Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Two reviews: The Rt. Rev. Daniel R. Morse, M.Div., D.D., and the Very Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw, Th.M., Th.D.,  Dean of Cranmer Theological House

A book recently written by Bishop Kenneth N. Myers, Salvation (and how we got it wrong), sets out to correct centuries of wrong thinking, according to Myers, about the central question of Christianity, how can sins be forgiven. Myers says on p. 14, “Anselm (and the Reformers who followed him) simply got it wrong.” Even more to the heart of the matter Myers says a couple of paragraphs later that he wants to “help people change their understanding not only of salvation, but also of God himself.” In other words, this isn’t a book just about what God does, but about the very nature of God himself.

The form the book takes is a very interesting one—an exchange of letters between Bishop Myers and a young man named Victor Anselmo Boso. Andy, as Victor Anselmo Boso, is referred to in the book, says that he was taught, and believes, that because Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden they were cursed by God, and that since they were unable on their own to pay the penalty for their sins, Jesus Christ paid the penalty by his death on the cross. Myers responds to that letter by saying, “What you have described is indeed the ‘standard’ (or shall I say ‘popular’—because it is most predominant in our part of Christianity) view of salvation. And you are also correct that I don’t believe it.” (p. 27). Myers correctly refers to that view as the Theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and in the rest of the book simply uses the acronym PSA.

There really is nothing new in Myers’ rejection of PSA, which he demonstrates by his very first objection. He asks, “Why should we believe that we are punished for our ancestors’ sin? Adam and Eve sinned. But why should their descendants be punished for their sin? Doesn’t the Bible clearly say that punishment shouldn’t work this way?” To prove his point he quotes Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20, both of which say that a person shall die for his own sins, not for the sins of his parents. This objection is flippantly raised very often by people who have no concept of the teaching of the Bible, and no real desire to find out what it is. They have their objections, and they are not interested in a careful study of the Bible.

Myers just quotes a passage with little introduction and little exegesis; in fact, there is no exegesis in the book. To quote Deut. 24:16; Ez. 18:20 to “prove” that one is not made guilty for another’s sin means there is no covenant representation, on the one hand, and demonstrates that he has no understanding that Paul’s argument in Romans 5, on the other hand, is not that such imputation is always the case but that Adam, the First Adam, was the covenant head of the race and Christ the Last Adam was covenantal head of His elect body. The two Old Testament passages he quoted are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with covenant headship.

In arguing that way Myers fails to appreciate a basic principle of biblical interpretation that a verse taken out of context becomes a pretext for a specious argument. The context of the statements in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is not the same as the context of Genesis 3 when God punishes Adam and Eve and all their posterity with death because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. God created Adam and Eve, as he did everything else, without sin. That is, they had no propensity to sin because they did not have a sinful nature. Genesis tells us that God looked at everything he had made and concluded that “it was very good”. There was no sin in them, and consequently no defilement in their actions caused by a sinful nature.

(To read the whole review, click here)

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

More Guns Less Crime―Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Third Edition, 2010. John R. Lott Jr. 442 pages. Review by the Rev. Dr. Dallas Clarnette, 2013.

On May 13, 2011, a US Senate panel voted along party lines to approve a Democratic bill requiring universal background checks for firearm sales. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 for the bill, which would close a loophole that allows unchecked sales at gun shows and on the internet. Commentators immediately said that passage through the full Congress would be problematic.

To Australians used to background checks any resistance to such a measure seems bizarre. This is only because America’s culture is a gun culture. Australia’s is not.

Of course former Prime Minister Howard’s policy that deprived law-abiding gun owners of weapons did nothing to deprive criminals of their guns. On-going criminal use of guns, homicides, and drive-by shootings underline that fact.  Perhaps the time has come for Australia to revisit the Howard policy. If unarmed citizens are at the mercy of gun-toting thugs, this issue must be addressed. There is good, solid, long- term research that justifies such a review of Australia’s gun laws. Lott’s work provides that.

We all know that Americans fiercely defend their Constitution-established right to own guns. Today, thirty-nine states have right-to-carry laws; ten years ago only eighteen states did. A mail survey of 22,000 police chiefs and sheriffs in 2005 found that 92% believed that law-abiding citizens should be able to have guns for self-defense. According to Lott Jr., his 14 years research shows that about 124 million people live in households owning a total of 270 million guns. Contrary to Australian views about guns as dangerous, he has found that the “National crime rates have been falling … as gun ownership has been rising.” (20) Further, the “fastest growing group of gun owners is Republican women, thirty to forty-four years of age who live in rural area.”

