Christian Colleges are Compromised

 

You may recall that last week I reviewed a Ken Ham book, Already Gone. It showed some surprising poll results and discussions.  Now I am reviewing another book by the same author, published two years later, called Already Compromised, with some more eye-opening poll results.  In this book, Mr. Ham’s intent was to survey 200 different Christian colleges, interviewing the president, the vice president, the head of the science department, and the head of the religion department—800 people.  But many ducked out or were impossible to reach, so his results were for 312 people. Over 2/3 of the people were from schools associated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, colleges that require all of their professors to sign a personal statement of faith.  The other 89 respondents were from schools that were religiously affiliated through an association with a religious denomination.  The responses were pretty much the same for both groups.

What Mr. Ham found, was, these professors and administrators did not have enough spine to uphold God’s Word, so that they were unclear or compromising in their answers.  They seemed to have “one foot in the door” of the secular world’s wrong and sinful answers to these questions.  Let me give you an example of what I mean:  To the question “Do you believe in the inspiration of Scripture?”  98% said “Yes.”  Wonderful.  Until you think, “What watered-down meaning could “inspiration” have?  “I was painting under the inspiration of Michelangelo.”  So that’s a poor word choice.  So they also asked, “Do you believe in the inerrancy” or “in the infallibility of Scripture.”  Ah-ha—now only 74% to 81% agree.

Of course, the professor/administrator might be counted as one of the 74-81%, and yet argue, “I believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts,” which, of course, we don’t have.  They might assume the process of making copy upon copy through the centuries would necessarily lead to errors and end the inerrancy.  Well, they haven’t read the latest results from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where some of the documents were made around 100 AD (a jump-back of many centuries from oldest copies we had until then)—so these are incredibly close to the original manuscripts.  When compared to the formerly oldest manuscripts that we then had, they found that any differences when comparing Biblical texts, even centuries apart, were minor and did not affect even one doctrinal point of doctrine or history.  None of the texts we had before, challenges any archeological find or historical data. This proves one thing:  Men did a great job of copying—perhaps their respect for God, plus the frequent "rest times" supervisors required of them, did it--or, perhaps God inspired them to the necessary rigor.

So, based on the 74% who believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, we know already that 26%, or ¼ of these college professors and administrators were ready to waffle on the Bible’s doctrines.  More could waffle when they question current manuscripts.  We found the same kind of silliness in answers shows up in the following question: “Do you believe the Genesis account of creation as written?” 90% said “yes.”  Wonderful.  But then a couple questions were asked about the details of Genesis.  Now before I get to them, I should say, if you question the Book of Origins, you open the door to questioning anything you don’t like about the Bible, and you also open the door to secular and sinful belief systems.  Satan has done a great job convincing most of mankind about evolution (which takes more faith than Creation).  But if mankind believes we just evolved from primates, then we can dismiss God from our lives.  But if we are Created in the Image of God, as Scripture says, then we are accountable to Him for our actions—and what the Bible says about hell for us and abiding in Jesus to escape hell—are true.  So you see how important it is to believe in Genesis.  Besides, Jesus confirms the truth of all the stories in Genesis that He commented on; so if you disbelieve them, you are in effect calling Jesus a liar—a dangerous space to be in.

This first detail question comes from the 6 days of creation, in Genesis 1:5ff:  Scripture records each of these creations and ended with “so the evening and the morning were the first day” and “so the evening and the morning were the second day,” and so on.  Why does God point out “evening” and “morning?”  Simple--so we would get the distinct impression that Creation was done in six 24-hour days.  In Hermeneutics, we are told to take the Bible literally, whenever possible.  Well, here’s an easy one:  When it says “evening” and “morning,” does that mean one 24-hour day?  Of course.  We don’t have any trouble with “day” anywhere else in the Bible.  It’s easy to say, the Day of the Lord doesn’t mean one 24-hour day, but 99% of uses of the word “day” are simply speaking of 24-hour periods.  So why do we have so much trouble with “day” being controversial in Genesis 1?  It seems that God must have thought, in thinking about the wording of Genesis, “21^st century people are trying to escape accountability, so I’ll have to accentuate the point of what “day” means by saying “evening” and “morning.””  Well, these professors and administrators didn’t get the message.  So, as we said, “Do you believe the Genesis account of creation as written?” 90% said “yes."  BUT to the question “Do you believe God created the earth in six 24-hour days?”  less than 60% said “yes.”   These are Christian colleges!  40% don’t believe in a literal hermeneutic translation of the Bible. They’ve opened up to be suckered in on evolution.

Well, they might argue by quoting the Gap theory.  They might say, "well, in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth was in the distant past, which creation included angels; but the angels fell, and must’ve created a mess, because in Genesis 1:2 it says “The earth was without form, and void…and the Hebrew words “without form and void” suggests that the earth was ruined and disorderly.  Well, they would then assume that that couldn’t have been the way God created it, which He created in perfection.  So God created the earth itself (no men yet) in the distant past, not in 24 hours; then a mess, then He started over by creating light on the first day of re-creation, etc."  That gives them room to believe in a billion-year-old earth AND six 24-hour days.  The real problem is, there’s no proof for it in archeology--the impressive effects of the Flood dominate all archeology, if anyone even believed in it.

Every single lecture I’ve heard on the Gap theory, they “fill in” the Gap by saying the Gap was millions of years, and that’s when dinosaurs ruled, and they died, and left their bones, and that’s why their bones seem millions of years old.  (And they might throw in the evolution cycle in the Gap, too.)  The problem with these “Gap fill-ins” is, this assumes death happened before Adam, who came along later, and then sinned—BUT death couldn’t have been in the picture until after Adam sinned—as Scripture points out when it contrasts him to Jesus--Adam brought death, Jesus brought life (Romans 5, I Corinthians 15).  So it seems to me that these interviewees are swayed against Scripture by secular dates for the world, the “radiocarbon” method, and so on. But those methods have a record of inaccuracy.  And, besides, couldn’t God have created the earth with age built in?  Or, couldn’t a world-wide Flood involve the kind of pressure to create coal and oil deposits?  My point is, they were desperate to bring "modern science" into their views, which must mean they choose secular over Bible's inerrancy.  These professors  would pass this along to the students.

Oh, yes, the Flood.  Secular theorists make fun of Noah’s Flood.  But did you know that there are oral stories about a flood in every society in the world?  And don’t anthropologists say that if there is a similar story everywhere, then the story has a basis in fact--that the Flood happened everywhere. Well, the Christian professors and administrators haven’t heard that, I guess.  They’re spending too much time listening to the secular views here, too.  To the question, “Do you believe in the flood of Noah’s day?”  91% say “yes.”  Wonderful. BUT when asked “Do you believe the flood was worldwide, local, or nonliteral (i.e., a fable), only 58% said it was worldwide!  Again, 42% don’t believe their Bible, since Genesis 7:19-21 says:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. ²⁰ ….and the mountains were covered. ²¹ And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

When you read this, these 42% have no excuse for ducking out of the Bible; these verses flat-out means that 42% don’t believe the Bible. Like I said, if they bend the knee to the satanic secularist in Genesis, they’ll listen to them first anywhere else it’s important.  If the Flood was just local, then God’s purpose…destroying every living person on earth (except Noah and family) would be frustrated.  As Genesis 6:7 says:

 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

 The problem here is much bigger than you might first imagine.  First, by not believing Genesis 7:19 about the Flood being worldwide, they are forced not to believe Genesis 6:7 either.  Making God out to be a liar twice—again, a dangerous place to be.  But even bigger is, this is a slander on God’s character.  They refuse to believe that God would kill every person on earth (except 8 people).  But the Bible explains God’s reason, which they evidently also don’t believe, in Genesis 6:5-6:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ⁶ And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

This means that God will judge unrepentant sin harshly.  We don’t appreciate how much He hates sin, how holy He is.  We don’t appreciate how much we sin, how little we even think about it, or how much it offends God.  Or how much of a price Jesus paid, or how bad hell is, or how much we’re saved from.  We can’t thank God enough until we spend some time thinking on these things.  But distorting God’s Word, avoiding some of it, and then teaching only part of God’s character, is a terrible sin too. 

