A Soldier for Jesus

A Soldier's Viewpoint

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:41:00 +0000

I think this could be a motto for any soldier in the army of Jesus.

Wisdom and Reason

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:22:00 +0000

Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.
(1 Cor. 1:20-23,HCSB)

For the longest time, my approach to apologetics (ἀπολογία) was based almost entirely in evidentialism. The basis for this was something like, "Here we are, two reasonable people on neutral ground discussing the existence for God, the reliability of the Bible, evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead (and so forth). Then, you'll see that Christianity is entirely reasonable, repent, surrender to the risen Savior so your life will be more abundant and you'll have eternal life".

Oh, really? One obvious problem with this scenario is that it is strictly naturalistic, leaving out the spiritual realm and hindering the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible has some things to say about the "natural" (unsaved) man and human wisdom:

Foolish when compared to God's wisdom (1Cor. 1:20-23, 1 Cor. 3.19-20)
It will perish (Isaiah 29.14 NASB)
True wisdom comes from God (Psalm 111.10 NIV, Prov. 1.7 NKJV)
The heart of man is deceitful (Jer. 17.9)
People really do not want to know God (Rom. 3.11-12, 18)
Cannot understand spiritual matters (1 Cor. 2.14)
They are fools (Psalm 14.1) Note that "fool" is a spiritual and moral condition, not because God became moody and wanted to insult the intelligence of unbelievers

Ray Comfort has a very strong point that he makes in the "School of Biblical Evangelism" and in other places. He points out that we can spend a great deal of time in apologetics and offering evidence, but if we leave out the Word of God, we may get an intellectual "convert" but the soul is still lost.

Some presuppositionalists rattled my cage. Although I am unable to understand much of what they are saying, I have been impacted. "Presuppositional apologetics" is not a unified approach, as is seen in the differences between Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, John Frame, Greg Bahnsen and so on; I understand that Francis Schaeffer had a mix of methods, and was not exclusively presuppositionalist. So, I do not feel so badly about my gradational understanding.

“In other words, they decided right from the start that there's no God, and they're setting out to try to prove that there's no God, ... That's their bias to start with.”

“It’s a matter of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.”

— Ken Ham

Evolutionists and atheists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! You can offer evidence all day long, one after another, and constantly be rejected because the other person has a "rescuing device" to escape or deny the evidence because it does not fit into his or her worldview.

Ken Ham made an impact on me many years ago when he pointed out that nobody is unbiased. Some evolutionists foolishly proclaim that fossils are proof of evolution. No, a fossil is a fossil. In their worldview, they see something that is the result of uniformitarian processes that took millions of years. How do Biblical creationists see fossils? Ken Ham taught me well. Listen:

Dr. Jason Lisle gave some lectures on "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" (see below) and similar topics. He pointed out in no uncertain terms that there is no "neutral ground"! (Nobody is unbiased... no neutral ground... I think I see a pattern emerging here.) I am unwilling to discard God's Word in the name of "neutrality", because the Bible says there is no neutrality (Romans 8.7, Matthew 12.30, James 4.4), you are either gathering or scattering. If we claim to be neutral, we say that the Bible is wrong and we are not being neutral!

Dr. Jason Lisle:

"There are two things to remember when people ask you to be neutral:

1. They're not.
2. You shouldn't be."

When someone wants to meet on "neutral ground", they are having you give up your beliefs and presuppositions in order to acknowledge their naturalistic presuppositions; you concede defeat by discarding God's Word.

Do not misunderstand me, I am never opposed to answering honest questions and providing evidence (or referring people to sources of good evidence). But I will not toss aside the Word of God to play on someone else's field, with his rules, with his conditions, conceding victory at the onset. When someone says, "Give me your theory, give me your explanation, but leave God out of it", I'm being a fool and contradicting God's Word.

Christians need to remember that we should not do apologetics and defend the gospel out of ego, pride, the desire to play intellectual games and win arguments. At the Judgement, the Lord is not going to be asking you how many arguments you won. Rather, he is more interested that you knew him, knew his Word, used his Word (Heb. 4.12) and led souls to Christ (Matt. 28.18-20).

Logic Lessons: Leftists, Atheists, Labels and Appeal to Emotion

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:56:00 +0000

Also posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder".

This article has been buzzing around in my mind for quite some time, and I finally decided to put it down in pixels. But I do not wish to spend a great deal of time explaining the Appeal to Emotion because I am tired. There are certain aspects that I want to bring to your attention. Also note that this, like many other fallacies, is not simply cut-and-dried; it will often overlap with other fallacies, and sometimes it is difficult to spot at all. Other times, the appearance of a fallacy can be deceiving. For instance, when attempting to motivate people, showing a direct cause to what we want them to do will usually provoke an emotional response, and that can be valid. It is not evil manipulation or a fallacy. A good explanation of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy is here.
What I want to discuss is how people will use this red herring to distract you from your discussion or objective with an irrelevant appeal to emotion. (After all, elections, various causes, arguments and all sorts of things are dealt with more on the emotional level than with actual thought processes.) Appeal to Emotion can take many forms, including:

Pride. Man up and do the debate.
Ridicule. If you refuse to debate, Jesus will cry.
Purpose. You could make converts if you do the debate.
Fear. If you refuse to debate, I will mock you all over the Internet and tell your wife untrue things about you with those girls in Accounting.
Pity. I really need you to do this debate because it will look good on my CV.

These are more obvious plays to manipulate your emotions. Unfortunately, some people are skilled at the more subtle forms of manipulation. In fact, some have this dubious skill naturally, and may not even realize that they are being manipulative.

Something that I want to emphasize is that people with a bumper sticker mentality (they can handle slogans, but are unwilling or unable to deal with more profound concepts) are easily influenced by labels. Brand someone with a label that has negative connotations and you can win over the weak minded to your side.

One of the favorites of leftists in America is to call someone a "racist". Well, what does that mean, really? That you roll up your car windows and lock the doors when you drive past people of that ethnic group? Big deal. But the connotation is, "I'm gonna kill me some niggers/kikes/spicks/wops/gooks/honkies and I'm gonna love it!" Pick a word with angry, violent connotations and slap your enemy down with it, getting other people to hate him on your say-so.

Despicable.

Another favorite is the nonsensical "homophobe" label. I keep saying that I don't phobe any homos. But I do believe the Bible when it says that homosexuality is a sin. This doesn't mean that I, or any of my associates, advocate violence, discrimination and so forth just because of their sexual preference. Hanging that stupid label on someone prompts an emotional reaction and bypasses actual thought. It is very common in libtards, Christophobes and atheo-fascists. (How do you like it, Liar4Darwin?)

One of the most blatantly stupid attack labels is "liar for Jesus". It is immediately laughable to anyone with a grain of sense because it implies the accuser has some kind of Godlike power to know the thoughts and motives of the person they are attacking. Further, the phrase itself is nonsensical: Jesus does not approve of lying to get someone to believe in a holy, just, righteous God! It is obvious that this remark deserves a resounding "Duh!" for its utter absurdity.

"Freethinker", "rationalist" and other atheistic buzzwords are emotionally loaded, with a built-in insult. That is, they are the rational ones by virtue of being atheists. This Genetic Fallacy conveniently ignores the fact that many of the world's greatest thinkers and scientists have been Bible-believing Christians.