Lest anyone think Lott is a redneck, he is in fact a senior research scholar at the Yale Law School. And the Wall Street Journal, says his fourteen years of research, “is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates.” He has researched “the relationship between gun laws, arrest and conviction rates, the socioeconomic and demographic compositions of counties and states and the different rates of violent crime and property crime.” He also deals with pro and anti gun control claims and how they should be evaluated.

Lott’s 442-page investigation should prompt Australians to revise their views of Australia’s current gun policy. Given the way in which women especially, are liable to be abducted, raped and killed, those who chose to be armed (if allowed to be) would be less likely to die at the hands of murderous rapists. Lott’s research has found that “One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.” Page 21.

This solidly researched work, now in its third revised edition, presents a compelling case for his thesis that more guns (in private hands) mean less crime. Business Week says that Lott’s pro-gun argument has to be examined on its merits. Its chief merit is lots of data. In addition to 442 pages of documented research, there are about 100 different tables and fifty-nine pages of references. Truly, a researcher’s delight!

Here then is body of evidence about attitudes towards guns among Americans be they black or white, unionists, and indeed almost every conceivable social bloc. He also correlates gun ownership with homicide rates and the degree to which guns in private hands actually lead to tragedies. Lott says that during any year private citizens accidentally kill only about 30 people “who mistakenly believe the victim to be an intruder. By comparison, police accidentally kill as many as 330 innocent victims annually.” (Page 2) Lott concludes, “the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime”. The reason is clear – criminals think twice before break and enter attempts. The homeowner may be armed.

Lott also explodes some of the fears people have about guns, which the media tends to exaggerate. For example, people fear that more guns will mean more children accidentally killed by guns. But 2006 statistics show that of 642 accidental firearm deaths only 31 involved children up to nine years of age. But 1697 died in vehicle incidents, 651 died from drowning, and 348 died from fire and burns. Any death is tragic, but guns only accounted for a small percentage of child deaths. Still many want guns to be made safer and propose mandating gunlocks. But if the evidence of privately owned guns shows a decrease in crime then a locked and unloaded gun is no protection. Gunlocks have been favoured in the same way that childproof bottle caps have been promoted. Yet says Lott, the American Economic Review, May 1984 indicates that childproof caps have actually resulted in “3500 additional poisonings of children under age 5 annually from [aspirin related drugs] as consumers have been lulled” into a false sense of security. Lott’s research seeks real answers to hard questions. Too often debates over the issue reveal more heat than light. Events such as the massacre of thirty-two people at Virginia Tech in 2007 favour stronger gun laws, yet when the 7000 strong New Life Church service in Colorado was attacked, a concealed-carry permit holder merely brandishing his weapon averted death. Lott’s extensive research into gun ownership, crime data, handgun laws and crime rates, victims and the benefits of protection, arrest rates, and the politics involved, point to one conclusion: more guns do mean less crime.

Predictably, Lott’s work has been vigorously attacked, but in 40 pages he defends his thesis by demonstrating the dubious logic and selective bias of his detractors. According to Milton Friedman, “John Lott documents how far “politically correct’ vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue.”

Australians probably prefer a gun-free culture. Yet the police are neither numerous or present enough to keep our streets safe. Has the time come, therefore for Australia to permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, as is safely done in USA?

The Rev. Dr. Dallas Clarnette, D. Min.

2013

Australia

I thought that I could not be shocked anymore until I saw this link sent to me by a close friend regarding Duke University providing the money for transgender operations:

Duke University plans to raise its student fees in order pay for students’ sex reassignment surgery.

Duke University recently made the decision to raise student fees in order add sex-reassignment surgery to their healthcare plan.

The private university, located in North Carolina, follows Brown and other universities in offering coverage for the controversial operation.

Administrators say they will cover the cost of the reassignment surgery up to $50,000 that will be covered with a 0.3 percent increase to overall student fees.

LGBT advocates on campus immediately celebrated the university’s decision.

“The addition of sexual reassignment surgery with a $50,000 cap makes Duke’s student health care plan one of the most, if not the most, transgender-inclusive plans in the country,” Sunny Frothingham, the outreach chair for Blue Devils United told the Duke Chronicle last week.

