In this video, Dr. Daniel Wallace responds to a handful of common myths about the Bible that are widely populated….
Bible
The Bible as Life’s Instruction Manual (Dennis Prager)
- “…we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams, first (1789–1797) Vice President of the United States, and the second (1797–1801) President of the United States. Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6.
- “Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!’ But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company – I mean hell.”
Charles Francis Adams [ed.], The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. [Boston, 1856], X, p. 254. | Taken from They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, by Paul F. Boller, Jr. & John George, p. 3.
This is the first two segments, truncated a bit, of hour three from Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 “Ultimate Issues Hour: Prager on the Bible, Part 1: ‘Says Who?!’”. Another analogy he uses is a VCS player with the flashing time that was always 12:00… you need an owners manual to get the VHS unit set up and working properly.
Nowadays, many people, particularly those living in Western civilization, no longer regard their society as morally superior to any other. In this video, Dennis Prager lays out how this view does not spring from intellectual rigor, but from intellectual laziness.
The influence of the Bible on every day speech as well is quite amazing. People often do not realize just how much the Bible has influenced the world. For instance, Shakespeare’s work referenced the Bible an estimated 1,350, as one example. Another are some of these well-known idioms/phrases:
- “eye for an eye”
- “land of milk and honey”
- “forbidden fruit”
- “bottomless pit”
- “two-edged sword”
- “God forbid”
- “scapegoat”
- “Land of Nod”
- “by the sweat of your brow”
- “apple of my eye”
- “fire and brimstone”
- “ashes to ashes, dust to dust”
- “a man after my own heart”
- “broken heart”
- “wits’ end”
- “bite the dust”
- “put words in my mouth”
- “put your house in order”
- “nothing but skin and bones”
- “by the skin of your teeth”
- “Behemoth”
- “You’re the man” (or Mensch)
- “nothing new under the sun”
- “a little birdie told me”
- “rise and shine”
- “can a leopard change his spots”
- “eat drink and be merry”
- “writing on the wall”
- “drop in a bucket”
- “fly in the ointment”
- “four corners of the earth”
- “see eye to eye”
- “salt of the earth”
- “go the extra mile”
- “pearls before swine”
- “fall by the wayside”
- “straight and narrow”
- “wolf in sheep’s clothing”
- “blind leading the blind”
- “the 11th hour”
- “kiss of death”
- “give up the ghost”
- “wash your hands of the matter”
- “the truth will set you free”
- “twinkling of an eye”
- “labor of love”
- “live by the sword die by the sword”
- “fall from grace”
- “fight the good fight”
- “the powers that be”
In another article, DENNIS PRAGER notes the following about Deuteronomy 22:5: “A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.“
In the article he goes on to say:
This is an extraordinarily important Torah law—though one suspects its importance has not been appreciated over the past several thousand years, since wearing the clothing of the other sex was rare in societies rooted in the Bible. At the time of this writing, this is no longer the case: this law is widely reviled, regarded as not only archaic, but intolerant, and even immoral. It is therefore imperative to explain what it means, what it does not mean, and why it exists. We will begin with the latter.
As often noted in this commentary, the Torah is rooted in distinctions. Among these distinctions are:
- God and man
- God and nature
- Man and animal
- Good and evil
- Life and death
- Parent and child
- Holy and profane
- Male and female
In the Torah’s views, these distinctions reflect God’s design—and therefore a Designer. In the biblical worldview, recognition of this design makes civilization possible. The demise of these distinctions would mean the end of civilization as we know it. As I explain in Genesis, God spent most of the six days of Creation not creating, but making order. The second verse of the Bible describes the state of the world as chaos (“unformed and void” in this translation) when God began His work. The natural state of the world is chaos; the divine state of the world is ordered; and order means distinctions.
[….]
The most recent distinction to be erased is the subject of this Torah law: the distinction between male and female. Its purpose is to maintain this distinction. How we dress is the most obvious way we declare our sex. Therefore, when a man (who looks like a man, has a male name, etc.) publicly dresses as a woman, or a woman (who looks like a woman, has a female name, etc.) publicly dresses as a man, one of the most basic of God’s distinctions is blurred. The sex-distinction of the human being is so central to God’s plan that it is declared at the beginning of Creation in Genesis 1: “God created the human being in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27; emphasis added).
The Torah is not necessarily addressing individuals who identify as, live as, dress as, take the name of, and appear to others as a member of the opposite sex to which they were born—because such an individual is not publicly blurring the distinction between male and female. The Torah is addressing males who continue to appear male (and often even identify as such) but who publicly dress in female garb, as well as females who appear female (and often even identify as such) but who publicly dress as male.
To be clear, publicly blurring the distinction between man and woman is what is prohibited for individuals here. On the other hand, an individual who identifies as a member of the other sex (“transgender” or “transsexual”), appears to be a member of that sex, takes on a name associated with that sex, and dresses as a member of that sex is not necessarily blurring the distinction God made. The individual who truly feels estranged from his or her biological sex is to be given sympathy, not condemnation. If that person does not publicly blur the male-female distinction, that person would not appear to be violating this law.
What the Torah prohibits is the deliberate blurring of the male-female distinction. For example, the winner of the viewed-around-the-world Eurovision contest in 2014 was Thomas Neuwirth, a bearded Austrian man, who performed under the name Conchita Wurst as a drag queen—a man wearing women’s clothing (a floor-length formal gown). He has explicitly stated he is not transgender, but a male who identifies as a male. What he did at Eurovision would be prohibited by this Torah law. So would the practice in America beginning in the second decade of the twenty-first century of “Drag Queen Story Hours”—teachers inviting drag queens to perform in front of children, starting in kindergarten.
How God regards an individual who is convinced he or she is living in the wrong body is not addressed here. I believe God both has standards (that we never blur the male-female distinction) and compassion (for those few individuals who do not identify with their biological sex), and so should we.
The Bible is a bulwark against chaos, which the Left loves.
Of Thermostats and Salt n Light | RPT’s Musings
An early morning Bible study and a question from the presenter got me thinking though the idea presented. The question was this:
- if someone had never heard of a thermometer and a thermostat, how would you explain each and differentiate between them? When it comes to us living out our faith, do you think we’re called to be a thermometer or a thermostat?
So I gave my thinking on this question and expand a bit in the video. Enjoy… it is for the strengthening of my fellow believers. Or as Steven Lawson says, it is to get you into an offense mode.
The two articles on business strategy can be found here:
….A thermometer reflects the temperature of the environment. It simply reacts to what’s happening around it. If the temperature is hot, it tells you so. If it’s cold, the thermometer reflects that reality as well. It’s a dumb instrument in the sense it doesn’t contain intelligent, multipurpose functionality. It has one purpose and one purpose only.
A thermostat, on the other hand, regulates the environment. It sets the desired temperature of the room and actively works to maintain it within a given range. If the temperature rises above the goal, the thermostat signals the air conditioner to crank up and cool the room down. If the temperature falls below the goal, the thermostat causes the heater to turn on in order to warm the room up. The thermostat is intelligent in the sense it’s always monitoring the environment, and if the temperature gets too hot or cold, it decides what to do to correct the situation…..
[….]
…A thermometer reads the temperature in a room. If it’s hot in the room, it tells you it is hot in the room. If it is cold in the room, it tells you it’s cold. A thermometer tells you the temperature in the room.
A thermostat regulates the temperature. It helps control the temperature in the room by making small adjustments to heat or cool the room. If it gets too cold in the room, the thermostat adjusts and warms it up. If it gets too hot in the room, the thermostat adjusts and cools it down. It’s all a matter of what temperature you want to set.
The reality is that many leaders, teams and company cultures get stuck in thermometer mode. Their temperature just fluctuates up and down depending on who is in the room or what happens day to day. If it’s cold in a meeting and there is no life in the room, everyone goes cold. If it’s hot in the room and plenty of conflict or drama, everyone gets hot. Day by day their culture is just up and down depending on the temperature of the day.
