Dr. Dave's "Would You Pass a Basic Bible Quiz?" from www.truthreallymatters.com

4. Would you pass a basic Bible quiz?
July 8, 2013

Christian . . . Are you growing in knowledge of God’s word? Paul wrote to the Philippians (1:9), “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” Love among and for the brethren must be grounded in truth, in the knowledge of God’s word. You are no help to your hurting brother in Christ if you offer him warm, fuzzy psycho-babble. Love him by sharing Biblical truth that can strengthen, encourage, and direct. Paul desires the believers to grow “in all judgment” – discernment. The Christian that falls for the next spiritual fad is of no use in God’s work . . . especially in evangelism. If you love the lost, you had better be able to show him his errors in reasoning so that you can show him his sins and his need for the Savior.

So I offer a basic Bible quiz, especially for adults who have been believers for several (or many) years. I promise that this quiz is ‘basic’ – elementary. I have resisted what might be considered advanced topics. I have also avoided what some could term ‘trivia’ . . . for example, how did Balaam finally assist Balak to get the Israelites cursed? Even though such topics are not ‘trivia’ at all. We should be familiar with the historical accounts which God has provided for our instruction – Romans 15:4.

Since this is an elementary quiz, a qualifying test for basic Bible knowledge, a passing grade would mean at least 90% of questions answered thoroughly. I’m not trying to stump anyone. You really should know this stuff!

Is this quiz thoroughly comprehensive on THE MOST VITAL questions on THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL truths? No, of course not. Consider it to be a ‘typical’ basic quiz. Teachers: if you decide to actually test your students, and you don’t like this quiz, then construct one at an equivalent level. For example, replace the question about Jeremiah with one about Isaiah.

Regarding pastors / elders . . . the test is not meant for you to take. It should be embarrassing if you have any trouble with it. Rather, you can use this test to evaluate whether you have fulfilled your responsibilities. If the people you teach fail to pass, then you fail. Something needs to change . . . don’t just preach louder!

So, before we begin . . . Don’t get nervous! . . . be assured that if you fail you can recover and re-qualify. I’ll have some comments at the end to suggest how to correct whatever deficiencies you uncover – in your own knowledge or as you re-embrace your responsibility to others.

Section #1: Closed Bible questions . . . you are allowed only pencil and paper.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: List all 10 of the 10 commandments. (See, I told you this test would be easy!)

Q2: Explain how the Lord Jesus, in His earthly ministry, taught the moral law. Did He affirm it, diminish it, or amplify it? Give some specific examples from His teaching.

Q3: Why did the nation of Israel split? Which tribes split? Describe the spiritual development of both parts of the nation until the Babylonian captivity. Give several specific examples to illustrate this development.

Q4: Which Old Testament prophet is most despised by modernists, because of his detailed prophecies concerning the centuries to follow? Give a couple of examples of his prophecies which were fulfilled before the 1st coming of Christ.

Q5: What was the historical context surrounding Jeremiah’s ministry – namely, what was the big problem? What was his bad news? What wonderful hope did he offer?

Q6: Which of the 4 Gospel accounts is ‘different’ from the other 3? Explain how.

Q7: Describe 3 Old Testament ‘types’ fulfilled in the New Testament. (For example, the Passover lamb, without blemish, was slain and its blood used to deliver anyone who applied it properly – to the doorposts. The fulfillment is the sinless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanses from sin anyone who repents and believes . . . thus, the Passover Lamb is a deliberate God-given ‘type’ to point to Christ . . . now, describe 3 other types.)

Q8: What was the main problem that Paul addressed in his letter to the churches of Galatia and what was his argument to correct the problem?

Q9: Name at least 5 of the 7 churches listed in Revelation chapters 2 and 3. Summarize the messages given to 2 of them.

Q10: Quote from memory 5 verses from the OT and 5 verses from the NT. Quote them perfectly.

Section #2: Open Bible questions . . . you are allowed pencil, paper, and a plain Bible with no commentary notes, cross references, or appendices.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: Use Scripture to support the doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

Q2: Find passages from 3 different OT books that prophesy the 1st coming of Christ. Explain their significance (namely, don’t just list the verses).

Q3: Find passages from 3 different OT and 3 different NT books that prophesy the 2nd coming of Christ.

Q4: Some people assert that Paul and James contradict each other regarding the relationship among faith, works, and salvation. Use Scripture and explain how these two NT writers are in perfect accord.

Q5: Use several OT and NT passages to demonstrate the ‘young earth creationist’ position.

Q6: Use the Bible to show that a believer immediately goes to Heaven when he dies, and that an unbeliever goes to Hell. (Not talking about final judgment . . . but in this present age.)

Q7: Use Scripture to identify at least 15 characteristics of a growing, sanctified follower of Christ.

Q8: Use Scripture to identify at least 15 characteristics of lost people.

Q9: Use at least 3 different books of the Bible to show that Scripture commands us to identify and separate from false teachers.

Q10: Show from the Bible that tithing is God’s method to support the NT churches in order for them to build costly facilities and to pay salaried clergy / staff who must graduate from Bible colleges and be ordained by others who have also done so. (Good luck with this one!!)

Section #3: History of God’s people since the 1st century . . . you are allowed only pencil and paper.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: Pick any 5 historical ‘good guys’ out of the following list and describe the significance of their work.

- John Wycliffe
- Erasmus
- William Tyndale
- John Wesley
- Shubal Stearns
- Hudson Taylor or Adoniram Judson
- Charles Spurgeon

Q2: Pick any 4 historical ‘bad guys’ out of the following list and describe the trouble they caused.

- Origen
- Augustine
- Ignatius of Loyola
- B. F. Westcott and/or F. J. A. Hort
- Rick Warren
- Rob Bell or Brian McLaren

Q3: Christian authors . . . Pick either John Bunyan or Henry Morris and describe his principal work and its significance.

Q4: Explain in a few paragraphs how God has preserved His inerrant word and propagated independent local churches since the 1st century . . . apart from and despite the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches that came out of the Reformation. Mention at least 2 groups of believers that thrived under persecution during the Middle Ages.

Section 4: Practicum . . . Open Bible – you may use a cross-referenced study Bible, plus pen and paper.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: You are with an elderly, life-long committed Roman Catholic man who is on his deathbed . . . He has about 10 minutes to live. He insists that he believes in Jesus as his Savior. Show him from the Bible what his fatal errors are and what he must do.

Q2: You share lunch with a young, college-educated Muslim. Start on common ground – the law of Moses – and explain to him the differences between God and Allah, the Gospel and the Muslim’s hope for Paradise, and what he must do to be saved.

Q3: Use your Bible to refute the false Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Explain how these doctrines, when embraced in youth, can prevent someone from understanding the Biblical Gospel and becoming a born again believer.

Q4: An atheist insists that he will not listen to your Bible quotes, since he doesn’t believe the Bible to be true. You must first convince him that God might exist. Give him at least 3 affirmative arguments for God being real, and then at least 3 arguments from your general knowledge of basic science to show that evolution is obviously false.

Q5: Give 3 examples where Jesus tried to reach an individual lost soul in the Gospel accounts. Explain His methodology in each case.

Q6: Explain briefly the major differences between Peter’s open-air argument in Acts 2 and Paul’s corresponding message on Mars Hill. How can you apply these principles to your own personal evangelism?

Q7: Do you have at least 100 verses in your current memory bank? Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Q8: If you have been a believer for several years, have you read the Bible through several times? If many years . . . many times? Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Q9: In the last month, have you ‘practiced’ your responsibility in evangelism by sharing the Gospel with at least 5 lost people – who were strangers to you? ‘Sharing the Gospel’ must include pointing out that their sins will bring judgment and Hell, and that they must repent – forsake their sins, and trust Christ . . . which will be demonstrated by a new birth and a changed life; ie., you didn’t take shortcuts. Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Q10: In the last month have you prayed in tears for the burden of another believer. Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. (Do you know why this question is both relevant and important?)

- end of exam – Whew! Tired? Oh, sorry, too long? Have you ever taken the SAT or ACT? How about the GRE (Graduate Record Exam)? Were they too long? How about all of those Finals Weeks in college? Oh, but those were to test important skills, you say. Why would anyone be bothered with testing Bible knowledge?

Isn’t it interesting how ‘discipleship’ – in practice – seems to consist of about 2 or 3 hours per week of sitting under Sunday School lessons and pulpit sermons . . . for decades . . . with no accountability, no exams, no apparent care whether anyone learns anything! The secular world does far better than that. Engineers are not merely lectured to for a few years and then unleashed to build bridges and computers. Pediatricians in training do more than watch Power Point shows before you entrust them with your sick child. Lawyers must repeatedly demonstrate knowledge and skills in rhetoric and writing before they will be licensed by the state.

But the greatest work in God’s universe – making and developing disciples of Jesus Christ – involves no real training, no testing, no care whether anyone ‘gets it’ or not. The few young folks who develop any noticeable zeal are sent off to ‘Bible College’ and become hirelings to some other congregation. Now they are the ones in the pulpit conducting 2-hour per week ‘discipleship’ lectures for the ‘laity’ in the pews. (See my article, “Don’t go to Bible college.”)

Did you pass the exam? Great! Get ready for more advanced study! Those questions were really just elementary . . . surely, you agree. Any 16-year-old raised in a Christian family should pass easily. You wouldn’t send your children out into the pagan / apostate / humanistic world without knowing at least this much, would you?!?

Did you fail? Ok, don’t get discouraged. Do something about it! If your ‘discipleship’ training has been via the traditional failed system described above, then figure out the NT model for yourself . . . described in several articles in the Discipleship section of this site. Man up! You are going to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ – the ultimate test!!! – and give an account for your own life, and for the discipleship responsibilities you have for your wife, your children, and other believers around you.

Don’t just drift along in the system. I’m hoping that for someone out there that this little quiz might be a wakeup call.

There is a spiritual war on and you need some armor and some weapons!!! 
It’s your job . . . your pulpit-pew system is blocking your growth. It’s not helping . . . at least be honest with yourself.

Feel free to correspond if you like. I’m not trying to convince paid clergy – they are committed to their facilities and salaries and . . . they fear for their paychecks, which depend on an unbiblical distinction between clergy and laity. (See 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:6). But you know that you should invest in the gifts God has given you. And follow His way toward spiritual growth and usefulness in the greatest calling of all – The Great Commission.

- drdave@truthreallymatters.com

The World Is Ending, Part Whatever: The Blood Moons

Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail.

Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.

– Isaiah 47:12-13.

The world is coming to an end in the next 6 months! Or, wait, didn’t it already come to an end a few times in the last few years? I thought it ended on December 21, 2012? No, that can’t be right. Harold Camping said it would end before that, I think. That still can’t be right. It had to have ended in 2000 with all of that Y2K hubbub. This time, though, it’s definitely coming to an end. Mark Biltz and John Hagee said so, and they’ve both got the Bible to prove it, so it must be true.

According to Biltz and Hagee Joel 3 is warning mankind of the world’s end. Central to their argument are verses 14-15, which state, “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.” From this passage Biltz’s book, Blood Moons: Decoding the Imminent Heavenly Signs unfolds. He links past blood moons to historical events such as the Spanish Reconquista, which expelled both Jews and Muslims from Spain, the modern re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Israel, and Israel’s defeating the Arab onslaught in 1967. He makes what seems to be a compelling case. Why not? God is in control of the heavens, so why wouldn’t or couldn’t He use heavenly signs to tell us about the future? In fact, the Bible even tells of such heavenly signs throughout its pages. But does that mean that what Biltz, and subsequently John Hagee, have to say is correct?

The Bible does indeed have much to say about consulting celestial bodies, but none of it is good. Consider what God had to say about such practices in Deuteronomy. He condemns the person and the practice of consulting the heavens in 4:19, 17:2-5, and 18:9-12. Notice, specifically Deuteronomy 18:14 – “For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.” God was against such prognostication, and called it divination.

Divination is the practice of divining. Divining is popularly known as water witching. It comes from occultic practices stretching far back into ancient pagan cultures (See Dave Hunt’s Occult Invasion for one of the best documentations on this practice). Divining was heavily mixed into occultic practices that also used astrology. In other words, it is satanic. God condemned the diviners. He further went to great lengths confounding the diviners (cf. I Samuel 6:2, Isaiah 44:25, Jeremiah 27:9, Jeremiah 29:8, Micah 3:7, and Zechariah 10:2).

God did not intend to speak through the sun, moon, and stars. Such attempts to find God’s direction in the stars is the definition of Astrology. Consider that the Book of Daniel has all but one mention of astrologers in the Bible (cf. Daniel 1:20, 2:2, 2:27, 4:7, 5:7, 5:11, and 5:15. The only other mention is Isaiah 47:12-13 quoted above). This should be eye-opening in that Daniel was in Babylon, the creator of Astrological practices. The Chaldeans put great emphasis upon astrology. So too did the Medes and Persians that followed the Babylonians. For that matter, any study of the Ancient and Medieval worlds reveals that mankind was greatly affected by heavenly occurrences. God, however, warned against such thinkers and their thinking.

But all of this seems to have been lost among many modern “Christians.” They look for signs, and believe anyone, who in God’s name claims that the Bible points out these signs. Multi-millionaires have been made upon such claims, because modern American Christianity comprises immature, spiritually blind, bankrupt, Bible illiterates. Don’t be the child tossed to and from, carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness. If you are, you will be deceived by those lying in wait for gullible, foolish you.

There is hope. The Bible tells us to study to shew ourselves approved. Don’t be a shamed workman. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. Be spiritually discerning, because the spiritual man does indeed judge all things. Walk circumspectly, not as fools, but wise. Understand the times. All of these commands are biblical. All of them profit in that they, through knowing God and His word, serve to protect us from the charlatan and the hireling, who only serve to make money off of foolishness. BE NOBLE! EXAMINE THE SCRIPTURES! Even if it is the Apostle Paul telling you something, we still have a requirement to search it out.

On that note, some readers may start claiming that the Bible does talk about the Sun’s darkening, the Moon turning to blood, and the Stars falling from the sky. The Bible pronounces such statements when regarding end times events. I agree. It does. What must be understood, however, is the order of end time events. First, understand this – “For Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:” (I Cor. 1:22) But Christ said this to the Jews seeking a sign “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.” (Matthew 16:4 cf. Matthew 12:39) These Jews were seeking for their Messiah, and they missed Him, because they were looking for signs instead of looking for Him.

Christ finally did give signs about His coming in Matthew 24-25. These chapters are Jewish in context, and understandably can and are often mistaken to be about the Rapture of the Church. They’re not. They’re about Christ’s Second Coming. They’re about His establishing His earthly Kingdom. They fit entirely within the context of the Old Testament Day of the Lord, which was prophesied about throughout the Major and Minor Prophets. All of those signs do and will occur before Christ returns and establishes His earthly kingdom.

Nothing has to happen before the Rapture occurs. The Bible’s comments about the Church being raptured are much different than the comments about His Second Coming. The Rapture can occur at any time. It was likened unto a thief in the night (I Thess. 5:2) It begins the Day of the Lord, but this day is not just one 24 hour period. In context the “Day of the Lord” so mentioned here begins with the Rapture and ends with Eternity. It is in a greater context than those proclaiming “Beware! The Blood Moons are Coming!”

In light of such an imminent return, the truly called out should be busily endeavoring to warn men of sin, their need to repent from sin, turn to Christ, and make disciples who will go and do likewise. Anything else is a waste of time.

A Response to Sin Creeping Into and Destroying Modern Churches

On July 25, 2013 a Rockford, Illinois news agency reported that a former church employee had been accused of molesting a 13 year old girl. Initially, anyone reading that headline should have reacted with disgust and/or anger. Interestingly, however, another encountered reaction is a defensive one. Yet, one should note that those on the defensive usually fall prey to thoughts riddled with emotionally-led, fallacy-styled thinking. It is the type of thinking seen whenever God uncovers sin, as evidenced in the Garden of Eden. It was the type of thinking when Peter pointed out “Simon the Sorcerer’s” sin in Acts 8. It is expected of sinners, because that’s what they do, they make excuses for their sin. A follower of Christ, however, is in marked contrast. He is one who has a deep hatred of sin, not just in his own life, but in the world around him. This deep hatred is not based upon his own feeling or standard, or else it would not be of Christ, but of man. The same hatred is also mixed with deep compassion. Consider the “Rich Young Ruler” of Matthew 19. That man was in sin, he came to Christ seeking eternal life. Christ revealed sin in that man, He had to. As Christ began to reveal sin in that man, Mark 10:21 tells us that Christ beheld him with love, and in that love Christ responded by telling him about his sin, and how to repent from it. This thought brings about the real question, the one that matters most. How should the church deal with sinners and reaching out to the lost?

The traditional modern American church position can be summarized thusly, “Come to our church, all are welcome.” This can be and is stated in many different ways, and upon the face of it, the statement is inviting, caring, and “welcoming.” Most churches today go well out of their way to create burdensome programs built to attract as many people as they can. Many are successful, many are not. But what is the standard for success? Is it numbers in attendance? Is it a growing national audience, or larger buildings, or church sports teams? From a purely sound business model, yes it is, which is why Christian Colleges offer business/management style classes as part of pastoral core curriculum. The author was required to take a few of these classes, and learned a few things about how-to and how-not-to do business. My professors were intelligent men, who were pastors as well as college profs. They knew what they were talking about, not only from books, but also from experience. They had built their businesses successfully. But did they build them Biblically? I’m not questioning their heart, though I have done so elsewhere. I’m questioning their methods. To borrow a profound question from a friend’s recent article: Can one support the way that the modern church is built, funded, and run from the Bible? (Section 2, question 10). Let’s make this a bit more personal. Are there examples in the Bible of your church? Chapter? Verse? Is it Biblical to have an “Open Door Policy” in that all are welcomed and invited to attend meetings? According to this model it is, and it is strongly encouraged by the leadership.

The non-traditional church position views the matter much differently. It does not have an “All are welcome” sign, nor does it even have a sign. This does not mean people are not welcome, however. Any would be welcome, but those who would like to fellowship must meet a few clearly laid out standards. First, those desiring to fellowship must show clear signs of a truly repentant, fruit producing follower of Christ. Second, they must desire to spread the gospel. Third, they must desire to disciple. Simple stuff, and it is expected to be done by all, not just a select few. (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:44-49, John 20:19-23, Acts 1:8, Hebrews 10:24-25 – focus on the “one another” in both verses). There is no business model outside of witness and disciple in this model. No one is invited to “come to our church”, no one is enticed to come to a program. It is a terrible business model in comparison to the traditional position. It could never pay a pastor’s salary. It could never build large buildings. It could never boast large crowds. It is not what young men and women go to “Bible College” for. To be fair, the same questions must be asked about this model that were asked concerning the traditional church. Can one support the non-traditional model in how it is built or not funded from the Bible? Are there examples of this church in the Bible? Are there examples of the “Closed Door Policy” in that people must meet requirements to fellowship with other believers? Wouldn’t such an idea be unloving? How is this model an example of Jesus Christ’s love for the world?

The author has been involved in both models, very actively too at that, as a child, student, organizer, leader, teacher, missionary, and pastor. He has seen how both models work from the most intricate details to the simplest of actions. It is from this viewpoint that posited questions will be answered, it is the author’s bias, based upon Biblical and practical applications. It is completely understood that not everyone will agree with the answers given. The only thing desired is that what is about to be offered is prayerfully, Biblically considered. Do not fall back upon emotional pleas, ad hominem, straw man, red herrings, or any other form of fallacy. They’re not helpful. One must know and understand why he believes what he believes. If his position is untenable, then why hold that position? One can and does cause much harm by thinking this way, such as what happened at the above mentioned church, or any church, for that matter.

The traditional church attempts to meet the great commission through various means. Services, programs, events, dinners, and/or sports-teams are all part of the plan to draw in the lost. In theory these attract more people’s attention, and therefore more people’s participation. Nothing is inherently wrong with these events in and of themselves, but if they become the method of evangelism then they are unbiblical. The Bible’s method for evangelism is always one on one. Consider Philip and the Ethiopian Eunich in Acts 8. What about Christ with Nicodemus? Or Peter with Cornelius? The Bible, as stated already, command all followers of Christ to spread the word. We are all to be instant in season and out of season, not just the salaried staff. There is practicality in this. First, it puts more people in the army on the front lines. Second, it is more personal. People have questions, serious ones at that. One on one allows for these questions to be asked and answered carefully, thoughtfully, compassionately. Third, in light of number two, the Christian is forced to study to shew himself approved. It forces him to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. It forces him to know Christ. The traditional model robs the member of all of this, as, generally speaking, the vast majority of church members do not witness one on one. What instead occurs, is the leadership encourages “All to come, attend our services. We’ll put on a good show for you.” It could be a traditional show, or a contemporary show, an early show or a late show. Just attend. That’s what matters. American Christendom has an historical example of this method – the Half-way Covenant in New England churches. After a few years of this practice, churches were filled with such sin and superstition that they were useless for Christ. They opened the doors to everyone, and everyone came. Everyone brought everything, and everything sent Christ out of the church. This satanic perversion has been happening for quite some time, and not just in America (Revelation 2:12-29, 3:14-22). God commanded the churches in Revelation to repent of this, which always requires a turning from sin/error and turning to Christ.

The traditional church’s method of discipleship is even more non-committal. It attempts to use, in their term, a “shot-gun” approach to reach the crowds. The idea is that “God’s Man” will preach “God’s Message” and “God’s People” will hear what needs to be heard, and this is the Biblical plan for discipleship. To answer this issue, one must look more carefully at the Great Commission. Focus on two specific words – Preach and Teach. Preaching is to the lost in most cases (Romans 1:16, I Cor. 1:17-31). Teaching is done to those already saved. It is discipleship. One does not need to continuously preach Christ crucified to the saved, it was the foundational message that has already been lain down (I Cor. 3:11). Christ did both teaching and preaching. He did so, because some were saved, and others were lost that heard Him. (Matthew 4:23,  9:35, 11:1 – both words are used in each verse, it’s not being redundant, it’s two different things that Christ was accomplishing). He made sure to do both aspects, and He commanded us to follow after Him. (Matthew 28:19-20). He preached to the lost, and he taught his disciples, all one on one. His disciples followed this same pattern, and there is no other example given as to how to accomplish both preaching and teaching anywhere in the Bible. (Acts 1:1, 5:25, 5:42, 13:1, 15:35, 18:11, 28:31, Romans 2:21, I Cor. 2:13, 4:17, Galatians 6:6, Col. 1:28, 3:16 – notice the one another here - , I Timothy 2:7, 3:2, 4:11, II Tim. 1:11, 2:24, Titus 1:9, 2:12, Hebrews 5:12, 8:11, I John 2:27). One must be careful, however, of bad teaching as is often warned. (Matt. 15:9, Matt. 23, Mark 7:7, John 9:34, Acts 4:18, 5:28, 21:28, Romans 2:21, I Cor. 2:13, I Tim. 1:3, 1:7, 2:12, 6:3, II Tim. 4:3, Titus 1:9-16, II Pet. 2:1, Rev. 2:20).

Bad teaching comes from bad teachers, and the teacher as well as the teaching must be rebuked, as Christ often rebuked the Pharisees (eg. Matthew 23), or Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-12). This only stirs up controversy if the person being rebuked refuses to see his error. The Pharisees did not respond properly to Christ’s open rebuke. How could they? They were lost. Peter, on the other hand, responded well to Paul’s rebuke. He knew that Paul was speaking truth, and Peter was following after the truth as a saved man. Either way, the point is that rebuke is commanded (Titus 1:13). Exhortation is commanded. Judging is commanded. (I Timothy 4:2, II Timothy 3:16-17, Matthew 7:1-6, I Cor. 2:15). A Christian can know the difference between truth and error, and Christ gave us a very powerful example of that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:13-29). He followed that up with the parables of the sheep/goats and wheat/tares in Matthew 13. I John is entirely written to distinguish saved/lost. John 3 splits the two camps into light/darkness. Are all bad teachers lost? No. some of them are saved, but have not been disciples properly. Consider Apollos, to whom Aquila and Priscilla had to teach sound doctrine. Apollos endured that teaching, a proof of his salvation. One who will not endure sound doctrine is lost (Matthew 23, John 5:38-47, John 8:30-59, II Timothy 3:1-10, 4:3-5, Titus 1:9-16). These people get only one or two chances, no more, no less (Titus 3:10).

If bad teaching is not reproved and rebuked the consequences can be disastrous. The Traditional Church actively seeks to squelch these situations. In the fundamental setting two prominent teachers have actively taught against reproving and rebuking. Both Paul Chappell and Jack Hyles allow(ed) for no criticism of their preaching. Why? What is there to hide? What is given in defense of this ultimate, unquestioned authority? Where does this tradition come from? What are its abuses? What is its purpose? Are there Biblical examples of this position? The first and last questions on the list must be taken together. Yes, there is at least one Biblical example by name mentioned in III John, Diotrophes (III John 9).  Diotrophes wanted to be preeminent, that is above all else, in charge. John blasted him in no uncertain terms, and commanded the readers to follow not that which is evil. By implication, Diotrophes and his method were evil, and should not be followed. Christ further had many sharp rebukes against such practices in Matthew 23 and His judgment against Nicolaitainism in Revelation 2-3. (Nicolaitainism is a hierarchical setting – simple or complex – in which one lords over another. It is as prevalent in Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon circles as it is in Roman Catholicism). One should further remember Paul’s comments against such man-following in I Corinthians 3. Bottom line, following man is “carnal” at best, and deadly-wicked in reality. The tradition, in a nutshell, is pagan, as Alexander Hislop details in his incredibly detailed work The Two Babylons. The head of woman is man, the head of man is not the Pastor, or the church, it is Christ (I Cor. 11:3). Consider the devastation. A seemingly devout man spends 30-40 years in the ministry. Hundreds to thousands come under his teaching, and believe that man to be “God’s Man.” He is given a place high atop a pedestal. One that is revered. He’s called Reverend, Doctor, Father, Pastor, or whatever else (Matthew 23). He’s trusted, respected, and loved. No one would ever think that this man is capable of teaching error (most people think this of their pastor, other pastors teach error, but not mine, this is subjective thinking, and very dangerous). One dark afternoon the police raid your church, and take your pastor out in handcuffs. What’s going on? What’s happening? Who is attacking this blessed man of God? The media hates Christians. It’s a liberal attack against good people. Right? That illustrates much of the reactionary thought of many, but not all. The rest of the story is soon illustrated. Pastor molested, pastor committed adultery, pastor raped, Christians involved in sexual crime…. Then there are the cover ups. ABC News foundation rattling expose in 2011 got the ball rolling, but the issues did not start there, they’ve been around for some time, and will continue to plague this system, because the system is faulty. No one dares say anything against this giant of a man of God. Surely, he couldn’t be doing anything wrong. Right? Apparently not, there are entire organizations now devoted specifically to uncovering and stopping this type of stuff within, most likely, your own church! Yes, the media has illustrated a concerted hatred toward things of God, but it also understands that sin sells stories. In other words, it knows what sin is, even if the church no longer does. Hurt church members also understand what sin is, which is why they flee in large numbers after they realized they’ve been a part of the system. In some instances, such as Trinity Jacksonville (of which I am well acquainted), those scarred institutions trade their former conservative positions for more liberal ideals. They have to, or they’d lose the numbers, which is business 101 for failure.

To this point this article has been all about expose, and pointing out problems. One must be asking, “Oh yeah, smartypants, what would you do? Could you do any better?” Inherently, that is the wrong question, but it is the normal question asked in situations like these. No, “I” could not do any better, and if “I” think I could then “I” would be guilty of what “I” just wrote against above. It’s not about me, you, I, we, etc… It’s about Christ. Granted, that seems like a pious claim that all make, but let’s back it up with some Biblical force.

In the second listed model, the non-traditional, there is a plurality of elders. There is not one person running the show, there are many. (I Timothy 5 – elder does not equal pastor, if so, then woman, who are mentioned as elders in the chapter could also be “pastors.”) Elder men have a responsibility to younger men, and elder women have a responsibility to younger women. Under no circumstance, ever, anywhere, is a pastor to, by himself, meet and teach a woman one on one, alone. That’s the elder woman’s responsibility. The same applies to elder women and younger men (I Timothy 2:11-12). In a group fellowship setting, there should be someone who keeps things decently and in order. That is detailed in I Corinthians 12 and 14, as well as Romans 12. That person, who is often called pastor, is to be an “ENSAMPLE” according to I Peter 5:1-3 (note that Elders is mentioned here in this passage). The point is necessary, because “en” means from within, and “ex”, as in example, means from without. The Elders are those who have become so within the body of Christ, and have proven themselves worthy of that double honor mentioned in I Timothy 5. (Consider also Leviticus 19:32 and Proverbs 16:31). They do not just become elders over night, but have consistently proven that Christ is indeed working in and through them, and has been for some time both in witnessing and discipleship.

Those elders have a responsibility to guard the flock. They have been around. They have much more wisdom, as demonstrated by how they handle sound doctrine, than the younger brethren. They, therefore, can spot error much more rapidly than the younger Christian, that is not to say that the younger Christian cannot spot error, or that he cannot point error out (I Timothy 4:12). He certainly can, and does. If it’s truth against an elder, however, he must be careful in how he handles the situation so as to not breed confusion. One of main functions of an elder apart from teaching and discipleship is keeping error out of the church. They are to reprove, rebuke, and keep it from entering the fellowship (Ephesians 5:1-17). This is the crux of this article’s main point. The Biblical pattern is to properly distinguish between saved and lost (Matthew 13). Once distinguished, fellowship together with Christ and believers should be a desire, one that doesn’t need to be commanded, as it is a proof of salvation (I John 1:1-4). The lost are not allowed to enter the fellowship, as the Bible commands (I Cor. 10:20-21, II Cor. 6:14-18, Ephesians 5:11-12). If, as happened in Corinth, someone “slips through the cracks”, that person, under the non-traditional method, will not abide long before he is revealed by salt and light. When found out, the fellowship has a God mandated responsibility to swiftly deal with the issue. If the professed brother refuses to see his error, he must be compassionately, yet sometimes forcefully told to break fellowship (I Corinthians 5). It is this author’s experience that churches very seldom heed this command, and in turn believe that it is their responsibility to “reform” that individual. They’ve missed the point, the person, if sin is not properly repented from, is lost in sin and one heartbeat from Hell. The modern approach does the fellowship no favors, as sin will and does eventually spread like the leaven mentioned in I Corinthians 5. PURGE IT OUT! Further, if the person in question is led to believe that he is saved, and that sin is just normal, then that church is creating a religious lost person akin to anyone in Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, et. al. They all know some truth, but not the clear truth that Christ came to die for the sins of the world, was buried, and rose again the third day. There should be, as a clear example, a decreasing pattern of sin, not a normal pattern. That was broken and overcome by Christ! Don’t be afraid to point this out, it’s the greatest love that a Christian can ever have for another person! (John 16:33, Romans 12:21, II Peter 2:18-22, I John 2:12-29, I John 4:4, I John 5:1-5).

Is this an argument stating that these problems cannot or do not happen in the non-traditional church setting? Not at all. But it is an argument stating that the issues plaguing the Modern system cannot, and are not being handled scripturally. Because of that being the case, they will continue. People will keep getting hurt, and in this age of mass communication, the public will hear more about it than ever before. This should be a given. Further illustration of the system’s failure is its constant creation of new programs and outreaches to, in some way or other, fix the issues. It’s simply become too complex, or to borrow a phrase from the political realm, “Too Big to Fail.” Keeping in that line of thought, the System must be overhauled. It must be built upon the only sure foundation. It must be patterned after the only Biblical models available. It must vanish so that it Christ can once again become visible. It must die, so that Christ may live.

For more on the non-traditional viewpoint, please, visit here, here, here, and here. If you’re in fact wondering about how much Bible you may or may not know, take this quiz, if you find that you don’t do well on this quiz, please, follow II Corinthians 13:5’s admonition. I’d much rather be wrong, and one ends up in Heaven, than be right and many end up in Hell. If you’re in the system’s trap, please, consider this, this, and this (The posts entitled Satan’s Suction System as well as Do We Need Better Leaders?)

Don’t keep falling prey to this system. Break free. Overcome!

If This Is Your Pastor, Then You Need To Flee!