The official plan is in-line with a Student Government Resolution passed last March that called upon the school to cover sex change operations. The school previously covered mental health care, hormone therapy and breast augmentation and reduction surgery to students who wished to change their gender.

There are 37 universities in America that cover sex change operations, according to TransgenderLaw.org.  Emory University is the only other college in the Southeast, besides Duke, to offer sexual reassignment surgery to students.

Here is the link: click here.

Consider the implications of this. First, what happens if the person wants to return to his original gender? From my research, it cannot be done.

Second, what will that do to Duke’s enrollment for those who are straight, which is upwards of 97%? Will they want to attend classes at a school that promotes such? That is not prejudice since that has to do with favoring some because of color, but it is a moral problem, changing one’s sexual orientation when born a different gender. God created us male or female (Gen. 1:27), not with the idea of changing so that one can practice sex from the opposite point of view. If would seem that if one is a man, changes to a woman, yet he is still a man but with different “plumbing.” His sexual relationship as a “woman” with a man would be homosexuality, which is forbidden. If one wanted to repent of his transgender operation because he/she had come to Christ, how would he/she do it? We as Christians must not abandon them, but minister the Lord’s grace. I would suggest that they do not change back, if that is even possible, but they must not have sex with anyone. If they are “married” to a person of the opposite gender of their new gender, they must separate, for the “marriage” is not legitimate in the first place. In other words, they were never married as far as God is concerned.

Third, it would seem that having children would be impossible, but would they be allowed to adopt? Given the direction of our culture, Yes, they would, and given how this would affect the children morally and affect society as a whole, our culture will slide into complete self-destruction.

Fourth, if one had changed from man to woman, and wanted to clone to have children, would not the gender be male, thus indicating they were still a man? Would the new artificially injected hormones make any difference?

Fifth, suppose a woman becomes a man but is not sterilized? Can “he” become pregnant? If so, how in the world will it be done, by artificial insemination?

Sixth, can one’s gender actually be changed? I remain skeptical. It seems that what is changed is the outward “plumbing” to look like the opposite gender, but the hormones, personality, and so forth are still the original person. Chromosomes are stubborn, and one cannot change them from male to female or the reverse. The fact is that if a man becomes a woman “she” cannot produce the monthly egg and have a period. It just won’t work. They can pretend, and that is what it is. They can construct boobs, but they will not produce milk for a baby, which they cannot have anyway. You can change the “plumbing,” but you can’t change the gender. If we use the argument reductio ad absurdum (the bottom line), if everyone adopted that lifestyle, in a generation, at the most two, we would disappear.

Of course some argue that they were born with a tendency toward the opposite sex of their “plumbing,” and thus it is God-ordained and ok. But they forget about original sin, that some are born with Down Syndrome, which does not make it right. There will come a time when the human race will not have defects, at the resurrection, but until then we must not make them the norm.

Once one denies creation, especially that we are made in His image and made male and female, the only limit to degradation is how far God will let them go to self-destruct before He judges them into oblivion. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. For the most part, transsexuals really want weird sex, and all the other arguments are just so much fluff to justify giving themselves over to perversions. The dominoes fall. First, it was homosexuality (LGBT). Now it is same gender orientations, and there will be another step down after LGBT has been accepted—pedophilia, which is already being justified by the “intellectuals.” Bestiality may be bottom line, but who knows? Peter Singer at Princeton is already promoting bestiality, and as one author stated, he has made Princeton not only unsafe for your child but also for your beagle!

But I don’t want to minimize the agony of those who struggle with their feelings versus their “plumbing”; I’m sure it is horrible. Yet the grace of God is sufficient to see them through. But as Christians, let us minister to those who have sexual problems. Many come to know Christ, and their lives are changed, giving up their same sex orientations, giving up their LGBT, and are joyful in their relationships with Christ. Once when I was teaching New Testament Greek in my home, there were storms that kept most from class. We only had a handful so we decided to share how we came to know Christ. One young man said he had been gay, dressing up like women, and having sex with men, often anonymously. Yet he was miserable. He heard how that Jesus loved him, died for his sins, raised Himself from the dead, and that he could have forgiveness of sins and victory over his sexual problem. He trusted in Christ, and that night with tears in his eyes and great joy, he said, “I knew there was a God in heaven when, after my conversion, I saw a nude man and did not desire him.” He was engaged to a fine Christian girl, and they got married. This the power of the gospel! AMEN.