But, the very best leaders, teams and company cultures operate more in thermostat mode. They are very clear what temperature they are trying to set. They intentionally take time to make sure all on their team understand what type of culture they are trying to create. They are precise with their language, they communicate consistently, and they coach others to understand what temperature they are striving to achieve every day. When it gets too hot in a room, they are able to regulate the temperature back down. When there is no life in a room and it’s way too cold, they are able to breathe life and warmth into the environment….
A ‘LOT’ On My Mind | Sermon by Rev. Cyril Jermin
I truncate the sermon a tad to focus in on the meat of the issue in order to share via a conversation with a couple brothers about our sinful nature and them sharing their previous “pre-Christian” lives. The original [full] sermon by Rev. Jermin can be found here. The “Billy Paul – Me and Mrs. Jones” insert can be found here in full.
Here is an excerpt of J. Vernon McGee’s thoughts on Lot’s wife’s disobedience. Longing for the life before God promised her redemption:
But his wife looked back from behind him,
and she became a pillar of salt
[Gen. 19:26]
I think this verse has been greatly misunderstood. Why in the world did Mrs. Lot turn and look back? I think that the reason is twofold. First of all, she turned and looked back because she did not want to leave Sodom. She loved Sodom. She loved Lot, too, but it was a lot of Sodom that she loved. And she didn’t want to leave it. She was probably a member of the country club, the sewing club, and the Shakespeare club. In fact, there wasn’t a club in town that she was not a member of. She just loved these little get–togethers in the afternoon. I’m not sure but what they met and studied religion in a nice little religious club also. She was right in the thick of it all, my friend, and she didn’t want to leave. Her heart was in Sodom. Her body walked out, but she surely left her heart there.
This is a tremendous lesson for us today. I hear a great many Christians talking about how they want to see the Lord come, but they are not living as if they mean it. On Sunday morning, it is difficult to get them to leave their lovely home. And on Sunday night, they are not going to leave their lovely home because they love television, too. They have a color television, and they are going to look at the programs on Sunday night because there are some good ones then. But when the Lord comes, my friend, you are going to leave the television; you are going to leave that lovely home; you are going to leave everything. I have just one question to ask you: Will it break your heart to leave all of this down here?
I have asked myself that question many times. To be honest with you, I am not anxious to leave. I would love to stay. I have my friends and loved ones whom I want to be with. And I have the radio ministry that I want to continue. I’ll be frank with you, I hope the Lord will just let me stay here awhile longer. But I also want to be able to say that when He does call, I will not have a thing down here which will break my heart to leave—not a thing. I love my home too, but I would just as soon go off and leave it. How do you feel about that today? Mrs. Lot turned and looked back, and this is one of the explanations.
The other reason that she looked back is simply that she did not believe God. God had said, “Leave the city, and don’t look back.” Lot didn’t look back; he believed God. But Mrs. Lot did not believe God. She was not a believer, and so she didn’t really make it out of the city. She was turned to a pillar of salt.
I am not going to go into the story of Lot’s two daughters in verses 31–38. It is as sordid as it can be. Frankly, Lot did not do well in moving down to the city of Sodom. He lost everything except his own soul. His life is a picture of a great many people who will not judge the sins of their lives. They are saved, “yet so as by fire.” The Lord has said in a very definite way to these folk who have put all their eggs in a basket like this that if they will not judge their sin down here, He will judge it. Apparently, that was the case in Lot’s story.
Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Law (Genesis 16-33), electronic ed., vol. 2 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 51–52.
Girls Says God Wants Her To Do Porn, Satan Does Not
This video was pretty jaw-dropping. But thinking through it I started to note that this “GNOSTIC THINKING” is an aspect of our rebellious, fallen nature.
Thus, it shouldn’t make our jaw drop, as believers we should be saddened for her but thankful that God saved us from the same thinking via our depraved minds.
Our default before Christ. Thus, this shouldn’t surprise us… let me explain.
What IS this “THINKING”?
I believe it to be a lie from the Garden of Eden when the serpent said this:
(Genesis 3) 1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard.
As I have grown to see this verse in encountering our current culture, it is a replacing of God’s edicts/will, what he wishes us to do for the ultimate good which flows from His being with our own. This replaces God’s will for an ultimate good with our own, effectively making us gods. (In our own mind with a capital “G”.)
Before I get into my breakdown, I wish to share an excerpt from a couple commentaries. This first excerpt is the intro to this which I essentially do not need to insert into the post — but — this was my very first commentary I ever owned and is still one of my favorites. Here is the intro to Genesis 3:
3:1–6 The serpent that appeared to Eve is later revealed to be none other than Satan himself (see Rev. 12:9). Those who seek to “demythologize” the Bible believe that this account of the fall is allegorical and not literal. They cite the talking serpent as proof. Can the story of the serpent’s deceiving Eve be accepted as factual? The Apostle Paul thought so (2 Cor. 11:3). So did the Apostle John (Rev. 12:9; 20:2). Nor is this the only instance of a talking animal in Scripture. God gave a voice to Balaam’s donkey to restrain the madness of the prophet (Num. 22), and the Apostle Peter accepted this as literal (2 Pet. 2:16). These three apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write as they did. Thus to reject the account of the fall as literal is to reject the inspiration of Holy Scripture. There are allegories in the Bible, but this is not one of them.
Notice the steps that plunged the human race into sin. First Satan insinuated doubt about the Word of God: “Has God indeed said?” He misrepresented God as forbidding Adam and Eve to eat of every tree. Next, Eve said that they were not to eat or “touch the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden.” But God had said nothing about touching the tree. Then Satan flatly contradicted God about the inevitability of judgment on those who disobeyed, just as his followers still deny the facts of hell and eternal punishment. Satan misrepresented God as seeking to withhold from Adam and Eve something that would have been beneficial to them. Eve yielded to the threefold temptation: the lust of the flesh (good for food), the lust of the eyes (pleasant to the eyes), and the pride of life (a tree desirable to make one wise). In doing so, she acted independently of Adam, her head. She should have consulted him instead of usurping his authority. In the words “she took of its fruit and ate” lie the explanation of all the sickness, sorrow, suffering, fear, guilt, and death that have plagued the human race ever since that time. Someone has said, “The wreckage of earth and a million billion graves attest that God is true and Satan is the liar.” Eve was deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), but Adam acted willfully and in deliberate rebellion against God.
William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 35–36.
Okay, some comments on the weightier issue are in order:
- 3:7 opened … knew … sewed. The innocence noted in 2:25 had been replaced by guilt and shame (vv. 8–10), and from then on they had to rely on their conscience to distinguish between good and their newly acquired capacity to see and know evil. — The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible
MORE:
I was going to put a few commentaries below, but, Matthew Henry is enough to make the point:
Observe the steps of the transgression: not steps upward, but downward toward the pit. 1. She saw. A great deal of sin comes in at the eye. Let us not look on that which we are in danger of lusting after, Mt 5:28. 2. She took. It was her own act and deed. Satan may tempt, but he cannot force; may persuade us to cast ourselves down, but he cannot cast us down, Mt 4:6. 3. She did eat. When she looked perhaps she did not intend to take; or when she took, not to eat: but it ended in that. It is wisdom to stop the first motions of sin, and to leave it off before it be meddled with. 4. She gave it also to her husband with her. Those that have done ill, are willing to draw in others to do the same. 5. He did eat. In neglecting the tree of life, of which he was allowed to eat, and eating of the tree of knowledge, which was forbidden, Adam plainly showed a contempt of what God had bestowed on him, and a desire for what God did not see fit to give him. He would have what he pleased, and do what he pleased. His sin was, in one word, disobedience, Ro 5:19; disobedience to a plain, easy, and express command. He had no corrupt nature within, to betray him; but had a freedom of will, in full strength, not weakened or impaired. He turned aside quickly. He drew all his posterity into sin and ruin. Who then can say that Adam’s sin had but little harm in it? When too late, Adam and Eve saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they fell from, and the misery they were fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favour forfeited. See her what dishonour and trouble sin is; it makes mischief wherever it gets in, and destroys all comfort. Sooner or later it will bring shame; either the shame of true repentance, which ends in glory, or that shame and everlasting contempt, to which the wicked shall rise at the great day. See here what is commonly the folly of those that have sinned. They have more care to save their credit before men, than to obtain their pardon from God. The excuses men make to cover and lessen their sins, are vain and frivolous; like the aprons of fig-leaves, they make the matter never the better: yet we are all apt to cover our transgressions as Adam. Before they sinned, they would have welcomed God’s gracious visits with humble joy; but now he was become a terror to them. No marvel that they became a terror to themselves, and full of confusion. This shows the falsehood of the tempter, and the frauds of his temptations. Satan promised they should be safe, but they cannot so much as think themselves so! Adam and Eve were now miserable comforters to each other!
Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ge 3:6.
This shame drives the redefining of what is allowed and what is not. We have an infinite capacity to define what will cover our shame. But the main one is being to define what is good and what is evil… (Isaiah 5:20)
Beware, those who call evil good and good evil,
who turn darkness into light and light into darkness,
who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter.
William MacDonald notes this of Isaiah 5:20: “Those who obliterate moral distinctions, denying the difference between good and evil” (Ibid., page 944). This switching of categories is done to avoid shame is mankind’s “fig leaf,” so-to-speak:
- Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. (3:7)
This anti-Christ type exchange (ours is found in the beauty of Christ’s sacrifice for us on Calvary) is preceded with pride… pride in thinking one is “god” by nature: “your eyes will open and you will be like God, [defining] good and evil” (3:5).
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
This is the entirety of the Gnostic challenge to the early church and our relativistic culture from Genesis to this day.
By way of an old example of mine used with Michael Berryman at Starbucks in a chance meeting. I drew him this picture yellow lined picture below) when he was discussing Freemasonry and I wished to explain how it was just a form of ancient Gnosticism:
VIA: Occult, Anti-Christian Roots of Freemasonry
WHAT “IS” FREEMASONRY?
Below/right is a scan from page 567 of my copy of Morals and Dogma. What you have here is an example of Gnostic thinking on spirit-material dualism; Freemasons are merely modern day Gnostics. Roles are reversed in comparison to how historic Christianity has viewed them since its inception. I will explain, but first look at page 567 (click on it to enlarge):
So let’s get into the meat of the matter. Gnostic thinking is a combination of Judaism, Platonism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity. (By-the-by, the below is much to do with a professor’s input I had, Dr. Wayne House.)
Judaism – early Gnostics followed the thinking of Marcian, and Marcian taught that the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge. A demiurge would be what we would typically call the “devil.” Since anything 100% spirit is “good,” anything material is “bad.” So the God of the Old Testament created the world, which is material, and so this God is the Gnostic’s mortal enemy (pun intended). So Judaic thought and Judaism’s God is what Gnostics are “fighting” against. This is Judaism’s contribution.
Platonism – plutonic thought is basically the codifying of Hindu thinking into Grecian thought. He taught that innate ideas (that is: existing in one from birth; inborn; native) were the ideas the mind beheld in the world of pure Forms before birth. This world, then, is but a shadow of reality… pure spirit. This is Platonic contribution to Gnostic thinking.
An aside here for clarity of thought. Platonic thinking shares a point in common with Gnostic thinking, so you could be a Platonist and not a Gnostic. You couldn’t be, however, a Gnostic without being a Platonist. This is important because many “scholars” get this concept mixed up when describing the points of contact between Gnostic thinking and Christianity. Okay, on we go.
Zoroastrianism – Zoroastic thought has contributed what is called ethical dualism. It has said that there is a battle between good and evil, light and dark. Its addition to this is that anything material in nature is evil, and anything spiritual is good.
Christianity – Christian theology provided a “vehicle” in which to express the above. It is then, the “vehicle of expression” for Gnostics. Jesus becomes the way in which they Gnostics explain the working of impersonal deity in human existence and the offering of salvation through secret knowledge, or, Gnosis. Gnosis means knowledge of spiritual matters; mystical knowledge.
Gnostic’s, then, only have a complete “system of thought” when they combine all four of these major aspects into their thinking. If their thinking were to lack any one of these, they would cease to be Gnostic. The combining of the major aspects of these four lines thought, then, make up the Gnostic “worldview.” What do Gnostics believe then? I will explain a bit more in this crude drawing taken during notes from a class at seminary. one should note as well that “Eon” should be spelled “Aeon.”:
Much like Eastern philosophy, there is an impersonal spirit which is 100% spirit. Brahma as it is referred to in Hindu thought. Out of this impersonal force emanated “Eons.” These Eons were 99.9% spirit and .01% material, to put it layman terms. (Also, the percentages are not to explain exactly what Gnostic’s believe, I am just using these numbers as examples to get the analogy across.) These less impersonal, or more corrupted Eons, created other Eons who themselves were more deficient in their spirit/matter balance. Until finally you have very “diluted” beings. One diluted being — referred to as a “Demiurge,” what we would sometimes call the “Devil” — created our world. He also created smaller more diluted beings called “Archons.” These archons would be what we view as demons; Gnostics would say Paul referred to them in Ephesians 6:12 when he said:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Jesus comes into the picture as an Aeon who has a higher percentage of spirit left and sneaks past the demiurge and the archons and enters our world. He is “born,” not physically, but is an ethereal image of mankind (hard to explain) to point the way to a saving knowledge that is secret or hidden.
Freemasons are the most modern day representation of Gnostics; they have symbols that as you climb to higher degrees become clearer in their real meaning and are explained more-so as you climb this “knowledge ladder.” Secret handshakes, elaborate rituals and secrecy until finally at the 33rd-degree you are presented with a true understanding (a Gnostic one) of reality and “God.”
From three separate Mason’s saying each part of the name of God, “Ja-bul-on,” to the meaning of the dot or “G” in the square and compass symbol. All these serve as layers for the initiates to come to realize that this material world is evil.
The Gnostics and hence, Masons, believe that there is a war going on with the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. As this thinking has progressed throughout history it has adopted other philosophies and has become more and more convoluted in its history and thinking. The New Age, much of your occultism, cults, and even Christianity (Trinity Broadcasting Network for instance) has been influenced by this thinking in one way or another. From Madam Blavatsky and her influence on Germany’s occultism that led to the Aryan philosophy of Hitler to Benny Hinn’s healing crusades.
All sorts of writers, especially conspiratorial writers, have had a plethora of facts to misuse and misrepresent and to twist to their own agendas. Their agenda have resulted in many people believing that “secret societies” control both parties and were behind the Twin Towers so they could implement a world government. This view that combines, “sun” worship from the ancient Egyptians to the Illuminate, from the Knights Templars and Rosicrucians, to today’s Skull and Bones and Council on Foreign Relations ~ is defunct mainly due to the lack of understanding gnosis and the philosophy that has driven it.
What is my point? This young girl did not know about the philosophy of history of Gnostic thought, nor did she know hell-or-high-water about the fall in Genesis nor Romans 1 warning of this fall and eternal damnation:
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another.
[….]
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.
[….]
32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
This “Gnostic” [simply our fallen nature distorting God’s TWO BOOKS [the book of Revelation and the Book of Nature] twisting of what God wants for His creation is replete in people wanting power to decide what is evil and what is not. Another “for instance” is Fascism. Here we see Mussolini doing the same as above, making mankind gods and defining what is ethical:
- “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
And while this girl has the ultimate right to define what is “real” in her life, either through ignorance or through vain philosophies, her Creator has the right to grant her wish and deliver her over to her desires, which in the end attracts God’s wrath (verse 18) and she will be without excuse (verse 20) before her Maker and righteously judged to hell (Matthew 25:46).
This distortion of God’s will for us was our default before we were saved, and it is hers.
The Biblically Informed Case Against Homosexuality | Voddie Baucham
SECOND PART
The second session from Semper Reformanda 2014, Dr. Voddie Baucham follows his presentation of “Gay is NOT the New Black” with a call to defend the Bible from the cultural onslaught that comes from those promoting the homosexual agenda. Dr. Baucham teaches believers how to apply the Scriptures to the homosexual debate in a winsome and powerful way.