This is hilarious because it involved several fallacies: Certain atheists managed to get themselves booted from creationists' "Pages" on Facebook. They whined in another page about "rational" people being kicked out, deviously using the Fallacy of Equivocation to imply that they were being sensible, the only reason for them to be kicked out was because of expressing their "rational" views. This appeal to emotion used both the Genetic Fallacy (atheists are "rational" just because they are atheists) and Equivocation (where "rational" has the usual meaning in the mind of the reader, but the atheists are being manipulative because they have their own meaning of the word). Sneaky.

One problem with labels is that it seems to be human nature. We like to categorize and identify people and people types in our thought processes. It's not possible to avoid all labels and connotations. Sometimes labels serve a useful purpose for our cognitive processes.

My advice to you is to pay attention when someone is using labels. Watch yourself as well. When they contain emotional impact and manipulation, I think it's fair to suspect that someone is trying to manipulate you.

What's Wrong with Theistic Evolution?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:02:00 +0000

Many years ago, I wondered why I can't simply assume that God used evolution in his creation process. But back then, I had no idea what I was doing to God's Word.

Find Jesus in Evolution

In this Weblog, I have puzzled, pleaded, ranted, explained, reasoned and so forth in an effort to understand why people want to add to the plain reading of the Scriptures. Is it to appear smarter, to appease the evolution crowd by not really believing (and standing up for) what the Bible says? Is it ignorance of the domino effect of compromising from our foundations? I should not be so puzzled. After all, this is an age where people compromise the Word all over the place, listening instead to the Rev. Dr. Feelgood and his associate, E.R. Tickler. Believing in a literal six-day creation and global flood? Long forgotten!

The fact is, theistic evolution does significant violence to the gospel.

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.

You can read the rest of "Ten Dangers of Theistic Evolution" here.

Saturday Resource: Dealing with the "New Atheists"

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Personally, I take exception to the term "New Atheism", because the only thing "new" about it seems to be the vitriol and lack of rational thought.

So anyway, while listening to the "Just Thinking" podcast from Ravi Zacharias, I was amazed by his guest speaker, Andy Bannister. Andy's topic was "Responding to the Challenge of the New Atheists". In the first segments, he discussed the bad reasoning and angry philosophy of people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, and showed how atheistic philosophies are essentially impractical. Then, he discussed how Christians can talk to people with this mindset.

Below are four links, but there is no need to be intimidated, since the actual content after the introduction is about ten minutes each. You can download each for free, or purchase a CD. (I was so taken with Mr. Bannister's talk that I was thinking about actually buying the CD.)

Here you go:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

This Should Be Creation Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:09:00 +0000

For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.
(Col. 1:16-17, World English Bible)

All Creation Sings by AD/Kerry Livgren on Grooveshark

While secularists and apostate churches are proclaiming evolution on Darwin's birthday, those of us who believe the Bible should reflect on the Creator. To be blunt, to say that God used evolution in his method of creation is an offense to him.

Keep in mind that Jesus is the Creator. (No, I am not going modalist on you, I believe in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; one God in three distinct persons.)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
(John 1:1-5, Lexham English Bible)

Think about this, that our Creator who died on the cross and rose again for our redemption (1 Cor. 15.3-5 NASB) also said that he came to tell us the truth (John 8.45-46 NIV). The Creator himself said, when he was discussing marriage, that from the beginning God made them male and female (Mark 10.6-9); there is no room for evolution. For that matter, people who want to believe that they can "harmonize" evolution and creation overlook one fact: The order of creation does not occur in a time frame that is required by evolutionism.

To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing.
(Isaiah 40:25-26, RSV)

Let us give glory to God our creator, who really does not need to give us any thought at all (Psalm 8.4-9)!

Saturday Resource: Evolution Sunday?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:00:00 +0000

As I mentioned in yesterday's brief episode (the one with the ninety seconds long audio clip), churches are sliding so far downhill that pastors are using material from atheists to promote evolution from the pulpit!

I feel that Christians who actually believe the word of God should not only be having "Creation Sunday" in their churches, but actively promoting "Question Evolution Day" (and questioning evolution every day with Scripture and science). One of the purposes of this Weblog is to encourage Christians to grow in the Word (2 Peter 3.18) and be able to stand for the truth (Jude 1.3, 2 Peter 3.15). Saying that Genesis is "just allegory" and compatible with evolution is not being truthful. (Quick example, the order of creation in Genesis has nothing to do with the sequence expected in evolutionism philosophies.) In fact, it is destructive to the gospel to compromise.

Here is today's resource. It is from "Crosstalk", "VCY America. I strongly urge you to listen to the interview with Ken Ham, as well as the calls from listeners afterward (I am particularly fond of a couple of the calls). There is a "Listen" section with several options (right-click to download), but this appears before the show's description. I am also attempting to link here, so you can listen:

Pastors Supporting EVOLUTION?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:53:00 +0000

Since Mohammedans do not believe that their god can have a son, some weak Christians are compromising to coddle them with an Islam-Friendly Bible. "Chrislam" is nothing but compromise. Can you believe that this is happening?

Maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise, since we have been compromising on the foundations of the Word as found in Genesis. If we do not have strong foundations, what good are we (Psalm 11.3)? More of this compromise involves an atheist promoting evolution in churches. Christian leaders supporting evolution are joining him. Spend a minute and a half with Ken Ham as he discusses this. (Click here if the embedded player fails.)

Creation: Science and Theology

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:53:00 +0000

Also posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder" and at "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman".

This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his "Theopologetics" podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to "Question Evolution Day".

It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it.

Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and takes the Bible very seriously (I recall asking him if he tends to over-think some things), so I knew we were in good hands.

After e-mail communications and sharing the outline online, I finally "met" Nathan Schumaker. I quickly learned that he takes his subject and studies seriously as well, and is quite knowledgeable. Some of what he presented, I had known from previous years (pretty sure I was the oldest guy there), but he also taught me a few things.

Chris projected a session time of two hours. Wrong-o! Three and a half hours. It was time well spent, however.

Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), I wasn't all that thrilled with my part of the discussion. Chris was able to edit out things like connection drop-outs and restarts, but also those annoying times when I was talking and the dry air in this place got to my throat; I had to mute Skype, cough, take a swallow of water and come back. Those kinds of things are to be expected. I think my main problem was that I was trying to do too much, as if I'd never have another podcast experience or something. Since I had time to prepare the extensive notes, I kept going back and adding golden thought nuggets. Some of those were repetitious. Also, since I had so much that I thought was oh-so-vital to say, I did some tangential things. And I got lost in the notes on occasion.

When I gave live talks in churches, I did reasonably well, but this was different. Still, I don't give myself failing grades. This was a learning experience. I expect to do better next time, whenever that is.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I kiddingly wrote to Chris, "Hope you took all my stupid stuff out!" He kidded back, "Nope, I left your stupid stuff in :-)".

"So, what do we have, Cowboy Bob?"

We have a podcast in three parts that was recorded in one evening. It has science for creation, including the age of the Earth and the days of Genesis (Nathan Schumacher will give you quite a bit to ponder). Also, theology and a defense for the days of Genesis. I was able to spend some time discussing logical fallacies, as well as the way people use them outright to lie.

At this writing, only the first part is available for download or listening on the site.

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.

Creation Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:41:00 +0000

This is a re-working of last year's "On The Origin of Respectability". Most of it is the same, but I have included some updates.

In the beginning God created the heauen and the earth. And the earth was without forme and voide, and darkenesse was vpon the deepe, and the Spirit of God moued vpon ye waters. Then God saide, Let there be light: And there was light. And God sawe the light that it was good, and God separated the light from the darkenes. And God called the light, Day, and the darkenes, he called Night. So the euening and the morning were the first day.