The Next 100 Years, George Friedman, New York: Doubleday, 2009, 253 pages. ISBN 978-0-385-51705-8. Review by the Rev. Dr. Dallas Clarnetts, 2013, Australia

Are we seeing the demise of Western leadership? Does the rise of China threaten America’s supremacy of the Pacific? Is resurgent Islam a time-bomb promising decades of international terrorism, jeopardizing world peace?

According to George Friedman, many Americans have “a deep seated belief that the United States is approaching the eve of its destruction.” He rejects that assessment. The Next 100 Years shows why optimism and excitement is a more appropriate world view. While Friedman admits he has no crystal ball and his projections may be wrong, he believes his organization’s access to intelligence data, and his analyses are credible reasons for Westerners to discard any worrying pessimism.

As founder of Stratfor, a major private intelligence and forecasting company,[1] he believes America’s supremacy in world affairs will continue throughout the twenty-first century. He sees America maintaining a balance between the competing interests of various, but weaker powers. In the distant future he sees the countries best able to compete with USA are China, Japan, Turkey and Poland. This view may surprise some, but he documents his view with good supporting evidence.

For 500 years Europe was the centre of the international system, but America has that status today. In fact, he says the twenty-first century marks the dawn of the American Age. Friedman says “The American economy is so huge that it is larger than the economies of the next four countries combined: Japan, Germany, China and the United Kingdom.” As for Germany and Russia, they will become increasingly unimportant, internationally speaking, over time.

Americans “constitute about 4% of the world’s population but produce about 26% of all goods and services. In 2007, U.S. gross domestic product was about $14 trillion compared to the world GDP of $54 trillion—about 26% of the world’s economic activity takes places in the United States.”

While some may point to USA’s declining auto and steel industries, the country’s $2.8 trillion production (2007 figures) is still the largest in the world, and much more than the combined industrial production of China and Japan.

Economics are however only part of the secret of America’s ongoing prospects. More importantly, USA is the only power that is able to control all of the oceans of the world. Every ship in the world moves under the eyes of American satellites in space and its movement is guaranteed―or denied at will―by the US Navy. This is unprecedented in history. There have been regional navies, and strong ones in the past. But never before has there been one nation able to control all seas at one time. That is the key to America’s continuing dominance of international affairs.

While some predict that China is a rising challenge to American supremacy, he does not agree. China, he says, is inherently unstable economically, isolated physically, and demographically. In fact, despite its vast land mass, it is actually an island! To the east it faces the Pacific Ocean, where US power restricts the ability of the Chinese (and anyone else) to deploy its navy at will. To the west lie the Gobi desert, the mighty Himalayas, and the nations of S.E. To the northwest is Russia’s vast spread and Mongolia in the North. Thus China is hemmed in.

But Friedman’s optimism is also tempered by realism. He predicts a crisis facing America around 2030. He notes a pattern built into American history, whereby “every fifty years or so, the US has been confronted with a defining economic and social crisis.” He says the next crisis will come with the presidential election of either 2028 or 2032. “In its history so far, the United States has had four such complete cycles and is currently about half-way through its fifth. The cycles usually begin with a defining presidency and end in a failed one.” The past cycles ended with the failed leadership of Adams, Grant, Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. Is Obama the end of the present cycle? He doesn’t say. But Obama certainly seems to be defining US politics at present.

Yet says Friedman, whereas America’s air supremacy and global naval presence have always insulated it from hostile threats, Mexico may prove to be its Achilles heel. Mexico’s economy is ranked fifteenth in the world, and it is bound to improve in time. There are four reasons for this. First, its oil, a major export. Second, its proximity to the United States, giving it easy access to the world’s largest market for its developing exports. Third, enormous cash flows remitted back to Mexico from the US from legal and illegal immigrants, currently its second largest source of foreign income. Fourth, organized crime and the drug trade, an unwelcome but important source of funds.

Friedman’s sweeping analyses penetrate much of the complexities surrounding our understanding of contemporary affairs, and leaves the reader with a new spring in his step.