We should be very careful to believe and obey what His Word clearly says, and that responsibility goes especially for teachers of His Word.

 Ken Ham believes the term “newspeak,” from Orwell’s classic 1984, is being replicated in today’s colleges.  Words mean different things to different people.  When they asked the professors/administrators “What does your institution teach about the Bible?” only 35% gave a straight answer, “It is true” (but do they mean every word is Literally true? Hmm.)  But 23% said “it is a book of guidelines,” which seems to suggest that one could take it or leave it without reprisal (thus making Man the judge of God). And 9% said “we teach it, then dissect it,” which (considering what “dissect” really means) strongly suggests some negative comparisons would be taught, thus questioning God's commands—again, making Man the judge of what doctrines are good, what doctrines are bad. Students need to avoid 32% of their professors, when you put those numbers together.

Another surprising poll result was found by comparing the heads of the religion departments and the heads of the science departments.  Take a gander at the results below:

Question: “Do you believe the Flood was worldwide, local, or nonliteral?”  Only 57% of the religion department heads believed it was worldwide.  And 12% believed it was “nonliteral,” or a fable. Like Jack and the Beanstalk.  These folks ought to pray about their eternal futures. But the poll questions below is where the real surprises come in:

Question: “Do you believe in God creating the earth in six 24-hour days?”  Only 57% of the religion departments said “Yes,” BUT 71% of the science department heads said “yes.”

Question: “Would you consider yourself a young-earth, or old-earth Christian?”  Keep in mind that if Creation were done in six, 24-hour days, you’re a young-earth fan. The religion department said “old-earth” 78% of the time, unfortunately, but the science department were less enthusiastic about this theory. They said “old-earth only 35% of the time!

What I think we’re getting about this data is, the science department keeps track of the incredible detail in the DNA, and how generations of species all stay within their families, and how the universe is finite, and how the earth is in a perfect environment in 34 different ways, just to support Man; and they have more often seen that Darwin’s theories are all sketchy.  The religion department probably gets a lot of criticism for supporting the Bible, and have wavered in their support even more.  Maybe they don’t know the latest discoveries of science, which favor Creation.

I need to mention that Mr. Ham does not mince words on exposing professors that garble on Scripture, pointing fingers, and naming names, of 12 especially guilty men, and their big-name colleges, in the Appendix.  He also has high praise for one college, in West Virginia, no less, that gets it.  And he names all the colleges that participated in the survey in a website as well.  You Christian parents--you want to read that before you begin supporting your son or daughter in a "Christian" college.

Now let’s give Ham’s summary quote—including other data that I haven’t covered:

 ....If you send your students to a Christian college or institution, three out of four times in school they will likely be in front of a teacher who has a degraded view and interpretation of Scripture…Like it or not, we are at war—a war of worldviews… What most families are not aware of, however, is the depths to which these secular influences have infiltrated Christian institutions.”

The future looks even bleaker.  With his question, “Do you believe the Flood was worldwide, local, or non-literal?” the Presidents of the institutions said “worldwide” 87% of the time; but the Vice President (the future president, in many cases) agreed only 43% of the time!  My question is, where are they getting these vice presidents from? Are they not asking penetrating interviewer questions? Let’s assume the VP is younger.  Does this mean younger people are all more skeptical, or that they’re hiring VPs now from secular schools, or that seminaries have gone corrupt over the years? None of these possibilities are good signs.

Since the VP is usually behind the hiring of faculty, a confused VP cannot be counted on to hire those who believe in the Scripture being God’s Word.

Mr. Ham’s book here is a great read.  My suggestion to parents of college-bound kids—Train your child in Scripture yourself, as early as possible!  And live a godly life with prayer and Bible reading frequently.  Many Christian colleges won’t do the job of supporting a truly Christian worldview.  They’re infected with secular-thinking professors and administrators.

Acknowledgement:  Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised.  Master Books, 2011.

 

A Revealing Poll

 

A great sermon by Dr. John MacArthur summarized:

There was recently a survey of ‘evangelicals.’  People were defined as evangelicals if they believed the Bible, if they believed Jesus and the resurrection, the gospel, and if they felt they were responsible to communicate the gospel to other people.  Those who believed this were considered evangelicals.

Check this, though: the survey revealed that the majority of ‘evangelicals’ really have no idea what they believe.  One survey question posed to evangelicals was, “The Holy Spirit is a Force, not a personal being”; 53% of evangelicals agreed. That would mean there is no Trinity. Another question: “the Bible is literally true,” agree or disagree?  Only 45% of evangelicals agreed. Evidently, they must feel that much of Scripture is fable. Probably when it records supernatural events, people are definitely less likely to believe it. They might say, ‘how can someone live 900 years?’  Finally, “Our God accepts worship from all religions.”  56% agreed. But truth is, every religion except one has the wrong view of Jesus, and He is the only Way to heaven. Here is the worst result of all: “Jesus was a good teacher, but not God.”  43% of evangelicals agreed! It seems that half of evangelicals care little about theology, and many are apostate—without knowing it.

This is so shocking, that anybody who presumably has a sound sense of Biblical doctrine could ever answer “agreed” to these untruths.  How did we get ‘evangelicals’ who don’t believe what is necessary to be saved, let alone be a true evangelical?   Dr. MacArthur believes “this is the legacy of their pastor or leaders.”  People don’t rise above their teachers.  Truth is, the evangelical pastors and churches, over the last 30 years, have been too busy trying to find ways not to offend non-Christians, and trying to take the offenses out of the message.  They design ‘salvation’ approaches to non-believers that don’t engender hostility, or rejection.  But that man-truth voids the gospel of the truth. Such pastors are man-scared—but not God-scared—for preaching a false gospel. In reality the gospel requires humility and submission to accept. But that’s a hard thing for people to do.

Why do they react this way?  Because, honestly, the gospel is offensive.  The ‘good news’ is hated by non-believers. For proof, see John 15:18:

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.

One thing that the original disciples knew, people of the world hated Jesus.  Especially they hated the Jews.  (The “Christians” had a large part in causing this).  People professed that they followed God--but Jesus is God Incarnate, contrary to their ‘beliefs.’.  But once they heard the message of Jesus and He preached it, they rejected it—and Him. But why the hate—toward Him who was the most merciful, compassionate, loving Person in all the world?  Here’s the answer, in blunt language in John 7:7:

The world…hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

The whole human race is sinful.  But that ‘negative view of me’ brings out hate in everyone unsaved. People generally consider themselves ‘good enough,’ so they have a dominant sin of Pride. It’s easy to create an image of ourselves that seemingly escapes ultimate condemnation—by spinning a web of delusions about ourselves.  Man says that he is ‘better than most’—he will say anything without acknowledging that his ‘deeds are evil.’ This is pride in operation—we all are sinners, and unacceptable to God without a supernatural feat—being born again.

You can see, in the Gospel of John, how the hate plays out.  In 5:16, the offense was He was doing these miracles on the Sabbath.  He could have avoided much of the hate by only doing God’s work six days a week, but God doesn’t work under man’s restrictions.  Limiting God?  Who would do that?  In 5:18, Jesus said the Jews were plotting already to kill Him.  It’s only the fifth chapter of John and they want Him dead already. Note in those three verses that His persecutors were not listed as “Pharisees,” but Jews. And this: The crowd made quite a noise in demanding that Barabbas be freed. And think how many were even insulting Him at the Cross?

