The Forerunner Weblog

Dr. George Tiller and "Defensive Action"

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:50:25 PDT

If you are concerned with the abortion issue at all, you already know about Dr. George Tiller's death. Tiller was the late term abortionist who operated a clinic in Wichita, Kansas. He was shot to death while serving as an usher in his church on Sunday, May 31st, 2009.

In 1993, I moved into a house directly across the street from one of America's most notorious abortion clinics, Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida. I had been involved in pro-life activism at abortion clinics since 1989 and was especially concerned that, after the shooting deaths of two abortionists in 1993 and 1994, the movement was in serious trouble. Rather than duck and cover like so many other Christian media outlets had done, I felt it was the right time to confront the issue head on with a viable solution. I later bought the house and it became a staging area for peaceful protest. I became obnoxious to both the abortionists, who attempted unsuccessfully to sue me, and even to some pro-lifers who refused to act without a proper respect for the guidance of seasoned pro-life pastors and leaders. I even banned several people from use of my property who refused to follow the protocol I demanded as the owner. Eventually, the clinic was forced to close in 1999 and the owners chose to retire rather than relocate.

Back in 1993, the prospect of furthering peaceful resistance looked bleak. With the election of Bill Clinton, restrictive federal laws were created concerning free speech and assembly. The right to protest in front of the only abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida was made illegal for a time. Such laws, which were applied only to pro-lifers, would have been unthinkable had they been applied to any other social activist group. Civil rights protesters who trespassed in "whites only" restaurants, PETA protesters who spray paint fur, and environmental activists who chain themselves to redwoods to save the trees from logging companies are not only tolerated under the first amendment, but even celebrated within their own community of advocates. But with the election of Clinton, pro-life speech suddenly became illegal. The reason given, of course, was to curb the "terrorism" of the defensive action crowd within the pro-life movement.

The crisis of principles was inevitable. Pro-life advocates believe abortion is murder. Many of us were drawn into pro-life activism because we were challenged by a radical idea.

If you believe that abortion is murder, then act like it is murder!

Taken to a logical extreme comes the philosophy of defensive action -- that it is permissible to use violent force in resistance to a more egregious violent force. I wrote a response to defensive action in 1993, called Justifiable Homicide that was published in the Christian Reconstructionist magazine, The Chalcedon Report. The article has been referenced by both pro-life and pro-abortion activists. I won't paste my argument in its entirety into this blog entry, but it is available at our website:

http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0003_3._Justifiable_homic.html

Defensive action is the idea that violent force in the defense of life is permissible since a human life is being taken in an abortion. Since the civil magistrates' duty is to protect life is being neglected, it is logical to a certain type of mind that individual violent resistance becomes permissible in these cases. Defensive action advocates claim that this is not vigilantism, but the necessary use of violent force in defense of life.

In 1993, Rachelle Shannon used this rationale to shot Dr. Tiller in both arms with a .32 caliber pistol -- a gun that is able to kill, but usually does not incapacitate people. Her intent was merely to prevent his ability to commit abortion that day, but not to kill. I remember at the time wondering why in heaven's name, if she used this argument to justify her defensive action, she simply didn't finish the job once and for all. As one activist remarked, "This woman is a disgrace both to our pro-life ethic and our marksmanship!"

I've spent many hours debating with the defensive action crowd. I will be the first to say that their argument, although wrong, deserves careful scrutiny. I actually agree with defensive action in certain cases. Think of the following situation. Let's say a serial child molester was released from prison. It defies all justice that the man was released, but let's suppose that an extreme circumstance was responsible for this travesty. Suppose also that this sociopath has moved into your neighborhood. Soon after that you discover that your six-year-old daughter has wandered on to his property. After a frantic search, you find your child pinned to the ground by the man in the very act of rape. You hold a baseball bat in your hand.

Is it permissible in this case to use deadly force in defense of life?

Let's say a group of pastors in Nazi Germany begin to participate in a strategy of espionage that results in several assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. We applaud the resistance of brave Lutheran pastors and erstwhile pacifists such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoeller, precisely because their defensive action in taking one life would have prevented the killing of at least tens of millions.

What makes killing abortion doctors any different?

The reason is that the defensive action scenarios and their actual implementation have never taken place within the confines of God's law. That is not to say that they cannot in any circumstance be justified. For instance, if a family member, let's say a 16-year-old daughter, was about to kill her unborn child and was inside the abortion clinic with a police presence that prevented you from interceding for the life of the baby. I believe it would be permissible to use violent force to prevent the abortionist from murdering your grandchild. In this example, I would agree with violent defensive action.

However, under God's moral law, we cannot act outside the authority of the civil magistrate to prevent all murder in all cases through the use of deadly force. The only exceptions to this would be the case of a war action, defending a family member, which I've mentioned, or a case in which all other options of non-violent resistance would be ineffective to defend a helpless victim. None of the four deadly shootings of abortion doctors that have occurred since 1993 fit these parameters.

It is also good to keep this in perspective. Four cases have occurred in 16 years in which abortion doctors have been shot to death in the United States. Yet since Roe v. Wade was decided, about 45 million unborn baby boys and girls have been slaughtered.

“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” - Ezekiel 18:23

Except for the sorrow expressed by God himself when an unrepentant sinner perishes, I don't mourn the death of those who deserve death. I expect that the general public's attitude toward Tiller's assassination is going to be a lot less austere than it was in 1993. We have a president who refused to vote to protect babies even in the ninth month of pregnancy. It's no coincidence that abortion clinic related violence decreases when a pro-life president is in office, but increases when extreme pro-abortion legislation is enacted that is out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

Barack Obama is responsible for creating the atmosphere of violence among the defensive action folks in the pro-life movement, just as Bill Clinton and Janet Reno through their jackbooted federal thuggery were responsible for creating the frustrated backlash that erupted from among a fringe element. These violent activists were previously quelled by opportunities for social and political resistance within the larger peaceful movement.

As John F. Kennedy said about the civil rights movement, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Dr. Peter Hammond and Frontline Fellowship

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:45:47 PDT

I had a couple of dynamic spiritual experiences this week. The first was meeting Dr. Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship, South Africa. Dr. Hammond is a personal “hero” of mine and is doing more to promote true Revival than anyone I can think of. He spoke of his mission’s work in Africa – the vision is no less than “All of Africa for Christ.” Hammond understands that Revival isn’t simply life-changing on a personal and pietistic level, but nation-changing and world-changing as well.

I highly encourage people to visit their website: http://www.frontline.org.za/

Other resources are available here: http://www.reformationsa.org/

Not only are there numerous messages available for download, but sermons have also been prepared as power point presentations that you yourself can present and teach to your small group or church meeting. When presented under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, these presentations are truly life-changing, nation-changing and world-changing.

Dr. Hammond emphasized the following points:

1. John Calvin, although he is not primarily known as a social reformer and an evangelist, was more full-orbed in his theology and social theory than most people realize. Calvin’s view on justification by faith and a resulting sanctification translated into the increase of Christian efforts to reform the society of his own day and in succeeding generations.

2. John Knox and the Scottish Covenanters are primarily known as the founders of the Presbyterian movement. Yet this revival was not just a reformation of doctrine in the Scottish church, but also a spiritual awakening that affected the entire country of Scotland. This was the first nation in modern history that was literally converted en masse to Christ. According to Iain Murray, author of The Puritan Hope, there was not a household in Scotland in which one of the members experienced a profound conversion to Christ. The nation itself was born-again and the people of 16th and 17th century Scotland covenanted with God.

3. The English version of the Presbyterians, the Puritans, were responsible for bringing this vision to England and America. Men such as Oliver Cromwell, William Bradford and John Winthrop changed not only the politics of the west, but their lives resulted in a greater evangelistic thrust for the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

4. In the 18th century we can say much the same about the lives of George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. Their preaching of the Gospel, far from being a “salvation-only” message, affected all aspects of society.

5. By comparison, today’s Calvinists (and we evangelicals in general) are frozen in our devotion to God. We tend to neglect fervent prayer, emotional expression in worship and evangelism. If they were alive today, the Calvinists of the past would hardly recognize today’s Calvinists as being representative of their lives’ work.

6. We are currently undergoing a paradigm shift in the evangelical church from pervasive and being an ardent dispensational premillennialism to a postmillennial activism. This shift in eschatological outlook will be vital to the future of Christian cultural transformation.

7. The greatest century of missions was the 19th century. The world missions movement was initially fueled by the postmillennial hope. The eschatology of the founders of modern Protestant missions was almost universally optimistic. The result of this postmillennial worldview was claiming the nations for Christ.

8. The prospects faced by William Carey, George Mueller, David Livingstone and others in plowing the rocky soil in Africa, Asia and other “dark continents” was thought to be “dismal.” The immediate result of their efforts was a handful of converts. If these men had the eschatology and vision of today’s Christians, they would not have had the long term outlook that enabled them to persevere. The great irony is that by the end of the 20th century, hundreds of millions of Christian converts have streamed into the kingdom of God. These men didn’t live to see the fulfillment of the promise, but believed. Yet most Christians today are seeing the fulfillment, but don’t have their hope.

9. Frontline Fellowship’s vision is the transformation of all of Africa and the world. Neo-Puritanism is having an impact in these nations from children in home schools and church schools to the highest levels of government where presidents and high ranking officials are being impacted with world changing Gospel teaching.

10. In Sudan and other places, Christians are being martyred for their faith. What should be our response to this? We need to elect politicians with the backbone of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who stood up to communism, not to appease anti-Christian tyranny, but to defeat it. Our attitude toward militant Islam should not be a “turn-the-other-cheek-pacifism.” Military action by African Christians in defense against Islam is not only permissible from a New Testament perspective, but mandated to defend the faith. There could even come a time in America when Christians may have to take up arms against invasive regimes, false religions and an oppressive government in our own land.

Gallup Poll: Most Americans now pro-life

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:32:27 PDT

The first time I participate in a Gallup Poll I change history!

Last week I got a phone call from Gallup asking for ten minutes of my time in order to participate in a poll. The first question was about whether I approved of President Obama, so wanting my voice to be heard on this issue, I persevered to the end. Almost every demographic question possible was asked including: "Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice?"

Imagine my surprise about a week later when I read this news item:

The latest Gallup poll on abortion found that 51 percent of those questioned call themselves "prolife" - the first time a majority of US adults have identified themselves as such since Gallup began asking this question in 1995 ... Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009.

This might seem like a trite statement to say, "I changed history," but people really are influenced by public opinion polls. If the trend continues the pro-aborts can no longer say, "The vast majority of Americans are pro-choice!"

If there is a lesson to be learned here it is that if you want to be a world changer, you must often participate in the process, no matter how mundane it sometimes feels.

Is “Nero” in the new Star Trek movie an intentional Christian allegory?

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:56:56 PDT

If you haven’t seen Star Trek XI, you need to drop everything and go out and spend $10 (or whatever it costs in your town to see a movie these days) and see it. Not only is it the best Star Trek movie by far, but it will be the biggest movie of the year and shockingly, despite all the hype, it is much better than expected. I could go on and repeat all the critical drivel about how it will revive the franchise, how great is Chris Pine’s portrayal of Captain James T. Kirk, blah, blah, blah, but I won’t.

I am thinking that the “Nero” character in the new Star Trek movie is an intentional Christian allegory.

The “mythology” of a science fiction or fantasy series, whether it is The X-Files, Star Wars or Dune, works on several levels. There is the “back story” of a series, which enables the audience suspend ignorance and disbelief about the characters and their world. In The X-Files, Fox Mulder is obsessed with UFOs because he wants to believe that his younger sister’s disappearance when they were children is due to an alien abduction. It is what drives him to believe that “the truth is out there.” In Star Wars, the audience is asked from the beginning to understand that this is a mythological setting, for the story takes place, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ...” And thus we are willing to accept that there can be no reference to the world we are from. In Star Wars the impossibility of faster than light travel is explained by the existence of “hyper-space” – another dimension where those nagging laws of Einstein’s do not interfere. In Dune, the entire mythology revolves around the production of spice on the desert world of Arrakis or Dune, which not only makes interstellar travel possible, but drives the entire culture of the galaxy as well.

Science fiction and fantasy writers also draw upon mythic symbolism and universal archetypes. They capture the audience’s sense of wonder appealing to a deeper level of emotion and spiritual awareness. Therefore, George Lucas became an avid follower of Joseph Campbell, author of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, and self-consciously used these symbols and stories in each of the Star Wars movies. Ursula K. LeGuin, author of The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness, wrote what she called not science fiction but “thought experiments” relying on Jungian psychology and Eastern symbolism found in the Tao Te Ching. Frank Herbert, author of Dune, drew from biblical messianic prophecy tinged with ancient mythology and Arabic sounding words suggesting the religion of Islam. Other fantasy authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis used Christian symbolism, although Tolkien claimed he hated the very idea of allegory and had no such intentions.

The original series of Star Trek was no stranger to allegory, mythology and dense symbolism. However, Christianity is the most common mythic reference. (Here I use the word “myth” in it’s proper literary sense.) One example is Episode 44 of Star Trek: The Original Series, entitled “Bread and Circuses,” a story about a planet whose leader has imitated the culture of the Roman Empire, but with 1960s technology. In the episode, the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise encounters a persecuted minority known as “sun worshipers” who help McCoy and Spock escape certain death in the gladiator arena.

KIRK: Gentlemen.

MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper.

SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.

UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.

KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.

MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.

SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.

KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.

CHEKOV: Aye, sir.

A scene from “Bread and Circuses”

When I was a child I liked Mr. Spock and I even had a Vulcan haircut for a while, but I became a more serious fan of the show once I realized that each episode was a social commentary on one of the many issues during the turbulent 1960s. I was chagrined to realize when I visited Russia and Ukraine eleven times in the 1990s that the show never caught on in Europe or even in the post-Soviet Union. It made no sense at first, since the average Russian school child knew more about the American space program than we did and the whole society idolized its cosmonauts. They loved The X-Files and Star Wars, so why not Star Trek?

Finally, I realized that most Europeans disdained Star Trek as a crass expression of the American notion of Manifest Destiny. Not only would we take over the world, but an American styled “United Federation of Planets” would one day colonize space. Note that the crew of the Enterprise is multicultural and multi-ethnic, but the captain is predictably American. They hated that.

In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan stepped up nuclear arms production in an attempt to win the cold war, William Shatner’s character appeared in the lyrics to a song, “99 Red Balloons,” by a one-hit-wonder German group, Nena, in a wry screed against the idea that a nuclear war is winnable.

Ninety-nine knights of the air
Ride super-high-tech jet fighters
Everyone’s a super hero
Everyone’s a Captain Kirk
With orders to identify
To clarify, and classify
Scramble in the summer sky
As ninety-nine red balloons go by

But I digress.

A few years ago, I produced a preterist video commentary on Revelation 13 featuring Dr. Kenneth Gentry called The Beast of Revelation: Identified. Copies are always available on our website.

The preterist view of Revelation sees most of the events taking place in the first century since John was writing to seven churches in Asia Minor. In contrast to the preterist view, there are three other hermeneutic approaches to the book of Revelation.

Futurism is the most common “end-times view” of our day. According to the futurist, the book of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled. The locust plagues of Revelation 9 might be interpreted to be Cobra helicopters attacking modern day Israel. The Beast of Revelation 13 is a future world dictator.

Historicism is a view that states that the prophecies of the book of Revelation was fulfilled sometime in history, but not in the first century or in the future. The black plague of the Middle Ages might be interpreted to be one of the plagues brought by the four horsemen of Revelation 6. The pope at the time of Martin Luther is thought to be the Beast of Revelation 13.

Idealism is the spiritualist approach to Bible prophecy. This view states that the prophecies of Revelation are not to be taken literally, but have a general symbolic application in all history. The heavenly battle of Revelation 12 is thought to describe the ongoing battle between good and evil in the spiritual realm. The Beast of Revelation 13 might be any ruler in history who persecutes the church.

I find the preterist view to be most compelling because it has Caesar Nero as the Beast of Revelation 13. In fact, when we understand the historical background of the New Testament, we can see a lot of historical parallels in John’s vision to events that took place in the first century.

In Revelation 12 particularly, we see the figure of the Christ child who is persecuted by the dragon.

Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him (Revelation 12:1-9).

From a preterist point of view, this speaks of Israel, the Christ child, and the Church. Israel, the Old Covenant church, gives birth to the Christ child. But as soon as this happens, Satan, symbolized by the dragon, leads a war against Christ attempting to kill him through the Roman Empire’s military rulers. The first instance of this was the attempted murder of the Christ child by King Herod the Great.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men … Now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead.” Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:16-23).

After this occurs, Christ is finally crucified under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. He is resurrected from the dead, however, and is caught up to God’s throne. There He now rules the nations with a rod of iron. In the meantime, Satan is enraged with “the seed of the woman,” the church, and persecutes her through the Emperor Nero.

Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12: 13-17).

In Revelation 13 and 17, the “beast from the sea” and his number, “six hundred sixty-six,” is a symbol and cryptogram for Caesar Nero. This “Beast” has his power and authority to persecute the church from the dragon, the devil. The judgments on the “land” of the Jewish people are recounted in Revelation 18 and 19 leading up to the demolition of the Temple.

I cannot delve into a full-blown exposition of a difficult and controversial text here. I recommend if you want to know more about the preterist view that you check out the DVD, The Beast of Revelation: Identified, or one of Ken Gentry’s or David Chilton’s excellent books on the subject. It’s an interpretation that has had a minority following in church history, but is gaining ground among academics who see the frequent error of end-times hysteria in our culture.

Anne Rice, the recently converted Vampire horror fiction writer and author of a novel series, Christ the Lord, points out two important facts on preterism. A correct understanding of the biblical significance of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD not only vanquishes crippling dispensationalism, but it also refutes the modernist conjecture that the New Testament was written late by non-eyewitnesses to Jesus.

When Jewish and Christian scholars begin to take this war seriously, when they begin to really study what happened during the terrible years of the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the revolts that continued in Palestine right up through Bar Kokhba, when they focus upon the persecution of Christians in Palestine by Jews; upon the civil war in Rome in the ‘60s which Kenneth L. Gentry so well describes in his work Before Jerusalem Fell; as well as the persecution of Jews in the Diaspora during this period – in sum, when all of this dark era is brought into the light of examination – Bible studies will change. Right now, scholars neglect or ignore the realities of this period. To some it seems a two-thousand-year-old embarrassment and I’m not sure I understand why. But I am convinced that the key to understanding the Gospels is that they were written before all this ever happened.

I understand the Star Trek XI movie as a prophetic landmark for the church pointing us toward a correct understanding of not just the book of Revelation, but of the entire New Testament. Let's look at how perfectly the Star Trek mythology dovetails with the following biblical truths.

As any Trekkie can tell you, Spock’s sacrificial death and resurrection in Star Trek II and III cast him as the perfect Christ figure. Not only does he save the crew of the Enterprise, but he also saves the entire Federation of Planets from a doomsday machine called “Genesis.” The project is intended to create new inhabitable worlds in a few days or weeks out of barren planets. However, Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy sees it for what it really is.

[In the film, Star Trek II, Kirk, Spock and Bones have just viewed a proposal video for the Genesis Project]

MCCOY: Dear Lord, do you think we're intelligent enough to … suppose … what if this thing were used where life already exists?

SPOCK: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.

MCCOY: Its new matrix? Do you have any idea what you're saying?

SPOCK: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

MCCOY: [Sarcastically] Not anymore. Now we can do both at the same time! According to myth, the earth was created in six days. Now watch out! Here comes Genesis. We'll do it for you in six minutes!

In Star Trek II, subtitled The Wrath of Khan, a genetically engineered super-villain named Khan captures Genesis and intends on using it to conquer the galaxy. The parallels between the biblical Genesis story here are all too obvious. Man, in his pride, succumbs to the desire to be like God by creating worlds. Then his adversary, the devil or Khan, manipulates man’s error in an attempt to rule the galaxy.

Ironically, Spock not only defeats “Genesis” by giving his life for the Enterprise, thus enabling the crew to destroy Khan, but later a newly created Genesis planet becomes the resting place of Spock’s body. Unknown to the crew of the Enterprise, Spock cannot remain dead on a planet that creates life out of non-life. In Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, McCoy discovers that upon Spock’s death he has received Spock’s soul which was imparted to him upon his death through a mind meld – a Vulcan ritual of laying on of hands and transferring thoughts and emotions. Spock’s DNA is reassimilated on the Genesis planet well into this third installment and he is resurrected and reunited with the crew. The Christian allegory here is obvious.

Fast forward to Star Trek XI, a movie that is all the more satisfying because the background mythology of the series alluded to elsewhere is spelled out clearly. While the story line is comprehensible to the newbie, Star Trek fans will see references to the mythology of the series in every scene, which makes it enjoyable on a deeper level.

Spock has been working as an ambassador toward universal peace among the planets for many decades. He attempts unification between his home world, Vulcan, and their ancestral enemies the offshoot race of the Romulans. Many years after this (Vulcans live much longer than humans you must know, it’s part of the mythology) it is discovered that a giant supernova threatens to destroy a large part of the inhabitable galaxy. Equipped with a substance called “red matter,” Spock attempts to cause the supernova to collapse on itself transforming the stellar phenomenon into a black hole. In the process the Romulan home world is destroyed.

A Romulan miner named “Nero” escapes death because he captains a vast starship apparently outfitted to drill, pulverize and process planetary matter and asteroids. He travels back into the past through this black hole. Nero resolves to eliminate the Federation by killing its greatest starship captain, James T. Kirk, before he could take command of the Enterprise. Kirk's best friend, Spock, tries to undo the damage caused by Nero by following him through time. Arriving 25 years later than Nero due to the time distortion, Nero is waiting for Spock. Rather than killing Spock, he imprisons him on an ice planet close to Vulcan. Spock is forced to watch the death of his own home world in this alternate universe. (Star Trek is no stranger to the time paradox theme as introduced in what is arguably the best episode, “City on the Edge of Forever.”) Nero then plans to use “red matter” to destroy the worlds that make up the Federation over 100 years prior to his own planet's destruction in order to alter the future.

Star Trek XI’s theme becomes the “Wrath of Nero.” Or as the King James version of the Bible has it:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:17).

This war between the dragon and the woman becomes the mythic theme of Star Trek XI. In the plot of the film, there are several striking parallels. First, the elder Spock watches his mother killed and then he is forced to contend with the war of Nero against the Federation, the prime targets being the younger versions of Spock and Kirk.

It is important to understand here that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is not singularly Mary the Mother of God, but Israel and later “New Covenant Israel” or the church. In Revelation chapter 13, a new character is introduced, “a beast arose up out of the sea.” This is the Roman Caesar Nero who actually did kill the “seed of the woman,” the founders of the Christian church, in large numbers. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 116 AD, records that Nero sought to use the Christians as the scapegoat for a great fire that consumed much of Rome on the night of July 18th, 64 AD:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed (Annals 15.44).

Writing about 20 years earlier (c. 96 AD), the Roman bishop Clement records that Peter and Paul were among the list of martyrs of his “own generation.” Clement is thought by many to be an eyewitness to the martyrdoms of the Apostles and other Christians in the arena under Nero from 64 to 67 AD.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience (1 Clement 5).

Star Trek’s villain Nero seeks first to punish Spock by destroying his home planet, but his family escapes except for his mother, an earth woman named Amanda. Spock is half Vulcan and half human and this too fits into the Christ myth that is developed throughout the Star Trek canon. Nero then seeks to kill “the remnant of the woman’s seed,” the young Spock and the crew of the Enterprise.

Likewise, Caesar Nero after proclaiming himself a god, was unable to countenance the existence of a growing Christian movement that placed a man from Palestine above his own authority. In his great wrath, Nero destroys the Apostles, but cannot destroy the church after three-and-a half years of bloody persecution. The Beast is said to “make war with the saints and to overcome them” (Rev. 13:7). He is said to conduct such blasphemous warfare for a specific period of time: 42 months (Rev. 13:5).

As a consequence, Nero commits suicide stabbing himself in the neck with his own sword. The Beast not only slays by the sword, but ultimately is to die of a sword wound. “He that leads into captivity shall go into captivity: he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints” (Rev.13:10). Finally, we see the Beast “cast into a lake of fire” at the end of John’s prophecy (Revelation 20:10). Star Trek’s Nero meets a similar end as he too dies in a conflagration.

As in any allegory, the weakness is found when we begin to stretch it too far. Obviously the time travel element and having two Spocks complicates “the seed of the woman” analogy a bit – or perhaps makes it more interesting. However, I have made it my purpose here to note the biblical parallels between Star Trek XI and the biblical story of the woman, the child, the dragon and the beast and to point out how the history of Nero can be understood to support the preterist interpretation of biblical prophecy.

Countering Bible Cynicism

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:39:42 PDT

My ongoing conversation with Bible skeptics has taught me a few things.

The first and foremost is that most aren't skeptics in the true sense. A skeptic is one who calls accepted knowledge into question or tries to find alternative theories to explain the data on hand. Christians need to have a healthy skepticism toward the Bible, not in order to disprove it as God's Word, but to challenge faulty interpretations and to test how well we are able to defend the integrity of scripture. While I've had a few good conversations with skeptics that were rational, what I've found most often is blatant cynicism.

Cynicism is characterized by a mistrust or mockery of established conventions. The cynic doesn't use inquiry or constructive argument, but mainly sarcasm, verbal abuse and a host of logical fallacies. Oscar Wilde described a cynic as, "A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." A cynic is one who wants to take the easy path toward being considered an intellectual without doing any of the heavy lifting. It's a philosophy of misdirection in which the cynic feels proud of his ability to debate merely because he is able to call everything into question without really contributing anything positive toward human knowledge. I wanted to here post three of the most common cynical statements I encounter and some of my brief responses to them.

1. Jesus never really existed. This was the thesis of Bruno Bauer in the 1890s who claimed that Jesus was not a historical person but was an amalgamation of pagan myths. Sir James Frazer followed in the 1920s with his book, The Golden Bough. Although Frazer did not doubt Jesus was a real person, he tried to match many of the Gospel stories with pagan myths showing that the New Testament stories about Jesus had no basis in history. The problem with the Jesus Myth hypothesis is that it was almost universally rejected by scholars soon after it appeared.

When I first encountered this crackpot hypothesis, I had a several months' long debate on my discussion board, which you can see here:

http://www.forerunner.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31

Rather than run over a lot of old ground each time I get this objection, I simply offer two challenges to the Jesus Mythist.

1. Can you name a single writer prior to the 1800s who claimed Jesus never existed?
2. Can you name even five Ph.D.s teaching history at the university level who claim Jesus never existed?

If they can't offer names, I won't continue the conversation. One recently called my tactic "hypocrasy" (sic) because I am a creationist and creationism has been disproved by modern science. What amazes me here is that he fails to see the difference. There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of Ph.D.s teaching science who are creationists. We are a minority, but creationism isn't a position that has no credible proponents.

What I usually find when I challenge these young unthinking postmodernists is that they don't really understand the meaning of their thesis. They either confuse the Mythist position with that of Historical Criticism -- that Jesus was a mere man. Or they simply haven't thought the position through, but are driven by an emotional desire to prove Christianity wrong. In very few cases are Jesus Mythists willing to admit that their hypothesis isn't based on any historical testimony or documentary data. What they do instead is to change the subject to dozens of other objections. It's hit-and-run atheist activism. I encourage those who want to be involved with apologetics not to waste time with people who do not want to argue through their position and answer hard questions.

2. The New Testament was not written until well after the death of Jesus. I've even heard a few who are convinced that the New Testament was not written for "hundreds of years" after Jesus. Just a brief bit of background on this position should be considered. In the 1800s, it was the German Higher Critics who first began to push the proposed date of the New Testament into the second century -- even to the later decades. Some were motivated by anti-Semitism. The simply couldn't fathom the idea of first century Jews founding the religion of Europe. The late dating was not based on documentary evidence or historical testimony. Instead their conjecture was founded on form criticism and source criticism -- the idea being that the critic could read into the text what type of person wrote the book, when it was written, and which sources (often non-extant "phantom" documents) the author used.

Reading the Higher Critics or their modern counterparts is aggravating because they will completely dismiss all documentary evidence and historical testimony out of hand. Documentary evidence is in the form of actual manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Historical testimony is the records left by first and second century church fathers who quoted from and left commentary on the New Testament.

First, in the late 1800s up to this day there have been about 100 manuscript fragments discovered that date from the 115 to 300 AD. The earliest manuscript is a copy of the Gospel of John called the Ryland's fragment. Since this is considered to be at least a copy of a copy, and John is thought to be the last Gospel written, this puts the Gospels squarely in the first century. The latest possible date for the three synoptic Gospels according to the data then is the 70s and 80s. But we should stress this is the latest possible date. Nothing precludes an earlier date.

Second, the universal testimony of the church fathers beginning with Clement of Rome in the first century has the bulk of the New Testament written by the named authors prior to 70 AD. Some have the earliest Gospel being written by 40 AD. A skeptic may doubt this and certainly liberal scholars want to prefer the later dates of the 70s and 80s, however, there is no testimony from the ealry centuries that even hints at a later date for any of the books of the New Testament. The best the cynic has is an argument from silence. Since conservatives can't prove conculsively a specific date for each book, then the dates must be later. Of course, this is not logical.

The weakness of the cynic's position is that he believes the argument from silence "proves" something when in fact, in studying historical events you can seldom prove a negative. The true skeptic ought to admit that the worst case scenario is that we cannot know for certain the exact date of the New Testaments -- we must make educated guesses.

3. The Bible isn't true because people don't rise from the dead. The belief in miracles such as the resurrection can have a rational basis. However the atheist is irrational in that he wants to interpret the world from a purely naturalistic viewpoint. Yet naturalism has no explanation as to how the universe could have been formed from nothing or to how the beginning of a universe created out chaos and random order, can result in a universe of increasing complexity and order. To hold to a faith that has no basis in collected data is irrational.

On the other hand, Christianity is rational. Jesus Christ the Living Word (or the LOGOS) is the unifying principle of all human knowledge and is the basis for all rational thought. Christianity does not deny scientific and rational thought. All philosophy up until the time of Immanuel Kant was rational in nature. Western philosophy was divided into two groups -- Christian and Greek pagan. But both groups were looking for a “unifying principle” that would unite the study of both the seen material and the unseen spiritual worlds. To Christians, this unifying principle was Christ, since the LOGOS was both a linguistic (Biblical literature) and logical (the God-man Jesus Christ as a real historical teacher) answer to the problem of the natural/spiritual dichotomy.

When Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason, he rejected the idea that there can be a principle that unites all fields of knowledge. He was actually arguing for an “irrational” system that tells us that we must forever accept a total dichotomy between the visible and invisible worlds. Modern philosophy and liberal theology now sees the two worlds (the noumenal world and the phenomenal world) as two airtight compartments. If the spiritual world exists, we cannot know anything about it through rational thought according to Kant.

Georg Hegel came along soon after and proposed that all truth is a synthesis between thesis and antithesis. That is, there are no objective truths, just what we end up agreeing upon after argument and debate. In fact, we make up new truths in the process. Thus Kant and Hegel together ended up creating an irrational basis for human philosophy that can never explain how the universe fits together as a whole. Even in the world of science, history, education, literature, and politics, people now see a divided universe that exists in many small compartments, but cannot be understood as a whole. People seek to understand the "many" while denying the "one."

Hitler was simply echoing Hegelian thought when he said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” and “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think” and “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”In other words, the “lie” becomes the new “truth” if most people will just believe it.

What Kant and Hegel did was to open the door to irrational thought in the form of existentialism and postmodernism. In fact, we are already well down the slippery slope to irrational philosophy.

What is irrational is the modern reliance on a Kantian, Hegelian dualistic view of the universe that excludes what we cannot measure scientifically as "irrational." The cynic has gone so far down the rabbit hole of existentialism, that he doesn’t even understand the irrationality Kantian and Hegelian thought. In the long run, his position isn’t a philosophical or religious problem at all. It’s a moral problem fueled by irrational passions.

Puritan Storm Rising!

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:26:12 PDT

Here is an experimental bumper for a video documentary on how the Reformed theology of the Puritans has influenced culture and politics. It's loosely related to the online publication, The Puritan Storm.

Why I am not an atheist

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:29:29 PDT

Evangelist Ray Comfort recently sensationalized the atheist blogosphere by saying he'd pay $20,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for the opportunity to debate Dawkins.

Comfort's proposition is that atheists base their skepticism on their supposed intelligence, but in reality they are some of the most thoughtless people in the world. If you believe there is no God, then you believe, without any scientific proof, that the universe could have come into existence from nothing.

I've explained the impossibility of this from the pure standpoint of physical science in another blog post.

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/2008/09/why-does-universe-exist-answer-to.html

Even better is Chuck Missler's succinct explanation from his book, The Creator Beyond Time and Space:

The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used intelligent design, expertise or know-how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!

"In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" (Genesis 1:1).

The atheist's model begins with an even more impressive miracle - the appearance of all matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason. A supernatural event. A miracle! However, the atheist does not believe in the outside or transcendent "First Cause" we call God. Therefore, the atheist has no "natural explanation" nor "supernatural explanation" for the origin of space-time and matter. Consequently, the atheistic scenario on the origin of the universe leaves us hanging in a totally dissatisfying position. He begins his model with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it.

In short, I cannot be an atheist because to believe in the spontaneous appearance of the entire universe out of nothing makes no sense.

As a thinking person, I have to be some type of theist. I'll reserve for another post why only Christianity among the world's theistic religions has to be correct.

Here I want simply to point out that much of the postmodern atheist strategy is simple posturing. Dawkins routinely refuses to debate Christians because he wants to put forth the idea that debating theism would give it credibility. He simply wants to ridicule faith and portray any belief in the supernatural as impossible to reconcile with his superior intelligence. I saw an interview with Dawkins and the so-called "Rational Responders" in which they admitted that their entire strategy was riducule and abuse Christians, not giving theism the dignity of a public hearing. It's much easier to do guerilla tactics, hit-and-run, ridicule -- and other forms of diversion -- and never face the fact that everything that exists had to have an antecedent. The atheist never faces this existential paradox -- that something in the natural world can never come from nothing. The only answer to the existential paradox is a supernatural one.

At the very least, the atheist should admit that his belief in no God is as much a supernatural faith as is Christianity in that no known natural laws can account for an ex nihilo creation of the universe.

I have no doubt Dawkins is intelligent. However, Christians ought to view him as a useful idiot. His books and atheist activism are a good opportunity to expose the soft underbelly of post-modernism -- the retreat into pure emotion and subjectivity -- that is the entire undergirding for today's atheism. In fact, this atheist's refusal to engage in formal debate is the proof of this retreat from rationalism.

ABC News Poll: 92 Million Evangelical Christians in America

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:33:24 PDT

I was looking for some statistics on the number of self-professed evangelicals in America and I found this poll from June of last year:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html

According to the poll, 83 percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian.

Of this number, 37 percent of all Christians describe themselves as born-again or evangelical; that includes nearly half of all Protestants (47 percent), as well as a small share (14 percent) of Catholics.

So assuming the current census numbers of just over 301 million, there are 250 million "Christians" in the United States and 92 million evangelicals.

Evangelicals are by definition people who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; the inerrancy of scripture; and that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone.

If we include conservative Roman Catholics who don't describe themselves as "evangelical," but who nevertheless share our values, the number swells even larger -- perhaps more than 100 million or one-third of all Americans.

Consider that this voting block goes for the Republican presidential candidate by 70 to 80 percent in every election. Then consider that no presidential candidate has ever won with more than 70 million votes.

What we have is a sleeping giant among evangelical non-voters.

If conservative Christians want to capture the majority of the executive, congressional and judicial offices at the national level and in most states in the next four to six years, a simple strategy can be employed.

1. Promote the truth that voting is not only a privilege it is a duty.

Jesus taught: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." For too long, many Christians have taken this to mean that we are exempt from political involvement. "We belong to God and therefore our vote does not need to be rendered unto Caesar." Whether this is thought consciously or unconsciously, this is the attitude and the behavior. However, in a representative democracy, "Caesar" is "We the People." This means that we have the God mandated responsibility to represent ourselves by casting our vote. We cannot simply opt out of the process and say that we are exempt from rendering to Caesar since we belong to God. Evangelical Christians as a potential majority voting bloc are Caesar. In our democratic republic, Caesar -- "We the People" -- belongs to God!

2. Hold two national caucuses made up of prominent evangelical leaders every two years to endorse candidates.

The Conservative Christian Caucus could be called prior to the primaries in each election year to examine Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates according to a three pronged test.

* Pro-life and pro-family issues

* Domestic spending and tax reform

* Lessening size of the federal government and regulation

All candidates would be invited to give a short speech on their policy positions. Then each delegate would give each candidate a "yea or nay" on each area and votes would be tabulated with each candidate receiving a rating.

In each presidential primary cycle the evangelical vote is usually split between several candidates and what invariably happens is that the plurality ends up going to a moderate Republican who then disappoints conservative evangelicals by caving in on one or more of the three areas of our concern.

After the third or fourth primary, the Caucus would reconvene in order to unite behind a single candidate. The same process would be used as before, with the "winner" of the caucus publicized. In this way, evangelical voters would not be hoodwinked into thinking that they must support the "front runner" in order to win the presidency in the fall. The tail will no longer wag the dog. The front runner would become the candidate we unite behind.

In every two year congressional election, these caucuses might occur on the state and district level as well to evaluate conservative candidates.

A national caucus would be also be held during the mid-term election cycle in order to evaluate the performance of the sitting president and to evaluate some important senatorial and congressional races.

Waking The Sleeping Giant

Let's face it. Gulliver has been held captive by the Lilliputians for too long. We have been told we can't organize or risk losing our 501(c)3 status. But a majority of conservatives in power (not just "Republicans in name only") would have the power to abolish the IRS with one stroke of the pen. We could revert to a "fair tax" -- a national sales tax -- that would make losing 501(c)3 status moot.

(And for those church and ministry leaders who fear the losing the motivating factor of having tax exempt donations on donors 1040 "Schedule A" forms, please realize that donations would still be tax exempt under a "fair tax" in that we would not pay any income tax or sales tax on these donations!)

We therefore need to complete steps one and two and then revert to step one in an effort to motivate all evangelical voters to participate in the primaries and the general election. It is not even necessary at this point to educate evangelicals how to vote, but to get them to vote. This huge voting bloc is going to generally fall along an 80/20 ratio and has the ability to tilt any election if enough vote. A few strategies can be employed.

1. Encourage pastors and priests to give short election day sermons in which the Christian duty to vote is expounded upon.

2. Distribute absentee ballots to church members with simple easy to explain instructions on how to use them. Absentee ballots are far more effective than "voter guide" because it requires the individual to examine his or her choices prior to election day. Absentee ballots might be coupled with voter guides, but might be better received than voter guides among pastors and church elders who are squeamish about having a "Christian Coalition Voter Guide" available among the church's "Gospel" literature.

3. Conduct frequent voter registrations in churches prior to the primaries, after Easter Day service and prior to the general elections.

These two strategies of uniting behind a single candidate through local, state and national caucuses and mobilizing the "sleeping giant" can have a huge effect in restoring some moral sanity to the politics and culture of our nation.

The Forerunner YouTube Channel hits the "one million video views" and "one thousand subscribers" mark.

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:05:39 PDT

As of this week, The Forerunner YouTube Channel surpassed the "one million video views" and "one thousand subscribers" mark.

If you operate a YouTube channel, you know that the beginning is slow going, but as the number of videos posted and number of subscribers increases the total numbers begin to snowball.

This is only a drop in the bucket compared to YouTube users who have gone viral. The all time favorite, of course, is "The Evolution of Dance" with the unlikely number of over 117,000,000 views (as of this posting Avril Lavigne has pulled slightly ahead). My most popular video to date is the first one I posted on YouTube in November of 1996 and in fact the first video I ever made. Abortion Clinic 911 Calls has a mere 223,000 views, which is .2 percent of some of the most "viral" videos.

Suffice it to say, competing with pop stars' latest music videos and such silliness as "Charlie bit my finger" is a huge task. That is not to say it cannot be done. A friend of mine hit the 2.5 million mark with a video about Barack Obama and late term abortion: I Invented the Internet (Ep. 4: Kill and Destroy).

Another guy I know makes several hundred dollars a month just from Google Adsense with videos produced by other people (including a few of mine) that he got permission to use. This is with a 5000 subscriber base.

Doing some simple math comparing our numbers, I am guessing that a monetized video with hundreds of millions of views is going to make its producer a few thousand dollars a month -- maybe tens of thousands -- for doing nothing beyond possessing the rights to the video. Strangely, several of the most popular YouTube videos are not monetized -- at least not with the YouTube/Adsense partnership program.

The future of all video is on-line channels that make their money from ad placement. I expect it will expand far beyond YouTube, but this is "Life After Television."

Were flying reptiles too large to fly?

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:53:45 PDT

The following is from the U.K. Telegraph:

They carried away Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC and were ferocious in the Jurassic Park series of films.
But now it seems pterodactyls, the terror of the prehistoric skies, may have struggled to get off the ground.
The new research claims that the ancient reptiles, which could grow to the size of small aeroplanes, were too heavy to fly -- even with their massive wings.

The problem, according to a leading scientist, is that they could not flap fast enough to create the thrust to keep their enormous bulk airborne.

This is a well-known problem for paleontologists, that recently made the "news" again. Birds can fly because they have lighter bones than most mammals and are light enough to create the momentum to take off from the earth with their wings. Flying reptiles, which were related to but in a different class than dinosaurs, were so massive that the mechanics of pterosaur flight are not completely understood. But it is equally unlikely that this group of animals was not capable of powered flight.

The problem vanishes if it is proposed that the atmosphere at this time had a higher barometric pressure, being several times thicker or more "soupy" than it is today. In fact, this helps to explain the hugeness of nature in general -- how the atmosphere could support giant ferns, plants, trees, insects, dinosaurs, and of course, pterosaurs -- during this era.

Implications For Radiometric Dating

The dinosaur era -- spanning 300 million years from 350 to 50 million years ago, the Triassic, the Jurassic and the Cretaceous -- commenced with an explosion of huge and prolific plant forms. At the start of the Triassic period coal is noticeable by its absence throughout the world. This is known as the "coal gap." Most of the coal and fossil fuel of the planet is thought to have been formed after the beginning of the Triassic period. During this era, the entire planet existed in a tropical climate. Huge lush rain forests and swamps supported huge insect and animal forms. It is further thought that warm blooded animals did not come on the scene until the planet cooled.

But this theory of a dense atmosphere planet has huge implications for radiometric dating models. Carbon-14 dating relies on the presupposition that the amount of radiation entering the earth's atmosphere has been fairly constant over the time period being studied. Potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating is thought to be more stable than this and the formation of these isotopes are not dependent on cosmic rays. However, it is known that the effect of cosmic rays bombarding these isotopes can produce an an acceleration or deceleration of decay.

If we accept the "super-pressure tropical atmosphere hypothesis" there would be a significantly lower amount of radioactive material and a higher rate of radioactive decay since the sun’s radiation was hindered by the higher moisture environment of the earth’s protective shield. The resulting radiometric dating models would yield dates much higher than the actual age if this is not taken into account.

The mistake is to assume that the amount of cosmic radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere has been constant since the age of dinosaurs. This would have its most immediate effect on Carbon-14 dating, which would affect mainly recent archaeological finds now dated at less than 70,000 years. For the purpose of dating flying reptile fossils, potassium argon and uranium-lead dating is used. The effect of the sun on these radioacative isotopes is more complicated to describe, but the interaction of cosmic rays with the earth's magnetic field has been shown to have an effect on the enrichment and rate of decay of potassium-argon and uranium-lead.

Without assuming the Genesis pre-flood earth model proposed by many creationists, I'd like to see some paleontologists do a recalibrated study of fossils based on various atmosphere models that differ from the constant model now assumed. The hypothesis ought to be considered that the dinosaur era was closer to us in time than is now proposed.

Abortion: The Religion of Witchcraft and Child Sacrifice (OPENING)

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:42:08 PDT

This is the rough cut of a future DVD release based on the script: Massacre of Innocence: The Occult Roots of Abortion by Eric Holmberg and Jay Rogers. It will be an update to the 1987 production of Massacre of Innocence.

INTRODUCTION

(Sound of shutter drive)

(Photos of Pat Windle)

Caption:

Patricia Baird-Windle,
Founder and owner of Aware Woman Center for Choice

You practice your religion and let me practice mine.

(Sound of shutter drive)

My religion is a holy ritual child sacrifice.

(Shot of WRCF incorporation papers.)

On August 4, 1992, two employees of Aware Woman Center for Choice, Veronica Jordan and Rebecca Morris, registered a non-profit religious corporation known as the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida (WRCF). The stated purpose of the WRCF is to provide an umbrella organization for witch covens throughout the state of Florida. The incorporation papers list two abortion clinic employees as directors of the Wiccan organization. Aware Woman Center for Choice is one of Florida's largest abortion clinics.

(Shot of book invoice)

Shortly after the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida was founded, Carol Ebbing, another Aware Woman abortion clinic employee, ordered this book entitled: The Sacrament of Abortion.

(Shot of book cover The Sacrament of Abortion by Ginnette Paris)

The book, authored by Ginnette Paris, presents abortion as "a sacred act."

(Shot of Ginnette Paris picture from Pacifica Graduate Institutes web site)

Paris calls abortion "a sacrifice to Artemis, who refuses to give life if the gift is not pure" (that is innocent or preborn life).

The January 1993 issue of the Wiccan Open Circle newsletter described the founding of the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida:

(Shot of cover of newsletter Open Circle)

A year ago the dream of an umbrella group under which many covens would function and be committed to peace and harmony For The Good Of All, was just that, a dream. But now it is a reality and a very, very big part of the lives of many people.

(Shot of text from newsletter page 5)

This same newsletter, published at the time the pro-life organization, Operation Rescue National, held an event in Melbourne, Florida, alerted Central Florida area Wiccans and Pagans.

... steps are being taken to protect not only Aware Woman, but a woman's right to choose. Work is being done mundanely, financially, and magically, to help get through the next few months and beyond.

(Shot of text from newsletter pages 6 and 7)

Readers of Open Circle were encouraged to become "clinic escorts" -- and were told how they could help fund the South Brevard National Organization of Woman's program to help low income women have abortions.

Wiccans were also encouraged to work their magic on the area surrounding the Aware Woman abortion clinic:

... many individuals and groups have been helping to magically protect the building and property ... This has been done by magical and psychic shielding being put on and around the property....

Is this just one abortion clinic that happens to have ties to a witches coven? Or is it indicative of something deeper and more sinister within the abortion rights movement? In focusing on the subject of abortion, much has been contended from a medical and social perspective. But when we pull the lid off and look at abortion from a biblical and spiritual perspective, the implications are far more profound and staggering.

As we view the ties between occult religion and the abortion industry, the conclusion will become obvious. The promotion of abortion is not just a political and social issue; it is part of a religious and spiritual agenda -- the religion of witchcraft and child sacrifice.

(Music, sound effects)

(OPENING TITLE)

ABORTION: THE RELIGION OF WITCHCRAFT AND CHILD SACRIFICE

"The Occult Roots of Abortion" audio sermons on-line

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:58:35 PDT

This is from a pastor, Scott Johnson of North Fort Myers, Florida, who found my (co-written with Eric Holmberg) website article: The Occult Roots of Abortion. He preached a three part sermon reading the articles and expounding on the text relating it to scripture throughout.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1119072034224

I am amazed. I posted the .mp3 audio sermons on my website. Here are the links:

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca1.mp3

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca2.mp3

http://www.forerunner.com/audio/wicca3.mp3

It is ironic. I sat down today to capture the audio for a video I have started on "Witchcraft and Abortion." I was searching to see if there were any photos of these Wiccan abortionists on the Internet. I found these .mp3 files by chance. I wrote and edited the articles in 1993 and later combined this with Eric Holmberg's Massacre of Innocence video script. There was a period of time in 1996 when I first posted my website that I would get up to 30 emails a day from enraged Wiccans who protested these articles. It was at that time that Forerunner.com was "discovered" by a mass audience of Wiccans and Pagans. Ironically their attention helped the fledgling website's overall popularity in the search engines.

To think I spent several hours doing the audio for a video (that will later have to be redone by Eric Holmberg anyway) and I found a pastor on the Internet who had already done the same thing! I'll be posting the video in segments on YouTube prior to the production of the final DVD.

Stay tuned.

You can subscribe to my YouTube channel if you want to get updates via email.

http://www.youtube.com/jcr4runner

A Question from a Reader about Theonomy

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:37:20 PDT

Mr. Rogers,

First of all, I wanted to thank-you for the blessing that your ministry at The Forerunner website has been. I was very pleased to find that website a few weeks ago and I've been since learning through your ministry and enjoying the articles. I know this is rather presumptuous, but when I had some questions regarding theonomy, you immediately came to mind. If you're too busy to answer that's completely understandable. I hope I'm not out of line by asking.

I guess my main question is: What is the primary difference between the theonomic view and the typical evangelical understanding of the law? All evangelicals are agreed that the ceremonial law was abolished with the fulfillment of the "types and shadows" in Christ's atoning work. When it comes to the moral law, however, I confess I don't see that theonomists have much disagreement with typical evangelicals. I don't see any Christians claiming that they are no longer under an obligation to keep the Ten Commandments, that it is morally permissible to commit adultery, murder, steal, etc. However, if the main difference between the theonomic and traditional camps is on the matter of the civil law, then why is it that we find most of the defenses of theonomy directed against those who would claim that the moral law is no longer in effect? I haven't found anything that argues specifically for the current application of the Old Testament civil laws.

Also, I've heard it said by many theonomists that the Old Testament civil law is not to be imposed from the top down; rather the establishment of a theonomic government will come about through revival, and changed hearts, as the majority of people willingly submit themselves to God's law. Is the theonomic view of the civil law that it is a type or shadow of what will be established in Christ's Kingdom? Just as the ceremonial law was a shadow of Christ's work? Also, would you consider it to be wrong to try to enforce those laws now, from the top down? Again, thank-you so much for your ministry at The Forerunner; it's truly been a blessing to me. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read this email. Have a blessed day!

In Christ's Name,

- Q.P.

Dear Q.P.,

Many evangelicals are operational theonomists. They want to ban abortion, homosexual marriage, allow school prayer and promote family friendly policies because this is in accord biblical law.

It's the issue of biblical sanctions that separate the two groups.

What do we do about abortionists and the parents who kill their children? Should they be executed as murderers or should hey be regulated by a government agency in the same way that the FDA regulates the sale of beef.

That is just one difference.

Theonomists ought to teach that we cannot advance Christ's kingdom through law. This needs to happen through conversion. We cannot emphasize that enough.

But let's say that the majority of voters were converted. Let's say that situation were true today. (For example, there are supposedly 65 million evangelicals in the United States and less than that number voted for Obama in the last election.) Then the question becomes: Whose law should we legislate? God's or man's? If we won't enforce God's law because it no longer applies, then where does man's law derive it's authority?

The homosexual wants marriage rights. We would deny that, but on what basis do we have the authority to deny it?

Someone's law has to rule. Should it be man's law or God's law? Or some combination of the two?

All Christians ought to agree that God's law -- even the capital case laws -- in the Old Testament were put in place by a just and loving God. There is not one God of the Old Testament and another God of the New Testament. There is only one God. However, most evangelicals believe that the laws governing Israel were put to rest under the New Covenant.

The question remains: Whose laws ought we to have on the books?

I personally believe that God's moral law and the sanctions found in the Bible ought to be the basis for our civil code. Judges would have the right to show mercy in capital cases with the exception of premeditated murder. Another thing we can imitate is that ancient Israel had no prisons. The prison system ought to be abolished in favor of a system of double restitution paid to victims of non-violent crimes.

It is important to remember that this has nothing to do with bringing about the salvation of the criminal. We cannot be saved by law. We cannot bring about revival by legislating righteousness. However, revival ought to result in righteousness and the righteous ought to stand for God's morality in every sphere of society -- family, school, business, church, civil government, art, science, etc.

At most, the Law of God acts as a tutor to show us where we have sinned (and in civil cases, where we have become criminals) and it can lead people to Christ by showing His eternal standard of righteousness and our need for grace and forgiveness. Civil judges can model the mercy and compassion of Christ to criminals who are truly repentant and willing to make restitution for their crimes.

But the fact remains, all law is an attempt to impose someone's morality from the top-down. If we are a Christian people, whose law do we want? Do we want Barney Frank imposing laws that govern our economic system and whether homosexuals should have the right to marry?

Someone has to rule and these rulers will decide which laws will be the standard.

See also: God's Law and Society

An Account of Britain’s Sea Battles

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:25:35 PDT

“For the King and His Crown Rights!”

Of all the valiant captains who served in His Majesty’s Navy in the 18th century, none is so resiliently popular as Sir Edward Winthrop, who was in his day the most feared and respected man on the high seas. Edward Winthrop’s famous declaration — “For the King and His crown rights!” — fired the hearts of his brave sailors who served under his command.

In one famous sea battle, three pirate ships took Winthrop by surprise on a return voyage to England. But Winthrop’s badly provisioned ship maneuvered cleverly to run one pirate crew aground on a coral reef, sunk another with one cannon volley, and quickly out ran the third. Several days later, they found the three crews hiding in a nearby cove together on one ship. With great indignation, the captain bellowed out his famous words — “For the King and His crown rights!” A fiery deluge of smoke and lead descended on the pirate ship, demolishing one of the last pirate crews in the Caribbean. Winthrop’s “take no prisoners” philosophy was what made him feared by all the enemies of the King of England.

The ship which Edward Winthrop commanded, the H.M.S. Ecclesia, had an even longer and more illustrious history. By the time of its decommissioning in 1830, the Ecclesia had fought in over 100 battles and had been restored or rebuilt many times. Her name first appeared on a rustic galleon 250 years earlier. Only the U.S.S. Constitution (or “Old Ironsides”) even closely rivals the Ecclesia’s fame and longevity.

Yet most Americans today are vaguely aware, at best, of this great monument to the expansion of British civilization. The Ecclesia first appeared in the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588. At that time, the Ecclesia was an old unmaneuverable ship used for powder storage and supplied other ships in battle. Smaller ships, called “sea dogs” under the command of Sir Francis Drake, ran circles around the larger Spanish galleons in the English channel. With superior seamanship, English and Irish sailors quickly sank the majority of the Spanish fleet, clearing the paths of the high seas for the King’s dominion of the New World.

A smaller, fitter Ecclesia was commissioned in the early 1600s to protect convoys of settlers off the shores of Virginia, New England and later Georgia. Decked with tight rows of cannons, the ship fended off any threat to the colonial settlers. She fought many battles in the Caribbean, defending British settlements, and sinking many Spanish ships. Not only was she used in battle, settlement and commerce, but the Ecclesia returned to English port often bow laden with Spanish gold, winning several of her captains great honor among the monarchs of England. In all, three captains of the Ecclesia were knighted: Sir Calvin Edwards, Sir Luther Robinson and, of course, Sir Edward Winthrop.

Of interesting note to historians, Edward Winthrop was named by his parents in honor the first captain of the Ecclesia, Sir Calvin Edwards. Edward Winthrop’s father, Francis, also served as a crewman on the Ecclesia. Oddly, Francis Winthrop was both a distant relative of Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop and Sir Francis Drake. Sir Edward Winthrop’s mother was a distant relative of John Knox, the Scottish Presbyterian reformer. Thus this illustrious family rose in fame with the exploits of the H.M.S. Ecclesia.

During the reign of England’s Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, Francis Winthrop sailed with a Puritan crew under the command of Captain Cotton Blackstone. The fame of the Ecclesia began at this time, when she helped to run pirate ships out of the Mediterranean Sea.

In the 1730s, under the command of Captain Isaac Howells, the Ecclesia ferried Christian missionaries to Georgia during the administration of Governor Oglethorpe. It is rumored that George Whitefield took a brief trip on the Ecclesia which ended abruptly off the coast of England when a mast cracked in the high winds. This record conflicts with the sea log of another ship, however, and it is impossible to tell from Whitefield’s writings whether he sailed on the Ecclesia since he had long before abandoned his practice of keeping his journal.

Under Sir Edward Winthrop’s command, the Ecclesia rose to the zenith of her fame. Winthrop had a reputation among his men as being stern in discipline, but fair in its dispensation. On a south sea voyage, one crewman threatened mutiny, an offense for which, according to maritime law, he could have been keel-hauled or set adrift on the high seas. Instead, Winthrop cast him in irons until he could receive a “fairer trial in the Christian courts of Britain’s capital.” During the trial, the court found conflicting testimony and set the man free. When some of Winthrop’s crew protested the ruling, Sir Edward supported the court’s decision, saying, “When common law proceedings are made a mockery, though it be only in the case of one man, the entire nation may soon suffer shipwreck.”

Winthrop hated the slave trade to the Americas most of all, which he called “the execrable sum of all villainies.” After slavery was outlawed in England, some British subjects still took part in the illegal West Indian slave trade. On one occasion, Winthrop apprehended a British crew aboard a slave ship off the coast of the Canary Islands. He interrupted his journey to Cape Verde in order to cast the British subjects in irons. His wrath was never more severe, as he commanded his men to give the slavers five lashes across the back each day of their voyage back to England. Quoting scripture, Winthrop sentenced them: “For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”

When Winthrop died in 1828, pirates had long since become a rarity. But occasionally, a crew would prey on lone ships carrying rum and molasses. Ecclesia’s last captain, Darby Scofield, suffered an attack by one of these rare pirate crews in the Virgin Islands. Unfortunately for Scofield, the ship was long overdue for repairs. Had the Ecclesia been more seaworthy, Captain Scofield may have stood his ground and fought. But he believed that the ship was at the end of its service and he doubted the loyalty of his men under attack. Furthermore, their cache of powder was not sufficient for a drawn out battle.

After suffering only one canon volley, the Ecclesia began to take on water. Scofield commanded his crew — “It’s no use boys to polish the brass on a sinking ship. Abandon!”

Ecclesia’s crew sought haven on island within view. The pirate crew, though fewer in number, boarded the ship and managed to repair the cannon holes by running her aground at low tide. When high tide surged in, the pirates had commandeered the Ecclesia. Indeed a sad chapter in the annals of British sea lore!

A convoy carrying some men who had been under Sir Winthrop’s command appeared within a few days. Miraculously, the crew of the Ecclesia were rescued and the convoy set out in search of the pirates. Less than one week later, the pirate crew raised a white flag at the first sight of the British fleet and three high flying Union Jacks.

The scene stood in stark contrast to Sir Edward Winthrop’s famous battle cry forty years earlier. The episode was an embarrassment to the crown, for the Ecclesia had never before lost a battle. A few months later, the British parliament voted unanimously to retire the H.M.S. Ecclesia rather than restore and recommission her.

The ship was bought by a Presbyterian church in Brighton and the lumber was used to construct a meeting house and a parsonage. The house of worship stood for 53 years and bore a plaque with the likeness of Sir Edward Winthrop. Underneath the image is inscribed the ironic question: “What is Christ’s Church? — A wrecked pietistic vessel, or a Puritan battle ship?”

NOTE: This tale is not a true account, but is an allegory used to illustrate the point: “What is your church?” Soon after circulating the first draft, I found that some still did not get it. Hence this footnote.

Raped and Pregnant?

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:56:21 PDT

I have several pro-life videos on YouTube warning about the dangers of elective abortion.

I occasionally get a comment from a viewer who tells me first to stop being so judgmental because she was "raped and pregnant." It seems the perfect retort because who can argue with that? It's truly an example of a "crisis pregnancy" and I don't doubt it's a horrific ordeal to go through. But my response is usually the same.

"You were never raped and pregnant."

How can I say that so callously?

I just find it unlikely that on one vlog (for example) of 115 comments, I would have even one person who was raped and pregnant. It is claimed that about one percent of all abortions are due to rape. And even these numbers are based on false testimony.

One percent of 1.3 million would be 13,000 abortions due to rape.

Is that possible?

Justice Department statistics for 2004 had approximately 0.4 rapes per 1,000 people. And that is from a broad definition of "rape" that would include various types of sexual assault. According to the Justice Department, of the average annual 200,780 sexual assault victims in 2004-2005, about 64,080 were victims of "completed rape."

Obviously, only a "completed rape" could result in a pregnancy.

To arrive at the "raped and pregnant" statistic of even one percent of all abortions, 13,000 (or over 20%) of these 64,000 rapes would have to result in a pregnancy.

Then to get to the number of even 1 percent of 1.3 million, 100% of those pregnancies would have to be aborted.

I've heard of other studies that show the number of rape-pregnancies leading to abortions is less than 500 per year.

That's why if you tell me you were "raped and pregnant," I am skeptical.

Flames from John YouKnow

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:12:20 PDT

Every once in a while I get flames (hate email) from people I don't know and neither can I tell why they are so upset with me.

Okay, maybe not once in a while, it's actually more like daily.

It could be a response to one of several stances I've taken on abortion, paganism, witchcraft, homosexual politics, and so on -- this time it was my Christian Reconstructionist leanings. But I found out only after several emails went back on forth. It's an example of how to engage a God-hater in the opposite spirit -- something we too often forget. I often can't resist getting in a few little jibes at the expense of the self-professed enemies of God -- as David, Paul and Jesus sometimes did -- but sometimes it's useful to think about the fact that these people are God's enemies, not our own.

Here is the exchange (I have corrected his spelling):

Dude, you are a complete lunatic, you do realize that right?

It would help me a lot to know what you are referring to -- an article I wrote, an article written by someone else on my website, a video?

Lol, you are overly nuts. Let's all live like the bible says. What a dumb@$$ approach to take on life. Listen, I could care less what delusions that you have bu the minute you start trying to enforce your views on anyone else we have a problem. You have no evidence at all for your view on life, none, it is true only because you say it is true. Go live in Iran if you want to live according to strict religious principles. It's funny because you don't even realize it, but you are....just....like.....them.

Where have I tried to "enforce" views on people? No one can control the thoughts or the conscience -- only God can do that.

@$$#*!% You have formed a "political group" that has the aim of turning America into a society governed by laws of the Old Testament. So while you do not have the power to enforce anything on anyone at present, given the opportunity you would force all to submit to a mythical book, written by men more ignorant of the ways of the world then the modern eight year old. God controls nothing. How dense can you be? What evidence do you have that God controls ANYTHING? What a %#*&! You make me laugh.

The goal of Christian Reconstruction is regeneration -- changing people's hearts thorugh true faith and true repentance from sin -- then for a grassroots reformation of society. You cannot change a society by capturing political power and then legislating righteousness from the top-down.

(More to come ...)

The Evolution of Jesus Mythicism

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:18:47 PST

Here's a ministry idea. Someone with a YouTube account ought to read this on video. Do a rant in your own inimitable tone. Make sure you cite the author because when it goes viral he'll be wanting royalties. I didn't write this. This is from a guy named Vinnie, who obviously has some kind of gift. Don't ask me what it is though.

Just a note for people who don't get this. I constantly get responses to my Real Jesus video series from young postmodernist atheists who insist there is no proof that Jesus ever existed. I know that makes no sense, but welcome to the 21st century. If you do get it, then you agree with me that this guy Vinnie is brilliant.

Mythicism in 27 to 30 A.D.

Yes, mythicists go back to the first century where they were constantly arguing with Jesus about whether or not he existed. Nothing he could do would prove his existence to them. They asserted and reasserted that he did not exist.

One guy who was a real "Freke" traveled to Australia and came back and told Jesus triumphantly "No one has ever heard of you in Australia. Ergo, you do not exist."

Many of Jesus friends (maybe even 500 of them!) testified that this man was in fact Jesus of Nazareth to them but the mythicists accused the men of fabrication and mass hallucination. They were stubborn and unrelenting and would not give up their hyper-skepticism.

Men and women came claiming to be Jesus' family but the mythicists argued that their testimony was invalid unless backed by a scientifically controlled and carefully conducted DNA testing.

Jesus invited the mythicists over to his house one night for supper and when he was done entertaining them he tried one last time to prove his existence to them. But not even the wine they drank loosened them from their hyper-skepticism. Led by their leader "Doherticus ben Earl" they dogmatically asserted that unless he could show them a valid driver's license with his picture on it they would not accept his existence.

Since he had no clue what a driver's license was he was silenced and his opponents assumed victory and taunted him with drunken slurs like "Na na na na na. You don't exist. Na na na na na."

Mythicism in 30 to 70 A.D.

Many who who knew Jesus of Nazareth and followed him during his lifetime believed he was an actual person and they found him to be a great teacher and they continued to follow him after his death and carried on his message.

But the mythicists kept arguing against his existence. They now asserted that the Christians invented the story and they accused them of being Christians! "Because you are followers of this man you are clearly biased and nothing that you say he said or did can be considered as evidence. What could a follower of Jesus tell us about Jesus?" they retorted.

One day during this time period some Gentile converts interpreted something they heard attributed to Jesus to mean that shellfish and pork were now clean. But this only fueled the debate as popular mythicist "Petros ben Gandy" used this material to argue against the historicity of Jesus' existence. He stated, "I lived next door to Jesus and ate with him often. He never declared shellfish and pork clean. You or whoever you heard this from are clearly making this material up just as you make up these claims that Jesus was a real person. He could never provide us with a valid picture I.D. and I doubt you can do any better!"

Jesus' brother James become quite popular and continued to argue that his brother was a real person during this time period but he could never provide the mythicists with their required evidence of a DNA test as he knew not what a DNA test was.

Mythicism from 71 to 95 A.D.

Jesus' original followers were all dead and the mythicists ran rampant during this time period. Anything anyone said about Jesus was considered hearsay because no one was actually there to witness it. The mythicist's mythicist-children now demanded primary-contemporary source data. Anything less than that would not even be considered!

One Christian brought forth some documents that contained a lot of material on Jesus. He said these documents should constitute evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Much material inside them was embarrassing and there wasn't really any valid reason to think that all stuff was woven from whole cloth (let along the really embarrassing stuff like Baptism by JBap) but the mythicists were not swayed. At first they weren't sure how to treat them and they argued that no one ever heard of these documents and they have no name on them so they must not exist. Christians then decided to name them and the mythicists changed their argument. Many of them now speculated that these documents were late second century documents that wouldn't be written for another 100 plus years. This position became central to the mythicist case. It was canonical you could say. "Do you really expect us mythicists in the year 83 A.D. to accept these 2nd century documents that won't even be written for about another 100 years as evidence? What do you take us for? Idiots?" That quickly became their standard response.

Mythicism from 96 to 2000+ A.D.

Nothing has changed and Jesus is now sitting in heaven laughing in heaven at the sight of this nonsense.

A Muslim Turk converts to faith in Jesus Christ

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:49:50 PST

In this series, Yuce Kabakci tells of his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ as well as his vision for planting churches and ministries in Turkey. He explains that even in a "secular" Muslim country, such as Turkey, there is a cost for discipleship.

I'll be posting some more information on Yuce and his vision in the next few days.

22 Weeks Premiere: Babies born alive after failed abortions!

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:05:01 PST

The Orlando premiere of 22 Weeks was attended by about 200 people. This is part of the question and answer session after the film was shown. Film maker Ángel Soto, lawyer John Stemberger (Florida Family Policy Council) and sidewalk counselor Patte Smith (Sanctuary Ministries) took questions from the audience after the showing.

See also:

http://forerunner.com/prolife.html

and

http://22weeksthemovie.com

Hollywood: Tearing Down the Idols of the Entertainment Industry (Russian language video documentary)

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:45 PST

In 1999 and 2000, I spent several weeks working with the staff of LOZA-TV, the first Christian video ministry in Russia. I proposed that their first video should be a critique of the many videos coming from the west into Russia. Hollywood: Tearing Down the Idols of the Entertainment Industry is an examination of the American entertainment industry, particularly the western films that are immensely popular in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Few Americans realize the influence of our art, music and film on Russian culture. To many Russians, American freedom means nothing more than financial affluence coupled with sexual promiscuity, drug use, and criminal activity. This is exactly what they see portrayed on American television shows such as Beverly Hills 90120, Santa Barbara, and Dynasty. This is what they see in music videos and a myriad of films. Many Russians believe that this is an accurate portrayal of the American lifestyle. Yet freedom comes self-control and a responsibility born from a strong faith in God.

Hollywood was produced in Vladimir, Russian in the summer of 2000, and later won “Best Documentary” at the Christian Broadcasters Awards in Moscow. The pastor of Loza Church and Ministries, Victor Victorov, narrates a script that has been translated and adapted from Reel to Real’s Hollywood series written by Eric Holmberg. I’ve included the entire video here with the script that was translated from English into Russian.

You can view the video series with the entire script in English at my website:

http://forerunner.com/predvestnik/hollywood.html

© Video cover artwork is by Erik Hollander and was used by permission.

God's Law and Society (revisited)

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:52:13 PST

These videos are only a small part of the longer DVD series entitled: God's Law and Society. The DVD is a comprehensive look at how biblical law can be applied to bettering American society.

Since the Obama inauguration, I've had a little run on both God's Law and Society and The Beast of Revelation: Identified DVDs.

Coincidence?

I am also in the process of combining the interview material from the "Second American Revolution" web pages with the YouTube videos at "The God's Law and Society" section of my website. I don't know why I didn't do organize it this way ten years ago, but check out the updated section:

http://forerunner.com/law/law.html

Better late than never!

R.J. Rushdoony's Influence and Legacy

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:56:51 PST

I'll tell you a funny story.

About 14 years ago, I was driven about an hour outside of San Juan, Costa Rica up into the mountains by a missionary friend of mine to speak to a church group of college students.

When I got there I met a guy who happened to be visiting the church. His name was Oscar and he was a young pastor from Nicaragua, which was still communistic at that time.

I told him I was from Florida and he asked me, "I know two pastors, Joseph McAuliffe and Colonel Donor, and they are from Florida. Do you know them?"

I told him that as a matter of fact I had just been at one of several "Florida Reconstructionist Society" conferences we held in the 1990s and they were two of the speakers along with Rushdoony.

(The DVD, God's Law and Society, came about because of the video interviews we did at those conferences.)

Oscar told me he had been reading a book called Law & Liberty by Rushdoony. It was all about neo-platonism's destructive influence and it was challenging his worldview.

I reached into a black leather bag I used to carry with me and guess which book I pulled out?

“Do you mean this one?” I asked.

And then I thought: "Wow, what are the chances of that?"

True story.

In the mountains of Costa Rica no less.

This was probably the only person within miles who had ever heard of Rushdoony. Was it a random coincidence or a divine appointment? You tell me.

A few years after this time, I stated to hear some of the well-known leaders of the Christian Reconstructionist movement publicly say that the movement was "dead." I disagree. I am now discovering more seminary students in their 20s than ever before who are influenced by Christian Reconstructionist thought. We are on the front slope of a tidal wave that will be felt in full force in the next ten to twenty years.

The Harrowing of Hell

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:16:46 PST

I recently wrote a 70-page script called: "The Harrowing of Hell" -- which is the unlikely title of a proposed new video about postmillennial eschatology.

Read an excerpt from my script:

The Harrowing of Hell

The term “Harrowing of Hell" refers to idea that Christ descended into Hell, as stated in the Apostles’ Creed. It is further thought (by many) to mean that He made warfare against Hell releasing its captives, particularly the righteous men and women of Old Testament times.

The Greek wording in the Apostles’ Creed is katelthonta eis ta katôtata ... and in Latin descendit ad inferos.

The Greek ta katôtata means "the lowest" and the Latin inferos means “those below.” This is where we get the Italian word inferno (the word Dante used for “hell” in The Divine Comedy.) Inferos may also be translated as “the underworld,” “the netherworld,” or “hell.” So this phrase is usually translated in most English versions of the Apostles Creed as “descended into hell.”

The English word “harrow” is a form of “harry,” a military term meaning “to make predatory raids or incursions” against an enemy in warfare.

We get the term “harrowing of hell” from numerous Old and Middle English sermons on the triumphant descent of Christ into hell between the time of His crucifixion and His resurrection, when He brought salvation to souls held captive there.

In support of this view, Acts 2:27 and 2:31 declare in effect that Hades (the “place of the dead” or “hell”) could not hold the crucified Christ.

1 Peter 3:19-20 says that Jesus “went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah.”

1 Peter 4:6 says, “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead.”

2 Corinthians 2:14 may also be interpreted to speak of the harrowing of hell.

Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place.

— 2 Corinthians 2:14

We should point out that this doctrine is controversial. Not all theologians agree that these scriptures mean that Jesus visited hell in person after He died on the cross. Some rightly argue that Christ did not need to make warfare over an already defeated foe. But it is clear from the plain meaning of scripture that Jesus certainly triumphed over hell. At the cross, He defeated sin and death once and for all defeating Satan and all his works.

Central to this credo is a statement made by Jesus: “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matthew 12:28). This casting out of demons or the “harrowing of hell” was the preeminent sign that the kingdom had come on earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is already here, but it has not yet grown to its fullness. The kingdom is likened to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field until it grew into a great tree (Matthew 13:31). It is also likened to leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened (Matthew 13:33). The kingdom of God is already here, but it is always progressing and growing until it spreads into the whole world.

The role of the Church during history is to bring all things into captivity to Christ. Satan and the forces of hell have already been defeated – and yet still greater victory lies ahead.

Now if we are going to work for the kingdom of God with an eye toward winning, we must have an eschatology of victory. If we are to bring everything into captivity to Christ, we must have a theology that tells us it is impossible to lose. Ideas have consequences. We must believe that we are the people of victory and Christ is going to triumph in history. Only when all things are put under His feet will the last enemy, death, be destroyed.

As 1 Corinthians 15:25,26 tells us:

For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

— 1 Corinthians 15:25,26

Now this is a remarkable truth. And yet few people have taken it this at face value and have considered its plain meaning. According to this passage, Christ is reigning now from heaven. He will do so until all enemies of the Gospel are put under His feet. Through the conversion of the nations of the world, God's enemies will be destroyed. The last enemy, death, is destroyed only at the Second Coming. Until that time, we can look forward to great victories. We are told that “the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15).

And the exciting part of this promise is that we Christians are to be used of God to put His enemies into submission. The idea that the Lord has entrusted the stewardship of the world to His people is found in the parable of the talents in Luke 19. Here the Lord says to His servants, “Occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13). The Lord is gone for a long time, while His most faithful servants work to increase the wealth of their Master's kingdom.

When the Master returns, He rewards those who have done the best job with the wealth entrusted to them in advancing the kingdom in their Lord's absence. Those who work for the advance of the kingdom receive rulership over entire cities. But the enemies of God who would not work to increase the wealth of their master are slain with the sword (Luke 19:27).

So ideas do have consequences. If we believe that Satan is already bound according to Revelation 20:2 and Christ is seated on the throne of heaven, then what type of stewards should we be? Should we tirelessly work for the increase of the kingdom of God in history? – Or should we act like the unfruitful servants hide our talents in hope that we won’t lose the little that God has given us?

Jesus further elaborated on this promise: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matthew 12:28-29).

The New Testament speaks of the binding of Satan in various places. Satan falls from heaven (Luke 10:18); he is cast out of heaven (John 12:31); he was crushed under our feet (Romans 16:20); he was disarmed (Colossians 2:15); he was rendered powerless (Hebrews 2:14); his works were destroyed (1 John 3:8).

Are we, the people of God, to live in the shadow of fear of the devil and a world system bent on evil and destruction content to be rescued only at the Second Coming of Jesus? Or are we to be active participants, soldiers in the war against hell, following in the train of Christ to plunder the strong man’s house?

While much is made in recent years of different and competing theories on the end times, we are going to confine our discussion to one central issue.

And that is this: Does the defeat of Satan’s kingdom and the great increase of the kingdom of God occur before or after Jesus returns?

If we look at God’s promises to Israel in the Old Testament of a Golden Age of great peace and prosperity in the “last days,” does this promise extend to the Church within our present history – or is it confined to a future thousand-year reign of Christ on earth after His return? While all Christians should believe in the victory of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s people during the millennium, this only begs the questions:

How much victory are we to expect in the here and now?

Is Satan already bound or is he alive and well on the planet earth?

If Jesus Christ truly “harrowed hell,” how should we then live?

And that is what this presentation is about.

In short, we want to provoke and challenge your thinking here to consider the question:

How powerful is the Gospel?

The Real Jesus (revisited)

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:10:39 PST

We live in a postmodernist age. People, especially the younger generation, are able to hold onto contradictory notions without batting an eye. It's a perfect era to be a skeptic who believes in nothing, but wants to take the fast track to being a pseudo-intellectual by attacking traditional worldviews and contributing nothing positive to the conversation except to say, "The burden of proof is on the believer!"

I've had hundreds of comments from young postmodernists in response to my Real Jesus DVD, which is posted on YouTube and my website. The following is one such conversation with a UFO enthusiast (who doesn't think there is evidence that Jesus existed) named "Boyinthemachine."

The conversation took an interesting turn when I insisted that 99.99 percent of scholars accept the fact that Jesus was a real historical figure.

____________________

Jay Rogers: "That Jesus is a historical figure is accepted by 99.99 percent of secular historians."

Boyinthemachine:

"Where did you get that figure? Look, even I believe there most likely was a historical Jesus. The problem is that my belief is not based on the fact that Jesus' historicity has been proven, but rather, based on the fact that there are countless cases of men deified after their death, such as various Caesars. Last, the Epistle of James is not a Gospel. It leads no proof to a historical Jesus."

Jay Rogers: "Can you name even five PhDs teaching history at the university level who claim Jesus never existed? If you can, I'll revise my number to 99.98 percent. Also, what do you do about the eyewitness claims in the New Testament, especially those in the Gospel of John and 1 John?"

Boyinthemachine:

"Why should I? The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

"We don't know who wrote the Gospel of John. The author was not an eyewitness, but like all the other Gospels, merely put to word oral stories, i.e. 'The Gospel According To John.' Most scholars believe the Gospel of John was written between 90-100 AD, with a small number of scholars suggesting earlier or later dates. Thus, like the other Gosples, John is very weak evidence for the historicity of Jesus."

Jay Rogers: "The New Testament actually has a very good pedigree. The Apostles who knew Jesus preached and wrote from 30 to 70 A.D. Then early bishops such as Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp and Papias (35 to 115 A.D.) received the books of the Apostles and wrote their own works quoting from most of the books of the New Testament. Later second century church fathers quoted from every New Testament book and named the authors. The earliest canonical list is from the second century. There is a continual unbroken witness to the authors of the New Testament in every generation up until the great Codices of the fourth century."

Boyinthemachine:

"The Apostles were eyewitnesses, if Jesus existed. However, we don't know who wrote the gospels. The assumption, by the Church, was that it was 'Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John' who wrote the Gospels. Most scholars do not accept this. Most scholars believe the gospels were written anonymously, from about 40 years after Jesus' death to about 100 years after Jesus' death.

"It would be great if we had overwhelming evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but we just don't have it."

Jay Rogers: "Form critics and source critics act as scientists working from the null hypothesis. They ignore all documentary evidence and assume nothing from the beginning. They then are able to draw all kinds of conclusions. In the 1800s, the form critics had the Gospel of John written in the late second century. Then in the early 1900s a papyrus fragment of John was found that dated to about 115 A.D. One scrap of paper wiped out over 100 years of liberal conjecture! Assuming that this fragment was a copy of a copy, and since it was discovered in Egypt, the latest John could have been written was 95 A.D. The earliest would be the mid-first century.

"Liberals will almost always assume the latest dates and an unknown author. The problem for them is that all extra-biblical documentary evidence from the first and second century onward points to definite authors. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias wrote in the late first to early second century, but they were born and lived during the time when some disciples who had seen Jesus were still alive. We see no debate among them on who the authors of the New Testament were. Then almost all the NT manuscript fragments of the second century have titles and authors. You can actually go on-line and see the titles (called supercriptions and subscriptions) of manuscript fragments.

"Another interesting thing is that form the early second century, and maybe earlier, the books of the NT were bound into five codices, the four Gospels and Acts, Paul's Epistles, the Pastorals, the General Epistles, Revelation. As in modern times, books had titles and authors. There is no reason to think that the authors did not assign their names to the original autographs. Then in the third century, Origen wrote that there were some doubts about Hebrews and Revelation because of stylistic differences in Paul and John's other writings.

"In modern times, this skepticism was stretched to call every book into question. But it is very easy to see these liberals have an agenda. An unbiased researcher might doubt the traditional authorship of books like 2 Peter, Revelation, Hebrews and maybe 3 John, but there is no documentary evidence that these books were ever in dispute shortly after they were written. To the contrary, they are all quoted early. According to all models of textual criticism, they ought to be considered authentic and reliable."

Is Barack Obama a Christian? (part 1)

jrogers@forerunner.com (John C. Rogers) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:45:57 PST

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, believes many Americans will be shocked to find out just how radical some of Obama's positions are on social issues.

"I certainly cannot judge whether or not Barack Obama has a relationship with Christ. That's between him and God, and only they know that. However, scripture tells us that you will be known by your fruits, and here Barack Obama is promoting counter-biblical, anti-Christian policies. [These are] policies that elevate deviant sexual behaviors and dangerous sexual behaviors that are destructive spiritually, physically and emotionally, and certainly -- when embraced as Barack Obama has embraced them -- are destructive societally. For all the talk of hope, change and coming together, it's becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama's administration will be the most leftist, divisive, and discriminatory in recent memory.

Barber is essentially correct, but the whole idea of "having a relationship with Jesus" clouds the issue. Of course, Obama has a relationship with Jesus. We all do. Even enemies of Christ have a "relationship" with Jesus -- that of an enemy!

A good question to ask here is whether it says anywhere in scripture that we are to judge someone's salvation, and whether it's on the basis of their "relationship with Jesus."

We substituted "personal relationship" in the 1960s for theological words such as regeneration, justification and sanctification -- none of which comes without the others in salvation.

We can't know if someone is regenerate or justified, but we can measure the attainment of sanctification by whether basic doctrines and biblical commandments are being kept.

Does Obama think the whole Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God?

He admits he has doubts about this.

Does he believe abortion is child murder?

No, he does not. To say that is above his pay grade.

That is how we should phrase the argument. Let's forget about subjective, post-modernist terms like "a personal relationship with Jesus."

- Jay

Some Inventions Of Man That Have Become Essential Parts Of the Modern Gospel

The Term and Concept of "Personal Savior." I find it very disturbing when something unnecessary is added to the Gospel. The use of the term "Personal Savior" isn't very harmful in itself, but it shows a kind of mind-set that is willing to "invent" terms, and then allow these terms to be preached as if they were actually found in the Bible.

But why must we do this? Why must we add needless, almost meaningless things to the Gospel? It is because we've taken so much out that we have to replace it with "spiritual double talk."

That's right, double talk! Would you ever introduce your sister like this: "This is Sheila, my personal sister"?! Or would you point to your navel and say, "This is my personal bellybutton"? Ridiculous! But nevertheless, people solemnly speak of Christ as their personal Savior, as if they've got Him right there in their shirt pocket - and as if when He returns, He will not have two, but three titles written across His thigh: King of kings, Lord of lords, and PERSONAL SAVIOR! (See Rev. 19:16.) This is only one example of how a non-biblical term can be elevated to reverence by the Church, as if to say, "Well even if it isn't in the Bible - it should be!"

-- Keith Green, What's Wrong With the Gospel? Section 2: "The Added Parts"