— Genesis 1.1-5 (Geneva)

Or, to say it another way: בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהֹום וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּֽיִם׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אֹור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאֹור כִּי־טֹוב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאֹור וּבֵין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים ׀ לָאֹור יֹום וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹקֶר יֹום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

February 12 is failed theology student Charles Darwin's birthday. It is also "Question Evolution Day" and "Academic Freedom Day". (Actually, every day is "Question Evolution Day", but February 12 is given special notice.) It should be Creation Sunday as well, where Christians stand up for the truth of creation and refuse to compromise. Instead, many churches will disgrace themselves by promoting evolutionism from the pulpit. This is counterproductive, to say the least. What kind of message are we sending? "The Bible is true, we can trust it for our salvation and our doctrine. Genesis? No, that's allegory and not history." No wonder people have trouble believing in God and staying in the church!

Since the primary thrust of this Weblog is theological and not scientific, I will let you check some resources on your own. But I will give you some suggestions: Piltdown Superman, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International. If those are not enough, I have many more apologetics links here. What, you're bothered because I am not giving equal time to evolution? We are constantly exposed to biases, skewed reports, tendentious interpretations of the facts and outright ridicule of our viewpoints. This is equal time!

There are church people who simply do not believe that the Bible is true (including having historical value), so they have no problem giving the appearance of scientific respectability to their churches. Some people believe in "theistic evolution", where God used evolution to cause his creation. Or they have God start the whole works and then he stepped back and let nature take its course. Some believe in "Progressive Creation", where God stepped in on occasion and did some more creating activity. These things require extreme eisegesis, making the Bible say what people want it to say.

Naturally, there are compromisers who do not want to take a stand or who have not bothered to examine the evidence for Creation. Nor have they examined the implications of their compromise with evolutionism. However, there are honest, intelligent people who have looked at some of the evidence and insist that the Earth is ancient, disagreeing with creationism.

I want to give you a few things to think about, from the perspective of someone who believes that the Bible is true, evidence for an ancient Earth is dubious, and that evolution is false knowledge:

Which of the gradually evolving primates was Adam, and which was Eve?
When did Adam and Eve sin?
If they are simply stories or archetypes, we are being lied to throughout the Bible because Adam is spoken of as a real man. This becomes much worse because Adam is in the lineage of Jesus (Luke 3.28), Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real created people (Matt. 19.4). Paul refers to Adam as a literal person, by whom sin entered the world (Rom. 5.12-14). Paul also referred to Jesus as "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15.45). Jude referred to Enoch and Adam as real people (Jude 1.14).
As I have said before, the word יוֹם translated "day" means "indefinite period of time" (as well as assorted other meanings, like part of a day, the darkness part of a day and so on), or as an indefinite period of time, but Genesis has strong qualifiers to make it a literal day: "Evening and morning, the (number) day". Also, this is the way it works throughout the Old Testament. Why should the early chapters of Genesis be the exceptions?
People will refer to Psalm 90.4 and 2 Peter 3.8, taking "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" to support their belief that the days of Genesis were not literal. How about a logical extension, then? “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You shall labor six days, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy." (Exodus 20:8-11, WEB) Look at the text again. God worked for six days and rested for one day as an example for us to follow in the Fourth Commandment. Those who compromise with the Bible have two problems here: Did God work for six thousand years and then rest for one thousand years? Or did he work for six indefinite periods of time and rest for an indefinite period of time?
If God used evolution, then why do we need God at all?
If Genesis is not true, how do we know we can trust the rest of the Bible?

As for me, I am not willing to let science interpret Scripture. After all, science is man-made. God's Word is eternal (Isaiah 40.8 NASB). If we changed our understanding of God and the Bible with every scientific "discovery", we would be a mess and Christianity itself would have collapsed long ago.

With all of the compromise and strange doctrines running rampant in the church today, I should not be surprised and disappointed that churches are not willing to stand up for our very foundations.

I am not going to go the other way, however, and say that we must believe no matter what science says. Perhaps our understandings of Scripture need to be adjusted on occasion. But carefully, with the bigger picture in mind.

Book Review: The Influence

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:49:00 +0000

This is also published at "Stormbringer's Thunder".

The front door sticks a bit. When opened, a sort of crackling or ripping noise happens suddenly, and is gone in less than a second. I am sitting in the living room chair, reading. Rrrippp! I was so absorbed by the book that I felt like I could have jumped over the chair...

Buon giorno. I am not exactly comfortable with doing book reviews, since I have done so few of them. Especially fiction. That may be to my advantage, however. I'll just be myself instead of using some kind of formula and say what I think, but not ruin the story for anyone, capice?

This is the first ebook that I purchased. I was so certain that I was going to get the Kindle that I bought the e-book before I even owned the Kindle. Are you flattered, Mr. Slick?

Yes, that's right, Rev. Matt Slick. The same guy that I talk about, link to and give you audio excerpts from is also an author. And yes, it's his real name (he learned that his ancestors had a longer version of the name, though).

Bottom line first: I was entertained by The Influence. In fact, I gave more time to reading than to do my writing and research. It had been quite a while since I read a book just for the pleasure of it, and it delivered.

This book is about angels and demons, and warfare in unseen places. It also has discussions in theology, because Mark, the main character, is granted the rare privilege of seeing and speaking with an angel. (On a side note, I have seen it before where characters have discussions so the author can present a viewpoint. Fortunately, The Influence is not like Genesis, the flying saucer conspiracy book by W. A. Harbinson — that fat baby seemed to spend two thirds of the time in tedious, unbelievable dialogue and low on the promised "searing terror and explosive excitement"). Mr. Slick makes the demons genuinely evil, and not just troubled, misunderstood or misguided with hidden goodness deep inside. Evil is not sugar-coated here. Matt took some literary license in his descriptions of the demons and of the action because the Bible does not give us those details, and he wanted to be as Biblically accurate as possible.

The theological discussions are informative, of course, since Rev. Slick is a theologian and an apologist. I am pleased to say that the theology does not get mind-numbingly deep or go into specialized denominational interpretations. Also, the discussions are broken up with page turning (well, on Kindle, screen tapping) excitement. Things that I thought I could predict ("Oh, she's gonna die here!") that happen in lesser stories did not happen here, fortunately.

I'm going to give one thing away that is important to the story, and the story making. One thing that startled me was when reference was made to the death of an infant, his name was Jacob. Matt and his wife Annick lost Jacob shortly after his birth. He brought his own pain into the story through the character of Mark. Don't get me wrong, it's now a "downer". There is humor in the story as well, and the characters were far removed from the cardboard cut-out Pollyanna-style of other Christian fiction that I have read. (Good characters are important to me; I have watched movies or television shows and actually missed the plot because I was so taken with well-written, acted and directed characters.) So, if you want people that can make you feel something, Mr. Slick wrote them for you.

Speaking of feeling something, there is a vision that someone has at the end of the book. I will only tell you that it got to me, and I left the living room for a while because I did not want to bother She Who Must Be Obeyed with my sniveling.

I recommend The Influence. You will be entertained, and you will probably learn something. If you want it, the link on the left is to the paperback, the one on the right is to the Kindle version.

Are You a Tebow?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 00:24:00 +0000

Tim Tebow is a bit of an American cultural phenomenon in 2011 and early 2012. Whether this continues remains to be seen, but currently, it appears that most people have at least some familiarity with him. For those who need a brief overview, here it is: Tebow is the quarterback for the Denver Broncos professional American football team. He is very direct about his Christian faith, wearing "John 3.16" in his eyeblack (among other verses, but mostly that one), getting on one knee to pray (now called "Tebowing") and speaking directly about his Christianity. Also, he is known to be a wholesome role model. I shared some thoughts about him in this article.

It feels strange to me to be writing something connected with American professional football, but I read an article that suddenly made Tim Tebow's open display of faith a relevant topic for this Weblog.

People criticize Tebow for his actions, but what of it? They are imposing their beliefs that he "keep it to himself" on him! Should he be quieter about his beliefs? Well, it is the NFL. Players are very flamboyant, colorful, outspoken and even infamous. (Would they prefer jailbird Michael Vick instead of Tim Tebow?) As they say, "Haters gonna hate". That is, some people will never please some other people. Apparently, Tebow is acting as a good Christian on and off the field. The big test is if he loses graciously, because it is much easier to be kind and good-tempered when things are going favorably.

Bringing this down to the "real world", where ordinary people are not international celebrities, what are we doing to proclaim Christ at our workplace? Or are we "undercover Christians", as this short comedy "documentary" audio clip points out?

Here is the article that I found that prompted me to write and share these things with you:

Tebow is brave. Although he’s not the only Christian in the NFL, it is not a workplace known for incorporating Jesus. Tebow created that space, and made it a place of praise. And he started long before he played for the NFL or the Broncos reached the playoffs.

Often, it takes courage and conviction to demonstrate Christ in the workplace. I can't imagine "Tebowing" every time I score a professional achievement in my office, but I can imagine blessing my food in public, refusing to make a decision without praying first, and talking to coworkers about my faith when the timing is appropriate.

Like Tebow’s, most jobs, whether in a secular or Christian workplace, involve the daily taking or giving of credit. Almost every job provides the chance to graciously interact with fellow human beings.

I really hope you will read "Learning from Tim Tebow about Workplace Evangelism" here.

Witless Witnessing

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:59:00 +0000

Years ago, I had a book called Tell It Like It Is: How Not to be a "Witless Witness". I retained a startling amount of information from it: Nil. Actually, now I wonder if I really did own the thing instead of just looking at it in the bookstore. But the "witless witness" part stuck with me.

As many of you know, I was away from the Lord for about fifteen years, and came back less than three years ago. Before I rudely put God on the back burner, I was active in learning Biblical things and enthusiastic about witnessing. I used this information when I was trying to be active in the "Spread Firefox" group and when I was in the "Save Tibet" groups. People want to spread their message, and they went about it the wrong way. This involved enthusiasm (and a sense of urgency in the "Save Tibet" mindset) without careful planning.

I am going to meld some suggestions made to spread Firefox with Christian evangelism. Some of this is taken from a previous post.

Go to a local computer store such as Best Buy, CompUSA or Fry’s. Open Notepad on one of the display machines and leave a short advertisement for Firefox. Is it just me, or would that be annoying, intrusive and make people unwilling to try Firefox? If this was done with, say, Bible verses, I still feel that it is annoying and intrusive. Do not want.
Send a letter to your local or campus newspaper about Firefox. In and of itself, not a bad idea. For a gospel "letter to the editor"? Flat-out evangelism is not likely to be published because it is irrelevant to what they are trying to do. Mentioning Biblical relevance without being heavy-handed on a newsworthy topic could be effective in planting seeds in minds and spirits.
Leave a post-it note on the desk of a random person in your office that you don’t know that says “getfirefox.com”. Don’t sign it. How tacky is this? I can imagine a Bible verse or "get saved" message, too. Whether Firefox promotion or undercover witnessing, this targeted approach is likely to do more harm than good — especially since you will probably be found out.
Leave a note in your mailbox telling your mailman about Firefox. Too bad people don't know that postal carriers are (theoretically) supposed to remove things from mailboxes that are not mail. Also, the carrier is there to deliver mail. I really don't think that she's all that interested in her next browser. The same applies to booklets or gospel tracts. In both cases, you are being intrusive and possibly violating a law.
Eat out tonight. When you pay the bill, leave the waiter a monetary tip and a handwritten tip to the tune of “getfirefox.com”. As above, the server isn't interested in Internet stuff. This one isn't quite as bad, especially if there is indeed a monetary tip involved. I have left gospel tracts with the tip. If I do not leave a worthwhile tip (lackluster service, for one reason), I will not denigrate the gospel by leaving a tract with it. Never leave a tract without a tip.
Print out three copies of this Firefox datasheet and pin it to three bulletin boards in your town. Think: community centers, gyms, workplaces, Jamba Juice… Is that effective, or is it just littering? After all, again, you have to be selective in where you put things. You decide. In the case of gospel matters, I suggest staying with tracts unless you are promoting a specific church-related event.
Ask. Many people are surprisingly open to something free if you approach them when they are not under stress or being distracted. Especially if you have any kind of relationship with them already, and are being open (but not obnoxious) about your faith. "I have a CD by a Christian rock band that is in the same style as that one you have there. Would you like to give it a listen?", or, "Do you have your million dollar bill yet? It's a novelty bill on one side, a gospel tract on the other".
Knock off the ranting. People denigrate Internet Explorer for the sake of promoting Firefox. Or, they just won't shut up about it. In gospel matters, I have come across people in social media who are typing in all caps, "GLORY TO JESUS! IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING!" Cut it out. On Twitter, some almost only type Bible verses. Sorry, Sigmund, I don't think most of us came here to read your ten posts of verses; many of us do read our Bible regularly.

People think that Twitter is a great way to spread the gospel, but I disagree. You are most likely to attract other believers and atheist trolls who want to attack and denigrate Jesus in order to feel better about their foolish pride. The same with various forums, because angry atheists are attracted as well as enthusiastic Christians. Do not misunderstand, we must use whatever medium is available, especially the Internet. But do not expect great things out of social media and forums.

In evangelism, it should be obvious that an actual conversation is the best approach. Especially if you are full of the Word and the Spirit, being prayerful, gracious and respectful. Tracts are great, too, and have their advantages. If you can share the gospel with someone and leave a tract, so much the better because it can be available to continue the discussion in its own way.

I hope people will temper their enthusiasm. No need to be obnoxious and witless.

Also, I hope that some of you will get some enthusiasm. Are you spending time in the Word and in prayer? Do you pray for the lost? Are you ashamed of the gospel, or what people will think of you? Personally, I want to be a God pleaser.

Enhancing Your Online Reading Experience

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:00:00 +0000

This article will not contain admonitions, instruction in righteousness, sound doctrine or anything else. Instead, I want to talk to you about something that I am excited about. So far, this item will be a tremendous relief to me.

Side note: One way to enhance your reading experience is by installing the free "Readability" bookmarklet in your browser. It takes out a great deal of the distractions so you can read things a bit easier.

My regular readers know that I really like Bibles. And I like books, period. Nothing will ever replace my fondness for holding and reading a good book. That said, I am the happy owner of an e-book reading device. I suspect that Sony, Kobo and others do their jobs, and that Nook and Kindle are the best rated, my research led me to select the Kindle Touch, Wi-Fi, 6" E Ink Display. My more detailed write-up about that is here, so I will not go into all of my reasons for liking it.

By the way, nobody is paying me or giving me anything for the reviews and recommendations that I've been doing lately.

But I will tell you in the short form that E Ink displays look like actual paper (meaning much less eye strain than looking at a computer monitor), no shipping charges for buying an Amazon book because it's sent to you right away on the Internet, the 3,000 book capacity, this Kindle can go for about two months between battery charges, the ability to e-mail yourself documents, and especially portability. Oh, and the fact that thousands of e-books are available free or lower cost did not hurt matters any.