You must read and listen to this link. The infanticide representative is trying her best to be deceptive and not answer the real questions. We read that Satan is a liar and deceives people, who will not speak the truth (John 8:44).

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44).

Follow this link to view one of the most despicable things I’ve ever seen (Pray for the young lady who presented the infanticide.) Here is the link

I heard Bill O’Reilly a few nights ago talk about the failure of Christians, of which he claims to be one, Roman Catholic. He lamented that we were not rising to the occasion to withstand the liberal onslaught against anything Christian. Lamentably, he has a point. As I’ve said many times in the past decade or more, it is not darkness that controls light. Walk into a dark room, turn on a light, and the darkness immediately disappears. The same is true in a spiritual sense, as the Lord taught us. Preach the gospel faithfully, and those who hate  Christians look for the dark to hide (John 3:17-20). Put yourself back in the room that is now full of light that is controlled by a rheostat. We Christians control the light, and we have been turning down the light every so gradually for at least 150 years. Now the god-haters have control of the rheostat, and they are turning down the light with increasing fury. They are removing every vestige of Christianity and its symbols from society. They want a pagan society, and for too long we Christians have obliged them.

But, we are waking up. Apparently, O’Reilly is not aware of it, and I would venture to say it is because he has so little contact with Christians, or the wrong ones. I just hope our “resurrection” is not too late. But here in Houston, for example, we have various pastors’ organizations that are designed to oppose local immorality, like our lesbian mayor. The organization I’m associated with is TXPC, Texas Pastor Council, and there are many such organizations around the country. We have pro-life organizations everywhere, and I’m a member of two, and national organizations that oppose abortion (euphemism for killing babies). We are on the march, and if it is of God, we cannot be stopped—but that remains to be seen. Our efforts are more grass roots and not the flamboyant splash he may be used to.

But O’Reilly really displayed his bias and spin several nights ago when he was very rude to Laura Ingram, a Christian whom he had on his show for an interview. Not only would he not let her talk, but he would speak over her when she tried. She was pointing out what a bad mistake he made saying that so far Christians had only succeeded in “thumping their Bible,” and I heard that horrendous barb myself on his show. Moreover, he said that Christians needed to put away their Bibles and use reason, for that was the only way to reach the liberals (read god-haters), but then some (many?) conservatives are also god-haters. By “God,” I mean the Christian God, the only One, who exists as one being in three persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, when did we start allowing our enemies to tell us what weapons to use? If someone breaks into your house to do you harm and he has a water gun, and says he has the real weapon, are you going to put down your .357 magnum? The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and opens the hearts of unbelievers to understand who God is, who Christ is, who they are, what the gospel is, and what they need to do to be changed. Here is what God says:

  •  18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent1.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor. 1:18-21)

Then on last Saturday (I believe it was, March 30), he interviewed two lovely Christian people who are putting on TV the series on the Bible, and for what I’ve seen, it is reliable to the text of Scripture. They said they wanted to be true to Scripture, and when asked why they were doing it, they said they especially wanted to reach those who do not read much, like teens.

Then Bill asked the Christian lady if she took the Bible literally, saying that (“of course”) much of it was allegorical, whatever he meant by that, not being aware of the varying definitions of it in biblical scholarship. And with condescending tone, he implied that surely she did not think that Adam and Eve were two literal people or that in light of evolution (again without defining if he meant micro- or macro-evolution, but implying macro-) that they would surely not think that Genesis should be taken seriously about creation.

It never occurred to Bill to consider how the Son of God, in whom he claims to believe, thought that the Genesis story of creation was literal and that likewise the one man and one woman was literal:

  • 4 And He [Jesus] answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning  ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’” (Matthew 19:4-5).

The Bible defines its own terms quite well, thank you Bill. The Lord Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, both right out of the creation narrative. The Apostle Paul also quoted Genesis on marriage in Ephesians 5:31, and three times he made an analogy between the first Adam and the Last Adam (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). Moreover, Hosea 6:7 also mentioned that Adam had a covenant with the Lord (as the Hebrew most likely indicates), like Israel. Also, it seems that Job 31:33 is similar to Hosea 6:7: “If like Adam, I have concealed my transgressions, by hiding my iniquity in my heart. . .” The word for “Adam” used without the article, as here, often refers to the person “Adam,” whereas with the article, it often means “mankind.”  Now Bill has to argue with the savior, whom he claims to know, and the apostle Paul, whom he claims his church was built on, and Old Testament references. Even more, Luke in his Gospel in chapter 3, traces the genealogy of Christ back to Adam as the first man. All the other people in the lineage are literal people who lived. Finally, Jude in his one chapter epistle refers to Enoch as “the seventh from Adam.”