Of equal offense to them was that Jesus called God His Father, making Him equal with God in the Jewish religion.  They judged that ‘blasphemy.’  Of course, their thinking was irrational because His deeds were things that only God could do.  Later in John, they tried to arrest Him. They wanted to stone Him, but His time was not yet.

Isaiah 53 prophesied that He would be an offense. Definitely proven true; the Jewish leaders treated Him as nobody, nothing.  But He was compassionate to widows, to the disabled, to the children.  He brought a message of eternal life and forgiveness. In John 8, Jesus says “you cannot hear my words—you are of your father, the devil.” A hard slap against their character. But please don’t judge the Jews alone:  ALL OF US began life separated from God, and our father was the devil.  And he still is, unless we are truly saved.  We do not start out ‘innocent,’ you see?  We got this terrible trait from Adam.

Jesus, in John 8:45, says,

But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me

The world’s minds have a natural tendency to be irrational on this subject. We are pre-programmed to believe lies—because, as Jesus says, the devil—our father if we are not saved—is the father of lies. This is a profound diagnosis of the human condition. Please don’t fall into the trap of excessive pride; face up to the truth. We are sinners; in the eyes of a perfect, holy God we deserve hell. He is our Judge; we cannot change where we are by yelling “unfair.” Submit to the Lordship of Jeus over your life. He owns you, having given His life to buy you out of slavery to sin. Seek His will, since He loves you and knows what you need more than you. Otherwise, it could cost you eternal life.

So the Jews concluded about Jesus, ‘you have a demon. Not us.’ But that is the worst blasphemy of all.  Their world was inverted.

Dr. MacArthur gets back to his original complaint:  I don’t know what kind of evangelistic strategy you, as an evangelist, can devise to tell the truth and yet overcome the natural human resistance that results; the truth is, you can’t.  Think of this:  Jesus had no strategy to bypass reality.  We are, before we reached out to Christ, sinful, dead, blind, ignorant, darkened to the Scriptural facts, and under satanic control. This truth is alien to our nature.

When we “evangelize,” we talk the gospel, but we have a fear of being ‘brutal’ and so we avoid certain subjects, like the depth of human sin.  To speak of that harsh truth takes courage, a willingness to obey Jesus who said we must endure persecution when we tell all the truth.  When they begin lashing back, we should train ourselves to think, that’s what we expect, a further evidence of the sinful characteristics of man.  Jesus said we should rejoice when this occurs—even though we kick ourselves because we could have said it better.  We hope for them to think rationally and grasp the truth. We thought that ‘that person seemed a wise thinker.’

A side thought: I must reveal the Calvinistic sway of Dr. MacArthur here, his belief in Total Depravity.  The words of Calvin say that we have no capacity to receive the truth, until the Holy Spirit puts the spark of regeneration in us first.  That work is done by God randomly, without regard for our previous moral behavior or not.  God chooses who is saved and who is not saved—and the latter is doomed to be hell-bound.  I do not believe in this, since I consider it a non-Scriptural characteristic of God.  I agree more with Jacob Arminius, who argued against Calvin in the 1600s by stating that God gave us ‘prevenient grace,’ that He gave us enough will to choose Him, even in our tragic condition, if we desired to seek after Him. 

But let’s not get sidetracked.  Our subject is how we have strayed from the whole gospel because people hate to hear it. Because people are so hostile--and the feeling is, “how can we convert them in this state of hostility?  Because of their hostility, they’re not thinking straight, so let’s avoid that subject.”  Truth is, people aren’t thinking straight to begin with.  You can’t do anything to prevent it.

You must let the Holy Spirit work in your prospects’ heart. We laid the seed—if we gave the whole truth, God will approve. That’s all that counts.

You should burn the bridge totally, by telling them that they are under eternal judgment of Judgment.  Paul does that at the Areopagus on Mars Hill, Acts 17:29-34:

…we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. ³⁰ Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, ³¹ because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

³² And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” ³³ So Paul departed from among them. ³⁴ However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

He gently attacks idols, but turns the heat on and calls their beliefs in them “times of ignorance.” Then he suggests that they repent, or turn their mind away from this—because the real God will judge them, through a Man who has been raised from the dead. Likely they had heard of this “Jewish fantasy.” Paul was not as sophisticated as they were used to, as ‘everyday philosophers,’ but he did know how to present the whole truth.

Some mocked, some called him a “babbler.” But some would do some thinking, and a few believed.

That’s the way you should expect it to go. Matthew 7:13-14 says few are saved.

But what evangelistic preaching do you hear now? ‘Jesus wants you happy, He wants you successful.  They imply that He is willing to satisfy your carnal desires without pain, without inconvenience.  Truth is, He paid the price on the Cross for our sin—so we are His servants, we should avoid our carnal desires, but simply seek His will for all we do in all our lives.  We realize how we deserve hell (for ANY sin to a perfect God), but we who are willing to be His disciples can gain heaven if we endure, so we love Him for saving us from hell, and are willing to do that.  We aspire to the goal of seeking earnestly in Scripture for His commands, to find true godliness, and in developing love for our Savior.

Today’s sermons tend to leave off the sinful condition that we’re born into.  It avoids that Jesus is the Judge, the Son of God whose second coming will be for judgment as well.  When you die, your destination is fixed, hell or heaven, depending totally on your relationship with Christ while alive.  Today’s gospel twists the simple fact that Every word in Scripture—even the negative ones—are all true.  By not preaching on some subjects, we still think we ‘follow’—but we don’t believe in those subjects.

By doing this, we paint God as an idol of our own making, a grandfatherly, forgiving type, ignoring the Old Testament.   That god accepts pretended humility from all religions.  Hence the terrible answers that you see in the poll, as proof that what I’m saying is an accurate conveyance of this false and incomplete understanding rampant in society.  No other religion has this doctrine, even false forms of ‘Christianity,’ even the Jews in Jesus’ time (they twisted the truths in Old Testament Scripture).  They are all dooming more people to hell, teaching that basically, we are good, and we can reform ourselves into a better life (or lives), and eventually, through purgatory or temporary renewal, as long as we try, be sincere, can hopefully gain heaven.  Or universal peace. This way, they say, God will approve of our righteousness. Most people go to church to relieve some guilt.  Most pastors don’t shake them from this fable.  People in the pews, who say they are Christian, hate the bad news that they are sinful, according to God—and thus reveal that they don’t begin life Christian, even if baptized.  Most pastors are deluded enough to believe that the people that are there regularly are Christian.  But the pew-sitters believe lies, nuanced distortion of the truth, believe what’s convenient, like the survey above shows.  Many of their pastors would get fired if they preached the truth for more than three weeks straight.  So it has come to be in America. The best Scriptural summary for our history might be in Ephesians 2:1-3--you decide if you are before or after:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, ² in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan), the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, ³ among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

The concluding statement says that we are all hell-bound, unless we grasp Christ as our Savior, and hang onto Him with all we have. Are you in Ephesians 4:18?

…having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart

Ephesians 4:19 adds the word “callous” in the ESV. That means that our minds, if we remain unsaved, are scarred over by ignoring Him so that we cannot sense the truth. 

God can be a killer. In Genesis 6, God destroyed humanity except 8 people, saying all He saw was evil continually. Jeremiah 17 says our hearts are desperately wicked.  Scripture spells out the sad facts and destination for us, if we don’t dispose of pride and grasp Jesus, who is God, in humility to avoid hell.  We don’t have to look far for it.  Jesus raised the issues of hell and final judgment in EVERY chapter of Matthew, from chapter 3 to 25.

Dr. MacArthur simply finally says that we must be reborn, as Jesus told Nicodemus.  Truly we cannot fix ourselves, our ‘reforming ourselves’ to heaven is not an option.  Truly, we don’t know where the source that sparks our salvation comes from.  Maybe we can’t ‘see the light,’ and get the real gospel. We are here maintaining simply the main point of the sermon; that we need to get the truth of Man back into the gospel to appreciate the deep love and sacrifice of God.  We need that aspect of the gospel to have the motivation to realize that we need to cling to Him, that we want to forward His kingdom by anything He wants us to do.  Only by knowing all the gospel will we be eager to read Scripture to know more about all three Persons of God. Only with the true gospel will we be eager to follow our Lord’s commands, to please Him and to know what godliness really is.  Today’s preached “gospel” leads to ‘mental assent’ salvation, not deep-rooted enough to fight off the worldliness.  If you still have worldliness, you have idols—of materialism, of envy, of greed, of jealousy.  God does not save idolaters at the Judgment, because there is no love for Him there.  Today’s gospel leads to a Church of Laodicea salvation, which is not a salvation at all; as Revelation 3 says, He will vomit some of us out of His mouth—thus, we would not be part of His body.  Let us spread the word. The reason why churches have lost their power is because they most teach a false gospel. I urge you to read Scripture, and find out what Scripture really says.  Try reading the Gospels first.  Your eternal life or hell depends on it. May God bless you.

 

 

 

 

 

Can We Know the Exact Day When Christ was Crucified?

 First clue to finding the correct day: In Jesus’ time, the seventh day, Sabbath, or Saturday to us, was a day in which no real work is to be done. It followed the example of God at Creation. In Jeremiah 17:22, God says…nor carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, nor do any work, but hallow the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.

That means they had to double-gather crops for food on Friday. So Friday was called the day of Preparation. As it so happens, all four Gospels record Jesus’ death and crucifixion on a Preparation day, so He was presumably crucified on a Friday (Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54, and John 19:14). Friday was also accepted by the earliest church fathers and scholars through the ages.*

A second clue: Jesus is crucified on a Passover day, which happens once a year. John 18:28-29 says:

Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. 29 Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?”

This is important. Passover is on the 14th of Nisan, a specific date in a Hebrew month. So that means, of course, its day of the week changes year-to-year. But we now know that Jesus was crucified in a year in which Passover, Nisan 14, is on Friday. That narrows the field.

A third clue: As you can see in the previous verse, Jesus was crucified when Pilate ruled. Scholars have no trouble giving the years: AD 26-36.

A fourth clue: Luke 3:23 records that Jesus was “about 30 years of age” when He began His ministry. John records Jesus attending three Passovers: 2:23, 6:4, and 13:1. This narrows the field further (assuming birth in 2 BC, see my “Birth of Jesus”  blog), to Jesus being crucified from AD 28 up to the early 30s.

Nisan 14 happens on Friday only twice during this time period: 4/7/30 and 4/3/33. Which is it?

To get the final answer, oddly, we turn our attention to Sejanus, an extreme anti-Semite and Pilate’s boss through late 31 AD. Pilate, to conform to his wishes, did terribly brutal things to Jews, and denied their every request—just to tick them off. But Sejanus was assassinated 10/18/31, along with many of his appointees (but not Pilate). Then, Pilate’s new boss had an opposite approach to the Jews: “Leave the Jews alone unless they threaten to insurrect.” Pilate, to conform to this, to save his skin, had to be careful not to appear cruel.

 Here’s the question: Since Pilate was ambivalent toward Jesus (John 19:12), which leader was he under? Pilate couldn’t have been under Sejanus, so it must be that Jesus was crucified after his death, which happened 10/18/31. Of our two possible dates above, we now have only one choice:

Jesus was crucified on April 3, 33 AD

Maybe you’re thinking “That year selection seems sketchy, perhaps it was the other date and Pilate was just feeling good, or he wanted to give Sejanus a hard time.” Well--there are lots more confirming evidence about the date we chose—typical of the Bible’s layering of proofs, its unassailable accuracy.

 We can nail down the year a second way: check Daniel 9:25-26, KJV:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks… 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off…

First off, the word “weeks” is incorrect—the Hebrew word is “sevens.” But seven what—days, months? If you make a week 7 years, then “seven weeks” becomes seven sevens, or 49 years, and “62 weeks” becomes 62x7, or 434 years. Then you get “from the going forth of the command…until Messiah there shall be” 49+434, or 483 years…and after (that), Messiah shall be “cut off”-- killed.

Then you need to know that the Jewish people had a 360-day lunar calendar, vs our 365.24 day solar one. So from the king's “command” to restore Jerusalem to the killing of Messiah is 483 x 360/365.24=476 of our years.

It also happens that the “command to restore and build Jerusalem” came under the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1-6). Historical books confirm this as 444 BC. Adding 476 years (and considering that there is no year between 1BC and 1 AD), you get 33 AD as when Jesus was “cut off.”!

You’re still not convinced? Here’s a third proof where the sky comes in. A mathematician named Kepler proved (see, again, our "Birth" blog) that the positions of the stars and planets are absolutely predictable, in the past and future. Now note the period of darkness in His crucifixion. In Mathew 27:45:

Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.

Changing Roman time to our time, this means darkness from noon to 3 pm—so 3 pm was when Jesus died (Matt 27:46-50), as soon as darkness ended.

Now turn to Acts 2:20, 22, and 31, where Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, only ten days after Jesus had been ascended into heaven after His resurrection, quotes a prophecy in Joel 2:30 (this was in the Old Testament, hundreds of years before He was born as a human), about the Anointed One—and then makes some intriguing remarks:

“The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood…” Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ… ²³ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

He is saying that this prophecy had recently been fulfilled--and that the crowd he was speaking to had seen these signs, the darkness AND the “blood moon”—which is a lunar eclipse. In such an eclipse, the sun, the moving earth, and the moon are lined up (briefly while the earth passes by) so that the moon only gets sunlight around the edges of the earth, but refracted through the earth’s atmosphere. The moon, from the earth, takes on an eerie redness. Jesus died when the moon was red. This would’ve spooked everyone (along with the graves being opened, and “zombies” walking about—oh, yeah—Matthew 27:52). So Peter is reminding everyone of this creepy event. Odd that the Gospels don’t record the blood moon when it happened (perhaps because it was not quite a complete eclipse), but this quote by Peter definitely proved it happened at His crucifixion. Evidently no one in the audience accused him of lying that those events actually happened; Scripture reports the good and the bad.

Well, as it so happens--There was a lunar eclipse and a blood moon on 4/3/33!

Thus you have my three proofs of His crucifixion day. (For a deeper analysis of how we can know the exact day, see my “birth” blog comments and the author’s notes in my source).

At the very same time Jesus died, Jewish priests were sacrificing innocent lambs to be eaten at Passover, a holiday celebrating freedom of slavery from Egypt, and for escaping the Angel of Death. This conjunction of Passover and Crucifixion was no coincidence; it was in the plan of God. Jesus was our Lamb, voluntary sacrificed and temporarily given to the hand of Satan as payment for our sins. Our salvation frees us from the slavery of sin, and His blood, applied to our hearts, saves us from eternal death—and brings us eternal life.

Thank You, God, for your incredible accuracy. Wise men follow the Lord.

What you can’t miss in all this, is an unassailable fact: from the moment our omniscient God flung the stars out in space, He positioned them knowing that there would be a redemptive plan that we would need to approach Him because of our sin. He knew then that His very own Eternal Son would have to die. His power then raised Him in Resurrection like He can raise us again—if we believe and follow His commands—with the help of the Holy Spirit given to us at our initial salvation. He left His love letter to us, His Word, the Bible. It is perfect in its accuracy, as we have seen here, as perfect as God is in His grace. Let us read His Words to us to learn how we can avoid Hell and make it to Heaven. Scripture says that most people go to Hell (Matthew 7:14). His Word is the way to life in heaven.

(PS: Some of these proofs are not on the DVD, but in the “study” section on bethlehemstar.com.

* In case some of you are still scratching your head about Jesus spending 3 days in the tomb, when He was crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday, there is a simple answer. Who said He had to spend 3 days in the tomb? Yes, Matthew 12:40 says “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Translators might have failed us here. The phrase “in the heart of the earth” doesn’t necessarily speak of the tomb—it may speak of in the core of Satan’s grasp. I’m using the reputed W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. The Greek word “earth” doesn’t necessarily speak of burial. Quoting Vine’s again: “the earth (is) the world...where the context suggests the earth as a place characterized by…weakness.” (Does the crucifixion of this Man suggest our weakness? Definitely.) If you know what Grok is, this is an alternative translation: τῆς γῆς (tēs gēs) = "of the earth" (from gē, meaning earth, land, ground, or the world/soil)

Remember, Jesus had dodged their capture time and time again, saying “my time has not yet come.” But in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus emphasized something else: Then he came to the disciples and said, “Sleep now and take your rest . . . The time has come! I am into the hands of evil men! (TLB)

This is saying, Jesus gave Himself over to Satan on Thursday at the Garden. He was in Satan’s wicked hands from Thursday until Sunday morning suffering and paying for our sin. (He suffered much before the Cross). Thus He was in the heart of the earth’s wickedness for 3 days…and nights, just as Jonah was under the sway of the big fish for 3 days. (P.S. This lengthy note is not from Prof. Larson, but from Amazingfacts.org).

 

Martyrdom Then and Now

 Jesus gave His life, but He was not a martyr.  He was God in the flesh, and the only One who was capable to pay the price for our sin—which was/is a problem, since God is holy. He was our Sin-bearer.  Isaiah 53:4-6 gave this prophecy:

Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.⁵ But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way (NKJV);
And the Lord gave Him up for our sins (LXX).

Jesus has rescued us from hell, the place we deserved for our sin.  So now he has a rightful claim on us; our lives are His.  He asks that we follow His commands.  Some of those commands, when carried out, threaten Satan’s domination of the earth.  So, if we are to clearly live our faith, we might have to give our life.  But as Jesus said in Matthew 10:24-26, 27-28:

A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.²⁵ It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub (which means Lord of the flies), how much more will they call those of his household! ²⁶ Therefore do not fear them….  “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. ²⁸ And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

“Those who kill the body” include people and Satan. But “Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” means God. Our soul is more important than our bodies. Our soul determines where we spend eternity. Jesus knew that those who believe and abide in Him are set for an eternity with Him, thank God.  But if we are to abide in Him, we cannot weaken in those crucial moments, if such moments should arrive.  We must assert we are His and not deny Him when persecution heats up.  To do that would put our soul in eternal danger. So let’s look at martyrdom carefully, face to face…..

Man’s inhumanity to man is often most destructive in religious zeal. Satan’s emissaries seem to be working hardest in this arena, knowing that if they can get “Christians” to kill Christians, it tears down the reputation of Christ the most.  In men’s demonic state of irrational hatred, morality is lost, and unimaginable cruelties on innocent people are “justified” on religious grounds. We know of the recent outbreaks of horrors by ISIS.  Need I remind you, they are a group grounded in the religion of Islam, whose Quran teaches them to hate Christians (see my other blog for proof).  You should also read up on Boko Haram, an Islamic State Western Province group, who since 2009 have killed 20,000 in Nigeria and displaced 2.3 million people from their homes.  In Nigeria, many whole villages had previously turned to Christ.  Boko Haram targets these villages and raids them with guns and machetes, carrying on unspeakable slaughter against Christians.  Boko Haram began his career by listening to an Islamist preacher, Mohammed Marwa, renamed Maitatsine (meaning: the one who damns) in the 1970s..

But these horrors are just a repeat of the past, I’m sorry to say.  Past martyrdom was uglier--it was done, not by Islam vs. Christian, but by "Christian" vs Christian. In the 1400-1600s, it was Catholics killing Protestants, and even some Protestants killing other Protestants.  But--when it came to a group so pure as the Anabaptists, their Christianity was so Christlike that they were “dangerous” to established religion--so both Protestants and Catholics went about killing them. Luther and Calvin were Protestants, but also found excuses to kill them.  Not surprising, since Luther and Calvin were incomplete reformers of the Gospel (as I have proven in my other blogs).  The Anabaptists were closer to Kingdom living, the real gospel, than they were, generally. Though some Anabaptists went off the rails, too..

With “Christians” killing Christians in those days, the problem is that in that time, entire nation-states declared themselves Catholic “Christian” or Protestant "Christian," and many people were coerced, or intimidated, into going through the motions of accepting God on their terms, and people were trained, from birth, to hate the other--but hatred is not Christian. They ignored the Bible, which plainly speaks out against hate. But there were actually few who really read their Scripture (the Catholics made sure of that) AND followed Christ's commandments--those were the real Christians.  The haters, especially those who killed other religious observers, though, were Christians in name only. After all, who attacked Jesus with the most abusive language?  The religious leaders, who twisted Scripture to gain wealth and reputation.  And did Jesus say many people would be saved, or be a real Christian?  No.  Read Matthew 7:13-14:

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I have other blogs exposing the truth about terrible things done by Calvin and Luther, both Protestants. For balance, I would like to lift some enlightening literature from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Martyr’s Mirror, exposing horrific deeds done by Catholics.  There are three things I would like to say.  First:  Don’t read this to your kids. The things that were done are just too grisly to repeat.  Secondly, this is not a sad tale, really.  The endurance of these real Christian martyrs, and their uplifting words, are an inspiration to all.  In Christ, they really knew the meaning of Paul’s words—“O death, where is thy sting?”  Thirdly, these stories—even their quotes—are not exaggerated fables.  Foxe lived in the 1550s, in the midst of it all, and most of the Mirror, from the 1600s, both of my volumes--were taken from contemporary journals.  May God allow you to be horrified—and yet inspired to Him—as you read.

Our first reading is subtitled “the Valleys of Piedmont in the 1600s.”  (These were the Waldenses, one of the earliest groups protesting against Catholicism's departure from Scripture. The Waldenses were persecuted in northwest Italy and Switzerland).  Here is the quote:

Pope Clement VIII sent missionaries into the valleys of Piedmont, to induce the Protestants to renounce their religion.  These missionaries erected monasteries…(which became) sanctuaries for all cowards to fly to that had injured the Waldenses). This inspired them to further assaults.  The Protestant Waldenses, therefore, petitioned the duke of Savoy for protection.  But instead of getting any redress, the duke published a decree, in which he declared that one witness should be sufficient in a court of law against a Protestant, and that any witness who convicted any Protestant of any crime whatsoever should be entitled to a hundred crowns reward.  As may be imagined, many Protestants fell martyrs to perjury and avarice.

To encourage the apostasy of the Protestants, the duke published a proclamation that exempted from all taxes for five years if the heretics would recant and embrace the holy Roman faith.  There were also several successive edicts, prohibiting the Protestants from acting as schoolmasters, from holding any places of profit, trust, or honor, and commanding them to attend mass.  This last, if ignored, was a sure signal for a persecution, which soon followed. (The Waldenses said that the mass was not the body and blood of our Lord, and the Catholics committed blasphemy.)

Before the persecution commenced, the missionaries employed kidnappers to steal away the children of the Protestants, that they might privately be brought up Roman Catholics.  Later they took away children by open force, and if the poor parents resisted, they were immediately murdered.  One of the first persons who attracted the notice of the papists was Mr. Sebastian Basan, a zealous Protestant teacher, who was seized by the missionaries, confined, tormented 15 months to effect recantation, and then committed to the flames (i.e., burned at the stake).

That was followed by a most cruel order, dated January 25, 1655, that every family of the reformed religion, inhabiting estates in Lucerne, St Giovanni, etc, (in Switzerland) within three days of publication of said order, must depart out of said places, and translated into the places tolerated by his highness—namely Bobbio, Angrogno, etc. In between was a mountainous terrain.  And all this was to be done on the pain of death, and confiscation of house and goods, unless within the limited time they recanted and turned Roman Catholic.

The winter was remarkably severe.  (Ed: This trip was, on average, 140 miles through the Alps, so they spent many overnights outdoors.  But they were unfamiliar with living in wilderness, and hadn’t had time nor money, to pack for this weather.)  The duke’s troops drove them from their habitations and were assisted by French troops, Irish brigades, and several bands formed of outlaws, smugglers, and prisoners, who had been promised pardon in the world, and absolution in the next, for assisting in their extermination.  (Ed: Plus, they might win a confiscated house.)

Many of the Protestants perished in the mountains from the weather or lack of food. Refusing to move was a poor alternative.  An armed multitude, encouraged by the bishops and monks, fell upon the remaining Protestants in a most furious manner.  All now was horror and despair:  blood stained the floors, dead bodies bestrewed the streets, and groans and cries shocked the ears of humanity from every quarter. There were several men, women, and children flung from the rocks, and dashed to pieces (ed:  From castle heights or cliffs).  Mary Raymondet had her flesh sliced from her bones until she expired.  Anne Charboniere had one end of a stake thrust through her body, and the other end fixed in the ground; so she was left in that manner to perish.  Giovanni Michialin, with four of his children, was apprehended; three of them were hacked to pieces before him; the soldiers asked him at the death of every child if he would recant—but he constantly refused.  One of the soldiers then took up the last and youngest, by the legs, and putting the same question, he replied as before, when the inhuman brute dashed out the child’s brains.  The soldiers roasted alive another girl, about ten years of age, at Villa Nova.

Jacob Birone, a schoolmaster, was stripped naked, and had the nails of his toes and fingers torn off with red-hot pincers, and holes bored through his hands.  He was led through the streets, the soldiers saying, “Will you go to mass?”  He replied in the negative, and being at length taken to the bridge, they cut off his head on the balustrades.

Daniel Rambaut, of Villaro was seized and committed to the jail.  Here he was visited by several priests, who with continual importunities, strove to persuade him to turn papist. He refused.  Then the priests pretended to pity his large family, and told him that he might yet have his life if he would subscribe his belief to the following articles:  1. The real presence (of Christ) in the host. 2. Transubstantiation (Ed: The belief that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus).  3. Purgatory.  4. The pope’s infallibility.  5. That masses said for the dead will release souls from purgatory.  6. That praying for saints will procure the remission of sins.  To these Rambaut replied (in part):  1. To believe the real presence (of Jesus) in the host is blasphemy and idolatry….5. Saying masses for the dead is only meant to keep up a belief in the fable of purgatory, but the fate of all is decided by the time of departure of the soul from the body. (i.e., trying to change God's decision after their death is a waste of time).  6. Praying to saints for the remission of sins is misplacing adoration, as the living saints themselves have a need for an intercessor in Christ; therefore, as God only can pardon our errors, we ought to sue to Him alone for pardon.  (Ed:  Scripture does not have support for the six Catholic claims).  Filled with rage at these answers, the priests determined to shake his resolution by the most cruel method imaginable; they ordered one joint of his fingers to be cut off every day; then his toes; afterwards, they alternately cut off, daily, a hand and a foot, and finding that he bore his sufferings with the most unconquerable fortitude, and maintained his faith with steadfast resolution, they stabbed him to the heart, and gave his body to be devoured by dogs.

(Ed:  Even crueler acts—if it were possible—are detailed in Wikipedia’s “Waldensians,” along with a never-to-be forgotten horrifying illustration, as well.  It seems that the only ones to belatedly organize help to these people were some Protestants).

Now let’s go to another true story in Martyr’s Mirror.  Under the heading: “Weynken, a Widow, of Monickendam, November 20, 1527” (Ed:  This was in Holland). Weynken, an Anabaptist, was persecuted by both Zwinglians—Calvinist Protestants—and papists.

On November 15, Weynken was brought prisoner from the castle to the Hague.  On the 18^th, she was arraigned before the Governor and the full council of Holland.  There a woman asked her:  Have you well considered the things which my lords proposed to you?

Ans:  I abide by what I have said.

Ques:  If you do not speak differently, and turn from your error, you will be subjected to an intolerable death.

Ans:  If power is given to you from above, I am ready to suffer. (Ed: Here, please read Note 1 of 11--See Scriptures at end).

Ques:  Do you, then, not fear death, which you have never tasted?

Ans:  This is true; but I shall never taste death, for Christ says, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.”(Note 2) The rich man (the only way to get rich in those days was, your family had oppressed the poor, so it was assumed he was non-Christian.  Jesus didn't have many nice words about richness either) tasted death, and shall taste it forever. (3)

Ques:  What do you hold concerning the sacrament?

Ans:  I hold your sacrament to be bread and flour, and if you hold it as God, I say that is your devil.

Ques:  What do you hold concerning the saints?

Ans:  I know no other Mediator than Christ. (4)

Ques:  You must die, if you abide by this.

Ans:  I am already dead. (5)

Ques:  If you are dead, how can you speak?

Ans:  The Spirit lives in me; the Lord is in me, and I am in Him (6)

Ques:  Will you have a confessor, or not?

Ans:  I have Christ, to Him I confess; nevertheless, if I have offended any, I would willingly ask them to forgive me.

Ques:  Who has taught you to this opinion, and how did you come to it?

Ans:  The Lord, who calls all men to Him; I am one of His sheep; therefore I hear His voice. (7)

During the two following days she was entreated and tempted by various persons, by monks, priests, women, and her nearest friends.  A woman, prompted by sincerity, commiserated with her after this fashion:

Ques:  Dear mother, can you not think what you please, and keep it to yourself?   Then you will not die.

Ans:  Dear sister, I am commanded to speak, and am constrained to do so.  Though they burn me tomorrow, or put me into a bag, I care not; I will adhere to the Lord.  It grieves me to see that these good men are all so blinded; I will pray the Lord for them.

(Ed Note:  This phrase “adhere” to the Lord was like its synonym “abide,” to be found at John 15:5-7, 9-10, where our Lord says:

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit…⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. ⁷ If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you…  ⁹ “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. ¹⁰ If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love

(You can see why Meynken was critically interested in adhering to Christ; if we don’t do it in everyday life, we are in danger of hell.)

Two Dominican friars came to her.  One showed her the crucifix, saying, “See, here is your Lord and your God.”  She answered, “This is not my God; the cross by which I am redeemed, is a different one.  This is a wooden god; throw him into the fire, and warm yourselves with him.”  (Ed:  Nothing is wrong with the crucifix—but in those days, and to a limited extent now, it was supposed to have special powers and was worshiped. Thus it became an idol.  That was her problem with it).  The other friar asked her in the morning she was to die, whether she would receive the sacrament (presumably Last Rites, which supposedly granted final absolution of sins if you hadn’t committed a mortal sin).  She refused.  Upon his mention of Mass, she told him bluntly that he had crucified Christ anew.

Ques:  What do you hold concerning the holy oil?