World English Bible on my Kindle

I thought this would be a great way to try out the World English Bible. After checking it out for accuracy and so forth, I spent a few dollars for a special searchable version and I am very pleased with World English Bible (WEB) (with Direct Verse Jump). I also have the free The Holy Bible: HCSB Digital Text Edition and the free English Standard Version Bible. Haven't used the last two yet, I'm liking the WEB too much right now. But I should caution you that reference books are not well-developed for Kindle by themselves unless someone puts extra effort in for special formatting, like the WEB mentioned above.

This is great for the student, scholar, researcher, apologist or anyone else who needs documents available. Or just to have a good book handy.

But wait, there's more!

Technologically-minded Kindle and e-book aficionados have made some free applications that made Kindle suddenly become almost indispensable to me. Here is another area where I recommend the Kindle to people who want to read and learn.

Suppose you're checking out links on your social media playground, and you happen across a link that looks interesting (or entertaining). But you've been sitting at the computer and you're getting eye strain. You could make a shortcut or bookmark and come back later (if you can find it again), or you can send it to your Kindle on the spot. That's right, you heard me! Services like "Kindle It" and "SENDtoREADER" can be installed quickly and easily on your Firefox or Chrome browser toolbar. A short time later (sometimes, very short, depending on Amazon's traffic), if you're connected to your Wi-Fi, the document appears in your reader for viewing at your convenience. And the extras on the Web page are stripped away, pretty much giving you just the document. I sent myself a good, text-only (no Flash or video on E Ink readers) gospel tract.

Further, there is a tool for your use to organize your e-book reader (not just Kindle) called "Calibre". This is a free, Open Source desktop application to arrange your e-book library. In addition, it converts certain documents between formats, subscribes to news, transfers items via USB and does much more.

Just a few hours ago, I was downloading e-books for cult research. Some were in ePub format, which Kindle does not recognize (yet). These were not locked down with DRM, so Calibre happily converted them and sent them to the Kindle via USB cord.

I have written about these other pieces of software here.

Hopefully, this will give you some ideas for using your Kindle or other e-book reader, or possibly purchasing a Kindle for yourself.

Saturday Resource: Reading Your Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

Yes, I can hear it already: "Come on, Cowboy Bob, you keep going on about getting into the Word."

I'm going to keep doing it, too!

To be blunt, too many Christians (as well as "religious" people and pretenders) are not only ignorant of what the Bible says, they really do not care about growing in the Lord, which is essential (2 Peter 3.18, Eph. 6.17, Psalm 119.11). Even mature believers get frequently reminded of the importance of spending time in the Word (and in prayer, and in good teaching, but I am not going to deal with those right now). One other nudge, if you're looking for good, free Bible software, I highly recommend "theWord".

Many Christians begin each new year with a plan to read through the entire Bible over the course of that year. Some reach that goal, but most don’t. Then there are others who don’t even bother to read God’s Word at all. Is this issue really a big deal? Why is it so important to read Scripture on a regular basis?

You can read the rest of "Why Is Reading the Bible So Important?" here. Then, the next resource is a video by Dr. Charles Stanley, "Our Anchor in Times of Storm", which you can watch here:

Viva la RESOLUTION?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

— 1 Peter 3.18 (ESV)

Are you excited that the new year is underway? Perhaps you made some plans, set goals and resolutions. This is a good time to be putting plans into motion. I discussed elsewhere that New Year's Day can be taken as a kind of false salvation; we fool ourselves that somehow the past is forgotten and all things become new. The real salvation is in committing our lives to Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5.17, John 3.3). Since this Weblog is written to, for and about Christians, I am not going to belabor that point.

Followers of Jesus are not immune from the distractions of the mundane or the "tyranny of the urgent". While we are setting our goals and resolutions, we may forget who we are, that we belong to God (1 Cor. 3.23 NASB). We need to get our true priorities in order (1 Peter 3.18 ESV), because letting the material world take precedence will cause our spiritual life to deteriorate. If we are committed to giving God first place in our lives and keeping our spiritual lives in order, the rest will come under God's control and line up.

Even though the first week of the year is well underway, that is no reason to skip out on committing to spending time in the Word every day. And prayer? Not just daily, but throughout the day as well (I am referring to "micro prayers" that we mentally "beam" to God at various points in our days). This might be a good time to check out "theWord" free Bible software, too.

Further, I would like to ask you to examine yourselves to see if you are really in the faith. None of this "I'm a good person", or "I'm religious" nonsense. Please see this page to be sure, if you have any doubts.

Also, you may want to read "Resolving to Get Closer to God", here.

Practicality in Action

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:48:00 +0000

My regular readers know that I like to emphasize the fact that our faith is to be practical, not just in words. As Christians, we are to be showing love for each other (John 13.35) and helping to meet the needs of fellow believers (Galatians 6.10), but are also to be salt and light to the world (Matt. 5.13-16). No, I am not an advocate of extreme do-gooder-ism, just that we should be open to opportunities and the leading of the Spirit.

This story was waiting for me in my "subscribed Weblogs" folder this morning. I am using it in support of my point about being available to do good to others, but this is not what Trisha had in mind when she wrote it. This happened while Christmas caroling.

On Dec 8th, a group of about 20 of us from Sovereign Joy Community Church went caroling in my neighborhood. When the group arrived they grabbed some hot coco, we said a prayer, got our gloves and snow caps on and off we went. We sang from house to house rather quickly...I had forgotten about one particular house until tonight.

We approached it to sing and I got a rather large wiff of gas.Hmmm...that was strong. I thought.
I turned to my friend Lisa and said, "Did you smell that?"
"Yes!" She said. "That was strong." She added.

After we sang our song, everyone walked to the next house but I hurried up to the door step and said,

No, this is where I draw the line. You can read the entire article intact and in its proper context, here.

Who Fights Your Battles?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:12:00 +0000

This is fun. The group ApologetiX has done many parody songs in several styles, from country to '50s and '60s oldies to metal to... just about all of it.

Someone got enthusiastic and acted out the ApologetiX version of "Bohemian Rhapsody". I think it's rather good, actually.

Santa is Here!

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:00:00 +0000

I figured that title would get your attention! Imagine, a site primarily dedicated to encouraging and instructing Christians in spreading and explaining the gospel talking about "Santa". Wait, it gets better. Lemme 'splain, Loocy...

I remember my first big Christmas adventure with Grandma. I was just an eight-year-old kid.

I remember tearing across town on my bike to visit her on the day my big sister dropped the bomb: "There is no Santa Claus," she jeered. "Even dummies know that!"

My Grandma was not the gushy kind, she never had been. I fled to her that day because I knew she would be straight with me. I knew Grandma always told the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier.

Grandma was home, and the "world famous" cinnamon buns were still warm. Between bites, I told her everything. She was ready for me. "No Santa Claus?" she snorted. "Ridiculous! Don't believe it. That rumor has been going around for years, and it makes me mad, justplain mad! Now, put on your coat, and let's go."

"Go? Go where, Grandma?" I asked. I hadn't even finished my second "world famous" cinnamon bun.
"Where" turned out to be Kerby's General Store, the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything. As we walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars. (That was a bundle in those days.) "Take this money," she said, "and buy something for someone who needs it. I'll wait for you in the car." Then she turned and walked out of Kerby's.

Remember, I was only eight years old. I'd often gone shopping with my mother, but never had I shopped for anything all by myself. The store seemed big and crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping.

For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for. I thought of everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school, the people who went to my church.

I was just about thought out, when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker. He was a kid with bad breath and messy hair, and he sat right behind me in Mrs. Pollock's Second Grade class. Bobby Decker didn't have a coat. I knew that because he never went out to recess during the winter. His mother always wrote a note, telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we kids knew that Bobby Decker didn't have a cough; he didn't have a good coat. I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement. I would buy Bobby Decker a coat!

I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it. It looked very warm, and he would like that.
"Is this a Christmas present for someone?" the lady behind the counter asked kindly as I laid my ten dollars down.

"Yes, ma'am," I replied shyly. "It's for Bobby."

The nice lady smiled at me, as I told her about how Bobby really needed a good winter coat. I didn't get any change, but she put the coat in a bag, smiled again, and wished me a Merry Christmas.

That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat (a little tag fell out of the coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) in Christmas paper and ribbons and wrote, "To Bobby, From Santa Claus" on it. (Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy.) Then she drove me over to Bobby Decker's house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever, officially, one of Santa's helpers.

Grandma parked down the street from Bobby's house, and she and I crept noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk. Then Grandma gave me a nudge. "All right, Santa Claus," she whispered, "get going."

I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on his step, pounded his door and flew back to the safety of the bushes and Grandma.

Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open. Finally it did, and there stood Bobby.

Fifty years haven't dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering beside my Grandma, in Bobby Decker's bushes. That night, I realized that those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said, they were ridiculous. Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team.

I still have the Bible, with the coat tag tucked inside: $19.95. Since I only had a ten-dollar bill, the lady behind the counter at Kerby's General Store was also Santa Claus!

The above story was sent to me in an e-mail. I tweaked it a little bit. It is true? Maybe. Embellished? Probably. But so what? By the way, I really like the anonymous giving part because they were really seeking to do good and not receive self-glorification (Matt. 6.1-4).

There was a time that I detested the idea of "Santa Claus". But I thought about it and realized that first, Nicholas was a Godly man who really existed. And I also realized that the "Santa Claus" figure is a kind of embodiment of a spirit of giving. Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing the commercialized Santa image! It's just that some good can be found in it.

Side note: Some people get (let me be blunt) overly spiritual about Christmas. They think that because certain aspects of the celebration have pagan origins, that we should have nothing to do with Christmas. Some of those accusations are blatantly false, misguided religiousness (Jeremiah 10.3-4 is horribly taken out of context) and the pagan accusations that remain have lost their original meaning to most people. No, we can seize this opportunity to celebrate the birth of Jesus and use it as an opportunity to be witnesses.

The point of the story is obvious, that we can be a Santa and make him "real" in a spiritual sense by looking to meet the needs of people. Christians are supposed to help meet the needs of people (yes, I know I've gone on about this before, but it's important). Not only are we to be salt and light to the world (Matt. 5.13-15), but we should be seeking to do good for other believers (Gal. 6.10, John 13.35). While we can be a "secret Santa" and give gifts to others around Christmas time, we should be willing to do good for others all year — in the name of Jesus.

Even Unbelievers Understand the Importance of Genesis

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:47:00 +0000

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! — G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3.3-7 KJV)

Here is a bit of a follow-up to this article.

Even the atheists "get it", as shown above. But note the equivocation where he said, "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science..." Evolution is a philosophy about the past using interpretations of evidence. It is not "science" per se. No, nobody is fighting science! We are fighting the philosophies of materialism and uniformitarianism. Especially since they fail to accurately explain the evidence.

When Christians present a reasoned explanation for the gospel (apologia, ἀπολογία), we need to be clear that the Bible is true from cover to cover. What good is it to say that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and then say that it does not mean what it says in Genesis? "The creation week was actually long periods of time, 'day' does not mean 'day', the global flood at the time of Noah was not really a global flood, Adam was not a literal man" and so on. So, how can we expect someone else trust the rest of the Bible to mean what it says?

Death began with the sin of Adam (1 Cor. 15.22, Rom. 5.12, Rom. 8.22)
The first promise of the Redeemer was in Genesis (Gen. 3.15)
The first covering for sin was in Genesis (Gen. 3.21), a foreshadowing of the covering for sin in the Old Testament, fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ because he loves us (Gal. 2.20)
Peter reaffirms the creation (2 Peter 3.5)
Peter reaffirms the global flood, which was a judgment on mankind; another global judgment is coming — by fire (2 Peter 3.6-7)
Paul refers to Jesus as the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15.45)

Again, I ask you: What is your ultimate authority? Do you bow to the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, or do you put your trust in the Word of God?

Stumbling Apologists

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:00:00 +0000

Every word of God is pure;

He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Do not add to His words,

Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

— Prov. 30.5-6, NKJV

This has not been an easy article for me. I wrote at it for several days, and then decided that it had to be done. Then I had to tweak it after it was published.

Here is something else that I cannot understand: Willful ignorance. At least, it looks like willful ignorance to me.

There are some apologists for the Christian faith who are utterly brilliant and have taught me a great deal. There are also some that are brilliant philosophers of theology that I do not try to understand because I find the depths of philosophy that they practice to be tedious and impractical, and I do not want to expend the mental energy in following what they're saying. Then there are the philosophers that do great work, and I do need to expend the mental energy to learn from them.

How is it, then, that a layman like me can spot flaws in their work?

I mentioned one time that a certain apologist said that he would not let science tell him how to view Scripture, and so he rejected evolution. Then, he promptly said that young-earth creationism is wrong because of what science has shown! Wait — the same facts, methods, techniques of science that support the belief that the earth is ancient are also used to support evolution, are they not? Why the inconsistency? More importantly, why the reluctance to accept a plain reading of Genesis at face value?

What baffles, irritates, irks, flusters and befuddles me is why these apologists (as well as knowledgeable laypeople) who proclaim the inerrancy of Scripture will keep trying to make the unnatural stretch of turning the days of Creation Week into some huge amount of time. There are a few possibilities of which I am aware:

Compromise. Bluntly stated, to them, the Bible does not mean what it says because they want to accommodate scientific philosophies. "Theistic Evolution" is an escape for people who believe in evolution but want to appear religious, and denies the Bible. "Progressive Creation" also denies important aspects of the Bible, and its adherents should consider well the words of Proverbs 30.6. There are other variations of compromise, but these two cover a great deal of ground and require extensive theological gymnastics of tampering with the Bible.
Not thinking it through. Some people just have not thought about the ramifications of their position, and how they are letting the latest whims of man-made science philosophies dictate their understanding of the Word of God.
Bad information. Young-earth creationism has been badly misrepresented. (I'll be blunt: There are people who claim to be Christians that have actually lied about young-earth creationists and their beliefs, and also called us liars because they do not agree with our views!) People who reject young-earth creationism have often only heard from its opponents, and have not bothered to seriously investigate the framework of the young-earthers. It seems a bit hypocritical to criticize atheists and "skeptics" for getting their information about God and the Bible from sites like "I hate God even though he doesn't exist and his book is wicked too dot com", and yet, ignore the material presented by Bible-believing scientists.
Bandwagon theology. This is simply a herd mentality. "Everyone in my church believes in an ancient earth and universe, I will too", or, "Dr. Philos Offy has two earned doctorates and a hundred forty four honorary doctorates, and he believes the universe is old and accommodates evolution, he's my hero, so he must be right".
Some other biases or presuppositions.

When debating with old-earthers (a term that I hope is not a pejorative, but merely descriptive of their position), I point out that the word yom, יוֹם, translated as "day", has several meanings ^[1,2]. The obvious meaning is a literal day, another meaning is an indefinite period of time. (There are, unfortunately, old-earthers who misrepresent young-earthers' views on this, saying that we insist that it can only be a literal day. Examining, say, Answers In Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research or Creation Ministries International will show that such claims are disingenuous at best.) For the most part, "day" means "day".

Several times, I have come across people who point out the few exception to the general rule of yom with an ordinal number meaning a literal day (such as Hosea 6.2), and they make the exception into the rule; that is, since "day" with an ordinal is not always read that way, other ways of reading the text must be allowed. This is horrible thinking, especially since if God wanted to say that creation happened in huge amounts of time, he did not need to have the author use yom.
What do they do with Exodus 20.11, by the way?

One analogy that I have used is dominoes. If you compromise in Genesis, which is foundational to the gospel, you have to continually compromise all through the Bible. Let me show you.

I was very disappointed when I read an apologist put forth the view that it was perfectly acceptable to think that at some point during evolution, God suddenly granted consciousness or enlightenment to a male and female, and they were made into Adam and Eve! Adam was considered a real person in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3.38), Paul said that Adam and Eve were real people (1 Timothy 2.13-14), Jude called Adam a real person (Jude 1.14). Death entered the world because of Adam's sin (Romans 5.12), but "progressive creationists" and "theistic evolutionists" require death before sin. But worse for this view is that it is an insult to Jesus, since Paul referred to Jesus as "the last Adam (1 Cor. 15.45). What does that mean? Was Jesus the next stage of evolution?

Why do they do this? There is no valid reason for such extreme eisegesis!

Many Christians have conceded to uniformitarian dogma by imposing theories on Genesis like the day-age view, gap theory, and the framework hypothesis. Christians taking on names—progressive creationist, theistic evolutionist, or even young-earth creationist—implies Genesis 1–11 does not have one clear interpretation. ^[3]

Now look, nobody is saying to put "our" view of the Bible over your daily experience or observable science. If the Bible said that things fall upward when dropped, we would have a problem to deal with, and I would expect that the context would indicate that this was figurative or allegorical. The science used for evolution, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, all of that is not observational science. In fact, such historical science is in a state of constant change. (For scientific evidence against evolution and for a young earth, I have a site called "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman".)

People disagree about models and mechanisms all the time. Evolutionists themselves are not unified about evolution itself ^[4]. Creationists also disagree, and put forward their own models to interpret the evidence and see if the data fit. Great! That is what science is about! The real question is, "Who is your authority? Is it the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies of the day, or the unchanging Word of God (Isaiah 40.8)?" If you disagree about, say, the age of the earth because you have given honest consideration to the available evidence (including evidence from young-earth creationists), well, fine. That's your prerogative. But watch your presuppositions and make certain where your final authority lies. You don't want God calling you a liar because you added to his Word.

My work here is done for now. Is anyone up for a game of dominoes?
Addendum: I wrote a bit of a follow-up to this article, here.

Saturday Resource: Being Active in Modern Culture

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:07:00 +0000

On Ravi Zacharias International Ministries' broadcast "Let My People Think", Stuart McAllister discussed how we can respond to attacks on the Christian worldview from academic and cultural circles. This talk was split into two parts and broadcast a week apart. There is a bit of overlap, therefore. Announcements start at about 24 minutes into the broadcasts, so the whole thing will take you less than an hour. I highly recommend that anyone who cares about presenting the gospel spend the time and listen. You can go to the RZIM site to listen or download the files. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here.

Pearl Harbor Bomber Comes to Christ After Reading Gospel Tract

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 01:04:00 +0000

This is the incredible story of Mitsuo Fuchida, lead pilot of the December 7, 1941, raid on Pearl Harbor. Fuchida was the one who shouted the war cry, “Tora, Tora, Tora!” Mitsuo Fuchida fought the United States throughout WWII and was intimately involved in the planning and leadership of the Japanese war effort as flight commander and later as a senior operations officer.

After the war, Fuchida was a defeated warrior in occupied Japan, farming to meet the needs of his family. He was also the only one to return to Japan after the bombing.

In 1950, Fuchida miraculously came to know Jesus Christ as Savior through a tract handed to him while exiting a train in Tokyo. The tract was entitled, “I Was a Prisoner of Japan,” written by Jacob DeShazer who was one of the famous Doolittle Raiders. DeShazer trusted Christ as his Savior while held captive by Japan for 40 months. DeShazer went to Japan in 1948 as a missionary and preached to the nation who held him captive.

Read the rest of "Lead Pearl Harbor Bomber Converts After Reading Tract" here.

Breaking Fellowship — A Rant

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:36:00 +0000

Once again:

"So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

— 2 Tim. 2.22-26, ESV

Most of the time, I try to keep these articles instructive and/or practical. This time, I am making the article a personal thing because I am hurt and angry. (Plus, some instructive and practical bits.) At the risk of sounding pretentiously noble, my "hurt" was not from personal attacks. Rather, I am hurting because of the way Christians act.

A while ago, I wrote that Christians get judgmental and will, in essence, slap down and break fellowship with a believer who is not "spiritual" enough to please them. My suggestion was that we can give instruction to the other believer (Gal. 6.1 NKJV).

There are times, however, when we are to distance ourselves and even break fellowship with some people who call themselves Christians (1 Cor. 5.11, 2 Thes. 3.14). If they repent, they should be restored (2 Cor. 2.6-8 NIV, Gal. 6.1 ESV). There is no need in this article to go into all of the reasons for breaking fellowship or putting someone out of the church.

One of the most frequent problems in the church is strife. (And "infighting", more than discussing areas of disagreement, is one of the reasons I left the faith for several years.) I have had some specific problems with the Calvinist-Arminian strife. Yes, I said strife! I have mentioned how I am bothered by the attitudes of some Calvinists who act like they have the One True Faith. But I have recently encountered some positively vicious attitudes among Arminians. Ironically, some say that they are attracted to the teachings of Jacobus Arminius because they seem kinder or gentler. His "disciples" that I have encountered lately are anything but kind and gentle! The main problems I have seen involve the Arminians dislike of the Calvinist position of "election" or "predestination".

There are things in the Bible that I do not like. For example, I wish that everyone could be saved and go to Heaven. So, I could take me "theology" further than certain Arminians wish to go and become a Universalist. Also, I do not like the concept that some people are "elected" or "predestined" for salvation. Personally, I do not think this doctrine is correct (stumper: Acts 13.48), but I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong. I am not going to mock other Christians who hold to this view, because their view is based on Scripture, whether I agree with their understanding of Scripture or not. There are other things in the Bible that I do not like. Why? Probably because I do not understand them. We, the created beings, cannot fully comprehend the Creator! That there are things in the Bible that we do not like, or do not understand, does not make them untrue. Nor does it give us any right to ridicule those who hold to a position that we disagree with.

Now I have a problem. I can try to give extensive documentation and, I feel, become part of the problem, or I can tell people to take me at my word (or do their own research), taking the risk that I will be called a liar. Fine, call me a liar if you wish. I have to go with Scripture and my conscience.

My recent encounters with Arminians have been quite startling, because they are acting like atheists. That's right, I said it!

Mockery
Straw Man arguments, making caricatures of Calvinism to knock down
Selective citing and misquotes
Misattribution
Guilt by association; Calvin believed and taught thus and so, and he had certain character flaws. I heard a caller to Matt Slick on CARM radio ask him if he believed in something. He said, "No". The caller replied that John Calvin taught that. Matt replied, "Well, Calvin was wrong, then". News flash: Calvinists do not treat the writings of Calvin as if they were Scripture!
Hate and rage; "You're right to criticize Calvinism (not its people) — It's sickening!" Tell me, how far is it from "poking at the god of Calvinism" (through mockery and disunderstanding) to mocking and hating other believers in Christ? I feel that soon, this will turn into actual hatred of Calvinists themselves
Idolatry; "My God doesn't..." This includes putting preferences, feelings and opinions above the Word of God
Excusing and justifying themselves

In a comments area on a Facebook posting, I asked some of these people if they obtained their information from informed Calvinists, and I named a few examples. I was told, "I've had Calvinists themselves tell me this." So? Does that mean that those people were skilled and informed about the theology that they espouse? I listened to a series of lectures on Roman Catholicism, and the lecturer said that we were probably better informed about the official teachings of Rome than the overwhelming majority of Catholics. Many times, I have heard Mormon callers to radio shows (or read commenters on articles) dispute what was quoted by the experts because they were uninformed about official Mormon teachings. The same with Mohammedans who say, "The Koran does not say this!" Uh, yes it does, here is the reference. And so on. So, if you're going to criticize the doctrines, be very certain that you are understanding it correctly! Even with my lack of knowledge of Calvinistic teachings, I still caught the angry Arminians in significant errors.

Let me stop right here and point out that not all of the Arminians approved of the discussion, and there were some other voices of reason to point out the errors of the angry Arminians. I posted a few comments, and posted a link to a pertinent article (which I believe only had two visits). Also, I have a strong feeling that these Arminians do not trust God!

Not only are these angry Arminians attacking fellow Christians, they are unwilling to listen to others who pointed out flaws in their logic. Just like modern atheists who are only interested in showing off their uninformed opinions rather than actually understanding the concepts involved (Prov. 18.2), they compare notes with other angry people who lack proper understanding. Then, they justify their strident, hateful comments and positions.

It would be nice if more Christians would try to get the attention of these angry mockers and attempt to correct them. Also, all mature Christians can pray for them.

Do you know what this is, really? It is pride! It really looks like they would rather be "right" than to express Christian love. I really cannot get over how their prideful attitudes remind me of so many of the obstreperous atheists that I have encountered!

One of these people on Facebook wants to be an apologist. With his emotional bias and unwillingness to learn about what he is attacking, I think he will end up humiliating himself and the name of Christ.

Listen, I am not a Calvinist. Nor am I an Arminian. I have agreements with both camps, and have problems with both camps. But I cannot stand for such contempt for fellow believers. So, instead of continuing to try to point out that these Christians are acting in a most un-Christian manner (and, frankly, making me wonder if they really are Christians in the first place, John 13.35, Luke 6.44), I cannot continue to fellowship with people who promote pride, strife and division in the body of Christ. Not until they repent.

What do you think? Am I right? Am I wrong?

Book Review: What Is Truth?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:02:00 +0000

Also posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder" and "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman"

"Despite the fact that our modern mass media makes it appear that atheism and secularism are on the rise in the world, in fact the opposite is true. Despite the fact that our media constantly insists that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be true, in fact the scientific evidence against it is growing by the day. Despite the fact that our media continually highlights the idea that the Bible is an outmoded book full of myths and fairy tales, in fact historical and archaeological research is revealing that the Biblical manuscripts are exactingly accurate in every detail."

Title: What Is Truth?

Subtitle: "A Handbook for Separating Fact from Fiction in a Propaganda-Filled World"
Author: Kirk Hastings

This is not a typical book review situation. In fact, I am unaccustomed to writing book reviews at all. In an e-mail discussion with Kirk Hastings, he informed me that he had a book that was pertinent to our discussions. (It turns out that Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdicthad been important to each of us in our understanding of the reliability of the Bible.) When I told him I would read his book, he asked me to review it as well. Sure, why not? So, I placed my order at Amazon and got started. (That should tell you that I did not get paid for doing this.)

The first thing I noticed is that this book is an easy read. It is 172 pages, followed by end notes, a glossary and a section of recommended reading. Also, the text size was large enough to please me. Another reason it is an easy read is that the author does not act like certain authors by attempting to impress you with sesquipedalian erudition; he talks to you. Yes, he has quite a bit of "book learning", and he refers to his source material, but without pomposity or making your brain hurt.

Like many people, Kirk Hastings did not have a working knowledge of Christian truth in his younger years. His mother was a believer and his father was not, and church-going was not allowed. He had no significant spiritual influence in his life, and "religion" was a foreign concept to him that did not merit much thought. When his mother contracted terminal cancer when she was only forty six, he prayed to God to heal her, but to no avail. He was emotionally devastated, and assumed that God must not exist. "After all, if he existed he would have heard my prayer and at least made some attempt to help me. But he didn't. So, he must not be real" (p.7).

Several years later when he was twenty four, a waitress started asking him questions about his view of the Bible and Jesus Christ. This led to her inviting him to a Bible study. His preconceptions of the way "religious" people looked and acted were shattered. Kirk was invited to lunch the next day with the study leader. After lunch, he started with the usual "How do you know?" questions. And he received answers. Real ones, not the "you just have to believe" nonsense that he was expecting to be told.

Shortly after this, he became a Christian. "Since that day (during the early summer of 1976), I have continued to diligently study the world's religions and the Bible, and to seek solid, rational answers to the hard questions of life" (p.11). What Is Truth? is the result.

There are some things in this book that I would have changed. But, he didn't ask me! (Why should he?) I would have been a nuisance, interrupting his work and saying, "What about this? You can add that! Here's the other thing!" and made the book excessively long. Readers should be thankful that he did not know me yet.

The book begins with a very basic lesson in the nature of logic. From there, he discusses the two main theories on the origin of life. This goes through cosmology, the two basic kinds of evolution, what is found in the fossil record, problems with Darwinian evolution, indications from microbiology, discussing if concept of Intelligent Design is scientific, and then the philosophical nature of evolution.

From there, the book evolved (heh!) into evidences for the reliability of the Bible, the historical facts about Jesus Christ and about non-Biblical religions.

At this point, Mr. Hastings begins to bring up some strong points about propaganda in modern society. (I have a small quibble with him that he only referenced Nazi propaganda techniques, and thought it would have been even stronger if he had included some information on Soviet-era propaganda, and the propaganda techniques of certain American political parties.) Movie makers were less inclined to offer entertainment, and were increasingly interested in using their medium as a means of presenting their messages. One notable example of this was the horrendous rewrite of the events of the Scopes "Monkey" Trial; "Inherit the Wind" had almost no truth in it, but the movie (and play) colored the perceptions of the public about people who believe the Bible over "science" that linger today. The final chapter contains further discussion about propaganda today.

There are a few minor flaws in the book, some wording and typographical errors, but I suspect that Publish America did not use editors very well. I recommend What Is Truth? as an introduction to the issues and questions mentioned above. Kirk Hastings recommends many other books for people who want to do further research. Also, Kirk does not preach at you. He simply tells you about his questions, the answers he found and the reasons he has for his beliefs. Most importantly, to me, is that he encourages the readers to think for themselves. It is not all that difficult to think objectively and examine the facts if people are willing to follow where the evidence leads.

What Is Truth? would be a good gift for someone (including to yourself) that wants a springboard for examining the deeper issues of life. Kirk can be heard on the radio show and podcasts from Evidence4Faith with Keith Kendrix.