To put it another way, Bill implied, when he asked the couple if they took the Bible literally, that there was a choice, an arbitrary choice. If Bill thinks part of it is allegory, I would like to know his definition of allegory, how many allegories he is familiar with, and what characteristics he looks for in an allegory. John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is one very famous allegory where every character has a special name that defines their moral character, such as Christian, Apollyon, Pliable, Obstinate, and so on. It does not pretend to be history. But for at least 3,500 years, biblical scholars have mostly understood Genesis to be history. Bill will not believe Genesis 1-2—and he can take that up with the author later—but don’t call it allegory. Don’t spin it, Bill, for your are truly one of the great spin misters. In the Bible we have real history, cities and rivers that are still there and in the daily news, archaeology that confirms that Pontius Pilate really lived, and so forth. It is not allegory, and even if parts are symbolic, it does not deny the historic. (Paul’s use of the word allegory in Galatians 4:24 simply means a symbol, an analogy or likeness to something, and that something was historical: two women, Sarah and Hagar,  two places, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem; Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, three men that Judaism, Islam, and Christian claim—all these existed and are well known!)

And to compound spin on top of spin and arrogance on arrogance, Bill announced that he was going to write a book titled Killing Jesus, to complement his other works, such as Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, and so forth. Apparently, he fancies himself a great historical scholar; maybe he is, I don’t know. But one thing I do know as one who has spent the last 40 years in the ministry and in academic Christian circles, teaching in a seminary, is that Bill does not know what he’s talking about in this area. He said he would be dealing with the contradictions between the four gospels, and what makes him a biblical scholar? How well does he read Greek, which is the language of the New Testament? Will he only refer to liberal scholars, or will he consult the Church, which has 2,000 years advance in interpreting the four gospels? Will he read St. Augustine and Aquinas?

And after 2,000 years of biblical scholars from Irenaeus to Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin and Luther, not to mention such erudite modern men who have spent careers in the gospels today, such as Darrell Bock, Peter Williams, Hendriksen (deceased), Keener, Leupold, Leon Morris (deceased), Rodney Whitacre, and dozens of others I could name, will Bill even know these men exist and the history of interpretation? Will he know the so-called problems that have been solved of alleged contradictions between the gospels, or will he just repeat the same old stuff? One thing will come of Killing Jesus: true Christian scholars will rise up to refute his errors, as they did Dan Brown’s The Da Vince Code and other pseudo-scholars. If Bill goes the way he implied, his work will be not be anything that Christians will take seriously, at least not for long, and decades after he and I are gone from planet earth, the Church and its gospels will continue. Bill, you are definitely out of your area this time, no matter what National Geographic says, or I should say, especially what they say. To quote him when he analyzes others, “That is insane” to consider himself a biblical scholar.

Indeed, his denial of the Bible’s infallibility is an announcement of his own infallibility, for he will correct its alleged errors. As I’ve said many times over the years, infallibility does not go away, it just changes places. Like the pieces on a chess board, it just moves around.

Moreover, in his interviews this past week, Bill has revealed that he has read little if any true Christian scholarship, for he kept equating faith with ignorance. Down through the centuries, Christians have based their faith on historical events, on logic and reason, and yes, especially on the written word of God, the Bible, which is the only infallible source. But it also it is based on objective historical events, such as the bodily resurrection of Christ. Christian faith is not opposed to reason, as Bill thinks, but as Hebrew 11:1 states: “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” We know with calm confidence that the Bible is supported by science, history, archaeology, and sound reasoning. We reason from the Bible to ourselves, such as Romans 1:18-32, stating that those who engage in same sex unions destroy themselves, which is what we see all round us. To put this another way, it is impossible to live life without assuming the Ten Commandments; otherwise, one self-destructs. But it is God’s word that validates our reason, not reason that proves God’s word. Yet reason is on our side.