This video is appalling! But it does illustrate the extent that pastors think they that they are lords over "their flock." If you find yourself "under" someone like this, then all I can say is run. If you in fact believe this man is well within the Biblical parameters set for a pastor, then consider a few passages -

I Peter 5:3 - 

Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

I Cor. 11:1-3 - 

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

III John 9-11 - 

9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

II Timothy 3:1-9 (Special emphasis on 1-5) - 

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

Hebrews 10:24-25 - (Emphasis mine)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

I have always enjoyed my friend Dr. Dave Stone's website, and he offers these ideas concerning church. Also, Paul Howey's website offers much more material concerning the pastor worship cult. Consider this article for example. Please, don't keep harming yourself by placing yourself under men like the pastor in this video. He is, though zealous and even well-meaning, going against God's Word by employing such methods.

PS - This was Jim Standbridge from Immanuel Baptist Church, Skiatook, OK, but it doesn't matter who it is, it could well be your pastor.

Summary and Remarks Concerning Larry Alex Taunton's "Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity"

An old school friend of mine posted this link to an article on Facebook that appeared in The Atlantic. My first thought was, “This should be an interesting attack against Christianity.” Then, I looked at the title again, and noticed that it had the tagline “Lessons for a Stronger Christianity.” This left me puzzled, because The Atlantic is not known as being a Christian publication, further, it’s much left-of-center, especially in areas conflicting with evangelical/fundamental beliefs. Surely, The Atlantic, in my mind at least, would never publish an article that would challenge Christians, right? After all, isn’t going to church supposed to take care of all that? Isn’t church where one goes to get preached at? Further, according to Christians, aren’t Atheists simply arrogant, hateful, misguided abhorrents to society? If they’d just go to church like they’re supposed to, then they’d see that God is real. If they’d go to church, then the world wouldn’t be so messed up. After all, it was Atheists who have sparked the modern world’s revolutions, most notably the French Revolution, of which I’ve been slogging through over at Clio’s Lessons for more than a year now. If they just realized the foolishness of their position, then they’d reject their stance, and turn to Christ. Therein lies the problem. Who is showing them Christ?

Larry Alex Taunton’s article should be a bombshell. No, let me restate that, it should be a hydrogen bomb. It should cause deep, spirit-led, heartfelt sorrow. It should cause all who profess Christianity to examine themselves, whether they be in the faith, as II Corinthians 13:5 states. It won’t. Modern American Christianity is largely confused. This should come as no surprise to the Bible-believer, because such confusion was prophesied long before America even existed as a nation. Much of the epistles warn against such confusion, but it happened, and is happening anyway. The situation is all too common. Some great teacher, who in many cases has a great heart, arrives on the scene saying amazing things in an incredible way. This man has what seems to be truth, and he definitely has love, so what could possibly go wrong? We should just trust God that He put us under the teacher’s voice. Who are we to question the man of God? Further, this is the way we’ve always done it. It’s tradition, and no one messes with tradition. Especially not an atheist. It’s the atheist who needs to get right, not us Church-going Christians. Mr. Taunton’s article very carefully reveals this very idea/practice as being in fact the problem itself.

Mr. Taunton’s work , which can be seen here, has brought him face to face with atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and many professing Christians. He is attempting to calmly proclaim Christ to an increasingly stormy world. Recently, as his article points out, he and his foundation did a study trying to uncover what he calls “The New Atheists” motives. When did they become Atheist? Why did they choose Atheism? It was questions like these that uncovered many seemingly unrelated statements, that he eventually concluded were in fact all related. Mr. Taunton foreshadows the very heart of the matter when he first quotes Michael, a poli-sci major from Dartmouth, “I really can’t consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn’t trying to convert me.”  This is the main point, and focus around which all other issues arise. Michael, an atheist, has got it right! In this vein, those professing Christianity have greatly erred, and are in fact part of the ever-growing problems affecting their sacred establishments. After quoting Michael, Mr. Taunton then sets off to prove this point.

Taunton and his team issued a challenge across social media aimed at challenging college student led atheist groups. The response was overwhelming as many across the spectrum responded to the simple request, “Tell us your journey to unbelief.” One such young-man, Phil, greatly touched Taunton. His remarks revealed much that churches just don’t understand, or perhaps in many situations, refuse to understand. Phil was raised in a Methodist church, a church, by his own admission, that he liked. It was a contemporary-style church, but it was not the style that impressed Phil, it was his youth pastor’s, Jim,  heart for and knowledge of the Bible. Phil recalls being able to ask questions, no matter how great or small, during a Bible study setting. He began to realize that Jim would always search the scriptures for an answer. If he knew the answer, great, and if he did not at the moment, Jim would search to find one. Jim simply paid attention, and sought out the Bible. This, however, was not good enough for “growth.” (Numerical growth, not spiritually maturing growth – there is a difference, but more on that later). Jim was told to teach less, and become more of a fun guy in order to attract more numbers. When Jim refused, Phil lost his youth pastor. In Jim’s place the church hired, according to Phil’s testimony, Savannah, a pretty, young girl, “…[who] knew nothing about the Bible.” The numbers began rolling in, but Phil was out. Not out of the church, he still attended, but he attended as an atheist until he left for college. Using this story, Taunton outlines 7 serious issues to which any and all professing Christians should pay attention.

First, most atheists in Taunton’s study attended church. They became atheists in reaction to Christianity alone, nothing else.

Second, those churches had at best an ambiguous message. Messages about being good, or doing good in society (aka Social Gospel) littered the testimonies. Churches were often about their, that is the organization’s, reforming an individual, not Christ’s doing the reforming. No connection was made between Christ and the person’s life, as the Bible states. Taunton recalls Stephanie, a Northwestern student’s remarks, which reveal why she left Christianity. She saw, at best, little incentive to stay in the church, if Christ could not reform the lives of those attending. Taunton further points out that this was not just an isolated comment, but one that was restated often.

Third, churches were giving superficial answers to serious questions. As an educator, I have witnessed this one first hand. A former student of mine recently nailed me with a series of very pertinent questions. He had been asking family, teachers, and pastors the same series of questions for about a year before he reconnected with me. When I started to take the time to show him Biblically the answers he so craved, more questions came. We spent two long evenings, and countless other chats over the last year digging, one on one, into the Bible. I at one point asked him why he hadn’t found any answers yet, he replied with two heartbreaking comments, “I was told that I was thinking too deeply about these things.” and, “I just need to trust by faith that what I’m being told is true.” Both responses reveal the problem Taunton is illustrating. The school and church is not one that preaches social gospel. It would not be claimed by the New Evangelicals or Neo Orthodox realm. It is, as they proclaim Fundamental, Bible-Believing. The reality, however, is that they practice much of the numbers game as well as New Evangelical or Neo Orthodox thought. When the tough questions are asked, those in leadership run, because as Phil pointed out about Savannah, they don’t know the Bible. The students in Taunton’s study all reveal that they found church to be a place of “…shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant people.” They draw this conclusion, especially in the early adult years, from the fact that no one in their professing Christian circles knows how to answer life’s serious questions.

Fourth, my previous comments would seem to have an irreverence for Pastors, Missionaries, and Teachers in the church. It would also seem that these students-turned-atheists have such irreverential attitudes toward church leadership. That’s what someone in those positions of authority would have you believe at least. The reality is much more eye-opening. Taunton has debated many atheists in his lifetime, one of whom was the most antagonistic atheists of his time, Christopher Hitchens. After a debate in 2010, Taunton asked Hitchens why he didn’t attempt to “savage” him on the stage. Hitchens reply is loaded with insight, “Because you believe it.” It was in this paragraph  that Michael from Dartmouth’s quote about good, moral Christians trying to convert him was stated, thus revealing that only a few Christians are due respect. All others claiming to follow Christ are then called out. The atheist, as I have experienced, and Taunton points out, have the utmost respect for those who truly, and ”…’unashamedely’ embraced Biblical teaching.” It is only those who are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ that earn the atheists respect. Those wishy-washy forms incur wrath, as they should. Taunton shows that this is true not just across the college-aged spectrum, but also quotes famous magician Penn Jillette’s now well-known comments, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…. How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” No, there’s not a disrespect or irreverence to these leaders, that is unless they’re so ashamed of Christ as to not proclaim the truth to a lost and dying world. In that case, the atheist is absolutely correct in his antagonistic reply to the weak-minded, social clubs that call themselves “churches.” I concur.

Fifth, Taunton states that ages 14-17 are decisive. As a former High school student I couldn’t agree more. I’d, however, further add that each and every year after 17 the young person becomes exponentially more difficult to reach. Not impossible, but incomprehensibly more difficult. (One can only say such a comment if one has been out “proselytizing.” Otherwise, one would never know this reality in its fullest sense). High school students are not stupid. They often ask better, though simpler, questions about life than adults. They just want to know so much. When they don’t find the answers in one area, by default they look for answers in another area. In today’s age of information at your fingertips, this becomes a serious battle for parents, teachers, etc…. Half-baked answers just won’t suffice. Laziness will soon be exposed. Thus the Bible’s comments about Studying to shew thyself approved or Proving all things and holding fast that which is good. If a Christian doesn’t do these things, what good is he in helping others find truth? Wouldn’t you reject someone who can’t answer your questions on any matter? Teens are no different.

Sixth, emotions are real, and for ages 14-17 they are very serious, often leading to life-changing decisions. Typically in Christian youth rally’s or conferences a type of emotionalized message is preached. Those speakers understand that if they can affect the teenagers emotions, then they can effect an outcome. Often scores of teary-eyed teens flood forward for an alter call, and make decisions about any number of issues. I am not against going straight for a person’s heart, but one must understand that there is a proper way to do so. I’ve had people start crying on the street after I’ve shared the Law with them. This is good, “Godly Sorrow”, not created by my words, but by their own admission to being guilty under God’s Law. That Godly Sorrow, as the rest of the verse states, leads to repentance to Salvation not to b repented of…. II Cor. 7:10. What often transpires, however, at one of these youth events is a ramped up emotionalism that produces numbers of responses. Some of the responses are good, but the majority are nothing more than sensationalized feelings. Speaking from both sides of the coin, I, as a student went forward for the very same things others did. Usually within a week or so, however, the emotion wore off, and I’d be back at whatever it was about which I was so remorseful. That seemed to be the case with others around me too, and I just accepted it as normal. Then I started to notice that I would go further into whatever sin it was that caused me so much angst, and the next time I’d hear an emotion-laced plea, it fell upon deaf ears. I’d become hardened. Not only did I become hardened, I rejected what was being preached. Once I finally understood that Christ overcame the world, sin, death, and hell, and that He wanted to do that for me and in my life, then I realized how wicked I was. Then I was in agreement with God about sin, and then I turned from sin (In repentance to God), and toward Christ (In Faith). This ultimately vital truth is not widely used anymore. It does not produce numbers. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. It is not enough to point out in an emotional way what sin is. One must give truth to the person who is broken about sin, and compel them to repent from their sin, and turn to Christ. In this case emotions are often present, but emotions without truth properly applied leads to despair when the feeling disappears. Teens more often than not become jaded after a series of emotional responses, and then reject what they think is Christianity. Taunton does not go into this type of detail. Instead he gives witness to abusive relationships, and how they affected the atheists in his study. He metions two cases in which scarred girls rejected a god in whom they thought inflicted pain upon mankind. Their emotions are/were real, and must be handled accordingly. One should understand that these emotionally abusive situations can and do occur in religious settings. (eg. Pastors threatening parents or students, who have experienced some form of wickedness done by the church leadership. The news is all too full of such events).

Finally, Taunton points out that the internet has become an immense tool in teens converting to atheism. The internet is a double-edged sword. When used correctly, it is a very helpful instrument. When used incorrectly, it leaves permanent damage. It would be faulty, however, to blame the internet for causing teens to become atheists. Much as it is faulty in stating that a knife killed a person. The tool has to be willfully used in order for it to be effective. In spite of that, accidents do occur. It is how one responds to the willful or accidental usage of a tool that matters. Let me illustrate my point further. Two teens are doing a research project for school. They both pick the same topic, Atheism. Both claim to be Christians. Both students, Jack and Jill, research the same information, but Jack’s work leads him into atheism, whereas Jill’s work leads her into a deeper understanding of Christ. What was the difference? They both used the same material, but arrived at vastly different conclusions. Jack, who at the beginning professed to be Christian, had a weak, at best, knowledge of the Bible he claimed to follow. Jill, on the other hand, had a strong foundation in the Bible, and was not fazed by the material she researched. She had been properly, Biblically taught the answers to life’s serious questions. When those questions came, she did not flinch. Jack, however, did. The tool did not lead him into atheism, it just revealed that the seed of God’s Word had not taken root in his heart. Jack’s willful choice led him into atheism, not the internet. Jill’s willful choice to follow Christ, kept her from espousing atheism. Thus, when both used the same materials, one used the information correctly, and one used it incorrectly. There are many tools in the world today, much of them online. The parent must be aware of this reality. Further, the parent must be aware of what state the child’s heart is in. This is a present, active, always wary necessity for each and every parent. It does not mean that such parental action will make their child a Christian. It means that a parent must, relying upon Christ, raise their children in scriptural nurture and admonition. When, not if, the serious questions arise, the parent (as commanded by the Bible in hundreds of ways), should teach and train. If that is done properly, the child-become-teen, should not be afraid to answer boldly, and scripturally.