About the 2014 Semper Reformanda Conference:
The debate over homosexuality is arguably the most important moral issue of our day. Unfortunately, there isn’t much of a debate anymore. Even those who oppose things like “Same Sex Marriage” still hold to views and ideas that undermine the very foundation of their biblical worldview. Moreover, the call for tolerance and ‘being nice’ only serve to further alienate those Christians who dare to expose and confront the truth. Something has to change! And that’s exactly why we did this series. In it, you will learn just how far-reaching this issue is. You’ll also learn where, why, and how the current trends started, and why they’ve been so successful. Finally, you will learn how to address this issue in conversations with those who oppose biblical truth using a clear, cogent, winsome apologetic. This series won’t answer all your questions; that’s not the goal. It will, however, set you on firm ground and open your eyes. It will also point you to Christ and the Gospel as our hope. — Voddie Baucham Jr.
SEE MY POSTS FOR MORE
- If Jesus Didn’t Forbid It Then It’s Allowed?
- Same-Sex Marriage | RPT’s Cumulative Case Against SSM
- Is Marriage Hetero?
- No Religious Or Ethical Leader In History Supported SSM
- RPT’s Position On Gay Men and Women
FIRST PART
Here is the 1st part to the above video: The debate over homosexuality is arguably the most important moral issue of our day. Unfortunately, there isn’t much of a debate anymore. Even those who oppose things like “Same Sex Marriage” still hold to views and ideas that undermine the very foundation of their biblical worldview. In this sermon, Pastor Voddie Baucham introduces this topic and shows us how we have arrived at the false idea that “Gay is the new black”.
GodLogic Routes Sheikh Uthman’s Challenge Regarding Jesus’ Divinity
The Sheikh brings up Mark 13:32, and the response by Austin is an excellent response to the challenge, both in the verses from Mark 13:1-31, as well as explaining the issue deeper with 1 Corinthians 2:1-2 and Acts 1:6-7:
Jesus vs Muhammad | Jordan Peterson
“All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion.”
Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.
SEE MY PDF: “MUHAMMAD vs. JESUS“
MUHAMMAD
MUHAMMAD – Ordered his followers, as well as personally participating in, both digging their graves and cutting the throats of between 600-to-900 men, women, and children. Jews. Some of the women and children were taken as property. He was a military tactician that lied and told others to use deception that ultimately led to the death of many people (taqiyya): The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.”
- In the West, what is said and done more or less corresponds to the intentions of the speaker and the doer. Liars and cheats abound, of course, but generally they can go only so far before being caught out in the contractual relationships of their society. Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account, and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives. In Shia practice, a man is allowed what is called “precautionary dissimulation,” a recognition that truth may be impossible in some contexts.
- Pierre Bourdieu, the French social anthropologist, has pointed out that no dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.[1]
Islamic ethics include deceiving the Kafir. The doctrine of deception is found in the Sunna and the Koran. The Arabic name for sacred deception is called taqiyya.
We never see any depictions of Muhammad with children, we just know that he most likely acquired a child bride at age six and consummated that “marriage” when she was nine[2] — he was a pedophile in other words. While the Qu’ran states that a follower of this book should have no more than 4 wives, we know of course that he had many more, about 5 more in fact. And “Just War Theory” cannot apply to Muhammad and Muslim’s since when he said:
“I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle and offer prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity…then they will save their lives and property from me” (Sahih Muslim 1.24).
He ordered his followers to raid caravans, “This is the caravan of the Quraysh possessing wealth. It is likely that Allah may give it to you as booty.”[3] As he was dying, he said these now famous words, “I have been made victorious with terror.”[4]
Many more examples could be provided! Even when it comes to “salvation,” the most ardent/obedient Muslim still leaves his or her entrance into “heaven” is, in the end, an impersonal act of arbitrary divine power.… no story of love and sacrifice or assurance is provided.
[1] David Pryce-Jones, The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Chicago, IL: Ivan R, Dee Publishers, 2009), 4, 38.
[2] Bukhari, vol. 5, book 63, no. 3896; cf. Bukhari, vol. 7, book 67, no. 5158.
[3] Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq and H. K. Ghazanfar, vol. 2 (Kitab Bhavan, n.d.), 9.
[4] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 2977 (Darussalam, 1997).
I was reading through some passages in the Quran not too long ago and came across Quran chapter 79, verse 42. I immediately noticed how similar this verse in the Quran is to Mark 13:31-32 … So, I started to do some more research on who Muhammad REALLY thought he was compared to Jesus. The findings are quite shocking!
JESUS
JESUS – When Peter struck off the ear of the soldier, healed it. Christ said if his followers were of any other kingdom, they would fight to get him off the cross. He also told Peter if he lived by the sword, he would die by it.; Christ invited and used children as examples of how Jewish adults should view their faith… something culturally radical – inviting children into an inner-circle of a group of status-oriented men such as the Pharisees was unheard of. Especially saying to them their faith must be similar; Jesus, and thusly us, can access true love because the Triune God has eternally loved (The Father loves the Son, etc. ~ unlike the Unitarian God of Islam).
Love between us then has roots in our Creator… [examples]:
- my wife and I for instance, as well as family,
- the love in community/Body of Christ,
- love for our enemies, …etc…
…has eternal foundations in God; This love from God towards us has caused a Sacrifice to ensure our salvation (John 3:16-17; 5:25; 6:47). Jesus said as well that he has “spoken openly to the world… always teaching in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. ‘I said nothing in secret’” (John 18:20). The Bible also states that God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) … and Jesus is God in orthodoxy (i.e., Jesus cannot lie). The love of Christ and the relationship he offers is bar-none the center piece of our faith… something the Muslim does not have. Which is why the Church evolved because they have a point of reference in Christ to come back to. In Matthew chapter 5 we find Jesus’ teaching and commending us to the following:
THE BEATITUDES | BELIEVERS ARE SALT AND LIGHT | CHRIST FULFILLS THE LAW | MURDER BEGINS IN THE HEART | ADULTERY BEGINS IN THE HEART | DIVORCE PRACTICES CENSURED | TELL THE TRUTH | GO THE SECOND MILE | LOVE YOUR ENEMIES
Muhammad would never be able to speak of these things that Christ did in the record of Matthew. Which is why whenever given the chance I say to a Muslim I pray they emulate Jesus’ life and follow Him rather than Muhammad. I wish Muhammad had read and followed Jesus’ teachings as well.
This is a segment of a Muslim caller into the Michael Medved Show and both Mosab Yousef and Michael Medved respond. Yousef compares Christians to Muhammad, the caller compares Muslims to Christians:
AQUINAS THOUGHTS ON MUHAMMAD
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the most prolific thinkers in Western history; his words should not be taken lightly, regardless of your cultural/religious background. Subscribe now to stay updated with excellent content.
BREITBART has a neat story about Aquinas and his views on Islam… here is a portion of it:
…In one of his most significant works, the voluminous Summa contra gentiles, which Aquinas wrote between 1258 and 1264 AD, the scholar argued for the truth of Christianity against other belief systems, including Islam.
Aquinas contrasts the spread of Christianity with that of Islam, arguing that much of Christianity’s early success stemmed from widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus, whereas the spread of Islam was worked through the promise of sensual pleasures and the violence of the sword.
Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”
Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.
“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”
Because of the weakness of Islam’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”
Islam’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.
“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
At the time Aquinas was writing, Islam was generally considered a Christian heresy, since it drew so heavily on Christian texts and beliefs. Aquinas wrote that Mohammed “perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.”
According to the noted historian Hilaire Belloc, Islam “began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing.”…
MUCH MORE
Here are some ways to deal with Muslim apologists questioning Jesus’ Divinity:
(Above) Nabeel Qureshi, a former Muslim, answers a question from a faithful Muslim about how Jesus could have both a Divine (God) nature and a human nature without confusion or contradiction. See more from Nabeel HERE (He has passed away)
Nabeel is battling stomach cancer, so any prayers would be a gracious help.