Ans:  Oil is good for salad, or to oil your shoes with. (Ed:  Her great desire to eliminate popish practices went too far here, for as James 5:14 shows, oil might, with faith, bring on healing):

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 

(She still might have had just cause to reject it in her day, because the Catholic church, in those days as now, has assumed several other powers of oil, thus calling it “holy oil.”  And even water, calling it “holy water.”  Those are unscriptural)

When she was again brought before the court, a monk held the crucifix before her face, saying, “Do recant before sentence is passed.”  But Weynken said, “I adhere to my Lord and my God; neither death nor life shall separate me from Him (8).  The Dean of Naeldwijck, the inquisitor, read the sentence in Latin and Dutch.  She was found in error with regard to the sacrament.  Thus she was a called a heretic, so he delivered her to the secular magistrate...but then he retired from the council, evidently impressed by her godliness.  The chancellor however immediately read that she should be burnt to ashes, and all her property to be confiscated.  Then Weynken said, “Has all been done now?  I beg you all that if I have harmed or offended any, that you will forgive me.”

As they were leaving the council chamber, the monk said to her that she should call upon our Lady to intercede for her.

Ans:  our lady is well content in God.

Ques:  Call upon her.

Ans: We have Christ, Who sitteth on the right hand of His Father; He prays for us (Ed: actually, it says “makes intercession for us”) (9).

Ques:  Will you condemn all these (Catholics)?

Ans: Not all.  Judgment belongs unto God. (10)

Ques:  Do you not fear the severe judgment of God?

Ans:  God comes not to condemn sinners, but to give them peace. (11)

On the scaffold (these people were martyred publicly), the monk said, “Now you will have to go into the fire; do recant.” She said, “I am well content; the Lord’s will must be done.”

The executioner then made ready the ropes with which he was to strangle her.  She put the strap around her neck.  The monk finally said, “Do you renounce all heresy?”  She: “I do.”  Monk: “This is well; are you also sorry that you erred?” She: “I formerly did err indeed (ed:  When she was a Catholic).  "This however is no error, but the true way, and I adhere to God.”

Then the executioner did his work.  November 20, 1527.

Our last entry is from 1572, in Foxe’s, called “A Horrible Massacre in France,” relating to St Bartholomew, in Paris.  To quote: A massacre was plotted by Catharine de Medici, mother of the king Charles IX. It was carried out by Parisian nobles and citizenry.  The victims of this slaughter were yet another Protestant group, the Huguenots.  Unparalleled cruelties spread to other provinces, and within one month, an estimated 60,000 Protestants were slain of men and women alike.  When intelligence of the massacre was received at Rome, the greatest rejoicings took place, and a medal was struck to commemorate this “victory of the faith.”  The pope and his cardinals went in solemn procession to the church of St Mark, to give thanks to God.  A jubilee was also published.  Similar rejoicings were celebrated all over France. (End of quote).

I think it is appropriate now to present the final words by a courageous man, vanquished in body, but not in soul, which is in heaven forevermore: “I trust that my salvation is already sealed in heaven, and that the blood of Christ, in which I firmly trust, has washed away my sins.  I now cast off this mantle of clay, for robes of eternal glory.”

Now let us ponder the words of our Lord, in John 16:1-3:

“All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. ^{2 ...}the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. ³ They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.”

Notes:  1. John 19:11   2. John 8:51   3. Luke 16:23  4. I John 2:19  5. Galatians 2:19   6. John 14:20   7. John 10:27  8. Romans 8:39  9. Romans 8:34   10. Hebrews 10:30   11. Luke 9:56.

Acknowledgements:  Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Martyr’s Mirror.

 

Predestination and TULIP: True or False? (Part 2 of 2)

 

We began our study of Calvin predestination last week by looking at T=Total Depravity and U=Unconditional Election.  We found both doctrines false and unscriptural.  This week we will finish the study by looking at L I and P, rounding out the famous "TULIP" doctrine.  Here we go with the letter "L."

Limited Atonement     

This is the teaching by Calvin that our Lord died on the Cross only for the elect, those who were predestined to be saved.  Many knowledgeable Calvinists do not hold to this doctrine these days. How could any Calvinist defend this idea, when there are too many Scriptures that indicate that Christ died for all people, giving all a means of salvation, if they choose it.  The verses I will cover prove that God makes Christ’s atonement available to everyone.  All people have the potential of being right with God.  God wants all to be saved (see I Tim. 2:3,4 for instance).  His love does not stop with a few lucky people, arbitrarily (and capriciously) selected.  Here’s a good verse to start with, II Corinthians 5:15:

and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

Of course, the Calvinists’ response to the above verse is, “all” doesn’t really mean “all.”  They seem to have plenty of verses that show that all doesn’t always mean all.  But what do they say to this verse—I Timothy 4:10:

 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Now if you know anything about English grammar, you can see how this word “especially” thrown in puts a damper on their doctrine.  It clearly says that Jesus died even for the "un-elect" as well.   

Another pair of comparison verses will prove it again, Romans 5:12, 18:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

The verses are saying, since by one man, Adam, sin and death entered and infected all men, so by one Man, Jesus, the free gift came (or was made available) to all men.  There is no way to get around the logic here.  Theologians of every stripe believe that Adam’s sin affected everybody; no man has ever been sinless their entire life since him (except Jesus).  So, likewise, Jesus’ atonement was available to every single person so infected.  If “all” means “all” in verse 12, it has to mean “all” in verse 18.  The same word does not change meaning in an obviously complementary pair of verses.  If you’re a Calvinist, the “all” in v. 12 means “all;” but the “all” in v. 18 does NOT mean all. But Paul was exact on logic—he didn’t write that verse like Calvinists want.

The third nail in the coffin of Limited Atonement is I John 2:1-2:

My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. ² And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Calvinists like to assume, in phases "ours only" and "for the whole world" he is speaking for the saved Jews (“ours”) and ultimately for the saved Gentiles.  (As long as it’s for saved people only). But this is speculation; the Greek gives no solid basis for that interpretation.  When taken in context with other verses like I showed above, it leans toward this conclusion that “not for ours only” doesn’t mean saved Gentiles. It proves  instead, that Christ also died for the ultimately unsaved and everyone unborn as well.

So, how could Calvinists believe what is so easily proven to be a falsehood?  Because they love the security in their “gospel.”  The early followers of Calvin were the self-righteous civil ones, the wealthy (in an age when  your wealth was a sign of whether you were marriageable, or a sign of whether you were of good character), the ones who felt that wealth was a sign of God's beneficence and a stamp on their assurance that they were saved.  They loved feeling that their way to heaven was sure.  No religion gives more security than Calvinism.  Since that possibility was laid out by Calvin, people have flocked to it, despite its evident falsehood.  A Scripture probably applies here, II Timothy 4:3-4:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Personally, this paper is an indictment of the beliefs of many of my Calvinistic friends, many of whom I believe are saved, despite believing this false doctrine.  I say that because they have testified that they seek God, have prayed for Christ to come in, and are humble in spirit, and wouldn’t say a bad word about anybody, and wouldn’t hurt a flea.  True Christianity.  However, the doctrine also makes many people arrogant, unable to self-inspect, and incapable of change. They don’t acknowledge it, but they might be the guy praying, “I think thee, O God, that I am not like this tax collector…”(Luke 18).

Irresistible Grace    

This is the idea that if God has predestined you for heaven, and God never fails in His mission, He must successfully woo you through His Holy Spirit to accept Christ.  Calvinists obtain this doctrine partly from logic—i.e., if we are totally depraved, and if God then chooses His family, and already has eternal life with your name unconditionally on it, then it makes sense that He has to regenerate you, so your eyes are opened, and you are led to Him. If someone seemed to accept Him, but then their lifestyle shows they later rejected Him, then the assumption we make about them that He elected them was wrong.  Since God cannot be wrong, we misperceived their moment of “salvation" --it didn't really exist.  God’s wooing of His elect will always be successful—it will be irresistible. And their lifestyle will prove it.

But as you can see, all this is founded upon (1) total depravity; and (2) unconditional election.  But we have disproved both of these last week, so the irresistible grace doctrine lacks its foundation of support. One of the few Scriptural verses that seem to back their doctrine is Romans 9:19:

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?

They would say, this verse teaches that no one can resist His will.  But notice the word “then;” that means this is a continuation of a previous argument.  The previous argument, in Romans 9:10-18, was discussed under Calvin’s “unconditional election”—which we disproved in our last blog.

As Romans 9:19ff explains, when people ask "who can resist His will?", they do not understand what God is saying.  They assume He controls everyone’s fate, so how can He judge them, or make them accountable, for their actions?  “He controls us,” they cry, and we cannot resist His choice to save or damn us.  So, they conclude, He is responsible if my actions make me hell-bound. That’s not fair, they say.

But the previous verses in Romans 9, as we showed last week, talk about foreknowledge. He simply knows ahead of time what choices people or nations make. And as we said earlier, foreknowledge does not mean control. Scripture is full of verses that still hold us accountable for sin, and how our own bad choices could make us hell-bound.  People still blame God for His ultimately judging them—they just don’t want to be held accountable before God for their actions. They consider their rebellion against God and His rules "freedom." Paul’s response to the accusatory question in v. 19 continues in Romans 9:20-29, pretty much as I’m outlining it here. The concepts are admittedly difficult, but their importance in light of our eternal destiny means we should spend time thinking and praying on it, and push through to understanding.  In the end, we should never assume God has bad intentions at heart.  It is reasonable that a sovereign eternal God, with omniscience, may do things that might be beyond our understanding.  We have to take it on faith that His love for us means that “all things work together for good” (Romans 8:28)—rather than lashing out, blaming Him when things go wrong. When we spend most of our time ignoring God, well, what can go wrong?

In summary, since this tenet of Calvinism rests on assumptions and verses that have been proven to be misinterpreted, we do not need to go further into discussion on this point.

Perseverance of the saints

This doctrine is that you cannot lose your salvation once God has placed you in the elect.  It is what the “once saved, always saved” doctrine is based on.  They look at Romans 8:39:

^… nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

To dispute this, I would like to mention June and October's blogs on “once saved, always saved,” and the blog on  John Calvin himself. I would like to add some fresh words from Thomas Taylor Ministries:

“The Bible is very clear that it is possible to lose one’s salvation and every Christian should be aware of that possibility.  Heb 10:26 – 31 explains it:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. ²⁸ Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” ³¹ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The verses clearly say that it’s possible that once you have the blessings of salvation, it’s possible to lose it. They count the disastrous things a person has done, as I have underlined. One attack that Calvinists use on this statement is, How does the verse say we were once saved when the word “saved” is not even used?  Our answer is:  It uses the phrase “received the knowledge of the truth;” and “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins;” that was salvation that you had.

To further prove it, I cite Revelation 22:19:

…if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life

So, the verses are clearly saying that once saved, it’s possible (but disastrous) to fall back, despising again what God has done.  He has given us access to salvation by His Son, which we would be rejecting again, thus trampling it underfoot; we would be despising Communion, which means we were symbolically taking His blood that was shed for us--and now reject; and we would be turning away from the power of sanctification, this method of freedom from the slavery of sin--that is only offered to His children.  Of course, we critically need to understand the phrase “sin willfully” that brings about these disasters from God. We're thinking "I know this is a serious sin that God hates, but I'm going to do it anyway; my pleasure trumps my concern over what God thinks." This is a brazen, broken relationship with God. Look at the words, “fearful expectation of judgment,” “fiery indignation,” “devour the adversaries,” too.  Do these not describe the anger of God, the pit of hell for these people?  Do these not prostrate us, cause us to ask, “God, what are you saying here? Have I sinned willfully?” Sincere repentance after doing so can gain God's favor again. (We have to be careful that we really “repent.” Study Scripture for what it is.) We should confess to Him regularly.

Now let's look at another phrase of importance: What is “falling away?” My own thought on defining is, The Bible speaks of “hardening of the heart.”  That implies that doing a sin, even if you repent, and then doing it over again, you likely experience hardening of the heart.  If you keep repeating the sin, eventually you don’t even believe yourself when you “repent”—and eventually you stop “repenting,” because you know that you’ll do the sin again, and you realize you’re a hypocrite for pretending to repent.  If you sin over and over and do not really improve (by sinning less or not doing it further) after you were saved, and you enjoy the sin too much to resist, and give in, and repeatedly squelch the Holy Spirit--you are unlikely to be saved anymore. But that depends on how bad the sin was.  (Sorry, I'm not giving you the "security" that everyone wants by discussing “how bad.”). Thus you can lose your salvation, and your “perseverance” ends without repentance.  And Calvinism is wrong because this downslide happens somewhere in America frequently.  I’ve seen it, and I’ve heard people testify of it. God hates us giving in to sin lightly.  Think of Jesus' discussion in Matthew 5:29-30:

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. ³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

This is called "hyperbole."  Jesus doesn't expect us to make ourselves go blind.  But He's making a point of the seriousness, how we could lose our salvation, and I think the grisly image will do the job.  Now, thinking about “falling away;” it so happens that this is the definition of apostasy.  In order to “fall away” from something, you had to be attached to that something, right?  So to “fall away” from the truth, you had to be attached to the truth in the first place.  Logically, that says this person was initially saved—but fell away and became unsaved.  Perhaps it also could be they came to rejecting the intellectual truths of Scripture, but preferred to conjure up doctrines to live by instead, or preferred to live by heretical beliefs of religions that aren’t even close to the Apostle’s Creed—which is the unalterable creed of a real Christian. They could, on the other hand, fall away into the world as well (some Christians call this “backsliding”). But if you’re so ensnared with the world, God cannot keep you; you must realize the danger, and try like crazy to disassociate from it. He requires that you live holy.  Assuming you've made public your attachment to Christ, you carry a light, and you must separate from the world’s culture, lest you drag His name through the mud with your sinful activities.  You would be putting Christ to an "open shame," as the verse says. And once again, you lose the salvation you once had.    So, more proof that there is no guarantee of our “perseverance,” like we can float along and not worry about sin. Calvinism is wrong for instituting such pride or complacency.

So there you have it, all 5 points of Calvinism are separated from Scriptural proof.  For those who are “3-point Calvinists,” or “4-point Calvinists,” or the hard-as-a-rock “5-point Calvinists,” it’s best to just be a “no-point” Calvinist. Just be a close follower of Jesus' Words. Learn to read your Scripture with discernment, taking ALL of it into account.  These tenets are un-Scriptural and wrong.  Its leader, John Calvin, might not have been a saved man.  (see an October blog).  Don’t just “go with the flow” of your denomination's beliefs, or consider them all unquestionable. Are you uncomfortable about feeling disloyal, or don't want to be apart from the crowd?  What if it causes the loss of heaven?   Who deserves your loyalty?  Only Jesus, not your deluded friends.  Do not other denominations have different doctrines as well?  Can we assume that all their followers are stupid?  Find the doctrine of Christ.  The question of heaven or hell is too important for this quibbling.  Read Scripture thoroughly, with meditation.  Spend time studying this—avoiding hell is worth it.

Acknowledging again the sermon of pastor Anderson, Five points of Calvinism Refuted, in 2013.  He was brief on these latter points, he was running out of time.  His ideas in Part 2 have also been softened, edited, and summarized, and much of mine added.