In Taunton’s conclusionary remarks, the makes this powerfully condemnatory last remark, “That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable.” He adds another comment by Michael, “Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.” [Emphasis mine]. What has happened!? Atheists seem to understand something that most professing Christians miss, or refuse to understand. They understand that Christianity, as we know it in modern America, is no longer changing lives, nor does it care to affect the lives of those around them. To add my final thought to the article, one that I and others often use when dealing with professing Christians – “What are you doing with it? If nothing, as Penn Jillette illustrates, why do you hate me so much that you want me to go to Hell? Do you really believe Christ then? Do you really love Him? Has your life been changed by Him?” Well, has it?

Augustine - Saint or Sinner?

I have stumbled across an interesting summary regarding "Saint" Augustine, that I believe is well worth the short amount of time necessary to read the article. It can be found here.

Of special note in the article is the history detailing how Augustine, and his friend Jerome, used force to have Pelagius declared a heretic. Ever since that time, Pelagius and his adherents have been deemed heretics by, not only Augustine's Catholic Church, but also those within the Reformed Catholic (aka. Protestant) traditions. This piqued my interest, as I have always read about the "Pelagian Heresy" in most books covering the topic. No one mentions how Pelagius was proclaimed orthodox many times by the very same leaders who, later, were coerced into declaring Pelagius a heretic. Why was Augustine so bent on having Pelagius declared a heretic? Could it have been because under Pelagius' view, Augustine was still guilty for his sins?

Was C.S. Lewis a Christian?

I came across this video today, and it sums up, very briefly at that, a few conversations that I have been having recently. Was C.S. Lewis a Christian? My contention is that he was not, to be even briefer than this video was, he believed in purgatory (The Great Divorce is his statement on this topic), evolution (see Mere Christianity), never repented of sin and turned to Christ as a clear understanding of salvation (see Surprised by Joy, which is his "salvation testimony.")

If one would like to do more study, please, watch this video first, then go here for starters. Please, do not misunderstand, Lewis was a great writer, but that does not mean that he understood true Biblical Christianity.  He simply, in his own words, became a "Theist." But just believing in God is not enough - James 2:10, John 8:30-59, Matthew 7:13-23.

Why Go To Church - Part 8a

I go to church, because I’m afraid not to.

The first response a Bible-believing, Christ-following person should have to such a statement must come from scripture - For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. – II Timothy 1:7. Fear is not a tactic of a Bible-believing Christian. It is a tactic of a cult. Consider a few other verses in order to answer the proposed statement above.

Genesis 15:1 - After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

God is commanding Abram not to fear, while Abram follows Him. After this pronouncement, Abram talks with God, and God restates His promises to Abram as outlined in Genesis 12:1-3. He should have nothing to fear in following God, because God promised to be Abram’s shield and exceeding great reward. This promise extends to the Christian as well in that we should not fear our reward, but put our trust in Him. (cf. Proverbs 18:10).

For time and space I will skip a few more passages in Genesis and come to Genesis 50:19 – And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? This verse does not state that Joseph is in church. It states that he was in God’s will. In that place no one has anything to fear.

Drawing from previously skipped verses in Genesis, one must consider the many passages in Exodus that reference fearing God. Upon doing so, don’t hesitate to cross reference the many statements concerning fear in Proverbs, such as Proverbs 1:7 – The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge. (emphasis mine). The fear is only the beginning, but more on that later. The Hebrew women and Moses, who feared God, did what they were told to do, because they feared God. They did not know what would happen, nor did they understand what God was doing. In other words, they did not have the entire picture. They only knew that God commanded them, and they listened. Their continued obedience revealed more of Who God is, and upon knowing God more fully, they passed from fear into a deeper relationship. Notice Moses’ progression from the burning bush until his death in Nebo. Yes, Moses had a fear, a proper fear, of God, but after his initial fear, he matured into a vastly deeper relationship with Him. Also notice what God promised to send upon the Egyptians, who would not submit under God’s authority. Fear, most certainly not the same fear mentioned in context of Moses or the Hebrew wives, was part of the promised curse in Exodus 15:16 (cf. Exodus 23:27).

One final note to meditate upon comes from Exodus 20:20 – And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. This is an interesting verse for a few reasons: The Hebrews are commanded not to fear, This is after the listing of the Ten Commandments, and God’s fear is mentioned.

First and Second, the only thing that man has to fear is breaking God’s Law (cf. Romans 1-3). Upon breaking that Law man should be afraid of Death and Hell, because that is what God has promised for them who do transgress that Law (Romans 2-3, Romans 7, James 2:10, I John 3:4, Revelation 20). In this context the Old Testament saints had much to fear, because of the Law. This is the beginning of knowledge, however. Man has to first understand how Holy God is, and upon realizing His holiness, man must then of necessity realize how unholy he actually is. (cf. Romans 2:4b – it is understanding God’s goodness that leads a man to repentance). This Law, rightly, then is the “schoolmaster”, which brings man to that repentance. It’s only the beginning. God wants us to progress past that level. He did not want the Hebrews to remain at the fear level mentioned in Exodus, hence the command to “fear not.” This truth is the same today as it was then. Any institution using fear as a means to control a person’s actions is misusing God’s fear for their own gain, and fits all definitions of a cult.

Finally from Exodus 20:20 – What is God’s fear? He is mentioned as fearing in this portion, and as previously noted, sends his fear against the nations, such as Egypt in Exodus 15. I must state openly that I do not know, but what seems to be the case is that God has a fear of sin. Not in that it will overtake Him, but that He must punish it in a terrible way. This further seems to fit context with II Peter 3:9 - …God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God does not take pleasure in punishing the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32, 33:11). His punishment is severe, powerful, final, and just, but He does not take pleasure in sending any man to Hell. Perhaps this is what He fears in Exodus. For further weight to this viewpoint, consider Christ’s prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. There was a level of intense passionate emotion in that prayer. Not that Christ feared death, but that Christ’s Divine relationship with the Father would be separated by taking upon Himself man’s sin. (I would love to hear your comments on this idea!)

Throughout the remaining “Five Books of Moses”, as they’re commonly called, fear is mentioned many more times. Leviticus deals with fearing God when His Law is broken, which I have already briefly illustrated. Numbers and Deuteronomy both deal with not fearing man, but fearing God. But how does the fear mentioned in these books mesh with the rest of the Bible? I hope to define this in the coming posts. It is a weighty topic, but a necessary one to understand in order to answer the statement “I go to church, because I’m afraid not to” properly. (Please, do bear with me in this topic, Fear is mentioned 501 times in the Bible, and I am certain to miss a few key verses or points here and there. If so, please, feel free to comment).