Here is a more in-depth presentation dealing with how the question is typically raised.
Muslims around the world are being trained to ask Christians, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?” The unreasonable demand for a particular statement, if applied consistently, would thus force Muslims to reject their own view!
Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make. For instance, God alone can correctly state that he created the universe. Of course, a mere human being can pronounce the words, “I created the universe,” but the statement would be false coming from anyone other than God.
Hence, if Jesus said things that can only truly be said by God, we must conclude that Jesus claimed to be God. Interestingly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on many of the claims that cannot be properly made by (or about) mere human beings. In this video, we consider several examples of such claims.
For more on the deity of Christ, watch these videos by David Wood:
Among the major differences between Islam and Christianity is that of the character and nature of God as understood by the Bible and the Qur’an. For the Bible, Yahweh is a relational God, a God who appears to his people throughout the Old Testament, who took on flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and who will be present, the Bible claims, in heaven with us once again: “For now we see through a glass, darkly,” wrote the apostle Paul; “but then face to face.” [76] This is very different from Allah in the Qur’an, a God who is distant and remote, transcendent and lofty, who does not deign to step down into his creation, and is not present in Paradise. As Muslim theologian Isma’il al Faruqi writes:
Allah does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. Allah reveals only his will… Allah does not reveal himself to anyone… that is the great difference between Christianity and Islam.[77]
Central, too, to the Christian understanding of God is that Yahweh is loving; indeed, the Bible goes as far as to boldly make the claim that God is love,[78] the one whose character and nature define what love actually is. You will commonly hear people opine that all religions teach that God is love, but this is simply not true – for instance, nowhere does the Qur’an claim that “Allah is love.”[79]
Finally, at the heart of Christianity stands the belief that, in Jesus, God has experienced suffering, paying the price of the cross in order to reconcile humanity to himself. Now atheists may choose to dismiss, laugh at, or even scoff at that claim, but it is a claim unique to Christianity.[80] It is certainly not an idea found in Islam, where the Qur’an goes as far as to deny that the historical event of Jesus’ crucifixion ever happened.
It has long fascinated me that when Christianity talks about the cross and the suffering of God, it is doing something quite startling, namely reversing the traffic pattern of every other religion, world view, and belief system. All other religions of which I am aware tend to work in one of three basic ways: they claim that if you know the right things, do the right things, or experience the right things, then you will achieve paradise, nirvana, wisdom, a higher state of consciousness, good teeth — whatever it is you are looking for. Islam adopts this model (“Keep the commandments”), as does, incidentally, the New Atheism, whose message is that if you think the right way — think good, secular, scientific thoughts — you’ll be one of the smart ones, one of the brights,[81] one of the elite, the elect.
[76] 1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).
[77] Isma’il al Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambésy Dialogue Consultation, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982, pp. 47-48.
[78] 1 John 4:16.
[79] And many Muslim theologians argue that Muslims should not use the word “love” when talking about Allah; see e.g. Murad Wilfried Hofmann, “Differences between the Muslim and the Christian Concept of Divine Love” in 14th General Conference of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan, 2007. See also Gordon Nickel, “The Language of Love in Qur’an and Gospel” in Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Angel Urban, (eds), Sacred Text: Explorations in Lexicography, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009, pp. 223-248.
[80] If you wish to understand this idea (which, whatever you make of it, is the central claim at the heart of Christianity), a great place to start is John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Leicester: IVP, 2006.
[81] A nauseatingly self-congratulatory term coined by some of the New Atheists to mark themselves off from the rest of the world, whom they clearly perceive as dimwits. See Daniel Dennett, “The Bright Stuff“, The New York Times, 12 July 2003.
Andy Banister, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or, The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments (Oxford, England: Monarch Books, 2015), 62-63.
I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.
“Muhammad” Talks to “Jesus Christ”
I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.
Canon and Sola [not Solo] Scriptura (Α – Ω Ministries)
Today I was joined by Dr. Michael Kruger, President of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Kruger has written numerous books that are high on our “you must read this book” list, such as Canon Revisited and The Question of Canon; he likewise contributed to and edited The Heresy of Orthodoxy and The Early Text of the New Testament. Our visit was prompted by a phone call made by a Lutheran to Catholic Answers Live back on 10/31/13. We played the entire call before the program started, and we played the heart of the call, where the Roman Catholic priest made the key assertions about canon and scriptural authority, during the interview with Dr. Kruger. We covered a wide variety of topics relevant to the canon issue. Truly one of the most useful programs we’ve ever done! Enjoy and learn!
Talked a bit about a few current events at the start (played video from Mars, for example), but the focus today was on sola scriptura, what it means, why it is central, and why I am simply stunned to see men I used to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with using the phrase as a throw-away joke line on Twitter. Please listen and consider well!
After we spent a little time on some positive reports of God’s grace, and then a few minutes on some negative developments of more rebellion and insanity coming out of Disney, we dove into a fully discussion of tradition, the canon, and finally looking at a series of Tweets by Steve Meister on the table of contents of your Bible as a form of “inescapable tradition.”
Response to Hank Hanegraaff
(PART 1) I was pointed this morning to a video of Hank Hanegraaff (joined by Dr. Nathan Jacobs) attacking the doctrine of sola scriptura. Given I debated Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples (Roman Catholics) on The Bible Answer Man Broadcast decades ago, I felt it necessary (and useful) to begin a response to the claims made. Nothing new as we have surely addressed all of this in the recent past and literally since the 1990s. But important as the topic remains central. I still have nine minutes left to review, and I think another video on the eucharist is due out soon as well. We will continue the review on Tuesday.
(PART 2) As promised I continued in my response to Hank Hanegraaff’s attack on sola scriptura, finishing up the entire video, dealing with a wide variety of issues. Important stuff for those looking at or dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy. May be doing a program again tomorrow.
If you are active in reaching out to our Roman Catholic friends and family members, this is an important program for you. We spent most of our time going deeply into a clip from CA Live on “tradition” in the Bible. Then we played a brief clip from the British Parliament on critical race theory that was real encouraging, and finished off with looking at France’s vain attempt to create a “secular” form of Islam.
Truth Doesn’t Always Find Friends (Galatians 4:16)
Watching Matt Walsh yesterday he said something that made me wanna excerpt it. I didn’t get to it last night, and luckily I didn’t. This morning at a men’s group discussion during small groups a verse on truth came up (Galatians 4:16), and that reminded me of a J. Vernon McGee commentary, which brought me to Chuck Smith as well (also discussed at the meeting this morning). Of course this short video wouldn’t be complete without Jack Nicholson’s character in the movie “A Few Good Men,” Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, talking about truth. So I hope this hits the right nerve with some who happen upon this.
Here are some commentaries on Galatians 4:16
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (HCSB)
Truth is not always relished where sin is nourished
L. Moody, Notes from My Bible: From Genesis to Revelation (Chicago; New York; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, 1895), 165.
A person with pure motives and real friendship does not always say things that are pleasant to hear. Paul was telling the Galatians the truth, and as result was being labeled as their enemy. Sometimes the truth hurts; but a faithful friend would courageously confront another.
Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Ga 4:16.
I had always wanted to place on the pulpit, facing the preacher, the words, “Sir, we would see Jesus.” A very fine officer of the church I served in downtown Los Angeles did this for me after he heard me express this desire. There is another verse I wanted to place on the audience side of the pulpit, but I never had the nerve to do it. It is these words of Paul: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” As you know, many folk today really don’t want the preacher to tell the truth from the pulpit. They would much rather he would say something complimentary that would smooth their feathers and make them feel good. We all like to have our backs rubbed, and there is a lot of back-rubbing from the contemporary pulpit rather than the declaration of the truth.
Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary, electronic ed., vol. 5 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 179.
QUESTION—Is this a question or a statement?
- It is a rhetorical question [BNTC, Lns, Lt, Mor, NIGTC, NTC; all versions]: because I am being truthful to you, have I therefore become your enemy? The Galatians do not appear to be able to tolerate the truth [NTC]. Paul wants them to face the reality of what they were doing. Paul was not their enemy when he initially preached the gospel to them, and as he continued to do so, and they should see it as a friendly gesture, not as a hostile one [Mor]. Paul wanted them to realize that he was truly their friend even though he had to use strong language in this letter and possibly in the previous letter [NTC].
- It is a statement [ICC, NCBC, NIBC, NIC, SSA, WBC]: therefore it appears that I have become your enemy because I am being truthful to you! The idea is ‘So I have become your enemy!’ and this reflects the Judaizers’ view of Paul, not Paul’s [NCBC]. The conjunction ὥστε ‘therefore’ indicates a conclusion from the facts stated in 4:14–15: Since they once regarded Paul with such great affection and now consider him as an enemy, this could only come about because he had been telling them the truth [ICC, WBC].
Robert Stutzman, An Exegetical Summary of Galatians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 160.
become your enemy There come times with all God’s servants when certain people proclaim something fresh and new in doctrine, and then the old messenger of God, who was blessed to them, comes to be despised. I have lived long enough to see dozens of very fine fancies started, but they have all come to nothing. I daresay I shall see a dozen more, and they will all come to nothing. But here I stand. I am not led astray either by novelties of excitement or novelties of doctrine. The things which I preached at the first, I preach still, and so I shall continue, as God shall help me. But I know, in some little measure, what the apostle meant when he said, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
by being truthful to you There are many who have incurred enmity through speaking the gospel very plainly, for the natural tendency of man is toward ceremony, toward some form of legal righteousness: he must have something aesthetic, something that delights his sensuous nature, something that he can see and hear, to mix up that with the simplicity of faith. Paul was as clear as noonday against everything of that kind, and so the Galatians got at last to be angry with him. Well, he could not help that, but it did grieve him.
Charles Spurgeon, Galatians, ed. Elliot Ritzema, Spurgeon Commentary Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), Ga 4:16.
Am I therefore become your enemy? He now returns to speak about himself. It was entirely their own fault, he says, that they had changed their minds. Though it is a common remark, that truth begets hatred, yet, except through the malice and wickedness of those who cannot endure to hear it, truth is never hateful. While he vindicates himself from any blame in the unhappy difference between them, he indirectly censures their ingratitude. Yet still his advice is friendly, not to reject, on rash or light grounds, the apostleship of one whom they had formerly considered to be worthy of their warmest love. What can be more unbecoming than that the hatred of truth should change enemies into friends? His aim then is, not so much to upbraid, as to move them to repentance.
John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 129–130.
Paul’s emotion betrays itself in the ellipsis of his thought. At one time the Galatians counted themselves blessed for having Paul in their midst, but this is passed. Is the opposite now the case? And so have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Read this as a question; ὥστε means, “and so,” R. 999. “An enemy of yours” is active, one who hates you, and not passive, one who is hated by you (C.-K. 459). The perfect tense “have I become” is used in the Greek fashion from the standpoint of the readers and refers to the time when they read this letter in which Paul tells them the truth. Will they then say: “Paul has become hostile to us”? Ah, but it is the best and the truest friend who honestly tells us the truth about ourselves even when he knows we shall not like it. False friends are the ones who hide such truth from us and do so in order to remain in our favor.
Some regard this statement as a declaration: “Wherefore I have become your enemy by telling you the truth.” But that is not true (v. 19). If he intends to imply that the Galatians now consider him as being hostile to them, this thought is expressed far better by a question. The declarative idea is made more confusing when the inferior reading in v. 15 is adopted: τίς οὖν ἦν; “What, then, was your felicitation of yourselves?” and supplying in thought: “Nothing but superficiality,” and then attaching: “Wherefore I have become your enemy.” Paul regards the self-felicitation of the Galatians as being genuine; he even states the strongest reason for his so doing: that they were willing to sacrifice their eyes for him.
Again, Paul is not their enemy. Finally, the ὥστε clause cannot be construed across the intervening γάρ statement and attached to the question asked in v. 15. The reason: “I testify,” etc., would be contradicted by any declaration that Paul is an enemy of the Galatians. Regard the sentence as a question, and all is readily understood.
C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (Columbus, O.:Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 222–223.
It was natural that a certain uneasy reserve should begin to mark the Galatian Christians’ attitude to Paul. They knew that the teaching to which they were now giving ear could not commend itself to him, and that he would disapprove of their accepting it. This reserve would be reinforced if they entertained suggestions tending to discredit him, or to diminish his standing in their eyes. When he heard of what was happening, he could be trusted to tell them they were wrong, and such plain speaking was bound to be unpalatable.
ὥστε is used here to introduce a rhetorical question.
It is hazardous to find in Paul’s use of ἐχθρὸς here the source of his later designation among the Ebionites as ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος (Epistle of Peter to James, 2; Clem. Recog. 1.70f.), as is done by H.-J. Schoeps, Judenchristentum, 120, 474; Paul, 82; a much more probable source is the ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος of Mt. 13:28 (cf. Schoeps, Judenchristentum, 127).
ἀληθεύων. In telling them the truth Paul is their best friend. The truth he is now telling them is the same as what he told them when first he came among them, and on that occasion it won their friendship for him. For this ‘truth’ is nothing other than the good news of divine grace. If it is true, then the ‘other gospel’ brought by the trouble-makers is self-evidently false. It is reading an alien idea into the text to say with W. Schmithals, ‘Precisely this argument of Paul shows that in truth people in Galatia were declaiming against Paul on account of the apostle’s fleshly [“sarkic”] weakness’ (Paul and the Gnostics, 50 n. 107).
The situation, in fact, is not unlike that in which Paul was later involved with the Corinthian church, when it was visited by interlopers who brought a ‘different gospel’ and tried to disparage Paul in his converts’ eyes; Paul protests his unchanging love for his friends, even while he remonstrates vigorously with them: ‘If I love you the more, am I to be loved the less?’ (2 Cor. 12:15).
F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 211.
ὤστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, “so, [it seems,] I have become your enemy because I am telling you the truth!” Elsewhere in the NT ὤστε (“therefore,” “so”) is always used at the beginning of independent clauses to draw an inference from what has just been stated (cf. Gal 3:9, 24; 4:7, etc.). Most commentators acknowledge this. Yet almost all critical texts, translations and commentaries treat v 16 as a rhetorical question (e.g., WH, Souter, Nestle, UBSGT, KJV, RSV, JB, NIV, Lightfoot, Lietzmann, Oepke, Schlier, Mussner, Betz, Bruce), despite demurrings to the contrary (cf. Betz, Galatians, 228: “The connection of ὤστε [“therefore”] is certainly loose”; ibid., 228 n. 97: “ὤστε [“therefore”] introducing a question is odd”). Nonetheless, linguistically speaking, Burton, Zahn, and Sieffert are right: v 16 must be read as an indignant exclamation that draws an inference from what is stated in vv 14–15; “the appropriate punctuation is, therefore, an exclamation point” (Burton, Galatians, 244–45). It is not, of course, Paul’s own statement of relationships, but his evaluation of what seems to be his converts’ attitude: “So, [it seems,] I have become your enemy because I am telling you the truth!”
ἐχθρός, “enemy,” was the epithet given Paul by the later Ebionites (cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom., Ep. Pet. 2.3; Ps.-Clem. Recog. 1.70), though whether the Judaizers of Galatia ever used it of him is impossible to say. The modal present participial phrase ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, “by telling you the truth,” refers not to some past proclamation, but to the truth Paul is now telling the Galatians, which, of course, is what he told them when he was first with them and which then won such a favorable response from them.
Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 193.
“Tolerant” Christianity Demands Rejecting the Bible
This is an excellent video showing how “Christians” have to distort the clear Word of God [the Bible for you dummies] to be inclusive to adopting Transgender ideology. The latter trumps the former to these apostates.
Here is a play off the WHATEVER episode:
Oh come on, who did this!? WHO DID THIS!? pic.twitter.com/XwORbLlr1n
— David Santa Carla 🦇 (@TheOnlyDSC) April 26, 2023
Is Gun Culture “Driven” By Christians?
For countries AND FOR soft sites like schools… the application is still the same:
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.
This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.
(Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security, March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan)
A friend posted a link to an article where a “theologian” (I assume he theologizes vs. being a professional “theologian” noted the following:
- There are few things as quintessentially American as apple pie, the Dallas Cowboys and the possibility of being shot anywhere you go.” [….] “Christians in America are going to have to voluntarily divest themselves of weapons of war if we’re going to muster the political will to reform our systems and markets that profit from the fear and death they sell.” (America’s Gun Culture Is Driven By Christians – Here’s How To Stop School Shootings)
Just a few thoughts out loud before the quotes, links, media, and the like.
The article says Scott Baker is a theologian. I could teach theology, but wouldn’t say I am a theologian.
If your shot in Texas, is it by a regular church going Christian?
Note as well that the article gets no where close to the subtitle’s statement of stopping school shootings.
Also, I wonder which of these choices or thoughts, investing vs. divesting, were racing through the mind’s of the Christians who worked at the Presbyterian Elementary Covenant School (or even non-believers at Uvalde for that matter) thought of. Were they thinking, “gosh darn it, I am so glad I divested in my right to defend my own body and the bodies of the innocent.” [/sarcasm]
There seems to be a false dichotomy. Gun violence happens, and, it will [presumably] stop when Christians [who are law abiding and God serving] “divest themselves” of them these “weapons of war” — whatever that is?
- …given the constitutional protection that is interpreted as a blanket right to private gun ownership, creates an environment in which no single action can solve this quandary. I know it can be done because I grew up in a world in which people smoked on airplanes and in restaurants, and now they don’t. (IBID)
Once Christians are “out of the way” then federalism can be moot and much like a federal law that stopped smoking on a plane, so to will shootings stop?
Or.
More people will be be killed like sheep.
I think the later.
Thankfully the police response at Covenant School was quick. Fourteen minutes to the scene. And a few minutes to the threat was stopped. However, if “investing” was practiced, the threat could have been neutralized in minutes.
This hope of “divesting” will happen in “no place,” or, UTOPIA.
Opining still may I say this idea of giving up a right by Nature’s God is not a Christian idea, not to mention that Christians and Jews, historically, around the world would have been in a better position in life if they were armed [I mean, actually having it – life that is].
…How many Jews the Nazis would have murdered if most European Jews had guns is impossible to know. But common sense suggests that the number would have been much lower. The Warsaw Ghetto revolt was begun with 10 old pistols and very little ammunition. Later a few hundred pistols and rifles and a few machine guns were smuggled into the ghetto. Himmler told Hitler he would quell the revolt in three days. It took four weeks. Many hundreds of German troops — perhaps a thousand — were killed or wounded.
If the Nazis knew that Jews refused to go to roundup areas and that many Jews were armed, awaiting Nazis to enter every apartment, it is difficult to imagine that the Nazi genocidal machinery would have been nearly as effective. And, vitally important, even had the number of Jews murdered been near 6 million (which I doubt), not all ways of dying are equal. There is a world of difference between being gassed or shot to death while standing naked beside the mass grave you were forced to dig and getting killed while shooting a Nazi….
(Jews and Guns [emphasis added])
Common sense seems to be missing in the article at Premier Christianity.
Take a more recent example of a divesting that was through complacently:
Or a kid who stopped a mass killing at a mall by conceal carrying. And the many other documented persons who stopped mass killing sprees – see FEE’s article on Eli, but this short video is good:
Here is how I (at the time) characterized it on my Facebook:
The mall had a “gun free zone” notice at all entrances. Glad Eli ignored that and embraced his Constitutional right.
[A friend noted this]: What a complete bad ass. Self taught. 8 hits in 10 shots at 40 yards is amazing shooting.
[My response]: He wasn’t Dicken around
NEW DETAILS
The Greenwood Park Mall shooter began firing at 5:56:48PM.
15 SECONDS LATER, at 5:57:03, 22-year-old Eli Dicken carrying under the new NRA-Backed Constitutional Carry law, fired 10 rounds from 40 yards, hitting the shooter 8 times. The shooter collapsed & died.
(NRA)
There are many instances of this heroic action, as noted well here:
Or the research by criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, noted here in an article by Larry Elder:
…The “common-sense” gun control activists rarely ask, “What about the beneficial effect of gun ownership?” The Centers for Disease Control examined research on the defensive uses of guns. It concluded: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
The CDC’s report also found that “defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.” Exact statistics are hard to find because the police are not always notified, so the number of defensive gun uses is likely understated because they’re underreported. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,” wrote the CDC, “with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” The CDC noted one study of defensive gun users who believe that but for their own firearm they would have been killed.
Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.
For some perspective, consider the number of Americans who die each year because of medical errors. A 2016 Johns Hopkins study called medical error the third-leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for about 250,000 deaths annually, or 10 percent of all deaths. Other studies put the number as high as 400,000 a year or more — since medical examiners, morticians and doctors rarely put “human error” or “medical system failure” on a death certificate….
Likewise, Reason.com notes much the same:
…Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.
That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.
About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner’s home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).
Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that “guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.” That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English’s figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million….
But I want to return to that FEE ARTCLE linked above. In it some person’s are quoted that may be more rightly called “theologians” IMHO.
…For centuries, many people have employed the term “Good Samaritan” to describe anyone who isn’t compelled to come to the aid of the innocent but takes the initiative to do so anyway. A Good Samaritan takes charge of a bad situation, improves it as best he can, and prevents further harm. That is exactly what Elisjsha Dicken did in Greenwood.
Undoubtedly, the critical reporter in this instance is a person of good intent. He can’t imagine Jesus endorsing Dicken’s action because Jesus was a man of peace. He might even cite Matthew, chapter five, in which Jesus urges us to “turn the other cheek” if someone insults us or physically slaps us in the face.
“The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist,” writes Lars Larson in Does Jesus Christ Support Self-Defense?. To “turn the other cheek” means to refrain from a needless escalation of a problematic situation. Elisjsha Dicken did not escalate anything; in fact, he dramatically and decisively de-escalated it in the only possible way, given the circumstances.
The reporter likely shares the widely-held, radically pacifist or “namby-pamby” view of Jesus—the view that he would never endorse an act of violence for any purpose, even if it’s necessary to save lives. It implies that Elisjsha Dicken should have run for cover and allowed the Greenwood shooter to kill another dozen or two people. That’s wrong, if not downright blasphemous.
When Jesus dined at The Last Supper, he gave his disciples specific instructions, including this one (Luke 22:36):
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Note that he did not advise anyone, then or at any other time, to stand idly by and allow wanton slaughter of innocents. And he offered support for the threat of force to prevent the theft of property as well. In Luke 11:21, Jesus said:
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and divides up his plunder.
This is the same Jesus who, in Luke 12:39, says, “If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.” It’s the same Jesus who never criticized anyone for possessing a lethal weapon such as a sword, though he certainly condemned the initiation of force or the impetuous and unnecessary use of it.
In Jesus, Guns and Self-Defense: What Does the Bible Say?, Gary DeMar maintains that
Being armed and willing to defend ourselves, our family, and our neighbors is not being unchristian or even unloving. Self-defense can go a long way to protect the innocent from people who are intent on murder for whatever reason.
The Greenwood reporter’s errant perspective is not untypical of people who think they know Jesus and Christianity but spend more time criticizing them than learning about them. I see evidence of this all the time, most recently from a speaker at an April 2022 conference in Prague, Czech Republic.
“When it comes to the source of individual rights,” the speaker pontificated with misplaced confidence, “there are only three possibilities.” One, he said, is a Creator (God), which he summarily dismissed as a ridiculous, untenable proposition. The second is government, which he ruled out as equally ridiculous and untenable. The only logical option, he said, was “nature”—something which he suggested evolved out of nothing from nobody. As I listened with the largely student audience, I thought to myself, “This supposed expert hasn’t even considered a fourth option, namely, a combination of the first and third—which is to say that God, as the author of nature, is in fact the author of individual rights as well.”
The speaker added another uninformed dig at Christianity by claiming it was stupid for Jesus to ever suggest you should love your neighbor. “What if your neighbor is an axe-murderer? How much sense would that make?” he asked derisively. If he had known of the passages I cite above, he would have been embarrassed by his own ignorance. As a general principle, Jesus argued, you should love your neighbor but the same Jesus would urge you to arm yourself if your neighbor threatens your life or property.
In The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time, Christian theologians Norman Geisler and J. P. Moreland write:
To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.
When Elisjsha Dicken pulled out his gun to stop a shooting spree, he had every reason to believe he might attract the shooter’s aim and be killed himself. Fortunately, he was not, and he is among the living whose lives he saved.
If Elisjsha Dicken had been killed, the rest of us could at least take comfort in the words of Jesus as quoted in John 15:13. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends…..
Turning to Gary DeMar’s article that was quoted above but needs more room for further context:
…What about Jesus’ injunction to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:38-39)? There’s a big difference between slapping someone across the face and someone wanting to take a baseball bat to your head or the head of your wife and children. Self-defense is a biblical option in such cases. Consider this passage from biblical case law:
“If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft (Ex. 22:2-3).”
The homeowner can assume that someone breaking into his house at night has nothing but bad intentions. He may be armed or not. The homeowner does not have to ask any questions to find out. The homeowner can respond by striking the intruder “so that he dies.” If this happens, even if the attempt was only theft (unknown to the homeowner), the homeowner is cleared of all guilt in the thief’s death.
Daytime is a different story because the victim can make a better assessment of intent. If two people enter a building with a shotgun, as happened in the Texas church, killing these people before they kill you and others is the right thing to do. Being loving, peaceful, just and generous, and self-giving do not apply. To put it simply, there’s no time.
[….]
The story of David and Goliath is helpful since “five smooth stones” and a “sling” are the closest equivalent to a handgun we can find in the Bible. David seems to have been armed with his sling at all times. There was no way he could run home to get his sling when a lion or a bear was about to attack his flock (1 Sam. 17:31-37, 41-54).
It’s possible that Jesus had the Old Testament case law in mind when offered this injunction to His disciples:
“But be sure of this, if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into (Matt 24:43).”
But of course, you rarely know when someone is going to break into your house or decides to kill people in your church, therefore, you must be on guard all the time.
In another passage, Jesus is teaching by analogy:
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed. But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder (Luke 11:21).”
A fully armed strong man is a deterrent to a thief. It’s the fact that the strong man is armed that protects the potential thief from being harmed. Another strong man will think twice about ever trying to rob or harm someone who is armed.
Here’s what critics of armed church members miss: Armed people save lives by making evil people think twice about attacking a person or place where there might be some armed push back. One could say that it’s loving to be armed since it might stop someone who has evil intent from not following through with an evil act.
The most famous New Testament passage is a command of Jesus for His disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38). Personally, I do not believe this is a good proof text for being armed, but it does show that being armed was a norm for that time, and Jesus does not object.
Peter impetuously uses his sword against a servant of the high priest (John 18:10; Matt. 26:51; Luke 22:50) who had come out with a crowd armed with clubs and swords (Luke 22:52). Under normal circumstances, swords were permissible for self-defense, otherwise why did the “chief priests and officers of the temple and elders” have them? There is, however, something else going on here of biblical-theological importance that has little to do with self-defense.
However the sword passage is interpreted, at no time did Jesus condemn anyone for having a sword. The disciples lived in dangerous times (Luke 10:29-37). Furthermore, the Romans didn’t seem to have a problem with their subjects (the Jews) owning swords.
Gun-Free Zones are soft targets for people who have no regard for the law. The gunman who killed the people in Luby’s Cafeteria had broken the law by bringing a firearm into a place where the law said it was unlawful. Murderers are, by definition, lawbreakers.
Now to the question. Should churches, for example, ensure that there are armed and trained people at every service? Absolutely! Christians might say, “But we should put our trust in God.” God has given us the ability to reason and assess the times like the sons of Issachar, “men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command” (1 Chron. 12:32).
Consider the following from the book of Nehemiah:
“But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the people of Ashdod heard that the repairs to Jerusalem’s walls had gone ahead and that the gaps were being closed, they were very angry. They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble against it. But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.
Meanwhile, the people in Judah said, “The strength of the laborers is giving out, and there is so much rubble that we cannot rebuild the wall.”
Also our enemies said, “Before they know it or see us, we will be right there among them and will kill them and put an end to the work.”
Then the Jews who lived near them came and told us ten times over, “Wherever you turn, they will attack us.”
Therefore, I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, “Don’t be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes.”
When our enemies heard that we were aware of their plot and that God had frustrated it, we all returned to the wall, each to our own work.
From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows and armor. The officers posted themselves behind all the people of Judah who were building the wall. Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked. But the man who sounded the trumpet stayed with me.
Then I said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, “The work is extensive and spread out, and we are widely separated from each other along the wall. Wherever you hear the sound of the trumpet, join us there. Our God will fight for us!” (vv. 7-13).
While they trusted God and prayed, they also understood that they were responsible for their immediate welfare by posting a guard (v. 9). Notice that while Nehemiah said, “Our God will fight for us,” we’re also told that “half [the men] were equipped with spears, shields, bows, and armor.” This is not a contraction. Prayer is not enough unless it’s the only act that we have at our disposal.
They never let down their guard.
So, we carried on the work with half of them holding spears from dawn until the stars appeared. At that time, I also said to the people, “Let each man with his servant spend the night within Jerusalem so that they may be a guard for us by night and a laborer by day.” So, neither I, my brothers, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me, none of us removed our clothes, each took his weapon even to the water (vv. 21-23).
One more thing, when Israel’s enemies heard that the men were armed and on guard, they had second thoughts about attacking. Human nature has not changed since Cain killed Abel. What has changed in our culture is a disregard for human life.
May I connect the dots and say “Christians divesting” themselves of a God given right is disregard for life.
Right around the time David French went #NeverTrump, he had an excellent article at NATIONAL REVIEW which I noted on my website. Here is an excerpt from it:
…One cannot analyze the Second Amendment without understanding its moral and philosophical underpinnings. Colonial America was a land populated by people who were both highly literate biblically and steeped in Lockean philosophy.
The biblical record sanctioning self-defense is clear. In Exodus 22, the Law of Moses permits a homeowner to kill even a mere thief who entered his home at night, and the books of Esther and Nehemiah celebrate the self-defense of the Jews against their lawless attackers. Nehemiah exhorted the Israelites to defend themselves: “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.” The oft-forgotten climax of the book of Esther is an act of bloody self-defense against a genocidal foe.
Nor did Jesus require his followers to surrender their lives — or the lives of spouses, children, or neighbors — in the face of armed attack. His disciples carried swords, and in one memorable passage in Luke 22, he declared there were circumstances in which the unarmed should arm themselves: “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Christ’s famous admonition in his Sermon the Mount to “turn the other cheek” in the face of a physical blow is not a command to surrender to deadly violence, and it certainly isn’t a command to surrender family members or neighbors to deadly violence.
In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke described the right of self-defense as a “fundamental law of nature”:
Sec. 16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, Locke argues, these laws of nature were inseparable from the will of God:
The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.
This right is so fundamental that it’s difficult to find even leftist writers who would deny a citizen the right to protect her own life….
So much different than Scott Baker seemed to say…
- “given the constitutional protection that is interpreted as a blanket right to private gun ownership”
… we really find out IT IS a blanket right. And on Facebook I asked the following question bnecause I could not for-the-life-of-me understand why my friend liked the article? So I asked him,
- What did you like from the article? I read it twice, and I am curious what was the main part of the article made you go “yes, that makes sense”
He merely responded with over six paragraphs from the article.
Which was vacuous of history, common sense, facts, and full of cherry picked verses.