Heart's Motive

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

What does it mean to lead an unruly life?

Scratch that.

Better question.

Why do so many Christians in the church, when they are hurting or struggling, refuse to say anything to the rest of the church and try to "go it alone"? Why, when they keep their mouth shut concerning their problems, and try to "go it alone," are they accused of being proud and not asking the rest of the church for help?

Two reasons.

First reason. They have tried to do so in the past and, when they made their hurts and struggles known, nobody lifted a finger to help them. Can you imagine the "love" they felt? Must have made them feel wonderful to be part of that church, huh?

Second reason. Because of Christians in the church who abuse the above passage of Scripture. How many other passages of Scripture can you think of that can be lumped together with this passage, yet are speaking of how we are to be doing good to those who hurt, struggle, and ask for it? I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head.

Pretty much everyone likes to be self-made; they want to make it on their own so that they cannot be accused of receiving handouts. No one likes to feel like they are a charity case. Yes, this all stems from pride. Yet, we are commanded to be humble and to seek help when we are in need, and to help others in need. But if you have been on the receiving end of either of the above two reasons, you know what it is like to give up trying to ask for help and to always decide that it is better if you just "go it alone." Unless, of course, if you are blessed enough for God to answer your prayers in such a way as with people like George Muller, without having to ever tell another soul.

Yet, certain Christians like to make those people they help feel like they are charity cases by rubbing their "generosity" in their face, reminding them that they needed the help of others. (The reason I say "generosity" is because, is it really generosity if your heart is not void of any and all types of ulterior motives, doing so for the pure joy of doing so for the glory and cause of Christ?) That does not sound very "Christian" to me, considering the Bible says that if someone asks for your coat you should give him your shirt, too, illustrating an important principle.

Verse 10 is the important verse in this passage: "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either." It is addressing willingness, not circumstance. This is talking about those people who do not want to work, such as those who sit on Welfare year after year despite being perfectly capable of working. Verse 13 is pretty key, too: "But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good." How many passages in Scripture command us to do good unto others? Again, I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head.

In the story of the good Samaritan, when the Samaritan helped the man who had been beaten and left for dead, did the Samaritan come back and treat the wounded man as if now his life belonged to him? Did the Samaritan do anything other than perform a kindness to this man, followed by a, "Have a nice day"? No, he did not.

When you perform a good deed, when you do something kind for someone else, are there supposed to be stipulations attached to it? Are there supposed to be conditions placed upon it? Are those in receipt of your kindness now indebted to you? Are they somehow under your absolute control? Do their lives now belong to you?

With cults and cult-like Christians sects, this is precisely the case.

Whether it is tithing to the church or kindness performed to others, there is to be nothing attached to it. Just because you tithe the most to the church does not mean you have any clout in the church or any kind of say pertaining to anything about the church. Just because your family is the oldest family in the church does not earn you any favours. It does not gain you power, position, prominence, or prestige. You are no more special and no more important that the newest member to sit under that roof!

If one pastor retires and another takes over, if a member of the church says something like, "Old Pastor will always be my pastor," that member needs to be dealt with immediately because they are going to be a problem. I now understand why in certain churches when a pastor steps down, he starts attending a different church or is required to attend a different church. If he remains behind, he might cause problems for the new pastor and create a power struggle. Or members of the church loyal to the first pastor could create problems for the new pastor. People who want power and control over others always create problems for other people. People in the church are no different than those outside the church—although they should be.

Sadly, the ruling government of many Christian churches today resemble the Catholic church during the time when they were trying to stifle the Bible from being translated into English; unless they have approved what you do or you have their mark upon you, they do not want you doing anything of your own lest it goes against them, which is pride and arrogance, thinking they are the only ones with knowledge, or that you could not possibly be wiser and more intelligent than they are because you do not have any letters or degrees behind your name.

These ruling governments also resemble the Pharisees when confronting the formerly blind man; they do not like to be criticized, and they do not want to hear your explanations of anything lest it make them look bad for having a poor and perverse understanding of the Bible. And so they will put you out. Just like cults, they will twist randomly, isolated verses of scripture they have ripped out of context and perverted in order to try and justify their anti-Christ attitudes and behaviours. “We kicked them out for this bogus reason we created in our unChrist-like and anti-Christ behaviour, and therefore we don’t want any of you to have anything to do with them so that we can enforce our authority and agenda.” Their idea of "love" is control, and their daily lives are very much rooted in hypocrisy, the number one sin Jesus hated!

If your church thinks or acts as if they, or their denomination, are the only ones with light, then that is a good indicator that God has already removed His light from them and they are merely going through their mechanical pagan motions. Avoid these churches as they are dead inside and will only make you the same. Pray that Christ would lead you to a vibrant, relational, Christ-centered church. You do not want a church that resembles the stiff-necked Jews with their legalism and control.

Remember, the church is filled with sinners. Every single member still struggles with a variety of sins. Each one of them needs understanding and love.

It is one thing for the church to care for the flock out of sincere love, but it is quite another thing for the church to "care" for the flock with interests to control them and their lives. If you are going to care for someone, then do so; but do not make a pretense of caring for them with an agenda to actually control them. Whether by legalism or some other means, control is not a Christian trait. Often, certain churches confuse care with control.

When I have helped people in the past, I did so without expecting even gratitude in return. It was my joy to help them and be able to help them. Scripture talks about not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, and that God will reward you in His time. Do I require anything from the person I just blessed? Not in the least. God will provide that. Whatever we do for the least individual, we have done for Jesus. Is that not reward enough?

Certain Christians talk about being soft, polite, calm, and gentle, and yet in their soft, polite, calm, gentleness deliberately hurt other Christians in their church. Christians have changed churches or stopped going altogether because of this. Even unbelievers stepping into a church seeking something have been made to flee because of the attitudes and behaviours of these Christians, in spite of all the soft, polite, calm, gentleness they use. Newsflash!  You can convey just as much hatred through the soft, polite, calm, gentle approach as you can being abrupt or abrasive! Likewise, you can convey just as much love being abrupt or abrasive as you can by being soft, polite, calm and gentle. It is not an either or situation. What matters is the heart behind it.

Remember the old cliché, "Actions speak louder than words"? You can be as soft, polite, calm, and gentle as you want, but if your attitude and behaviour are conveying pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, and hatred, guess which one is going to speak volumes to me?

I would sooner be spoken to in an abrasive manner by someone who loves me, than to be spoken to in a soft, gentle manner by someone who thinks they are better than I am and does not really care about me one way or the other. If you are going to say that you love someone, whether another Christian or the unsaved, then show it; do not just talk about it. Jesus' number one pet peeve He addressed the most was hypocrisy. Are you being a hypocrite? In everything you do, ask yourself why you are doing it. Examine yourself. What is your heart's motive?

People's Confusion Over What Loves Looks Like

Let's get something straight. I never asked to do what I do. I liken my situation to David and the Israelites when facing Goliath. The Israelites did nothing. They were not willing to lift a finger. David felt compelled to answer. Likewise, the Christians around me would not raise a finger to defend the truth (or perhaps could not defend it because they were not equipped to do so). I kept feeling this pressure inside me to answer, but I tried to suppress it over and over and over again. I am shy, introverted, and do not like confrontation (but if it comes knocking on my door, I will answer it, because I also do not put up with bullies). Finally, I let it have its way. I felt a release like a weight being lifted from my shoulders. I have been doing it ever since, for the past 20 years! You Christians who snub me and make all sorts of accusations against me, what have you ever done? Or are you content to go to church on Sunday and then for the rest of the week keep your mouth shut and not say anything to anybody (effectively telling others to "Go to Hell!")?

I am not perfect, nor do I profess to be. As I previously stated in Confession, found to the right in the Site Navigation, I am not always the most gracious when I write the truth. It is something I struggle with. But that is not always a bad thing. And it certainly is not a condition of being "unloving" or "hateful," as I have been accused. Christians today have this ridiculous notion that you always have to be soft, polite, calm, and gentle when speaking to others, and that simply is not true. These Christians either have not read, or do not know, their Bibles. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. Paul was vulgar when he suggested those bothering the Galatians castrate themselves. Jesus was abrupt . . . a lot. [If you'd like, you can even substitute the word "abrasive" for "abrupt" throughout, because do you honestly believe Jesus was concerned with the feelings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes when He spoke to them and called them such things as "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs"? Jesus was harsh with these people and those who required it. Sometimes it is necessary for a Christian to be harsh.]

People are marching into Hell like they are walking over the edge of a cliff. If you truly loved an individual, and you saw him blindly walking toward the edge of a cliff, would you politely and calmly say, "Uh, sir. If you keep going that direction you are going to fall off a cliff," or would you try to grab his attention by yelling, "Stop! You're going to die!" and even tackling him to the ground? Being a little more forceful is not a sign of "hatred" or being "unloving." That is a ridiculous notion! That is the thinking of a post-modern effeminate culture. Would you care for me to share some sermons from Charles Spurgeon, Leonard Ravenhill, Paris Reedhead, A. W. Tozer, Paul Washer, etc., where they deliberately offend people? Are they being unloving when they do this, or is it because of love that they do it? You think they are allowed to do this because of their calling, but nobody else is allowed to do this? Really?!?

Let me ask you a question. What was the single most thing that Christ hated and repeatedly confronted head-on? Hypocrisy! We are commanded to be imitators of Christ. Paul tells us that what we see and hear in him, to do. If Christ and the Prophets and Apostles were allowed to be snarky and use satire and sarcasm and be abrupt because of their office, and preachers are allowed to be snarky and use satire and sarcasm and be abrupt because of their calling, but the rest of us are not allowed to do so because we are supposed to be soft, polite, calm, and gentle, do you know what that is? That is hypocrisy! Christians who hold to this false notion of "love" turn Jesus and the Apostles into hypocrites. How? Because they are telling us that Jesus and the Apostles were saying, "Do as I say, and not as I do." Guess what? That is precisely what the Pharisees were doing with Israel, and it torqued Jesus! These Christians make Jesus guilty of the very thing He condemned, which means they make Him to be sinful and not sinless. Do you honestly believe that Jesus confronted false religion the way He did, but that He expects us to do so differently? Seriously?!? Have you ever read any of the works of the Reformers or the Puritans, or even the early church fathers? Were they "hateful" or "unloving" in some of the things they wrote? You are unquestionably outnumbered in your thinking.