Consider the irrationality of Bill and those who hate the Triune God. First, they think that everything came from chaos, from molecules in motion, but as one scientist put it, the silence of the scientific community regarding the origin of all things is deafening. Then everyone uses the laws of logic, which are invisible, invariant, and universal. One cannot even talk without them, but the christophobic people just assume them. Even the laws of grammar must come from one person to another, so how did one person learn to talk so that they came about? Wasn’t it convenient that both male and female came along at the same time, both knowing how to use their “equipment” to get pregnant, and both knowing how to deliver a baby and take care of it? And they call that intelligence!

Then they engage in various logical fallacies. First, O’Reilly is constantly inferring “ought” from “is,” which David Hume demonstrated in the 1700s was not possible. I have an extended treatise on that if anyone wants to send me an email for it, when I finish editing it (cicrenshaw@gmail.com), where I demonstrate from Holy Scripture the same thing. I wrote it about 1975 while in seminary. For example, the liberals argue that since some are born with two genders (“is,” fact), that means anyone should (“ought”, moral obligation) be allowed to decide his gender at any time.

Second, they argue that two men should be allowed to marry, for they love one another as much as those of the opposite gender, to which the Bible demonstrates, in excellent logic, that morality is not defined by love but love by morality (Romans 13:8-10). If love defines morality, then why not kill one another in love?

Third, evolutionists are constantly making a leap by using analogy. Some are dishonest who use variation within a species (micro-evolution, Chihuahua to Great Dane but still a dog) to “prove” that one species can become another one (macro-evolution, fish becomes bird). Some know better, but they fool the public. My rebuttal is that such is not scientific, for one species never becomes another one and has never been observed, which is why they resort to analogy. Moreover, it is only an analogy that a species changing within itself proves that one species can become another one. In other words, because dogs can be bread to be various sizes, colors, and intelligence does not mean a dog can become a cat. There is no scientific observation of that, but only wishful thinking in the form of a loose inductive analogy. Analogies do not prove; they only show similarities. They are inductive (showing maybe), not deductive (showing proof).

Three, I don’t have enough faith to believe something that irrational, but my faith must have evidence, both historical and logical. Bill’s version of reason is apparently autonomous, something that one makes up as he goes along, Enlightenment humanism, which he thinks is what will save our culture, not “thumping the Bible.” You say we need to prove the Bible; we say it proves itself by predicting the results of disobedience to its commands. Example: those who violate God’s sexual commands will contract diseases, destroy children they take care of, if they can figure out how to get them, and we’ll reap the society we have now with all its blatant immorality. We are decaying from within because we think we can be like Adam and Eve—make up our own morality with impunity.

I turn it around on you, Bill: prove reason and the laws of logic? You should say that the only way to prove reason is by using it, to which I saw the only way to prove the Bible is by assuming it. God, a person, created the laws of science and the laws of logic, so when you ask us to prove the Bible, you are assuming it. You assume the rational God who gave it and self-destruct when you disobey, just like He said. You are thumping your reason as final authority without proof while assuming the God you reject who gives the basis for logic.

You assume, dear fellow, that you’re not part of the problem, but with your views you are as much the enemy of the Triune God as the rankest liberal. In fact, your worldview is basically liberal, assuming that man is the measure of all things and that we really don’t need the gospel of Jesus Christ to solve our problems. You keep asking what has happened to our culture in the past decades, and you can’t figure it out. If you would read the Bible, it is simple: we love sin rather than God. We want our immorality, not His morality as seen in the Ten Commandments. The Church, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, is beginning to awaken, if it is not too late for the West. The Holy Scripture preached truly, and taught in sound Christian books is what will win the day, for this is a spiritual war, not just a war between liberals and conservatives, as you and everyone else at Fox News seem to assume, and that is almost the only news I watch. And it must be Christian, not Mormon with its many gods, not Muslim with its death orientation and hate, not Buddhism with its pantheism, and so on. There is only one savior and one gospel, that of Jesus Christ, and we have His authority on that (John 14:6; acts 4:12).

  • 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:11-12).
  • For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18).
  • So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it (Isa. 55:11).
  • 12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account (Heb. 4:12-13).

I fear that with your new book, Killing Jesus, that you will make enemies of those who have followed you. You have already indicated that you’re way out of your area. Don’t try to be an expert where you are not.

I guess you’ll never see this, but I’m praying for you to the Almighty Father through the merits of the Almighty Son in the power of the Almighty Holy Spirit, one God, eternally existing in three equal persons. Amen.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers