A Devious Plot for America

 A Devious Plot for a Blinded Nation

Author: Berit Kjos
Source: crossroad.to 
Link: about.me/gideonsword

"O our God... we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; 

nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You." 

2 Chronicles 20:12

Remember Paul Harvey's 47-year-old warning to America! What he envisioned back in 1965 has become reality. Ponder these excerpts from his message titled "If I were the devil." 

"If I were the prince of darkness I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness.... I’d subvert the churches first. I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”

"To the young I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince them that man created God, instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is square....”

"And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors on how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d peddle narcotics...

"If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war with themselves and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame.

"If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild...

"Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography. Soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money....

"If I were the devil I’d take from those who have, and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.... In other words, if I were the devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing. 

"Paul Harvey, good day. "  [Here is his video:  If I Were the Devil]

That warning was heard and read across America decades ago. But our nation ignored it!  Now we face unthinkable consequences.  It reminds me of an occult children's book used in public schools back in the nineties called The Dark is Rising.  Indeed, it is!  And the spreading darkness is clouding minds and blinding people -- both to the pressing evils and to God's saving love. Even before the social revolution of the sixties, our media establishment and transformational schools were steering the war on God's Word and ways. Soon mystical thrills replaced Truth and certainty,  while strange beliefs and corrupting values fed the minds of the masses. Few of our youth would resist the depravity.
We may be shocked by the recent news reports about Colorado's latest mass killing spree. But it could happen anywhere.  Remember, America's moral compass has been crumbling for a long time!
Matt Barber articulated what many of us felt as the news reports spread. His article, Our culture of death and the Batman shooting, summarized it well:

"...in the early morning hours of July 20, 2012, a deranged, fame-starved gunman shot dead at least 12 innocent people and wounded scores more at a midnight showing of 'The Dark Knight Rises,' a Batman sequel....  Please join me in the coming hours, days and weeks in, yes, praying for the victims, their families and the state of our lost union....One of the victims killed was a 3-month-old baby. Another was 6."

Barber's article includes a link to an earlier article that clears away the fog that hides much of today's cultural evil. Written in 2008 by British reviewer Jenny McCartney, the title alone is sobering:  "Our attitude to violence is beyond a joke as new Batman film, The Dark Knight, shows." Her warning shows us how far we have fallen:

"If I were 10 years old, would I be badgering my parents to take me to see the [2008 version] Batman film, The Dark Knight? You bet I would. It's the latest and biggest release in the superhero genre ...
"If I were the parent who relented and took a 10-year-old child to see The Dark Knight, would I be sorry? Once again, you bet I would. It's different from other superhero films.... But the greatest surprise of all ...has been the sustained level of intensely sadistic brutality throughout the film.

"...the film begins with a heist carried out by men in sinister clown masks. As each clown completes a task, another shoots him point-blank in the head.... A man's face is filleted by a knife, and another's is burned half off. A man's eye is slammed into a pencil. A bomb can be seen crudely stitched inside another man's stomach, which subsequently explodes. A trussed-up man is bound to a chair and set alight atop a pile of banknotes.

"A plainly terrorised child is threatened at gunpoint by a man with a melted face. It is all intensely realistic. Oh but don't worry, folks: there isn't any nudity....

"It's all a comic-book fantasy, and comic books are well known for their surreal, cartoonish bursts of violence. But the director, Christopher Nolan... has tried instead to make the violence and fear as believable as possible, and in this he has succeeded.

"The Dark Knight, however, has been rated 12A by the British Board of Film Classification, which means that although the BBFC believes it is best suited to children aged 12 and over, any under-12 can see it provided he or she is accompanied by an adult....
"Casino Royale (2006), the most recent James Bond film, was also given a 12A certificate: young boys in particular are attracted to Bond....  But Casino Royale... was in fact a new kind of Bond film, shot like a realistic action thriller. Parents and their open-mouthed children found themselves watching a scene in which a bloodied Bond, stripped naked and tied to a chair, is tortured by having his genitals beaten with a length of rope.
"A friend of mine was somewhat dismayed afterwards to witness his two young boys, aged nine and seven, diligently re-enacting the torture scene with an outsize teddy bear strapped to a chair and a flail constructed from a knotted dressing-gown cord....

"... there is some distinction between violence which is clearly fantastical in origin, such as that in Harry Potter, and that which is realistic and sadistic in tone, such as that in The Dark Knight. The former might well bother younger children afterwards... but the latter is more likely to taint their fundamental vision of the world and adult norms of behaviour. The intensity of violence in The Dark Knight is a grimly logical progression from the sort of distilled brutality that has rapidly become the norm in films rated 15 and 18: the only difference is that now small children are permitted to watch it, too.

"...Quentin Tarantino was the edgy enfant terrible of Hollywood. Now he is a member of its establishment, encouraging younger, mainstream 'torture porn' directors ...to push the boundaries of explicit, ingenious cruelty ever further....
"'... in the US, where any film critic who expresses measured dislike of The Dark Knight faces hundreds of intensely hostile online responses. The more violent the source of entertainment, the more vitriolic its fans grow in defence of it: there is a whiff of the enraged mob at Tyburn, furious at anyone who attacks its right to thrilling, primal pleasures....'

Are we facing the end of civil discourse in America? Could factual debates soon fade from the public square? Will irrational rage and spreading violence quench our voices and destroy our freedom?
I'm tempted to say yes, but I don't really know the answers.  Yet, I am confident that we can trust my sovereign Shepherd and King to lead us. No matter what happens in coming years, He will surely guard His sheep and care for His people!  What a joy to be part of His family! 

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. "

Romans 8:35, 37

Our Spiritual Warfare Series:  

Part 1: The Unseen Foe Behind Rising Evil

Part 2: America's Perilous Partnership with China

Part 3: Hating Truth and Primed for Deception!

 Part 4: Post-Christian Culture Welcomes Witchcraft!

Part 5: Behind the Peaceful Scenes of Christmas

Part 6: The Misguided Aims of the Counterfeit Church

Part 7: Good or Evil - Who Wins?

Part 8: Rising Persecution in the "Land of the Free"

Part 9: Transforming the World through Violence, War, Deception & Chaos

 Part 10: A Devious Plot for a Blinded Nation

Part 11: Marching toward Global Solidarity 

See Chronology of U.S. Education  ~  Chronology of U.S. Education

Brainwashing in America  ~  The Nature and Tactics of Satan

Tolerance as a Tool for Transformation  ~  Ban truth - Reap Tyranny

Conforming the Church to a New World Order

Shaping the Global 'Christian' Youth

Dismantling the Religious Machine

Author: Chip Brogden
Source: SermonIndex.org
Link: about.me/gideonsword


 Machines are used to do repetitive or difficult work more quickly and efficiently, giving people more leisure and free time to pursue something besides work.

Once upon a time a group of people saw that a machine was needed to make something hard and difficult more easily done. They put their heads together and came up with a handy little machine called “Religion.”

The Religion Machine would make life easier for everyone they said. With the Machine, we don’t have to waste precious time relating to a real God Who loves us. The machine would take these complex processes and break them down into a simple three-step process that anyone could follow, reducing God to a faceless, personless ideology of good works. The result would be a mass-production of religious people who all spoke, thought, acted, and believed the same way.

Things went very well for a while. The Religion Machine worked just like it was supposed to. Churches were built, movements were started, crusades were held, programs were implemented. The inventors congratulated themselves on making Religion so efficient.

But you and I know that machines require a lot of maintenance. Parts have to be replaced. People wanted the Religion Machine to be bigger, better, and faster each year. Research and development expense was incurred, testing expenses, raw materials and warehousing. The Religion Machine had to have qualified people to work on it, qualified people to run it, qualified people to supervise the people who run it, and so on.

With all the improvements and modifications to the original design, the Religion Machine got so big that they had to house it someplace; now they had factory overhead: the property, the specialized plant equipment, the electrical and water requirements, more work crews, the support staff, the management, still more parts, upgrades, routine maintenance, all the hidden costs associated with keeping the Machine running.

No one knew just how big the Religion Machine would get. The inventors would have never dreamed that their little invention would one day turn into a big business, but it did. People picked up their families and moved to live and work close to the Machine. There’s money there, a chance to get ahead, a chance to settle down, a nice place to raise their kids. The Machine is a boost to the local economy because it produces jobs and goods. It’s in everyone’s interest to keep the Machine running along.

The people took great pride in their work. Take a drive with them to any part of the country and they would point to the impressive array of expensive church buildings, sprawling seminaries, and mega-church outreach centers. “We helped put that one together,” they’d say. “Thank God for the Religion Machine! How did we get along without it before?”

But there’s another side to the story. Oh, the work is simple enough. “Do what you’re told. Push this button, pull that lever, flip that switch.” Keep producing, keep the Machine running. But there’s a human toll being exacted on the people who are running the Machine. Just another cog in the wheel, they begin to stop thinking for themselves; they depend on the supervisors to tell them what to do. They go home tired day after day (their busiest day is Sunday). They always work overtime and their family life is non-existent. Even when they’re home they think about work. Production is the name of the game; keep the Machine running no matter what; produce more with less.

People always get injured on the job. It’s hot, dirty work. And noisy. The Machine makes so much noise that all the workers eventually develop acute hearing loss. The light is so dim that the employees have become very narrow-eyed and squinty, not able to withstand bright light. But somehow the security that comes from getting paid each week is more important than the side-effects. So the work goes on.

Besides, where else could they go? What else could they do? Financial commitments based on that paycheck have been made: houses mortgaged, cars financed, durable goods charged. If the Machine stops running, the paychecks stop coming, and it means bankruptcy for the workers and the community. So on and on it goes.

Every once in awhile a pay raise comes. Some live long enough to retire, but most of the workers die young from stress, are injured on the job and permanently disabled, or have nervous breakdowns. But no matter what, the Machine kept running.

Then the unexpected happened.

The Religion Machine used a synthetic, man-made oil for fuel to keep it running.

The oil ran out. The Machine ground to a halt.

The workers were in a panic. No more fuel? How would the Machine run? What about their job? What about their paycheck? Who would take care of their families?

"What about natural oil?" someone asked. No that wouldn’t work. They tried that years ago. Genuine oil would not run the Religion Machine.

The supervisors cursed and swore. How could they get the Machine running again?

There was only one thing left to do.

The doors were locked, and the gates closed tight. Armed security gathered the workers together and had them form a line leading up to the top of the combustion chamber, the fiery inferno which fueled the Religion Machine.

One by one they were cast into the fuel tank. The Machine sparked and began to hum again.

"More people! We need more people over here!" Like lambs being led to the slaughter, the deaf, dumb, and blind workers were pushed over the precipice to be used as fuel for the Religion Machine. Next it was their wives, husbands, children, parents, brothers, sisters, all thrown alive and screaming into the Machine. The houses and cars, the clothing and jewelry, the furniture and possessions were all confiscated and dumped into to the Religion Machine to add more fuel for it to run.

At last everything that could be used for fuel had been used. It would not be enough, and it had all been in vain. Once again the Religion Machine ground to a halt, and no one was around to start it up again. The supervisors went out into the community to try and recruit new workers, but after hearing what had happened to the last shift no one would take the job.

Today those supervisors are dead and gone. The Religion Machine was dismantled by the townspeople, the parts scattered to the four winds, never to be assembled again.

The problem with the Religion Machine was that it started out as a neat invention designed to help people, but it wound up hurting them. The Machine was made for man, but soon man lived for the Machine and became dependent upon it.

Once upon a time another group of people saw that a machine was needed to make something hard and difficult more easily done and give them more leisure time. They were even more talented, technologically advanced, and affluent than the first group of inventors. So they put their heads together and came up with a handy little machine called “American Christianity”...

---

©2002-2015 SermonIndex.net Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.

Defending the Trinity

Answering Common Objections

to the Doctrine of the Trinity

Author: Ben Rast
Source: Contender Ministries - August 23, 2005
Link: about.me/gideonsword




Though the doctrine of the Trinity is quite biblical, many Christians find themselves unable to adequately answer the attacks on this doctrine by other monotheistic religions such as Islam and Judaism, as well as polytheistic and henotheistic religions such as Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (henotheism is the belief in multiple gods, but the worship of only one).  Few Christian doctrines are attacked so viciously as the doctrine of the Trinity.  This aspect of the nature of God is awe-inspiring and wonderful.  As Christians, we should be prepared to explain it to unbelievers and to defend it against attacks.  As you will see, most arguments against the Trinity are weak and unable to stand up to biblical scrutiny or an appeal to logic.  If you witness to a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or a Muslim, some of these arguments are likely to come up, and it’s vitally important that you are able to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), demolish these arguments (2 Corinthians 10:5), and contend for the faith (Jude 3,4).

I have covered the biblical supports for the triune nature of God in a previous article, “A Comprehensive Biblical Defense of the Trinity.”  If you have not read that article, I encourage you to do so before moving on to this one.  In it, I provide biblical proof for the following points:

1.      There is only one God

2.      The Father is God

3.     Jesus is God

4.     The Holy Spirit is God

5.      The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons.

Before addressing the most common objections, it’s important to make sure that we are starting with an accurate definition of the Trinity.  Many who oppose the Trinity do so with a faulty understanding of the definition.  Simply put, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one true God, and within that God there are three co-equal and co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity is distinct from the other, but all three comprise one God.  Various heresies arise when this definition is distorted, and I covered some of them in the previous article.  Now that we start from a common definition, let’s turn ourselves to some common objections.

1.  The word “Trinity” isn’t found anywhere in the Bible!

True enough, the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible.  A similar argument is used by theological modernists who assert that the term “homosexual” is a modern word that didn’t exist at the time the Bible was written, therefore the Bible can’t condemn homosexuality.  I think most people will agree that the Bible STILL condemns homosexuality, even thought this particular English word wasn’t used in the Greek or Hebrew texts.  Interestingly, the word “pornography” is similarly absent from Scripture, but we are still able to view the biblical teachings on sexual morality, coupled with Jesus’ teaching that a man who looks at a woman with lust commits adultery with her in his heart to recognize that pornography is sinful.  The word “theocracy” is not found in the Bible, but the concept can be found there.  The absence of a word does not preclude its teaching in Scripture.

Critics also argue that no single verse of Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.  While many single verses provide excellent evidence for the triune nature of God (see the previous article), it is true that this doctrine is not capsulated in a single verse or passage of Scripture.  The Bible is not titled, “Christian Doctrine for Dummies.”  It is sometimes necessary to look at the teachings of Scripture as a whole.  When we allow ourselves to do that, we can see that the Trinity is quite Scriptural.

2.  The Trinity doctrine is confusing, and God is not the author of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33 in the NIV states in part, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”  In the spurious New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the verse similarly states, “For God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons will frequently cite this verse when arguing against the Trinity.  After all, the concept of a triune God can be confusing.  They argue that such a confusing doctrine must come from Satan, since God is not a God of confusion or disorder.  Yet such an argument is illogical.  That humans cannot fully understand the nature of God simply means that we are finite created beings who do not possess the mind of God.  The Bible is clear that such confusions are to be expected:

-   “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.  ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” – Isaiah 55:8-9

-   “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” – Romans 11:33

-   “Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” – 1 Corinthians 13:12

Many aspects of God’s nature are hard, if not impossible, for the human mind to comprehend.  For example, infinite concepts give me a headache.  If I try to comprehend the concept of an infinite sum, I get a headache.  If I try to really comprehend the eternal nature of God (without a beginning or an end), I get a headache.  My finite human mind simply cannot comprehend eternity beyond the vague concept.  I’m not alone in this either.  While Jehovah’s Witnesses will use the confusion argument against the Trinity, they contradict themselves in other areas.  In the Watchtower publication Reasoning from the Scriptures, they acknowledge this confusion after citing Psalm 90:2, referencing God’s eternal nature: “Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it.  But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it.” ^[1]

As is so often the case in arguments by cultists and heretics, they have divorced 1 Corinthians 14:33 from its context to use it in the fashion they desire.  It is vital that we read Scripture in context to gain a proper understanding of it.  Let’s put this verse back in its appropriate context, including verses 26-33, 39-40:

“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.  The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace….Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”

When placed in context, we can see that this passage is talking about how our worship should be orderly.  Paul is trying to put the gifts of tongues and prophecy into their proper usage and eliminate the confusion that can result in a service when these gifts are used improperly.  Just as there is no discord within God, so there should be no discord or confusion in our worship of God.  Putting Scripture in context allows us to read it the way the authors (and the Ultimate Author) intended us to do so.

3.  The Trinity is a pagan concept adopted by Christianity.

This is one of the most common arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity.  I’ve heard it expressed often by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Usually, the person using this argument has no evidence to back up this assertion, but on rare occasions they do.  Unfortunately, it is equally rare that a Christian is prepared to “demolish” this argument.  It can be done easily by an appeal to facts and logic.

The argument typically is expressed that certain pagan cultures, such as the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians, developed a Trinitarian belief in places far removed from the birthplace of Christianity and predating it by thousands of years.  Therefore, it’s logical to conclude that these pagan doctrines were introduced into Christianity hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  However, this isn’t exactly true.

The Babylonians and Assyrians did NOT develop a Trinitarian theological dogma.  Rather, they believed in triads of gods who headed up a council of other gods.  In other words, whereas the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that ONE GOD is comprised of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Babylonians and Assyrians believed that three separate gods formed a leadership over other gods.  In this, their beliefs more closely resemble the polytheistic/henotheistic beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.  Mormon doctrine holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods in leadership over this world.  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah God created Jesus – a lesser god, and that the Holy Spirit is simply Jehovah’s active force in this world.  These beliefs are closer to the ancient pagan beliefs than is the Trinity doctrine, which is strictly monotheistic.  Moreover, the separation of early Christian development from these pagan beliefs with respect to time and geography make it highly unlikely that the pagan beliefs played any role in the Church’s clarification of the Trinity doctrine as found in the Athanasian Creed.  This creed reads, in part, “This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.  Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.  But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.  What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.  The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.  The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.  Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.  So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.  Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.  Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.  Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  However, there are not three gods, but one God.”  It should be noted that “catholic” in the early centuries was used to describe universal and orthodox Christianity long before the Roman Catholic Church existed as such.  The creed continues in this manner.  Athanasius did not fabricate this.  Rather, he summarized the teaching of Scripture. 

Association based on similarities is faulty logic.  Pagans (and indeed practically all ancient cultures on earth) have a legend concerning a global flood.  Does this negate the truthfulness of the global flood described in Genesis?  Does this mean the Genesis account was “borrowed”?  Of course not.  The ubiquity of the flood story actually buttresses its truthfulness, even though other cultures don’t have all the details correct.  Furthermore, some pagan cultures have a “messiah” legend that has similarities to the gospel.  However, there are also differences in these stories.  We can take joy in the fact that these legends haven’t the accuracy of the Bible as verified historically and archaeologically.  Similarities don’t impart guilt.  Therefore, similar pagan doctrines in triads of gods are not the same as the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity, and it is baseless to assume that the Trinity was “borrowed” from paganism.  It’s simply not true.

4.  Jesus calls the Father, “the only true God,” therefore Jesus cannot be God.

This is an interesting argument often raised by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  This argument, as we will see, is self-defeating for them.  This argument refers to Jesus’ words to the Father in John 17:3, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”  Critics argue that the Father cannot be the “only true God” if Jesus and the Holy Spirit can also claim to be God.  The thinking is illogical.  First, Jesus’ words do not exclude the Son and Holy Spirit from also being the only true God.  They DO exclude Jesus and the Holy Spirit from being separate gods.  In other words, if the Father is the only true God, then Jesus cannot also be a true God and the Holy Spirit cannot also be a true God (distinguishing them as separate gods rather than simply separate persons).  If we understand the true nature of the Trinity, we can acknowledge that the Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal persons that comprise the one true God, and John 17:3 does not counter that.  However, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe that Jesus is a separate god, and Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit is yet another god.  In the Mormon New World Translation, John 1:1 states, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (emphasis added).  Mormonism’s founding prophet taught, “In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”^[2] Now if a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness wants to claim that this verse teaches that the Father alone is the only true God, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit must be false gods.  If that is true, the teachings of the LDS prophets and the New World Translation must be wrong. 

5.  Jesus prayed to God in the garden, so Jesus can’t be God.

This statement has needlessly stumped some Christians, though not for long.  It is a misleading generality to say, “Jesus prayed to God.”  To be more precise, we should say that Jesus (The Son) prayed to The Father in the garden.  While it is true that there is only one God, it is equally true that God exists as three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  During His earthly ministry and being subject to a mortal body, Jesus willingly endured the limitations of man.  As such, it should come as no surprise that He communicated with The Father through prayer!  This does nothing to diminish the deity of Jesus Christ or to contradict the monotheistic nature of God. 

6.  The Bible says that God is ONE!

This argument, which attempts to disprove the triune nature of God based on unity, is based largely on two verses:

-"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." – Deuteronomy 6:4   -"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’.” – Mark 12:29

Deuteronomy 6:4 in the New World Translation says, “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”  We’ve gone into detail in other articles about the fact that “Jehovah” is not a word that appears in the Bible, but is rather a modification of Yahweh.  One way to read the last phrase with some of the Hebrew intact is “Yahweh (Jehovah) our elohim is one Yahweh (Jehovah).  The Hebrew words themselves are “Yahweh elohim echad Yahweh.” The NIV footnote for this verse lists a few possible ways to translate this verse based on its grammatical construct.  Echad means “one” or “only”.  Because of the construct, this verse could be translated as it is above, or as “The LORD our God is one LORD,” “The LORD is our God, the LORD is one,” or “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”  I think the best of these translations can be assessed by observing the context of the passage.  In Deuteronomy 5, Moses had just presented the Israelites with the Ten Commandments.  One sin that marked these people was their habit of turning to idolatry (golden calf ring a bell?).  As we read down in chapter 6, we see that this is still the focus and concern at this point.  In verses 14-16 we read, “Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.”  This is a very clear exhortation for the Israelites to abandon their worship of multiple “gods.”  Therefore, the most reasonable way of interpreting Deuteronomy 6:4 is “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”  This establishes that only Yahweh is the true God.  All other “gods” are false and must be rejected.  Deuteronomy 6:4 does not exclude God from being triune in nature.  Mark 12:29 is simply a recitation of Deuteronomy 6:4 with the intent of that verse intact – we have one and ONLY one God!

Yahweh is our elohim, Yahweh alone.  In my previous article on the Trinity, I established Scripturally that not only is the Father Yahweh, but Jesus is also Yahweh.  Similarly, the deity of the Holy Spirit reveals He is also Yahweh.  In this article and the previous one, I have addressed some of the most common objections to the doctrine of the Trinity.  The teaching of the Word of God is clear.  There is one God.  God exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each of these three are rightfully called God, yet each is distinct from the other.  The absence of one convenient summary of this truth in Scripture does not negate its truthfulness, nor does it mean this truth is not found in Scripture.  God has revealed this wonderful truth to us through His Word.  The question is, are we listening?

NOTES:

1. Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), p. 148.

2. Joseph Smith, Jr., The King Follett Discourse (Salt Lake City: Joseph Lyon & Associates, 1963), p. 9.

Evolution and Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Link: about.me/gideonsword
Author: Jonathan Wells - Discovery Institute - June 1, 1997
Source: Center for Science and Culture
Secondary Source: ABR Apologetics Ministry



"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."
- George Gaylord Simpson


Where did you come from? Are you the result of a mindless, undirected process, or are you the handiwork of a purposeful Creator?

According to several Gallup polls, only about ten percent of the American people believe in Darwin's theory that we are accidental by-products of a strictly natural process of evolution. The other ninety percent believe that God played an important role in the process--either by guiding evolution or by creating life directly.

A similar poll conducted among college professors and their students would probably yield a very different result, with the overwhelming majority agreeing with Darwin's theory that evolution occurred through purposeless natural processes such as random variation and natural selection. Perhaps this is the case on your own campus. According to some people, this disparity between the academic community and the general public indicates a pressing need for better education of the masses. According to others, it reveals a disturbing domination of our educational institutions by naturalism, the philosophical doctrine that nature is all there is and that God and spirit are merely projections of the human mind.
[See Also: Anthropic Principle/What Are the Odds?]


According to Darwinism, our Existence is a Mere Accident

When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859, most Western scientists were Christian theists who believed that God created living things (especially human beings) by design. According to Darwin, however, what appears to be design in living things can be explained naturalistically, as the result of random variations and natural selection.

Darwin noted that individuals of every species exhibit minor variations, and that domestic breeders can utilize those variations to modify succeeding generations. Darwin also noted that creatures in the wild must compete for limited resources (such as food), and that those who are better adapted to their surroundings are more likely to survive and reproduce. Darwin argued that just as a breeder can modify livestock, so "natural selection" can modify species in the wild, and that "descent with modification," continued over millions of years, produced all living things from one or a few original forms.

Darwin saw no room for supernatural design in this process. When his friend and supporter Asa Gray proposed that God designed the variations on which natural selection operated, Darwin rejected the idea, and concluded his 1868 Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication with a refutation of Gray's position. According to Darwin, the products of random variation and natural selection cannot be regarded as designed; and human beings, as the latest in a long series of undesigned results, are the most undesigned of all.

Darwin's modern followers concur in this denial of design. In 1967, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."(1) In 1970, molecular biologist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod announced that "the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded," and that as a result "man has to understand that he is a mere accident."(2)
[See Also: The Truth About Evolution]


Darwin's Denial of Design is a Serious Problem for Christians and Other Theists

If we are undesigned by-products of a purposeless process, then the Biblical doctrine that we are created in the image of God is false. Yet it is a central doctrine of Christianity (and of other theistic religions such as Islam and Judaism) that God created human beings by design.

Many people have been given the impression that the chronology of Genesis is the root of the conflict between Christianity and Darwinism. Surprisingly, however, biblical chronology played almost no role in the initial opposition to Darwin's theory, because most Christians in the nineteenth century accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth. Nor was chronology an issue at the 1925 Scopes trial, because creationist William Jennings Bryan accepted the old-earth view. Historically and theologically speaking, the basic conflict between Christianity and Darwinism is not chronology, but design.

Some theists try to avoid problems by accepting everything that Darwinists tell us except their denial of design. But Darwinism assumes that naturalism has a complete explanation, at least in principle, for all of objective reality; so theists who accept Darwinism are left with a purely subjective religion, and design becomes a figment of our imagination.

Despite the good intentions of those who attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution and theistic religion, a serious conflict remains between the two. Theists who accommodate themselves to Darwinian evolution generally find themselves patronized and marginalized. But do theists have to accept Darwinian evolution?
[See Also: Doubting Darwin (Panic in the suites of Evolution)]


Is Darwin's Theory True?

We are frequently told that "evolution is a fact," as undeniable as gravity or the shape of the earth. Anyone who challenges it, at least in an academic setting, is likely to be regarded (in the words of Darwin popularizer Richard Dawkins) as "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."(3) In the United States, religious people who question evolution are often likened to the caricature of creationists promoted by the 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind," Hollywood's version of the 1925 Scopes trial.

The word "evolution," however, has several meanings. One is merely change in general; the plants and animals which we now see around us did not always exist, and some which used to exist (such as dinosaurs) are no longer with us. In this broad sense, evolution certainly is a fact (though one which presents no problem for theists.) A second meaning of "evolution" is the notion that all living things descended over a long period of time from one or a few common ancestors. The evidence for common descent is much more debatable than the evidence for change in general, and biologists frequently argue about whether particular groups of plants or animals share a common ancestor. But even if universal common descent were true, it would not cause a serious problem for theists; of the ninety percent of the American people who reject Darwin's theory, about half accept this notion of evolution.

A third meaning of "evolution" is that populations evolve through random variations and natural selection. In support of his theory, Darwin cited domestic breeding: dramatic modifications in domestic crops or livestock can be produced by appropriately selecting small variations. Since 1859 a similar process has been observed in the wild: when mosquitoes are exposed to insecticides, subsequent generations become more resistant to the insecticide as the more susceptible organisms die off; and when moths are exposed to predatory birds, subsequent generations tend to be better camouflaged as the more visible ones are eaten. In other words, there is considerable evidence that change occurs through the natural selection of random variations.

But how much change? In the examples cited above, no new species emerge, and no new features appear. Domestic breeding will not turn a sheep into a goat, much less a bird or a whale; and bird predation does not change moths into butterflies, much less ants or beetles. Biologists have long recognized a distinction between relatively minor changes within a species, which they call "microevolution," and the much larger changes necessary to produce significantly new features, which they call "macroevolution." It is possible that evolution in its third sense (change through random variations and natural selection) is true when applied to microevolution, but untrue when applied to macroevolution.

So evolution in the first sense (change over time) is a fact; evolution in the second sense (all creatures are descendants of one or a few forms) is debatable; and evolution in the third sense (change due to random variation and natural selection) is a fact when applied to microevolution. But is it a fact that macroevolution is due to random variations and natural selection? The conflict between Darwinism and theism on the issue of design arises only if large-scale evolution is due to an essentially purposeless process. Yet Darwin's extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is hotly debated among biologists.

As molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote in 1985: "However attractive the extrapolation, it does not follow that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur, therefore any degree of evolution is possible." In fact, not "one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859" has validated the extrapolation.(4) In other words, of the several different meanings of "evolution," Darwinian macroevolution is the least supported by the evidence.
[See Also: Creation, Evolution, and Scripture]


Why the Evidence does not Support Darwin's Theory of Macroevolution

We are often told that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And so it is--if by "evolution" one means change in general. But if by "evolution" one means macroevolution through random variations and natural selection, then the evidence is underwhelming, at best.

For example, fossils establish beyond a reasonable doubt that change has occurred; but the fossil record is an embarrassment to defenders of Darwinian macroevolution. Direct observation of microevolution through random variations and natural selection shows that such change occurs rather gradually; there are no radical discontinuities from one generation to the next. Darwin himself recognized that if his theory were true, one would expect to find innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record, with more and more being found as more and more fossils are collected.

A century and a half of fossil-collecting since Darwin, however, has made it clear that fossil species tend to appear suddenly and persist unchanged for long periods of time before going extinct. These sudden appearances and disappearances, separated by absence of change, have been called "punctuated equilibria" by paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.(5) Punctuated equilibria are most evident where the fossil record is the most complete, as with marine invertebrates, but the most dramatic example is the "Cambrian explosion." The geological period known as the Cambrian is marked by the rather sudden appearance of all the basic forms of animals now in existence. There are no transitional forms between them, and no new basic forms have appeared since then.

As Darwinists point out, the pattern of punctuated equilibria does not actually disprove Darwinian evolution. Both Gould and Eldredge continue to believe that evolution occurred as Darwin thought it did, though they acknowledge that it must have happened "over there," where no one has been able to detect it. Of course, this is theoretically possible, though it is surprising given Darwin's assurance that transitional forms must far outnumber stable forms. The bottom line, however, is that Darwin's explanation for macroevolution cannot be inferred from the fossil record; instead, one must assume that Darwin's mechanism was responsible and then read it into the fossil record. Without such an assumption, one could infer that sudden appearances were due to creation rather than evolution.

In response to creationists who see punctuated equilibria as evidence against evolution, defenders of Darwinism point out that there are a few examples of transitional fossils, perhaps the most famous being that of the horse. The earliest fossil "horse" was about the size of a dog, and had four toes; later fossil horses are slightly larger and have fewer toes, until the large modern horse appears with one toe. Although paleontologists do not now believe that any of these fossil horses are direct ancestors of any of the others, the sequence does present us with a graded series of intermediate forms.

Even intermediate forms, however, fail to support Darwinian macroevolution, because fossils cannot demonstrate that transitions were due to random variation and natural selection. The problem is unintentionally illustrated by biologist Tim Berra in his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. According to Berra, what paleontologists do with fossils is analogous to tracing successive improvements in Corvette automobiles from the 1953 model to today's version.(6) What Berra apparently fails to realize, however, is that Corvettes were undeniably made by design. A sequence of intermediate forms does not, by itself, confirm Darwin's theory.

So most of the fossil record is inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism, and the few examples of transitional fossils fail to demonstrate that evolution occurred through a Darwinian mechanism. In fact, some scientists are now arguing that Darwin's theory cannot account for the evidence, and that a better explanation is intelligent design.


Intelligent Design Theory

Darwin's theory purports to explain not only the forms of organisms which we find in the fossil record, but also the complex molecular mechanisms which enable them to produce energy, move about, detect light, heal wounds, and so on. Now Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe is arguing that Darwin's mechanism is incapable of producing these mechanisms.

Behe maintains that some features of living cells exhibit "irreducible complexity," meaning that they function only if all their parts are present in good working order at the outset. For example, a mousetrap consists of several parts which work together to catch a mouse; if any part is missing or defective, the mousetrap fails to work at all. Similarly, the biochemistry of light detection requires complex interactions among many different molecules, each performing a very specialized job. There is no imaginable way that the necessary combination of molecules could be built up piecemeal, as Darwin's theory requires; either they are all present, or the process does not work.(7)

According to Behe, Darwin's theory had a certain plausibility as long as the complex biochemical machinery of living cells remained a "black box," the details of which were unknown. Now that modern science has opened the box, however, Darwin's theory is no longer plausible. Instead of random variation and natural selection, Behe sees design as the most plausible explanation.

Behe's critics argue that design is unscientific, but William Dembski of the University of Notre Dame, Steve Meyer of Whitworth College, and Paul Nelson of the University of Chicago maintain that those critics are wrong. According to these three philosophers of science, people make scientific design inferences every day. We infer design whenever we examine people's actions to determine whether they acted deliberately; we infer that words in the sand at the beach were produced by design rather than by accidental movements of the waves; and scientists who search for messages from other galaxies feel confident they will recognize design when they see it. Dembski, Meyer and Nelson have found that the same criteria we use to infer design in these cases justify an inference of design in living things.

So some aspects of living things are plausibly explained as the result of design, and inferences to design can be as scientific as other kinds of inferences.(8) Why, then, do Darwinists insist that design is unscientific? Their usual answer is that design in living things would have to be the work of God, and God is beyond the reach of natural science. Darwinists thus find themselves having to acknowledge that it is God they find objectionable. In other words, their allegiance is not to the evidence, or to scientific inference, but to naturalism. When the evidence fails to support the theory (as in the case of the fossil record), they read the theory into the evidence. In other words, Darwinists are using science to promote an anti-religious philosophy.


It's Time for a Revolution in Evolution

As a member of your college community, you have the right to ask respectful, intelligent questions of your teachers and fellow students. If someone tells you that evolution proves we are accidental by-products of a purposeless natural process, ask for the evidence. Chances are, you will be presented with evidence for geological chronology, or fossil evidence for change in general, or evidence that microevolution proceeds by random variation and natural selection, or evidence that we share certain similarities with other animals.

If you maintain that the evidence you have been given might be consistent with intelligent design, you will probably be told that design is unscientific. But if the very notion of design is unscientific, then why is Darwin's supposedly scientific theory being used to refute it? If you are courageous enough to ask that question, you may find yourself being accused of "ignorance, stupidity, insanity or wickedness."

If you can stand the heat, however, you may find that your persistent questioning is extraordinarily powerful, like the boy in the fable who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes. When Darwinists claim that the evidence of evolution excludes design, the evidence they cite invariably turns out to be irrelevant, or just as consistent with design as with its absence. When confronted with this objection, they typically try to exclude design by claiming that it is unscientific, even though a moment earlier they were treating it as a scientific hypothesis refuted by the evidence. But Darwinists cannot have it both ways; they cannot legitimately use evidence to argue against design, and then, when challenged, claim that science cannot deal with design at all.

Science at its best pursues the evidence wherever it leads. As truth-seekers, scientists must be free to consider both sides of a question. If the evidence of evolution can be used to infer the absence of design, it can just as reasonably be used to infer its presence, and Darwinists who claim that it cannot are doing a disservice to science. If, on the other hand, design is a religious or philosophical issue rather than a scientific one, there are still at least two sides to the question. Darwinists think that naturalism is the only answer, but ninety percent of the American people disagree with them. It's time for the philosophical naturalists who dominate our college campuses to engage in some serious discussion with their fellow citizens.

You may find it rough going if you challenge Darwinism on your campus; but if you persist, you will find that you are part of a growing intellectual revolution.(9) The emperor has no clothes, and it's time to tell it like it is.
[See Also: Christianity and Public Schools and American Decay: John Dewey]


Footnotes

(1) George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, revised edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 345.

(2) Jacques Monod, quoted in Horace Freeland Judson's The Eighth Day of Creation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 217.

(3) Richard Dawkins, review of Donald Johanson & Maitland Edey's Blueprint in The New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. VII, p. 34.

(4) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), pp. 87, 345.

(5) Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism," in T.J.M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology (San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co., 1972), pp. 82-115.

(6) Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), pp. 117-119.

(7) Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996).

(8) For a more extensive treatment of design in biological origins, see Of Pandas and People, second edition, by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993).

(9) A prominent figure in this revolution is Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson. For further information, see his Darwin on Trial, second edition (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) or his upcoming book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (InterVarsity Press, 1997).



Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Theology from Yale University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Seattle, Washington.

© Jonathan Wells 1997

Cremation or Burial?

Cremation or Burial?

The Christian Perspective

Author: Jim Elliff
Source: Christian Communicators Worldwide
Link: about.me/gideonsword



There is no sin in cremation, that is for sure. And there is no inability on God’s part to raise a cremated body from the dead. But is cremation, a practice most often seen in Eastern religions, the best for the believer in Christ?

It is clarifying to note that burial was God’s preferred method of disposing of the body of Moses. God had the power to cremate Moses’ body on the spot, but rather, this gentle and loving phrase is found: "[God] buried him in the valley in the land of Moab" (Deut. 34:6). This fact alone is enough for me. If God chose this method Himself, then it certainly should be my preference also.

We must add, for a second reason, that burial underground (or in tombs) was the ordained method for the patriarchs, for God’s chosen people, and for New Testament believers. There are numerous references to this, from Abraham’s burial in the cave of Machpelah to Lazarus’ entombment in a crypt. The bodies of these saints were kept, as much as possible, in their original state, awaiting the resurrection of the body.

For a third reason, consider the death of Christ Himself. He is our example in everything. Christ was in charge of His death. As He said, "No one has taken [my life] away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative" (John 10:18). Certainly His burial was no accident either. The dramatic events God ordained to take place included the tomb as an essential ingredient. It accentuated His resurrection.

A fourth part of the rationale has to do with the place the body plays in our theology. Christianity is the most materialistic of the religions in this respect. That is, it gives an importance to the body and to all things tangible that other religions do not. For Hindus, the body is evil. This is why you find some Hindus practicing religious ritual abuse of their bodies or meditating for long periods in an attempt to escape their bodies. I’ve seen the burning of Indian bodies on a funeral pyre. There is no glory to God in it. But Christianity sees the body as useful, rather than evil. It can do much good, if a believer is controlled by the Spirit. It is so valued by God that the very body we are living in will be raised up one day, made new for eternity. For this reason, we symbolize the importance of the body by burying it with love.

Fifth, the burial of Christians was designed by God as the basis for our understanding of baptism. Though baptism does not save, it does picture our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3-4). Such a powerful picture as baptism is dependent for its meaning on the burial of Christ and of believers.

Finally, we should bury because the grave is such a potent reminder of the future resurrection. I recently stood beside the graves of some famous authors in New Hampshire. Staring at their burial site reminded me again of the future bodily resurrection of both believers and non-believers, some to a resurrection of life and the others to a resurrection of judgment (cf. John 5:28-29).

As family and friends look at my grave one day, I am hopeful that it will keep on preaching the gospel. I want my family to spare no expense to put a clear message on that stone. But mostly I want that stone to remind people of a coming new day, which those in Christ should find most exhilarating. I’ve tried to say something in my life; I want to say something in death as well. And I hope that what is said will make clear what is ahead.

Not long ago I stood by the grave of my mother. It is hard to imagine a more selfless and sincere believer. On her stone were these simple words, taken from a hymn she would sing to herself day after day: "Jesus is all the world to me." It’s a powerful message that reminds me to put Christ first in everything. I rejoiced that she will be "raised imperishable," body, soul and spirit, at the resurrection of the righteous (1 Corinthians 15:52).

I realize that some will die at sea and others will be blown apart by bombs during war. But if at all possible, I recommend that you honor your dead loved ones by burial, keeping the body unchanged as much as you can. There will be change enough at the resurrection of the dead.


The minimizing of cost through cremation is often a consideration when loved ones die. Read about how believers can reduce the cost of funerals and still bury their loved ones with dignity below:

Reducing the Cost of Funerals

Author: Jim Elliff

It may seem strange that I chose this subject, but the issue is such a nagging problem with believers and ministers that I felt I should address it, however briefly.

I’ve often stood in the funeral home with believing church members while they selected a casket for their loved one. There is such a real pressure to spend too much money at that moment. The expense is one of the main reasons many choose to be cremated rather than buried. I can understand this dilemma.

But money can be saved if things are done differently. We do not need to let the funeral business determine our practice. As sincere as the funeral director may be, it is still his objective and the objective of those over him to make money during the time when people are the most vulnerable. I would not want to demean this honorable profession, but things have gotten way out of hand.

Let me make these practical suggestions:

First, consider having the graveside service for family and perhaps a few close friends before the memorial service. This will reduce the pressure to buy a casket that is too expensive. In fact, as far as I am concerned the cheapest possible casket is appropriate, if things are done this way. The family understands, especially if this is the stated wish of the one who has died. Also, the long ride out to the cemetery in limousines will not be needed for this intimate gathering. Just arrive in your cars and have the kind of service that is meaningful to you led by a pastor or friend. A funeral home person will need to be there to bring the casket, the flowers (if there are some), and to make the proper arrangements with the cemetery, but you have cut down considerably on costs. Also, you may bury your dead sooner this way. I suggest that seeing your loved one at the funeral home is a good thing for the family, but you do not have to rent the funeral room for extra days.

Second, in certain cases a graveside service may be enough. If the deceased does not have any (or very few) friends still living, or if the rest of the family lives far away, this may be the right thing to do.

Third, you may choose to have the memorial service at a church building or another facility that costs less than a funeral home. There is something rather morose about most funeral homes, frankly. The "coronation" of a believer should be a different affair, and brightness and joy should characterize the time together. Let me add that having the memorial in the evening and on a day when more people can come is also advisable. It is increasingly hard for people to get off work for a memorial service. Make it easy on them. You can wait for four or five days if you wish. The church leaders can provide the obituary and any other handouts, saving even more money.

By using the church facilities or another less-expensive meeting place, and by having already buried the deceased loved one, there will be no need for any funeral people to be involved in the memorial service at all. No limousine rides are necessary, or funeral home ushers, etc.

In some cemeteries it will be necessary to purchase an expensive vault to put the casket into when interred. Cemeteries often require this to keep the body dry and the ground from sinking as time goes on. The cemetery may require this, but our theology does not. The other reason for a vault is more emotional. If the family cannot be comfortable without a vault, of course, for emotional reasons, you will have to have one.

It will be a good idea to check with more than one funeral home about burial costs. The fees vary significantly. In fact, we recently found thousands of dollars difference in pricing for the same service between two funeral homes in our area. There will be someone in the family who will be free enough and business-like enough to handle this sort of thing. It is important. Your loved one would not want your hard-earned money to be thrown away just because you were unwilling to check on pricing.

In my view, it is good to spend extra money on a gravestone that communicates well the believer’s life message. If you cannot afford a large stone, that is reasonable, but do put some writing on the stone for future readers. In this way your loved one can "preach" for years to come. A gravestone may be purchased and placed on the grave later, in most cases.

If you are considering the costs for your own burial, it will be especially important to write out instructions for your family before you die, if at all possible. In this way you will guarantee that your family will not go overboard in their spending when they are most vulnerable. It will ease their minds.

And remember that God has saved you "in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." However humble your funeral, God has great things in store for you.

_________________

Copyright © 2013 Jim Elliff
Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc.
Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in unedited form
including author's name, title, complete content, copyright and weblink.
Other uses require written permission.
www.ccwtoday.org

Christians in Babylon

Link: about.me/gideonsword

Living in Babylon

Author: Don Closson
Source: InPlainSite.org

Introduction
Since the era of the Moral Majority and the rise of the so called "religious right," there has been an ongoing debate within the Christian community about how to define the appropriate relationship between Christians and the contemporary American culture. Many believers find the teaching that Christians are to be "in the world but not of it" difficult to interpret and apply to their daily lives.

Part of our problem in relating to our culture is in identifying an accurate metaphor for modern America. Some see America as a new Israel, a nation that God has providentially blessed, a nation that is special to God in a way that other nations are not. When pressed, few would actually claim that America has replaced Israel of the Old Testament, but many see America as a uniquely Christian nation. Although one cannot dismiss the powerful influence that Christian thought has had on this country, this view of America raises some difficult questions.

For instance, how should believers respond when a majority of Americans reject the Christian worldview regarding specific moral issues such as abortion or gay rights? To what length are we required to go to maintain a Christian society? Many now believe that we are confronted with the dilemma of living in a largely post-Christian America, and that soon we will no longer have the political power to pass legislation that would enforce our views.

A few have already given in to the temptation to respond violently when the legal system fails to promote a biblical standard, resulting in murdered abortion doctors and bombs set off outside of gay bars in the name of Christ. They reason that if God ordered the Promised Land to be purged of Baal worshippers and their sinful culture by force, violence is justified today in the U.S. to remove its sinful practices.

Christians almost seem surprised to encounter sin in America, or to discover that our culture might be following the path of European nations that had previously been influenced by biblical truth. Some act as if God has promised that America would be exempt from worldly temptations. Even though the vast majority of Christians don't stockpile weapons or plan violent revolution, some of us become angry and paralyzed by the way America has changed over the last few decades.

Rather than seeing the U.S. as the new Israel, it might be more helpful to see it as a modern Babylon. Christians in America should see a reflection of themselves in Daniel, who found himself exiled in Babylon and having to live in an alien culture that was often hostile to his faith. Or perhaps we should identify with the apostle Paul who planted churches and discipled future leaders under the cruel and tyrannical Roman government.

Let's consider what it means to live a life worthy of the calling that we have in Christ in modern day America, and seek to better understand the admonition to be "in the world but not of it."

Aliens and Strangers
In his new book, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon, Marvin Olasky argues that if we are to have an influence on the culture that exists in America today, we need to see ourselves more like Daniel in Babylon than like Joshua taking the Promise Land. America is very different from Joshua's situation. Ancient Israel was a theocracy established and ruled by God for a people who had covenanted with God to live according to Mosaic Law and to be separate from other cultures. America is neither a theocracy nor a promised land. Although America benefited from the participation of godly men and biblical ideals during its founding, it is a republic that derives the right to rule from its people. As people have moved away from strongly held Christian convictions, so have its institutions.

Olasky describes modern America as a theme park for liberty, noting that it is idolized by the rest of the world as a country that promotes nearly unlimited personal freedom without any commensurate requirement for virtue. It is very much part of the "world" or cosmos that the New Testament writers John, Paul and James warn us that is contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Regarding this "world" James writes, "don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:4) To be a friend of the world is to agree with a system of values that the world represents. This worldview refuses to acknowledge God's role as creator and sustainer of the universe and rejects the moral structure that He made part of its existence. It also rejects the need for a savior. It's not that there is no support for Christian virtue left in America, but that the predominant set of values found in our major institutions no longer reflects a biblical worldview.

If asked, most believers would agree that our life here on earth is principally a place to prepare for the next life. The New Testament provides a clear picture of what our relationship to the world should be characterized by. In 1 Peter (2:11-12) we are told,

"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us."

Our lives here in America, or wherever God puts us, are to be characterized by the awareness that the world as it exists is not our permanent abode. Our affection for the things of this world should fade, and our desire to build God's Kingdom should increase because we have become "fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household." (Eph. 2:19)

Ambassadors for Christ
Considerable energy is spent by sincere and well-meaning Christians to make America a more righteous nation. Their dream is to use political power to transform the American culture and its institutions into a society that becomes a beacon to the world for God's righteousness and compassion. Others have given up on America and see separation from its worldly culture as the only appropriate Christian response, turning their backs to the political process as well as the arts and entertainment that it offers. Many Christians live in a state of constant tension between the heavenly Kingdom of God and the earthly kingdom that God has placed them into. They endure a dual citizenship that seems to pull them in two opposite directions.

The problem for Christians hoping to transform American society is that, although the Bible tells us much about the kind of culture that is to exist within the church, it says little about what kind of culture should exist outside of it. The New Testament doesn't encourage believers to fight for political reform or even for religious freedom within the Roman political system of the day. There are many "one another" passages that describe how one believer is to relate to another believer, and there are places where we are told to pray for our political leaders and to obey our country's laws. But little is said about the kind of political or social institutions that should be endorsed by Christians. Beyond working for justice and human dignity in a general way, how should Christians relate to the current society that we live in? [Also See The Christian and Worldliness]

A clear biblical teaching for all believers is that we are to be ambassadors for Christ. Some may be called vocationally to politics, the arts, or even the entertainment world, but each of us can and should be an ambassador for God's Kingdom wherever He places us and regardless of how He has gifted us as individuals. To do this well, ambassadors need to be cognizant of our sovereign's message or agenda. 2 Cor. 5:18-20 says that we have been given a message of reconciliation, and that God is using us to appeal to our neighbors to be reconciled with God through faith in Jesus Christ.

All of us desire to see our culture transformed into a reflection of God's truth, justice, and mercy. However, we also need to acknowledge the role of providence in both the timing and the extent of any future cultural revival. America has experienced awakenings in the past and God has certainly used individuals and organizations to realign our culture with His character. But ultimately the timing and the manner of revival is in God's hands and it will be accomplished by those who see themselves as ambassadors sharing Christ, not as a King David ruling on God's throne over America. [Also See End Time Revival or Apostasy?]

Jeremiah's Charge
Using the metaphor of believers in Babylon, it might be helpful to read how the prophet Jeremiah told the children of Israel to live among the pagans of that day. He told them to:

"Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:4-7)

It is significant what Jeremiah did not tell the Jews to do while in Babylon. They were not told to establish the Kingdom there; it wasn't the right place or time. They were also not instructed to use guerilla tactics to overthrow the Babylonian political structures. God Himself would eventually bring about the conditions of their release to rebuild the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. They were to instead seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which God had sent them, and to pray to God for it. This is very similar to the language that Paul uses in writing to Timothy when he tells him to pray "for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." (1 Tim. 2:1-3) As mentioned earlier, Peter says we are to "live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." (1 Pet. 2:12) He literally says that we are to live a "noble lifestyle" so that the pagans will see our good works and eventually recognize and give glory to God.

Unfortunately, according to recent surveys Christians are not known for their "noble lifestyles." In one survey, George Barna discovered that "evangelicals" ranked near the bottom of a list of population segments regarding favorable or positive impressions, right between lesbians and prostitutes.{1} We are often so consumed by our displeasure with what unbelievers are doing that we fail to see the activities of our daily lives in terms of ministry. When we integrate into our daily living an understanding to reflect God's image, be stewards over His creation, and love others as we love ourselves, we will begin to view all of our activities as acts of worship and service to God. As Peter reminds us regarding Christian maturity: "For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:8)

The Language of Addition
How do we stand for Christ as His ambassador in America without getting depressed? It might be helpful to ask how the apostle Paul kept his cool in Athens as he viewed the various idols built for a pantheon of Greek and Roman gods, or how Daniel was able to function in a pagan Babylonian government that "praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand." (Dan. 5:23) Both men probably had to turn to God often, quiet their souls, and occasionally see some humor in the culture in which God had placed them, all the while realizing that it is ultimately God who changes cultures by working through flawed but redeemed individuals.

Marvin Olasky remarks in Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon on the impractical focus Christians often have on using censure, boycotts, or legislation to erase sinful behavior from American society. He writes: "We need to understand that saying, 'Thou shalt do X because God says so,' leads to blank stares or incredulous glances..."{2} He adds "We should understand that in the American liberty theme park, we cannot eliminate the negative; so our realistic option is to emphasize the positive."{3} A nation that has elevated tolerance and choice to its greatest virtues is much more likely to respond to positive moral alternatives than to chastisement.

Just as Paul offered an alternative to the gods of Athens, we need to be prepared to suggest a Christian alternative to the views held by unbelievers in America. As effective ambassadors everywhere must do, we need to understand the issues of the day and respond in a manner that resonates with the culture.

When P.E.T.A. and others extol the rights of the "species of the month" while saying nothing of the killing of unborn children, we need to suggest the view that children are far more precious than birds, seals, and dolphins. When the splendor and wonder of human sexuality is twisted and perverted in novel ways, we need to be ready to offer the benefits and beauty of monogamous heterosexual unions for both spouses and their offspring. When someone argues that morality is subjective and that anarchy is a reasonable response, we should be prepared to offer a picture of how biblically revealed virtues can profit a society. Using the language of addition will encounter far more listening ears in America than will the language of boycotts, censure, and anger.

The ultimate reason for being an effective ambassador, and for apologetics, is to improve the chances that the gospel will be heard and received. Our mission is not to merely reduce sin but to model Christ so that people will come to know and accept the wonderful message "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them...so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:19,21)


Notes

1. Barna Research Online, [http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=127&Reference=D] (Jan. 30, 2004).

2. Marvin Olasky, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon (Wheaton, Ill:, Crossway Books, 2003), 23.

3. Ibid.


© 2004 Probe Ministries. Copyright/Reproduction Limitations This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2007 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.