. He said no, so I explained to him that Darwin himself theorized that if the eye were more than just a gelatinous ball, his very own theory of evolution would crumble. I asked him if the eye was more then just a gelatin ball. Instead of answering rationally, he says “yes.” Are you serious? I actually asked him that. The eye is made up of cones, rods, and retina and many other parts and is not just a gelatin ball in our heads.

Here is the red herring. Instead of saying he did not know as much as he thought about evolution and would have to go and think about my questions and come back with an answer, and I did ask him about fossil records and transitions and he could not answer or give any credible evidence, he tried to redirect the conversation. His answer was that he thought religion was just an invention so people could figure out how the world began because they did not know prior. Did you catch it? I never brought up religion, but he knew I was a Christian so he used it. He tried to move to religion in general because he could not defend a position that he held so tightly. It was a self-protective mechanism that many use when they know they are caught in a debate.

The second statement was an even more overt red herring. He told me that as an educated man that he can’t understand how I would believe this, even though he could not defend the position for me. Again, instead of answering the topic he attacked my education background. I did not bite, though I wanted to respond to him. I would have said, “Actually it should tell you something that I have a Ph.D. and believe in creation, and you do not even have a Bachelors and you do not believe in it.” Now that would be me giving a red herring back, as it has nothing to do with my or his education, because it is either true or it is not. Has nothing to do with me or him. I never gave religious answers to the creation account, but scientific arguments against the evolution account. I used more of the Intelligent Design arguments (please check before you comment, because there are many non-Christians in this movement as well). I could have given the religious arguments, but wanted to stick to his theories that he did not understand.

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen Christians use this as well when debating others. I have done it myself when I got flustered, or just did not realize until I was taught about it. We are not teaching high school or college students how to critically think and how to debate with someone, and I won’t even get started on the lack of respect being shown to elders either in this regard. We need to teach that just spouting our professors’ beliefs is not enough, and we should work through these arguments ourselves. These are important matters. Either evolution is true or creation is. Either there is a God or there is not. Either all ways lead to God or they don’t. Either Jesus is Savior and Lord or He is not. These questions cannot be answered by simple little cliché statements that you have not studied or learned how to answer and then counter-answer arguments regarding the issue, regardless of where you stand on the spectrum.

Lastly, I do want to say that I have debated many on the other side who do debate very well and have their arguments very concise, both within the Christian circle and without. It seems though it is becoming a far less occurrence then a norm though. Time to get rid of some of the junk liberal classes that everyone has to take and replace them with logic, critical thinking and philosophy, at least at the basic level in order to teach our younger generation how to think critically and for themselves.

Proverbs 23:23, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.”

Christian Lyrics--A Positive Take

I want to do a follow up to the previous blog, so if you have not read that one yet, read it first and then read this one as it will only make partial sense if you do not.

In the last blog I was working through the issue of some songs and how their delivery did not seem to line up with Scripture, though some of the message could be seen as a plausible message. I still do not see anything plausible about his message regarding Heaven though.

On the other side there are groups out there that challenge the Christian church, and do it without shock value, such as vulgar language and videos that promote the very thing they are singing against. Remember I mentioned the video that has his friend smoking a cigarette while he is singing worrying about people dying everyday. The message becomes garbled and incoherent in its delivery and as mentioned does not glorify God.

But if done right, there is a way to challenge with song and glorify God, and I think Casting Crowns gives us a great example of this, as seen from the two songs below. Interesting enough, I think the two songs are the same message that Derek is trying to get across, but because of his delivery his is lost in translation. Casting Crowns does it in a way that hits you in the face with what we as the church should be doing, but does not use vulgar language to make their point. Nor does Casting Crowns make a mockery of the Gospel by doing what it says not to do in trying to tell people to do what it says.

I think Casting Crowns applies 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 well, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. . . .” They try to get the church to wake up by asking questions through a song and challenging what they see the church doing in an honorable way.

What if His People Prayed

What if the armies of the Lord/Picked up and dusted off their swords/Vowed to set the captives free/And not let satan have one moreWhat if the church, for heaven's sake/Finally stepped up to the plate/Took a stand upon God's promise/And stormed hell's rusty gatesChorus:What if His people prayed/And those who bear His name/Would humbly seek His face Yeah/And Turn from their own wayAnd what would happen if we prayed/For those raised up to lead the wayThen maybe kids in school could pray/And unborn children see light of dayWhat if the life that we pursue/Came from a hunger for the truth/What if the family turned to Jesus/Stopped asking Oprah what to doWhat if His people prayed/And those who bear His name/Would humbly seek His face Yeah/And Turn from their own wayHe said that they would hear/His promise has been made/He'll answer loud and clearIf only we would prayIf My people called by My name/If they'll humble themselves and pray/If My people called by My name/If they'll humble themselves and pray

What would happen if we followed the song? It would be a good thing, more prayer. They challenge the aspect of what the church body is truly doing in communication with God and not bashing the Church for shock value. Basically the essence of “eating our own,” as seen in my previous blog.

There song follows the command of God (Jeremiah 29:12; Acts 8:22; 1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Peter 3:15-16).

If We are The Body

It's crowded in worship today/As she slips in trying to fade into the facesThe girls teasing laughter is carrying farther than they know/Farther than they knowChorus:But if we are the body/Why aren't His arms reaching?/Why aren't His hands healing?Why aren't His words teaching?/And if we are the body/Why aren't His feet going?Why is His love not showing them there is a way?/There is a wayA traveler is far away from home/He sheds his coat and quietly sinks into the back rowThe weight of their judgmental glances/Tells him that his chances are better out on the roadJesus paid much too high a price/For us to pick and choose who should comeAnd we are the body of Christ

This song definitely is challenging the church with the great commission seen in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”

It is easy to see this in their songs and the challenges are very clear and is not offensive in language or using some form of shock to try to be like the world.

I think it important as anyone thinks through it to consider that there is a way to write a song without using foul language, or denigrating Heaven as a self-proclaimed Christian, and this is where the world could cry out – Pharisee or Hypocrite.

Let’s be like Casting Crowns in writing lyrics. Music applied can be different, as I liked a lot of the beats from Derek, but that is where a lot of it ended. Time to be in the world, but not of the world, including in our “Christian” lyrics!

John 15:19, “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

Christian Lyrics

Warning: There is foul language used, as I quote verbatim from a song writer, so if language from a “Christian” songwriter is going to offend you then you may want to skip this blog.

I am looking for input on this blog in particular, because maybe I am missing something today or maybe I am just finally considered “old fashioned.” Either way, I am going to work through my thought process with you, and it is not complete, and I am hoping some of you can fill in the blanks. I was sent a message to listen to some songs by a singer named Derek Webb, who used to be with Caedmon’s Call.

He had a new album come out called “Stockholm Syndrome” this past summer. And yes, I am just hearing about it now. I know some of you reading are thinking that this is a great album, while others might be thinking the exact opposite. For one song, I am definitely not a fan, as I am not a fan of using swear words for shock value regardless when using them in the framework of a Christian message. Secular movies, TV shows and such do what they do, but when you say you are a “Christian” artist, actor, business man/woman or whatever, it places you on a different level because you are making a claim about what you are doing, but I digress. We will touch on this again in a bit.

I listened to three songs from this album and then read the lyrics of many of them and I must say I am a little confused and a little disappointed and a little understanding at the same time. Meaning, that is where your input comes in to help me with forming my completed thought process. I will lay out mine with Biblical support and then I ask you to do the same if you agree, disagree, or a mixture of the two. But I think this is a good conversation to have to find what the truth is in this issue.

What Matters More lyrics
You say always treat people like you'd like to be/I guess you love being hated for your sexuality/You love when people put words in your mouth/About what you believe/Make you sound like a freakCause if you really believed/What you say you believe/You wouldn't be so damned reckless/With the words you speak/You wouldn't silently consent/When the liars speak/Denying all the dying of the remedy

(Chorus)

Tell me, brother what matters more to you/Tell me, sister what matters more to you

If I can see what's in your heart/By what comes out of your mouth/Then it sure looks to me like being straight/Is all it's about/It looks like being hated/For all the wrong things/Like chasing the wind/While the pendulum swingsCause we can talk and debate/Till we're blue in the face/About the language and tradition/That He's coming to save/And meanwhile we sit/Just like we don't give a shit about/Fifty thousand people who are dying today

Colossians 3:8 Says, “But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.” Yes, in contrast to the comparison he made to people dying that is a small comparison, but it is an apple to a car comparison. The problem is that the Bible tells us not to use such language regardless. Yes, we should be worried about the 50,000 dying today, and I would add to that if you count abortions into that, but I wonder if he did. Either way, why negate one part of the Bible in order to make a point about the other? He is doing exactly what he is complaining about the others doing. He is just rationalizing his is better because death is better to worry about then swearing, but I thought when we tell people about sin, we tell them sin is sin before God regardless of what it is? Seems contradictory and not a great message for youth or anyone. Why not steal then as long as I worry about those dying, and maybe even give some of what I steal to the poor? I will conclude with Ephesians 5:4 in order to give more then one verse, “neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”

Lastly, in the video if you watch it, and not sure that I recommend that you do, so I am not going to promote it with a link. You will have to find it on your own if you so desire. But in the video Derek’s friend is smoking, and if I am not mistaken, cancer is one of the number one killers in America. Why doesn’t he get mad at his friend for smoking, as that is killing him with his second hand smoke? He talks about caring for the 50,000 dying today, but does not cut the smoking scene from his video so as not to promote something that kills. Just another apparent contradiction.

I chose one more song, but most of them all have contradictions in them, or use examples that are not comparable to make an exaggerated point in my opinion. Again, my opinion and maybe you can clear it up for me.

Below are the lyrics to Heaven and I will let you read them and then I will make my comments afterwards.

Lyrics to Heaven

I was killed in a shopping cart/turned upside down and left for dead/i saw a clown try to speak to me/as i floated overhead/i found my way to a familiar place/i swear i’d been sometime before/i would’ve thought it was the marketplace/but i could not find the door

(chorus)

oh i have been to heaven/and i have walked the streets/but i couldn’t find a hand to holdto keep me on my feet

paradise is a parking lot/a spot up front is your reward/and all the rest walk down streets of gold/to the house they could afford/i got lost in the swelling crowd/i could not afford to eat/you only have what you came in with/so i’m living on the streeti heard Jesus Christ was there/he had a car that’s bulletproof/that way everyone is safe/from the man who tells the truth

There is so much that can be said on Heaven that you can type it into my blog and read about it. This song does not do it justice at all and actually plays it down. I find it hard to believe that if he is in Heaven that he would not find someone’s hand to hold. It is the place where you find Christ and those who have died before and gone to Heaven. The chorus is far from true in my opinion and far from glorifying God in any real way. To me it denigrates what Heaven will be like and plays it down way too much. It is a place we are to desire to go, as that is where Christ is. "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (Jn. 14:2, 3).

I guess my concern in the end is how do these songs help the cause of Christ in any fashion since they use poorly done examples, foul language and he contradicts his very song within the video. I just don’t get it. Maybe you can help. All I ask is that if you are going to comment is that you use Biblical support for your arguments, as we are dealing with a Christian artist and not a secular artist.

All We Need Is Love. Really?

What if you loved your neighbor the way you love yourself? Think about it. What if you treated your neighbor the way you treat yourself (talking to yourself in your head, the way you think about yourself, and how you see yourself in God). How much would they like you?

I have been reading and hearing people talk and write about love and how love is the answer as a Christian. The problem is that is not true. Love is not the answer, Christ is. Love is the outworking of what we have in Christ, because He loved us first. We cannot love properly on our own, as it is all self-diluted.

Love has been washed down in Western thought. When you read about it, it is always the same old cheesy examples used. Give to the poor, help the widow and down trodden. Those are great and good, but the easy form of love. A lot of people that write on this subject don’t seem to want to get to the deeper levels and the harder levels of love. Atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and many other religions help the poor and down trodden. Just look at Haiti today as a great example. Not everyone donating is a Christian.

What if your mother, daughter, or sister was taken and brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, the LRA, or some strange occult. What would your love look like when you see them in court? Would you love your enemy? Would you walk up and say, “I forgive you and love you because of what Christ did for me?” Honestly, I cannot say that would be my response, or I would have that kind of love, because it is severely difficult and goes against every fiber of my being.

What about love that hurts? Jesus said that love for Him in comparison should be like hating your parents. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). What about Jesus’ violent act in the temple when He chased out the vendors from the temple? Matthew 21:12 says, “Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.” How come He did not walk up and tell them how much He loved them, or did He do this by His violent act?

Seems to me to be much more to love then what we talk and write about much of the time. Probably because we don’t want to think about the harder side of love. The love that disciplines, or allows bad things to happen for God’s ultimate purpose. Or allows people the choice to sin and commit heinous acts of horror; like what happened in Rwanda.

Interestingly enough, we have seen more acts of love in places like Rwanda amongst Christians then we do in most places on earth. They repented as a nation and forgave those that stole their children and turned them into cold hearted killers, which ultimately led some of them to Christ. They could have killed them, or tortured them once caught, but they didn’t. Why? If I knew that my son was made to help bite his own brother to death by one of the LRA leaders, I would want revenge. Wouldn’t you? They did not because the love of Christ exuded through them. This is true love, when every inch of your sin nature wants to take revenge for yourself, to act in violence, and yet you love them. Yes, some did retaliate, and in some ways it is hard for me not to blame them, because I struggle with that kind of love, real love that makes us demonstrate it in non-violent actions against our very nature.

My point is love is not just some warm and fuzzy feeling. And Christ even talks about how non-believers demonstrate this kind of love. What sets Christian love apart is our love is bound in what Christ did for us. While we were yet sinners (enemies of God), He sent His Son to die for us (you and me), so that we may no longer be an enemy of God but His family. Loving your enemies takes on a whole new dimension when thought of in these terms.

Love is not easy. Jesus tells us the whole world is going to hate us, because it first hated Him. John 15:18 says, “If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me before it hated you.” If that is the case, then even our good acts are going to be seen as bad at times, right? Jesus lived a Holy Life and they killed Him for it. He loved like no other and it cost Him His life.

We tend to forget when Jesus was harsh on people when we talk about love. Love is also telling the truth when it needs to be said in the matter that it needs to be said, and sometimes that is not pleasant. Look at the names Jesus called Peter, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and His disciples throughout the Gospels. At times the love He showed was not easy to hear and not easy to take. He was also blunt at times, though softly, as with the woman at the well, but still a hard truth said in love.

We need to give people the whole picture of love when we write and talk. Yes, giving and helping the needy is a large part, but that actually falls a lot of the time in righteousness and justice. Take time to study those areas in context sometime, though those are aspects of love as well.

Love is giving your life away so that others may love. “To live is Christ to die is gain,” as said by the apostle Paul. Love cares about your enemies and their salvation. Love prays for blessings for those that we despise. Love is only capable through Jesus Christ.

How well are you doing?

Who Did Jesus Say He Was

Isaiah 44:6, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.”

Rev. 1:17, “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.”

I have talked before about Jesus in the sense that He cannot be seen just as a great moral teacher, but in this article I want to look at what Jesus said about Himself. Did He believe He was the Savior of the World, or just another prophet or teacher? There are six strong arguments that Jesus believed He was the Christ, the Savior, God’s only Son. He believed He was the only way for us to get to Heaven.

The first claim we will cover is that Jesus claimed to be YHWH from the Old Testament. You can see from the first two verses when compared to each other. The first is from Isaiah when God is talking and the second is from Revelation and Jesus is talking to John, and they claim the same exact thing. Jesus is claiming the same status as the God of the Old Testament. You can also compare these verses as well:

John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep,” compared to Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.”

Jesus claimed to be judge of all people in Matt. 25:31f, “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.”; John 5:27f, “and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.”; compare to Joel 3:12, “Let the nations be wakened, and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.”

Jesus called Himself the Light of the World in John 8:12, “Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” and compare it to Psalm 27:1, “The LORD is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The LORD is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid?”

Probably the strongest claim that Jesus claimed to be YHWH is in John 8:58 where he says, “Before Abraham I was I am.” This statement claims existence before Abraham, but also equality with the I am of Exodus 3:14, “And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Jesus claimed many times to be the same as the God of the Old Testament. No other person has claimed the same authority as God as Jesus has. Not Muhammad, not Buddha, not Krishna, nor any other leader of any other religion.

Second, Jesus claimed the prerogatives of God. As forgiving sin, which is something only God can do. We see an example of this in Mark 2:5-11, “When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

Jesus claimed power to raise and judge the dead in John 5:21-29, and the O.T. taught that only God is the giver of life in Deut. 32:39. This is another prerogative of God, just as saying He should be honored as God, as Jesus did in John 5:23.

The third argument is pretty much a plain and simple statement by Jesus, as He just comes out and claims to be the Messiah. We even find in the Koran, Jesus being referred to as Messiah, “The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate!” (Surah 5:75). It is also found previously in Surah 5:17.

Jesus said He was the Messiah at His trial before the high priest in Mark 14:61-64, “But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.”

Jesus also applies the passage of Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said to my Lord,“Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” where Father & Son hold a conversation and then applies it to Himself in Matt. 22:43-44, “He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:‘ The LORD said to my Lord,“ Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’

Our fourth application of who Christ is comes from the form of worship. Only God was to be honored with worship, especially in Jewish culture, but Jesus (a Jew) accepted worship. The O.T. forbids worship of anything except God in Exodus 20:1-4 & Deut. 5:6-9. N.T. agrees with this as we see in Acts 14:15 & Rev. 22:8-9. Now compare those verses with these verses in regards to Jesus:

Matt. 9:18, “While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live.” Matt. 14:33, “Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.” Matt. 15:25, “Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” Matt. 20:20, “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.” Mark 5:6, “When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped Him.” Matt. 28:17, “When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.”

Our fifth reason is that Jesus claimed authority with God. Jesus put His words on par with God, Matt. 5:21- 22, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matt. 28:18-19, “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Jesus made a new commandment that only God should be able to do in John 13:34, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” Jesus speaks of those that reject Him in John 12:48, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.” Only God has the authority to do the things that Jesus is claiming here, thus saying He is God.

Lastly, Jesus requested that His name be used in prayer. In John 14:13-14 Jesus said that what is asked in His name He would do for the apostles. John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” 1 Cor. 5:4, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Acts 7:59, “And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Again, no other religious leader has made such strong claims about themselves. They may have tried to show they are able to perform or come close to one of the points above, but none have ever claimed all of them.

C.S. Lewis put it best when he said that Jesus was either a lunatic on par with a poached egg, the greatest deceiver on par with Satan himself, or Savior and Lord. There is no middle ground with all the claims He has made about Himself. You can shrug Him off as crazy, say He was a deceiver by the claims He made, or fall on your knees and accept Him as Savior and Lord.

There is no other choice, because of the claims Jesus made. He did not leave it any other way, and I believe on purpose. No one can just say He is a great teacher, because no great teacher claims to be God in all ways, or to be God at all.

Acts 4:11-12, “This Jesus is The stone despised by you builders, who has become the cornerstone. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved.”

Selling Jesus!

Luke 6:13, “No household slave can be the slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t be slaves to both God and money.”

We are all familiar with the typical TBN and other Christian TV stations that have the televangelists that ask for money and promise that if you send them money that you will be blessed. They prey on the promises of health and wealth in our lives and if we just give them a large gift those worldly things we desire most will be ours. The “name it, claim it,” crowd.

But that is not the group I am talking about today, and I wish it were, as it seems to be seeping into the evangelical circles now, but in a more subtle way. I just read a pamphlet or small newsletter and in it there was a quote about the donations they received that struck me. They were asking for money for their online outreach and said, “It takes support from caring friends like you to build, update and maintain our life-transforming websites. Each gift of just $5.25 on average translates to one decision for Christ.” I am purposely leaving out the group, because in other areas they do great things, but there is so much wrong in this one sentence that I do not know where to start.

First, the wording is made to play on your emotions by utilizing words as “caring friends” and “life transforming.” It is used to make you feel emotionally and build a level of responsibility to give to this particular ministry. If it stopped here, I probably would not have an issue, but they take it a step farther that truly blows my mind. If you have taken any political or psychology classes you learn quite quickly that it is easy to devise material to play on a person’s emotions. In later classes you are even taught how to write those letters and polls to attain the results you are looking for.

They say as matter of fact that giving a gift on average of $5.25 that it will bring someone to Christ. This is amazing! We should stop all churches immediately and take all donations and give to this organization and we will have brought everyone to Christ in a matter of days. This truly negates the power of the Spirit to make a claim, but instead is based on your financial gift. You can now buy someone’s salvation. Sounds a lot like Simony, which was used years ago in another misleading fashion to attain more money for the church. In this case it is for a ministry.

What is the difference between saying that your $5.25 will bring someone to Christ, anymore then saying that donating so much will bring your desires to life. In particular, if your desire is to see more people come to Christ.

As I ponder on it more, how do they truly know that person accepted Christ? Yes, we can say that about anyone, but within the church we can at least see the Fruit of the Spirit, as talked about in James. We can guide them through Sunday School, small groups and mentoring programs to help build them up, but in this case they just click a link that says they accepted Christ, as it is all internet based.

Christ never asked for money for bringing people to Christ. The apostles never asked for money to bring people to Christ. They talked about supporting the pastor in his work, taking care of widows and the needy, but when it comes to evangelism then it is the duty of all of us. This gives another great excuse to not live out the command Jesus gave us before His ascension, to go out and make disciples and baptize them. Now, I can just send in $5.25 and let the internet do it for me. No responsibility whatsoever.

I am not discounting the internet in reaching out to non-Christians, but I think we have to temper the reliance and the success that it will have in salvation experiences, especially by saying that we can purchase them. It becomes almost like a works based, or in this case a purchased based salvation. None of us can buy the salvation for anyone, as it is a personal choice between them and God, and the language used in this article makes people believe they can buy someone’s salvation. Puts too much emphasis on man and not on the Holy Spirit, and can lead to money being given too much power.

I will close how they closed and you make the decision on how this sounds:

“With 500,000 website “hits” a month, more than 8,000 of those people indicate a decision for Christ. That means on average every $5.25 invested helps one person choose Jesus. Your gift of $52.50 will lead to 10 decisions for Christ, $78.75 will lead to 15 decisions. And your generous gift of $105.00 will lead to 20 decisions for Christ!”

For the clincher they could have added, “And if you order your salvation today for just $5.25....we'll throw in 2 crowns of righteousness for just an extra $2.00 and your daily cross to take up is absolutely free!"

1 Timothy 1:10, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.”

PROVE IT!

Matthew 8:1-3, “When He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then Jesus put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”

This scene intrigues me every time I read it. Now bear with me, as it leads into another area, but this is how the trail started for me and I hope you are able to follow along. I hear a lot of Christians today talk about the social agenda of the church and complaining about it, but at times I think what they think of as social justice and “doing” is much different then what Jesus and the apostles were doing. Many people are doing what I am about to describe below, but I think there is a big discrepancy lately in talk and action by some.

In the scene above Jesus could have just told the leper that he was healed and to go and present himself to the right people and to give the proper offering, but he doesn’t. He touches him. This is huge in so many ways. We see Jesus at other times just tell people they are healed and not touch them, so why is it such a big deal here? It is because this man would not have been

touched since he acquired the disease, except maybe by other lepers. He would have had to cry out that he was disease stricken if he was in public, and anyone touching him besides other diseased would be considered unclean. Jesus did not care, He reached out and touched this man.

I wonder if the man actually jerked back first out of fear or recoiled because he was conditioned not to allow a clean man to touch him. Once he felt the touch, he probably melted. Someone cared and loved him as a human and touched his diseased ridden skin. How incredible just for that to happen! Then Jesus goes onto heal him. I know the man was excited about being healed, but I will bet he never forgot the touch out of love from Jesus. How does this compare to today?

Today, especially at the holidays, is when everyone thinks of the poor, sick and widows. For some reason they barely exist in our sights the rest of the year. I read a lot of different materials and it amazes me how people try to rationalize actions or why they do or don’t do something based on the poor. If you have to rationalize it, then it is not out of love. If you feel guilty then do something about it. If you are worried about having extra food after Thanksgiving because you bought a huge turkey on sale then give the rest away. It is simple. Or prepare a complete meal for some one in need and give it to them. Why the mental gymnastics about feeling guilty for buying something cheap? Maybe that is God’s way of telling you to buy another one for a poor family. Shoes on sale and super cheap, buy one for yourself and another for a widow.

Two examples of this came to mind and I don’t think they will mind me using them as an example, as I did not ask them first, but they definitely demonstrated this. Both happened in India. I took Jeremie Bair with me one year to experience India and to help me out with teaching and also to help with some other areas that needed assistance. While there I had them take us downtown for Jeremie to get a feel for their city and also to buy a gift for his then girlfriend and now wife. As we walked into a small mall, Jeremie noticed a very poor (makes much of our poverty look wealthy) man sitting begging. Jeremie said hello to him and tried to talk to him for a moment and then we went in to eat at Subway, yes they have Subway there. Jeremie bought the same lunch he had for this man. He could have rationalized and said that he just needs a sandwich, but he saw this young man just as he saw himself and thought he would like the same thing as him and not less just because he has less money.

Jeremie did not rationalize that about the cost or the deal, but instead just bought him the same thing, treating him as an equal. He did not do mental gymnastics about how he would not be able to spend as much on his wife, but saw a need and the Spirit convicted him and he acted on it. Jeremie took the food out to him and talked again for a bit and they both were smiling at each other. Jeremie touched him in many ways. Did the man except Christ, no, but maybe the next Christian that does the same thing will have the opportunity. Jeremie just acted on love through a social action. I wonder if he even remembers doing it, because it was so selfless that it was humbling.

The other was Jayakumar who came home one day and we found out he had no shoes. He left with brand new shoes, so everyone was wondering why he had no shoes to wear. He was at the airport and started talking to a young man and found out he was a pastor in a remote village and was very poor and had no shoes, except some very old flip-flops. Without thinking, Jayakumar took off his shoes and gave them to this young pastor. He did not think that he was going to have to go the rest of the way home in no shoes, or attain the man’s address and promise to send him his shoes. He took off his shoes and gave them to him. No mental gymnastics needed. He saw a need for a fellow believer, knew he could provide, and did it. Of course, if you know Jayakumar, this is not shocking, and I could tell you story after story of this man doing this very thing to many strangers. He lives it. He doesn’t just sit around and philosophize about it and make excuses about how guilty he feels for buying extra food on sale, because he lives out what Jesus commands.

What if the church did this today like they did in Acts? What if every church that has over 3 million in an endowment put at least 1 million aside for helping the poor, widows and sick within their congregations and communities? How much would change? But we can’t do that, because those endowments are specific to buildings and carpet and stuff. Interesting, wonder what God will say about that when we stand before Him to give an account. “Well Father we had 10 million in our endowment, but it was just for building mortar.” Sounds silly, right? Maybe churches should set a policy like in the book of Acts where once you give it to the church, it is their responsibility to utilize it in a Biblical fashion. My uncle once said and I now believe it, “endowments are Satan’s best tool to keep money from being used within the church.”

Instead of all the talk, and I am just as guilty, instead why don’t we act? What are you doing to help the poor, needy or widowed, first within the church then outside? If you are poor and in need, where do you go first? There needs to be accountability and make sure people are not taking advantage of the system, but that also should not be an excuse to help those in need.

It is time to see if we are truly following what we like to talk about all the time and try to pat ourselves on the back about. Do you give till it hurts? Do you give even 3% of your income to the church to help? Because if those that call themselves Christians even gave 3% of their income to the church in the U.S. the church would have more money then they would know what to do with, and then what could be done? Amazing things I bet.

It is not just the money, but also the attitude. What is your attitude about the poor and widows? Do you truly love them? Prove it. Do you truly care? Prove it. Not to me or you, but to Jesus who set the example and commanded us to take care of those in need with love, not obligation.

Acts 4:32-35, “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.”

RESURRECTION-THE FOUNDATION

“As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you’re wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat.” – Anthony Flew

If someone were to ask you the foundation to our faith, what would you say? Of course many who are Christians would say, Jesus Christ, and that is right, but what about Him makes Him your foundation? Too many just say the name and have no idea what it is about Him that makes Jesus the foundation.

Jesus is not the foundation because He was a great moral teacher, because He did not leave that as a possibility. Jesus said He came to break apart families, which does not seem very “moral” as being just a good teacher (Matt. 10:34-39). Jesus said some who called Him Lord would not enter Heaven (Matt. 7:21), and there are many other examples, as He said He came to bring a sword. Jesus being a good moral teacher is not the foundation, though if He is God then we can account for Him being able to say what He did in the above verses, but if He was just a man then no, we can’t.

The foundation for our faith is that Christ rose from the dead, just as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:13-15, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.”

Rob Bell in his book, Velvet Elvis, says we should just think of this like a spring in a trampoline and if we take that spring out, then we can still jump on the trampoline and it does not hurt our faith, but this goes against this very verse. He says we should not have walls like bricks, but I say that is absolutely what we should have, just as Christ called Himself the cornerstone, we should have walls for our foundation and the resurrection is a very important one (27-28). If you take out the resurrection spring of the trampoline then it fails, just as if you pull the resurrection out of the Christian foundation it crumbles, as Jesus’ resurrection is key or we are still in our sins and also blaspheme God by saying it (1 Cor. 15:15). Mr. Bell holds to a false picture and sets up for false beliefs.

Muffasir, as Muslim, said this about the crucifixion, “Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but God saved him from their plot.” If he never died then He never resurrected. Sura 157-58 says, “That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle to God’; -- But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, And those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, For of a surety they killed him not: -- Nay, God raised him up unto himself; and God is exalted in power, wise.” If Jesus did not die then He did not defeat death for our sins and then we are stuck in them (1 Cor. 15:17). How do you witness to a person that believes this? You have to be able to show the reality of the death and the resurrection and not just talk about how God changed you, as they will tell you allah did that for them.

As Christians it is important that we preach and teach the resurrection of Christ, and be able to defend it, as 1 Peter 3:15 states and Jude 3. Actually, those two verses tell us to be able to give an answer for any question about the faith we have. A transformed life is not an answer, but an outcome. People need answers to their questions and they are not getting them today. Many youth I have talked with have not been taught in youth how to defend the resurrection, or even how to have real faith, not blind faith, in the resurrection. Faith based on evidence as seen all through out the Old and New Testament and defined in Hebrews 11:1.

Can you defend the resurrection? Can you tell someone how your faith is based on sure fire knowledge that Christ is not in the tomb? What if someone asked you to tell them about the resurrection and how someone could believe in it? What would you say? They will not care that God changed you, as this is a pluralistic and self-centered society and they want to know about themselves. You will get the answer, ‘that is good for you, but what about the resurrection and how it affects me? How can I be sure of the resurrection? Is there proof, evidence of this event that I was not present at?’

There are many ways to defend our faith, and we are called to do so. Anything else is a cop out to Christ and the faith. If you do not have the ability to defend the resurrection then you need to find information on it. Good books are More Then a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, Case for Christ by Lee Strobell, Resurrection by Hank Hanegraaff, and Dr. Norman Geisler & Gary Habermas’ many works on the resurrection.

“Christianity is a knowledge tradition, not a “mere belief” tradition, and in order to grow our God-confidence, one of the important tasks before us is to grow in our knowledge of God and his Word.” – J.P. Moreland & Klaus Issler

The Importance of Premillennialism

The Importance of Premillennialism
by Norman L. Geisler2009

Introduction
Premillennialism is the belief that Christ will physically return to earth (Acts 1:6-11; Rev. 1:7), set up a throne in Jerusalem (Matt. 19:28), and reign over the whole earth for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-6). Amillennialism (no-millennium) denies this literal future reign of Christ and claims that Christ is currently reigning over the world spiritually. Postmillennialism holds that Christ is coming to earth after the Church brings in the kingdom by progressively Christianizing the world before Christ’s return.

Arguments for Premillennialism
There are many arguments for premillennialism. Contrary to the opposing views, the premillennial view is based on a consistent use of the literal historical-grammatical interpretation of prophetic passages of Scripture. There are many good reasons for believing in a literal millennial reign of Christ are noteworthy.

1. Without a Millennium God Lost the Battle in History
God started human history by creating human beings in a literal Paradise (Gen.1-2). It had trees, plants, animals, and rivers (Gen. 2). It had a specific geographical location on earth, by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Iraq). There was no sin, evil, or suffering there. Our first parents Adam and Eve lived in a perfect physical environment.

But this Paradise was lost by sin. Being tempted by the Devil, Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:16-17), thus bringing pain, suffering, and death on themselves (Gen. 3:14-19) and on all mankind (Rom. 5:12; Rom. 8:18-25). They were expelled from the Garden which was sealed off and guarded by an angel (Gen. 3:24). So, the Tempter won the first battle. He brought death, its results, and its fear on mankind (Heb. 2:14).

If the Paradise lost is never regained, then eventually God is the loser and Satan the winner. If physical death is not reversed by physical resurrection (Jn. 5:28-29), then Satan gains the ultimate victory (Heb. 2:14). And if a literal Paradise is not restored, then God lost what He created. But God is omnipotent (Rev. 19:6) and cannot ultimately lose. Hence, there must be a literal Paradise regained such as we have in the premillennial view of the End of history. Otherwise, God did not reverse the curse and gain the victory over Satan, the damaged earth, and the fallen human race.

But God will regain the Paradise that was lost. This He will do this by a literal resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12-19; Luke 24:39-43) and by the literal reign on earth of Christ the Last Adam. He will reign until death is actually defeated (1 Cor. 15:24-27. But this will not be until the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:4-6) and the beginning of the New Heaven and Earth of which John says, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Rev. 21:4). So, only by a literal reign of Christ on earth, such as the millennium shall be, will the true Paradise be restored.

2. Without A Millennium History Has no Climax
It is widely acknowledged that a linear view of history (that history is moving forward toward a final Goal) is the result of the Judeo-Christian revelation. History is said to be His-story for God has planned it and is moving it (Dan. 2, 7) forward toward its End (Eschaton). But without a literal historical millennium on earth there is no real End to history. According to a traditional amillennial view, human history merely stops, but it never really comes to a climax. It simply ends and then the eternal state begins. However, on the premillennial view, the millennium is not the first chapter of eternity; it is the last chapter of time. It is the time when, by Christ’s reign, sin, suffering, and death will be finally overcome. For only “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24-25). But Christ only does this through His millennial reign which ends in the final resurrection (Rev. 20:5). So without a literal millennium there is no real End to history.

3. Without a Millennium God Would Break an Unconditional Land Promise to Abraham.
God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendents forever. This Land covered everything west of the Jordan River from Egypt to Iraq. “The Lord made a covenant with Abram saying: ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates’”( Gen. 15:18). God said to Abraham: “I give to you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8). “For all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever” (Gen. 13:15).

This land promise was also unconditional since only God sealed it by passing through the split sacrifice while Abram slept. God said to Abram, “Bring Me a three-year old heifer, a three year old female goat, a three year old ram...and cut them in two.... Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram.... And it came to pass when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there was a smoking oven and burning torch that passed between those pieces. On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, to your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates...” (Gen. 15:9-18).
The Bible declares that “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). God’s promises don’t depend on our faith but on his faithfulness. For “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). God’s promise was immutable. For “When God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself.... Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation” (Heb. 6:13-18).

But this land promise to Abraham has never yet been fulfilled. However, according to the Bible it will yet be fulfilled (Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8; Rom. 11) in the future in the thousand year reign of Christ (Rev. 20:1-6). Even after the days of Joshua (21:43), the land promise was yet future (Jer. 11:5; Amos 9:14-15). Without a literal national fulfillment, such as the millennium, God would have broken an unconditional covenant-which is impossible (Heb. 6:17-18)!

4. Without a Millennium God would Break an Unconditional Throne Promise to David
God promised David that he and his descendents would reign on a throne in Israel forever. He declared, “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and...I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.... My steadfast love will not depart from him.... And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:12-16).

This was an unconditional promise to David and his descendants for God declared that: “My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law...then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness....I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever...” (Psa. 89:28-37).

However, no descendent of David is now-nor has been for over 2500 years-reigning on a literal throne in Jerusalem. But Jesus promised that Christ, a descendent of David, would do so in the future (Matt. 19:28). So, this unconditional and everlasting promise has not yet been literally fulfilled. Without Christ’s return and perpetual reign God would have broken this unconditional promise. But this is impossible (Rom. 11:29). Therefore, there must yet be a literal Messianic reign of Christ on earth such as is promised in the millennium (Rev. 20:1-6).

As hymn-writer Isaac Watts put it,
Jesus shall reign where e’er the sun Does its successive journeys run; His kingdom spread from shore to shore, Till moons shall wax and wane no more. To Him shall endless prayer be made, And endless praises crown His head. His name like sweet perfume shall rise With every morning sacrifice.

5. Only Premillennialism Employs a Consistent Hermeneutic
To deny premillennialism is to deny the consistent application of the literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible. For the non-premill view fails because: 1) It takes parts of the Bible literally but not all (e.g., prophecy); 2) It takes part of the prophets literally (First Advent) but not all of the Second Advent texts; 3) It takes part of the Gospels literally, namely, Christ’s death and resurrection (Matt. 26-28) but not all of Jesus’ predictions made in the Gospels, namely, His statements about His Second Coming (Matt. 19:28; Matt. 24-25); 4); It takes part of a verse literally but not the rest. When quoting Isaiah Jesus stopped in the middle of a sentence and pronounced it literally fulfilled (in His First Coming), but the rest of the verse speaks of His Second Coming which must be taken literally too (cf. Isa. 61:1-2 cf. Luke 4:18-21); 5) It takes one resurrection literally but not the other (Rev. 20:5-6; John 5:28-29). But the two are listed together in the same texts. Both are said to involve people coming out of graves (Jn. 5:25-28) where dead bodies reside.

Further, if the non-literal (spiritualized) interpretations of amills and postmills were applied to other sections of Scripture it would undermine the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. If applied to Gen. 1-3, it would deny the historicity of Adam, the Fall, and the Doctrine of Creation. (If the End isn't literal, then why should the Beginning be literal?) If applied to the texts about the Cross, it would deny the atonement. And if applied to the resurrection narratives, it would deny Christ’s victory over death. In short, applying the same hermeneutic, which non-premills apply to prophecy, to other parts of the Bible would deny the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. This is why premillennial-ism is based on a kind of hermeneutical fundamental of the Christian Faith. There are three kinds of fundamentals: 1) Doctrinal fundamentals (e.g., the Trinity, Deity of Christ, Sacrificial Atonement, and Resurrection). These are a test of evangelical authenticity. 2) Epistemological fundamentals--Inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture). This is a test of evangelical consistency. 3) Hermeneutical fundamentals (a literal hermeneutic and premillennialism that results from it). This too is a test of evangelical consistency. So, to deny the foundation of premillennialism, is logically to undermine salvation fundamentals as well.

6. Premillennialism Adds Urgency to Evangelism.
Premillennialism, especially in those who hold the imminency of Christ’s return, creates a certain sense of urgency not generated by the other views. For if Christ is coming before the millennium at a time we know not, then believers should live in a constant sense of expectation. Jesus said, "Occupy till I come" (Luke 19:13) and “Night is coming, when no one can work.” If one believes his time is limited and Christ may come at any moment, then he will have more of a sense of urgency about evangelism. This, of course, is not to say that there is no sense of urgency in the other views for everyone is going to die and some will die at any given moment. But there is a far greater sense of urgency if one believes it could be our last opportunity to reach anyone at any moment.

It is no coincidence that many of the modern missionary movements (William Carey, David Livingston, and Adoniron Judson) and evangelistic efforts (John Wesley, Billy Sunday, D. L. Moody, and Billy Graham) were headed by premillennialists. For the belief in an imminent premillennial coming of Christ gives a great sense of urgency in reaching the world before he returns.

7. Premillennial Imminency Adds an Incentive for Holiness
It is not that there are no other incentives for godliness, but certainly the imminent premillennial expectation is an added one. For no true believer wants to be caught in sin when Jesus returns. The apostle John declared: “But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:2-3). Paul declared that this “blessed hope helps in “training us to renounce ungodliness” and to set apart a people “zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). So, the sense of imminency has a purifying effect on one’s life. It also has a sobering effect. As Peter said, “The day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives” (2 Pet. 3:10-11).

Answering Some Objections
Opponents of premillennialism have offered many objections. Some have already been answered above. Others are trivial and do not warrant the time necessary to answer them. However, a few deserve comment here.

Objection One: The millennium is mentioned only once in the Bible (Rev. 20). Thus, it is argued, that it cannot be an important doctrine. If it were, it would be mentioned more often.

Response: First of all, one mention in the Bible makes something true since God cannot err (Heb. 6:18), and the Bible is God’s word (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). What is more, the word “millennium” occurs six times in the Bible which makes it not only true but important. John wrote: “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for [1] a thousand years...so that she might not deceive the nations any longer, until [2] the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.. They came to life and reigned with Christ for [3] a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until [4] the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for [5] a thousand years. And when [6] the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison” (Rev. 20:1-7).

Second, the length of Christ reign is only mention in Revelation 20, but the fact of his reign is mentioned numerous times in both Old and New Testaments (See Isa.11; Zech. 12, 14; Mat. 24; Acts 1:6-8; Rev. 19, 20).

Third, while premillennialism is not one of the essential salvation doctrines (see our Conviction without Compromise, Part One), nonetheless, as mentioned above (in Point 5), premillennialism is based on an interpretation fundamental. And denying the literal interpretation of prophecy (which is the basis of premillennialism), logically leads to denying salvation fundamentals as well. For if Genesis or the Gospels were allegorized or spiritualized in the manner that opponents of premillennialism do, it would undermine the basic salvation essentials of the Faith too.

Objection Two: The promises to Abraham and David were said to be “forever,” but the millennium is only a thousand years. How can a thousand years be a fulfillment of these promises that it will be forever?.

Response: The Hebrew word for “forever” (olam) or “everlasting” can mean a long period of time, not literally without end. The mountains are called “everlasting” (Deut. 33:15). Psalm 89 seems to designate that “forever” (vs. 28, 36) will be as long as the sun and the moon last (vs. 36-37), and they will not shine in eternity (Rev. 21:23). Since the Bible says there will be and end of the millennium (Rev. 20:4-6) and Paul said there will be and “end” of Christ’s reign on earth (1 Cor. 15:24), then the limited meaning of “forever” as a long period of time (i.e., a thousand years) would explain the problem. However, once Christ reigns and delivers the kingdom to the Father it will literally go on forever (1 Cor. 15:24). So, in this sense Christ’s reign will be eternal.

Objection Three: Premillennialists are not Consistent It is objected that even the premill view takes some prophetic passages symbolically and figuratively, such as the seven “stars” (angels),“lamp stands” (churches), and “beasts” (world powers) in the book of Revelation. If so, why should not “a thousand years” be symbolic of a long period of time and “144,000” from the “twelve tribes of Israel” (Rev. 7, 14) be symbolic of the Church, and so on.

Response: First, figures of speech are not contrary to a literal interpretation since even they are based in a literal meaning. For example, just because there is a “key” (a symbol of secure containment) to the bottomless pit where the Devil is consigned for a thousand years does not mean there is no real Devil. Second, the Book of Revelation identifies many things as symbols, but it gives their literal meaning (cf. Rev. 1:20). Third, all these symbols represent literal people, things, and events. Fourth, the worlds “tribe” and “resurrection are never used figuratively in the Bible. Even symbols have a literal meaning (Rev. 1:20). Fifth, the rule of thumb still stands: “If the literal sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.” Finally, amillennial interpretations are inconsistent for in the same passage (Rev. 20) they take one “resurrection” literally and the other one spiritually. “They came to life [at first resurrection] and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life [at the second resurrection] until the thousand years were ended.” John goes on to say, “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power...and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:4-7). But if the second resurrection is literal (as amills admit), then so is the first resurrection literal since it is described by the same phrase in the same passage and it is called “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6).

Objection Four: The Prophecies about Israel are fulfilled spiritually by the Church. According to this “replacement theology,” Israel was disobedient and lost the conditional promises God made to them. Thus, God replaced Israel with a new “spiritual Israel” (Gal. 6:16) known as the Church who fulfill the “new covenant” made with Israel (Jer. 31 cf. Heb. 8).

Response: First of all, the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were not conditional, as shown above (in Points 3 and 4); they were unconditional (cf. Rom. 11:29).
Second, nowhere in the New Testament is the Church called “Spiritual Israel.” The passages in Galatians 6:16, which uses the term “Israel of God,” is equivalent of “the true circumcision” (Phil. 3:3 NASB) who worship God in spirit and put no confidence in the flesh. Both of these mean literal Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah and are living in his grace, not trying to attain salvation by keeping the law (cf. Rom. 10:1-4). Second, although the new covenant was made with Israel, its benefits were not limited to Jews. Even Abraham was told “through you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). And the prophets often spoke of Gentile salvation (Acts 15:17 citing Amos 9:11-12).

Third, the New Testament Church (where Jew and Gentile are in one spiritual body) was not known in the Old Testament (Col. 1:26-27) but “was not made known to the sons of men in other generations” but only in the time of the New Testament “apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:5-6).

Fourth, the New Testament refers to a future literal kingdom for Israel, even after the time of Christ. Jesus disciples asked when he would “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6-8). Even after the Church began (in Acts 2), Peter promised to “the men of Israel” (Acts 3:12) the “restoring of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:21). Romans 11 speaks of national “Israel” being reincrafted after “the fullness of the Gentiles as come in” (Rom. 11:25-26). This he says in the context of reminding them that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29). Nowhere, does the Bible affirm that God’s unconditional land and throne promises to Israel will be fulfilled by the Church. To be sure individual believers receive the spiritual salvation benefits (Rom. 4; Gal. 3) promised to Gentiles in the Old Testament (Gen. 12:3; Amos 9:11-12), but never does the Bible affirm that the irrevocable promises to national Israel will be fulfilled in the church. These promises are yet to be fulfilled in a literal millennial reign of Christ on earth (Acts 19:29; Rev. 20:1-6).

Conclusion
Our spiritual forefathers did not put premillennialism in our doctrinal statement because they thought it was unimportant. To the contrary, premillennialism is based on a hermeneutical (interpretation) fundamental. The literal historical/grammatical fundamental on which it is based underlies all the salvation fundamentals of the Faith. Giving it up belies to serious problems for the future of the church. First, we are giving up the very basis for all the fundamental Christian doctrines. Second, there is the underlying tendency to sacrifice important doctrines for the sake of unity, fraternity, or multiplicity (growth). Yielding to this tendency sets a bad precedent for future deviation on even more important issues. One final thought. It is of more than passing significance to note that few, if any, evangelical groups ever move from premillennialism to liberalism. However, this is not true of amillennial and postmillennial views. So, it is not without good reason that premillennialism is a safeguard against liberalism.

*Dr. Geisler has a BA, MA, ThM, and PhD (in philosophy). He is an author of some 70 books and has taught philosophy and ethics at the College and Graduate level for fifty years. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary (www.VeritasSeminary.com). His articles and materials are available at www.normgeisler.com.

God of Islam vs. God of Christianity

Below are some comparisons between Islam and Christianity. I am putting this up because I think it is important to look at the differences and also, because there seems to be more attention given lately to the Muslim faith being that of peace and loving. Now there may be some people that are peaceful and loving in Islam, but when you read these comparisons, you make the decision about the two faiths. Also, amazing how they can have a prayer function for Islam that receives all kinds of attention, but when the Day of Prayer was canceled, not too much, but I digress.

As you will see the comparison's are taken from a book, which is a great read, and all that I pulled was verses that compare to one another. Just to think about.

GOD OF ISLAM VS GOD OF CHRISTIANITY

Below list is taken from a book entitled, “Islam Unveiled,” by Abdullah Al-araby.

The God of Christianity

Christianity believes in a one triune God, while Islam rejects this concept as blasphemous.

• “They do blaspheme who say Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One Allah.” Surah 5:73

It seems that Islam’s understanding of the Trinity was derived from a Christian heresy which existed in Arabia at the time of Mohammed. This heresy taught a trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Mother (the Virgin Mary), and God the Son (Jesus). The Qur’an says:

• “And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? He (Jesus) will say: Glory to thee, never could I say what I had no right (to say).” Surah 5:116

You would need to lead them to Matthew 28:19-20

• “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
• No sign of Mary anywhere and it still shows that the Son has authority and power.

The Father

Islam does not know a loving Father. An intimate relationship is foreign to them and is also condemned by the Qur’an.

• “(Both) the Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are sons of Allah and His beloved.’ Say: why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are but men of the men He has created.” Surah 5:18

Compare to:

• “Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. . .” Matt. 6:9
• “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” 1 John 3:1-2

The Son

Islam does not accept the role or deity of Jesus Christ.

• “O people of the book! Commit no excess in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth, Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messenger. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist! It will be better for you. For Allah is One Allah. Glory be to Him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son.” Surah 4:171
• “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: who then hath the least power against Allah if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all – everyone that is on earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is in heaven. For Allah hath power over all things.” Surah 5:17

“The God of Islam possesses all power over all things, including the power to erase sin if He so desires and when He so desires. This is completely different from the God of Christianity who is just and merciful, and who must work within the plan of salvation, to satisfy both His mercy and justice. The plan cannot be carried out without the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God, on the cross, on our behalf, in order to pay the penalty of our transgression.”

Compare these two verses:

• “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
• “That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary’,,,but they killed him not, nor crucified him.” Surah 4:157

The Holy Spirit

Islam views the Holy Spirit as an angel.

• “Say the Holy Spirit (The Angel Gabriel) has brought the revelation from they Lord in truth.” Surah 16:102
• “Then We (God) sent to her Our Angel (in the original: Our spirit), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.” Surah 19:17

Compare to

· “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:3

· “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.” Romans 8:16-17