"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Think about those for a moment. If you were immersed in some cult and/or following some false teaching, would you not want someone to do anything and everything in their power to wake you from your stupor? Which would be more loving, for them to pat you on the head or for them to slap you in the face? Which is going to get your attention? Every single Christian reading this is now in silence because they realized that they have just contradicted themselves. The idea that "no one ever brought anyone to Jesus by being abrupt" and that "being abrupt has driven people away from Christianity" is false! I have heard plenty of testimonies over the years of people who were saved because of the "tough love" that a saint showed them. You Christians who think the only approach to witnessing and winning souls is the soft, polite, gentle approach, how many people have you ever brought to Christ? I have had more than a few e-mails over the years from people thanking me for having said what I said in the manner I said it.

Certain cultures, if you try to discuss certain things with them in a soft, calm, gentle manner, think you are not taking them seriously and that you are mocking them. When people are passionate about something, they expect a certain kind of response. Soft, calm, and gentle is not an indication of passion. This soft, calm, gentle nonsense is a result of our effeminate culture; always concerned about offending someone or other. Do you think Jesus was worried about offending people? Read your Bible! Jesus offended people all the time! And He did so on purpose. Especially the religious! Again, would you care for me to share some sermons from Charles Spurgeon, Leonard Ravenhill, Paris Reedhead, A. W. Tozer, Paul Washer, etc.?

The truth is, there is a time to be gentle, and there is a time to be abrupt. Guaranteed that Solomon would agree with me. Christians cannot always be "nice." Sometimes people do not listen and mentally check out when you are being soft, calm, and gentle, and you need to be abrupt in order to grab their attention and shake them out of their stupor. The soft, calm, and gentle concept is a result of failure to know and study humans and human behaviour, and why they act the way they do and how to deal with that.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, "I am perhaps vulgar, but it is not intentional, save that I must and will make people listen. My firm conviction is that we have had enough polite preachers." He was not vulgar in the sense of using foul language. He was vulgar in the sense of being common, rustic, rude, or unrefined. And he did not apologize for it! Do you not think people were offended by Spurgeon when he spoke? In addressing the core foundation of Dispensationalism, seeing a distinction between Israel and the Church and separating Old Testament saints from New Testament saints, Spurgeon referred to this doctrine as "stupid" (Jesus Christ Immutable, January 3, 1869,). Yet Christians today find this word to be "unacceptable" or "offensive." I do not agree with calling a person stupid, but calling their behaviour or false system of beliefs stupid is quite a different thing. The two are not equally related. You could be the most intelligent person on the face of the planet and still do stupid things. The one is not a commentary on the other.

I do not have a respect for what J. C. Ryle termed as "Jellyfish Christianity"; that "Christianity" that is spineless and afraid to be abrupt when the time calls for it. The misconception here is the idea that you somehow cannot be loving when you are abrupt. If that were true, are you being unloving when you discipline your child? Is God unloving when He disciplines you? No, it is because you are loving that you discipline. To not do so would be unloving. Likewise, to not be abrupt when it is required is also being unloving. You profess to love people, but then are not loving enough to startle them and shake them from their slumber while they descend into Hell on a greased pole. Oh yeah, I can feel that love. I do not know about you, but if I was about to walk into heavy traffic, I would want someone to grab the back of my shirt and yank me back onto the sidewalk. Oh, but I suppose that would be "unloving."

I have a passion for the Word of God and for the truth. Does that mean that I should just sit idly by and allow false teachers and destructive teachings to run rampant and unchecked? Should I not try to wake up those who are being seduced and sucked into these things by whatever means necessary? Guess what? You are not going to do so with a soft, polite, calm, gentle attitude. I have debated hundreds of individuals from numerous walks of life and belief systems, both in person and online. Most of these individuals are highly forceful to the point of being deliberately offensive. I do not let this aspect bother me because it is God they are at war with. If they are soft, polite, and gentle with you, then you should be the same with them. That is respect. However, as my experience has informed me, the only way to grasp these people's attention and have them seriously listen to what you are saying is to meet them with a forcefulness that is equal to the one they are showing you.

Ripping verses out of their immediate context and forcing them to try and back your narrative of "love and gentleness" is not godly in the least; it is a pretense of godliness. Christians who snub their noses at me and accuse me of being "hateful" or "unloving" have quite obviously never engaged in the type of work I do. I would question if they have ever done any kind of witnessing, or if they just hide behind the church walls and sing Kumbaya as if everything in the world is okay. I have been doing this for the past 20 years! What have you been doing?

But I digress. It has been my desire for quite some time to read through my previous blog articles to see if there are any rough edges that I can smooth out in order to be a little more gracious. There is always room to grow. But it seems that perhaps I might need to be a little more abrupt with the religious, the way Jesus was in confronting their hypocrisy and false notions. The church does not determine who is called to a particular position. God calls individuals to these positions, which is why He says they are "holy callings." Like I said, I never asked for this. I am doing what most Christians do not want to do or refuse to do (and often times are unable to do because the church has failed to equip them to answer such things). How many times have I listened to Christians in church talk about their work place and some co-worker saying such-and-such that they had no idea how to answer. I answer these kinds of things all the time! The church's responsibility is to recognize these callings; not to try and control them. The church is not a dictatorship. That is what cults do. Christ's church is organic and relational; not mechanical. At least it should be if it is a biblical church.

I apologize if any of this has come across as prideful on my part. That was not and is not my intention. It is not easy to strive to be humble when people anger you with their accusations and false concepts of what it means to show love to others. As the Apostle Paul felt the need to defend himself, so I felt the need to defend myself. Sometimes the religious need to hear what they do not want to hear. They are not "above the law," as it were.

If There Was One Specific Word of God In English

God's prescription seems to be that wherever He is, there is extreme persecution. When the prophets prophesied, they were persecuted by their hearers. The church flourishes under persecution. According to this prescription, English Bibles translated prior to the King James Version are more the Word of God than the King James Bible is. The Tyndale New Testament and the Geneva Bible were produced under extreme persecution. The King James Bible was not. In fact, the King James Bible was produced in accordance with the government. Could you imagine United States President Barack Obama commissioning a translation of the Bible? Could you imagine Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau commissioning a translation of the Bible? Could you imagine Nebuchadnezzar commissioning a translation of the Bible? Could you imagine Constantine commissioning a translation of the Bible?

King James Only people want to argue that "Every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5a). If this is so, then the changes the King James Bible made to earlier translations is in the wrong. God chose the words He wanted in the earlier versions. The prescription seems to be that wherever the work of God is, there is persecution. So seeing that earlier English translations endured great persecution, they are more likely to be the Word of God than the King James Bible will ever be. The Geneva Bible is book-ended by two religious persecutions. It first faced the religious persecution of Queen "Bloody" Mary Tudor and the Catholic Church. It later faced the religious persecution of King James, the Anglican Church/Church of England, and the King James Bible, being forced upon the people as the only Bible they should ever use.

All the opposition against the Geneva Bible would make it a more likely candidate for being the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language than the King James Version ever will. If there was one specific Word of God in the English language, it would be the Geneva Bible; not the King James Bible.

KJV-Onlyism vs. Its Translators

ATTENTION: King James Only People

Eternal Justification: True or False?

It is claimed that "The doctrine of eternal justification is dealt a crushing blow by the Puritan John Flavel." This is far from the truth. Either Flavel failed to understand the doctrine of justification, or else he was responding to an aberrant view of it. But he in no way, shape, or form "dealt a crushing blow" to it. Flavel argues that it is irrational to image that men can be justified before they exist. Apply that argument to every Old Testament saint. How can Abraham be justified by faith before the object of that faith existed and before the act that would justify him had been completed? Flavel's six "errors" reveal his ignorance and complete misunderstanding on these issues. Hyper-Calvinists take these biblical truths to ridiculous extremes, such as claiming that Christians do not need to confess sin or pray for its forgiveness. It is one thing to respond to such extremes as this, but it is quite another to deny biblical truths and realities in so doing. 

Having only recently encountered the term, and having sat down and thought of it from a biblical standpoint, I will present my understanding thereof in connection with biblical teachings.

There are two ways in which to view this, both of which are absolutely true. Let us start with the second one first. When a Christian is justified, he/she is eternally justified. In other words, he/she cannot lose or forfeit their salvation. They are forgiven their sins and their sins are removed from them as far as the east is from the west, and for all eternity. Ergo, eternal justification. But what about the second way to view this?

"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" Ephesians 1:4

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" John 6:37a

Before God embarked upon creation, He had already given a people to Jesus as an inheritance. The giving precedes the coming, and those given will come to Christ in their appointed time. Time had to catch up with each person and reveal God's gift in its perfect time.

"All who dwell upon the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the book of life of the Lamb having been slain from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8

The "from the foundation of the world" does not belong to "whose names have not been written," as the NASB and ESV render it, but to "the Lamb having been slain." This is not teaching that Jesus was literally and physically crucified before God embarked upon creation, but that it was already considered a done deed. Take a moment to think about it. Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. How could Jesus redeem His people with His blood if He had not shed it yet? How do you deal with all those believers from the Old Testament? You will answer, "They were looking forward in time to the day Christ would atone for them with His blood." Correct! If you have an answer for this, why do you not have an answer for His having been slain from the foundation of the world? The same principle applies. Before the foundations of creation were laid, Jesus had redeemed with His blood those whom the Father had given Him. Time had to catch up to this event and reveal it. But those under the Old Testament were already covered by His blood.

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." Romans 8:29-30

This verse applies to before the foundations of creation were laid. Those whom God the Father chose in Christ and gave to Him as an inheritance, He predestined that they would be conformed to the likeness of His Son. Because He predestined them, He also called them. Because He called them, He also justified them. Because He justified them, He also glorified them. All of this is already a done deal for the Christian. It does not happen in steps! Time had to wait to reveal my calling, but I was called in Christ before God had ever laid the foundations of creation. While glorification will not be revealed until the Second Coming, nevertheless I am already glorified. All these things happened at the same time! You cannot be called and not also be justified and glorified. If you were called, you were also justified, sanctified, and glorified. Whichever point in time you want to view it (my conversion, Christ's sacrifice on the cross, or eternity past), I was also justified. Ergo, from before the foundations of creation, I was eternally justified.

This is the biblical view of eternal justification. If individuals are teaching that eternal justification means that my sin is no longer sin and therefore I have never committed sin because I was forgiven from the past, then their teaching is an aberrant and heretical teaching. Yes, from the moment God the Father gave me to Christ as an inheritance, I was already forgiven having been purchased by His blood. But time had to reveal Christ's shedding of His blood and it had to reveal my sin for which I required forgiveness, and it had to reveal my coming to Christ and being converted.

We need to remember that there are two vantage points with which we are looking at things. There is God's vantage point, and our vantage point. You cannot confuse the two! From God's vantage point, everything is already an accomplished reality. Being outside of time, He sees my being given to Christ, Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and my coming to Christ simultaneously. But from the vantage point of time, it took thousands of years for Christ to shed His blood and then another 2,000 years for me to come to Christ and be born again. You cannot confuse vantage points, nor can you ignore clear realities and truths of Scripture. Scripture says that all men are sinners and that all men commit sin. Ergo, you are a sinner, whether you like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not. Having been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, having been given to Christ by God the Father, and having been called, justified, sanctified, and glorified from eternity past does not eliminate the events of time. It is just like Abraham looking forward in time to when Christ would pay for his sins.

I realize that thinking from the view of eternity is difficult for many. I mean, they have enough trouble already trying to think from the view of the present, let alone getting theologically deep on them. Most people cannot handle thinking of the meat because they are still trying to digest the pablum.

Whether you want to start from creation, the cross, or your conversion, the moment you were justified, you were eternally justified. It is imperative that you learn how to understand vantage points in order to avoid aberrant theology. No doubt you look at your conversion as the point of your being redeemed and justified. But Christ Jesus redeemed you at the cross. He is not slain again each time a new believer comes to Christ. He was slain once for all and once for all time. If you can understand this, then you merely need to take it a step further. This was all decided and put into place in eternity past before the foundations of the world were laid. Most people seem to be like robots in movies who try to compute something only to end up frying their own circuits. It is a simple thing to understand, but most people cannot seem to process it.

You who think that those who hold to eternal justification have an error, I suggest you make sure you understand what they mean by the term before trying to attack it, and then realize that it is you who have the greater error by denying the biblical truth of it. If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to contact me.

The Question No Muslim Can Answer!

Nominal Muslims (those who are "Muslim" in name only and not by practice), continue to try and deny that Jesus is God and that He said He was God. In the New Testament, Jesus stated that He was God in a number of different ways, by words and in actions. Only God can forgive sins, and yet Jesus was forgiving sins. Only God can receive worship, yet Jesus received worship. Only God can restore sight to the blind, yet Jesus restored sight to the blind. Even the Qur'an affirms that Jesus is God.

In surah 57:3, the Qur'an states that Allah is the First and the Last.

In Revelation 1:17-18, Jesus says that He is the First and the Last.

In surah 22:56-57, the Qur'an states that Allah is the Judge of all the world.

In Matthew 25:31-32, Jesus says that He is the Judge of all the world.

In surah 22:7, the Qur'an states that Allah will resurrect the dead.

In John 5:25-29, Jesus says that He will resurrect the dead.

According to the Qur'an, only God can do these things. But Jesus said that He would do them. Clearly Muslims and the Qur'an are wrong for giving honour to Jesus. If Jesus was nothing more than a prophet, a good man, then what does Islam have to say about prophets lying and claiming to be and do the things that only God Himself can do?

Jesus had said to the people of His day, "For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24) "He" who? Who are they to believe that He is? The Jews obviously had the same thoughts, and so they asked Him, "Who are you?" (v. 25). This entire discussion lead to Jesus arguing with the Jews as to who their true father was, and stating that Abraham looked forward to seeing His day, which prompted the Jews to challenge Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" (John 8:57). Jesus replied, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am." (John 8:58). Immediately after Jesus said this, the Jews "picked up stones to throw at Him" (v. 59). Why did they pick up stones to stone Him, Muslims?

Before we continue, it is important to note that in John 8:24, the word "He" does not actually appear in the Greek. How it actually reads is like this: "For unless you believe that I Am, you will die in your sins."

At the Feast of Dedication, Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Immediately after Jesus said this, "The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him" (v. 31). Why would they want to stone Him, Muslims? Jesus even asked them that same question: "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" (v. 32). The Jews explained to Him precisely why they wanted to stone Him: "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, claim Yourself to be God" (v. 33). Did you catch that? Obviously the Jews were intelligent enough to realize and understand what Jesus had said: "You claim Yourself to be God."

In both John 8:58 and John 10:30, Jesus was equating Himself with God the Father. In other words, Jesus said He was God. When He said "I Am," He was using the name that God revealed Himself as to Moses. The Jews understood what Jesus said. Why do Muslims have such difficulty in understanding this? Muslims demand a specific verse where Jesus unequivocally says, "I am God." They clearly do not understand a single thing we have looked at thus far. So let's play their game.

Muslims...

Where does Allah unequivocally state in the Qur'an that the text of the Gospel has been corrupted?

I will give you a hint: nowhere! What the Qur'an does state unequivocally in surahs 3:3, 5:66, 5:68, and 18:27, is the affirmation of the inspiration, preservation, purity, authenticity, and continuing authority of the Gospel. The third article of Islamic faith is that Muslims "Believe in the existence of the books of which God is the author: the Quran (revealed to Muhammad), the Gospel (revealed to Jesus), the Torah (revealed to Moses), and Psalms (revealed to David)." If nominal Muslims are not believing in the Gospel, then they are Apostate "Muslims"!

Premise #1: If the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, then Islam is false because Islam contradicts the Gospel.

Premise #2: If the Gospel is not the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, then Islam is false because the Qur'an claims that the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God.

Conclusion: Islam is false.

ATTENTION: King James Only People

It is a known fact that the English language evolved from the German language. If you examine Wycliffe's English translation of the Bible from the 1300s, you can see a bit of this in some of the words. However, if you go back earlier than Wycliffe, to the Anglo-Saxon Proto-English, you can really see it. So, let me ask you a question . . .

If the English language did not exist, would the Word of God be preserved anywhere?!? Think hard before you answer.

You see, King James Only individuals like to try and argue that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God. Some King James Only individuals will even argue that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God in the English language, which is a far cry better than those King James Only individuals who basically argue that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God in the entire world. The former individuals not only disqualify any English translation to come after the King James Bible, but they also disqualify any English translation to come before the King James Bible, which means that God left the world languished and without His preserved Word until the King James translators came along. Absurd, right? The latter individuals disqualify every translation in every language unless it has been translated from the the King James Bible. That is a whole other barrel of monkeys. So before the King James Bible even existed, all these other translations of the biblical manuscripts were not even preserved by God. Utterly ridiculous! If the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God, then answer me this . . .

Why does your King James Bible not contain the Apocrypha? You see, the Apocrypha was a part of the original 1611 King James Bible, which means that if the King James Bible was inspired and is the preserved Word of God, then so too are the Apocrypha. If you reject the Apocrypha, then the King James Bible could only be partially inspired, which means it is partially preserved. If the King James translators were inspired, as some King James Only individuals like to attempt to argue, then why did they include the Apocrypha? So if the translators made a mistake by including the Apocrypha, then how do you know they did not make any other mistakes anywhere else?

Since you King James Only individuals do not seem to have the discernment to figure this out, here are the facts for you to digest. God's Word promised that God would preserve His Word. Tell me, how many copies of the New Testament manuscripts do we have? I say copies because the original autographs no longer exist. There are over 25,000 copies. In other words, God has preserved His Word. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the King James Bible! God's Word is preserved even if the King James Bible did not exist!

If you want to use the King James Bible, that is perfectly fine. It is a good translation. But it is not the only good translation. It has its errors just like every other translation. If you knew anything about language and translation, you would know that it is impossible to translate from one language to another with 100% accuracy. You use the best words available and leave the rest in God's hands.

False Approaches to the Bible!

In the year 1227, a professor at the University of Paris named Stephen Langton added chapters to all the books of the Bible. Then in 1551, a printer named Robert Stephanus (sometimes called Robert Estienne) numbered the sentences in all the books of the New Testament.

According to Stephanus’s son, the verse divisions that his father created do not do service to the sense of the text. Stephanus did not use any consistent method. While riding on horseback from Paris to Lyons, he versified the entire New Testament within Langton’s chapter divisions.’

So verses were born in the pages of holy writ in the year 1551. And since that time God’s people have approached the New Testament with scissors and glue, cutting and pasting isolated, disjointed sentences from different letters, lifting them out of their real-life setting, lashing them together to build floatable doctrines, and then calling it “the Word of God.”

Seminarians and Bible college students alike are rarely if ever given a panoramic view of the free-flowing story of the early church with the New Testament books arranged in chronological order.’ As a result, most Christians are completely out of touch with the social and historical events that lay behind each of the New Testament letters. Instead, they have turned the New Testament into a manual that can be wielded to prove any point. Chopping the Bible up into fragments makes this relatively easy to pull off.

We Christians have been taught to approach the Bible in one of eight ways:

→ You look for verses that inspire you. Upon finding such verses, you either highlight, memorize, meditate upon, or put them on your refrigerator door.
→ You look for verses that tell you what God has promised so that you can confess it in faith and thereby obligate the Lord to do what you want.
→ You look for verses that tell you what God commands you to do.
→ You look for verses that you can quote to scare the devil out of his wits or resist him in the hour of temptation.
→ You look for verses that will prove your particular doctrine so that you can slice-and-dice your theological sparring partner into biblical ribbons. (Because of the proof-texting method, a vast wasteland of Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random, decontextualized verse of Scripture ends all discussion on virtually any subject.)
→ You look for verses in the Bible to control and/or correct others.
→ You look for verses that "preach" well and make good sermon material. (This is an ongoing addiction for many who preach and teach.)
→ You sometimes close your eyes, flip open the Bible randomly, stick your finger on a page, read what the text says, and then take what you have read as a personal "word" from the Lord.

Now look at this list again. Which of these approaches have you used? Look again: Notice how each is highly individualistic. All of them put you, the individual Christian, at the center. Each approach ignores the fact that most of the New Testament was written to corporate bodies of people (churches), not to individuals.

But that is not all. Each of these approaches is built on isolated proof texting. Each treats the New Testament like a manual and blinds us to its real message. It is no wonder that we can approvingly nod our heads at paid pastors, the Sunday morning order of worship, sermons, church buildings, religious dress, choirs, worship teams, seminaries, and a passive priesthood—all without wincing.

We have been taught to approach the Bible like a jigsaw puzzle. Most of us have never been told the entire story that lies behind the letters that Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude wrote. We have been taught chapters and verses, not the historical context.

For instance, have you ever been given the story behind Paul's letter to the Galatians? Before nodding, see if you can answer these questions off the top of your head: Who were the Galatians? What were their issues? When and why did Paul write to them? What happened just before Paul penned his Galatian treatise? Where was he when he wrote it? What provoked him to write the letter? And where in Acts do you find the historical context for this letter? All of these background matters are indispensable for understanding what our New Testament is about. Without them, we simply cannot understand the Bible clearly or properly.

One scholar put it this way, "The arrangement of the letters of Paul in the New Testament is in general that of their length. When we rearrange them into their chronological order, fitting them as far as possible into their life-setting within the record of the Acts of the Apostles, they begin to yield up more of their treasure; they become self-explanatory, to a greater extent than when this background is ignored."

Another writes, "If future editions [of the New Testament] want to aid rather than hinder a reader's understanding of the New Testament, it should be realized that the time is ripe to cause both the verse and chapter divisions to disappear from the text and to be put on the margin in an inconspicuous a place as possible. Every effort must be made to print the text in a way which makes it possible for the units which the author himself had in mind to become apparent."

You could call our method of studying the New Testament the "clipboard approach." If you are familiar with computers, you are aware of the clipboard component. If you happen to be in a word processor, you may cut and paste a piece of text via the clipboard. The clipboard allows you to cut a sentence from one document and paste it into another.

Pastors, seminarians, and laymen alike have been conditioned by the clipboard approach when studying the Bible. This is how we justify our man-made, encased traditions and pass them off as biblical. It is why we routinely miss what the early church was like whenever we open our New Testaments. We see verses. We do not see the whole picture.

This approach is still alive and well today, not only in institutional churches but in house churches as well.

—Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity?: Exploring

the Roots of Our Church Practices, (BarnaBooks, 2012), 228-232.

Ezekiel 40-48

These chapters describe a rebuilding of a temple. Many theologians and scholars seem to agree in stating that this vision was not fulfilled in the return from the Babylonian captivity. If this is the case, then what are these chapters describing?

You see, there are two main theories, both of which fail in their interpretation of these chapters.

AGE TO COME / NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH

These nine chapters cannot be describing a temple and sacrifices come the new Heaven and new Earth. Why? Because sin will be done away with, therefore there is no need to make a "sin offering" (Ez. 40:39; 42:13; 43:19, 21-22, 25; 44:27, 29; 45:17, 19, 22-23, 25; 46:20) or "to make atonement" (Ez. 45:15, 17). Also, because Christ fulfilled the sacrifices "once for all" and they have been done away with (Heb. 10-10-18).

RESTORED ISRAEL / MILLENNIAL KINGDOM

These nine chapters cannot be describing a temple and sacrifices of a restored Israel. Why? Because, primarily, Christ fulfilled the sacrifices "once for all" and they have been done away with (Heb. 10-10-18). The sacrifices cannot be for a "memorial" because the passages clearly mention "sin offering" (Ez. 40:39; 42:13; 43:19, 21-22, 25; 44:27, 29; 45:17, 19, 22-23, 25; 46:20) and "to make atonement for" (Ez. 45:15, 17). Believers are being built up into a holy temple (Eph. 2:19-22). What would be the point in ethnic Israel returning to a system that never worked in the first place and was nothing more than a foreshadow of the sacrifice of Christ? That would not be a returning to God with their whole heart; it would be returning to idols.

These chapters have nothing to do with a rebuilt temple in a millennial kingdom nor in the age to come. So if this vision has nothing to do with the temple to be rebuilt after the return from captivity, what does it have to do with? Three literal interpretations are inadequate to explain these chapters: (1) a re-built temple after the Babylonian captivity, (2) a re-built temple in a millennial kingdom, and (3) a re-built temple in the new Heavens and new Earth. There is no mention of Jerusalem anywhere in these nine chapters. Unlike with Moses and the tabernacle and Solomon and the temple, there is no mention of construction supervisors or builders.

I do not know how to interpret these passages. But what I do know is simple, and it is this: if these passages do not describe the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian captivity, based on everything the New Testament has to say, they for sure have nothing to do with a rebuilding of a temple in a millennial kingdom or the age to come. Any interpretation that attempts either of these is false and they are ignoring and denying a vast portion of what the New Testament teaches in order to force these interpretations.

Perhaps it should be interpreted symbolically, emphasizing the return and permanent dwelling of the divine presence among His people?

Why Is Christianity So Narrow?

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14

Why is Christianity so narrow? Because truth, by very definition, is narrow. The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is narrow. The answer cannot be anything other than 4. There is no such thing as "your truth" and "my truth"; there is only the truth. Christianity is narrow because Jesus, the very Person many of you self-professing so-called "Christians" claim to love and follow, said that the way to God is narrow. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me!"

Jesus declared that He was the only way to salvation, to right standing with God. You self-professing so-called "Christians" who question this, who deny this, who say there are many ways to God that even a devout Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc., may get to Heaven; you call the very Person you claim to follow and obey a liar! Jesus said "the way is narrow," and you say that it is not. Jesus said "I am the way" and "no one comes to the Father but through Me," and you say that He is not, and that people can come by any way. You make Jesus to be a liar! Why? Because you are not a Christian! You do not belong to Him! You are not the Father's child!

You claim Jesus for your own, yet reject everything He said and stood for. You claim He was wrong about creation. You claim He was wrong about Adam and Eve being the first humans. You claim He was wrong about the flood. You claim He was wrong about upholding heterosexual relationships and condemning everything that did not conform to this. You claim Jesus for your Saviour and God, yet spew the denials of your true father, the Devil. Unless you repent and start believing what the Saviour said, when you die you will spend an eternity in Hell. You profess to be a Christian, but you are anything but. A Christian obeys his/her Master. A Christian does not deny what his/her Master has said and make Him out to be a liar. You call yourself a Christian, but you were sold on a false Gospel and you have never been regenerated, born again, and saved.

If you believe that any religious person can get to Heaven by observance of their religion, then you are not a Christian. If you believe the way to salvation is not narrow, then you are not a Christian. If you believe that Jesus is not the only way to the Father, then you are most definitely not a Christian.

You engage in the Devil's most successful motto: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The Devil's greatest victory is in having false converts and non-Christians claim to be and pretend to be Christians so that it gives the rest of the world a bad taste of what it means to be Christian. Many cults and sects claim to be Christian, yet deny the very words of Scripture and teach doctrines of men and doctrines of demons. Oh, the condemnation that rests upon your head for the day of judgment!

Christianity is narrow because truth is narrow. Truth cannot be untruth. Truth is narrow because God is narrow. God is absolutely holy and cannot be anything but. If God provides a way, then that is the only way and everyone who comes to Him must come the same way: by faith in Christ Jesus as Messiah the Saviour.

Why You Need A Bible Without Chapters and Verses

by Alex Goodwin

When it comes to reading and studying the Bible, chapters and verses feel about as essential as the steering wheel of a car. We wouldn’t quite know what to do without them. They give our Bibles a structure we can grasp. They make things easy to find and they break down long passages into manageable, relatively uniform chunks. It’s hard to imagine a Bible without chapters and verses inside.

But where did they come from? Surely the Apostle Paul didn’t write his letters with chapters and verses. Why were they added? And what unnoticed impact are they having on how we read the Bible?

A Recent Innovation

Many people are unaware that chapter and verse numbers are only about 500 years old. Archbishop Stephen Langton created the chapter system we’re familiar with in the 13th century, simply because he was writing a Bible commentary and needed a way to reference more specific portions of Scripture. Similarly, French printer and scholar Robert Estienne added verse numbers in the 16th century. His reason? He was creating a Bible concordance, so he needed a way to reference even smaller portions of passages – a sentence or two at a time.

Shortly after these numbering systems were conceived, somebody made the decision that they should be a standard feature in all Bibles. Thus, a book made for reading was turned into a book made for referencing. One of the first Bibles produced on the printing press, the Geneva Bible, turned each verse into a separate paragraph, obliterating any sense of continuity within the literature and setting the table for the volleys of verses hurled back and forth during the theological debates of the Reformation.

Continue reading...