Another question from the internet.
If Satan is the ultimate trickster, how do we know that Satan hasn't tricked Christians into worshiping him as God (Yahweh) and are actually rebuking the "real" God in his own name?
If Satan has everyone believing the wrong thing about God, then one of two scenarios must be true.
1. God is allowing Satan to deceive everyone OR
2. God can't prevent Satan from deceiving everyone.
If scenario one is correct, then God is a deceiver. Why would God deliberately hide his truth from humans, when their immortal future is at stake? This would make God cruel, deliberately sending people to Hell and not allowing them an avenue of escape.
If scenario two is correct, then Satan must be more powerful than God. If God can't stop Satan from spreading false doctrine, then maybe Satan is the one to be followed anyway.
The truth is that Satan can only do what God allows him to do. God reveals his truth to everyone. (Romans 1:20) Some people choose not to believe the truth. After a time, God will allow them to be tricked by Satan since they have refused to follow God anyway.
By the way, scenario one is one of the main problems I have with the Mormon church, the Jehovah's Witnesses or other groups that say that the entire church went apostate a long time ago and God had to re-reveal his truth to their leader,prophet, etc. I don't believe that God would have allowed his word to completely disappear from the Earth. (Matthew 24:35) This would have condemned millions of people without any chance of salvation because no-one on Earth would have known the truth.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
God's Word is Reliable (Short Answer)
Here's a skeptical question found in several places on the internet.
"Why would God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to one of his 'fallible' children? He knows men are sinners and are untrue, I doubt a professor would allow one of his students to teach a class if all the other students' futures were at stake. If God loved us so much and he wants us to be with him, why would he put our eternal souls at risk like that?"
Here's the short answer
The professor might allow the student to teach the class if he personally guided the student when the lesson was written to make sure that all of the important topics were covered. Also if the professor observed while the lesson was being taught to make sure nothing was left out. Whenever I had a student give a report in class, I made sure what he said was correct, and corrected him if he wasn't to make sure the class understood the truth.
This is how God prepared his word. He guided the authors, by the Holy Spirit, to only write what God intended to say. He did not necessarily dictate word for word to the authors, but he made sure all that they wrote was correct. He also made sure they wrote everything he intended for them to write. As preachers and missionaries spread the word, they should be guided by the Holy Spirit to say what God intends for them to say. That doesn't mean that they all are, but that they all should be. There are times when I am speaking or teaching my Sunday School class that I can feel the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding my words. That reassures me that I am saying the right things.
Men may be fallible, but the Bible is infallible because it was written by God through men guided by God.
"Why would God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to one of his 'fallible' children? He knows men are sinners and are untrue, I doubt a professor would allow one of his students to teach a class if all the other students' futures were at stake. If God loved us so much and he wants us to be with him, why would he put our eternal souls at risk like that?"
Here's the short answer
The professor might allow the student to teach the class if he personally guided the student when the lesson was written to make sure that all of the important topics were covered. Also if the professor observed while the lesson was being taught to make sure nothing was left out. Whenever I had a student give a report in class, I made sure what he said was correct, and corrected him if he wasn't to make sure the class understood the truth.
This is how God prepared his word. He guided the authors, by the Holy Spirit, to only write what God intended to say. He did not necessarily dictate word for word to the authors, but he made sure all that they wrote was correct. He also made sure they wrote everything he intended for them to write. As preachers and missionaries spread the word, they should be guided by the Holy Spirit to say what God intends for them to say. That doesn't mean that they all are, but that they all should be. There are times when I am speaking or teaching my Sunday School class that I can feel the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding my words. That reassures me that I am saying the right things.
Men may be fallible, but the Bible is infallible because it was written by God through men guided by God.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
I Don't Believe in Aliens
Do you believe in
UFOs?
This was one of the
most common questions my students would ask me in class. I answered "Certainly." UFO simply means "unidentified flying object." I believe there are many flying
things people have seen that have not been positively identified. Usually
that's because the viewer cannot give a totally accurate description of the
object in question. Now, do I believe that UFOs are from somewhere out in
space? No. I believe that most UFOs have simply natural and boring
explanations. Unusual weather patters, unknown (to the viewer) aircraft, stars,
planets, or more commonly meteors and comets.
The question usually
then turns to "Do you believe in alien life?" While I won't
completely rule out the possibility of microbial, plant or even animal life on
other planets, I do not believe in intelligent life beyond Earth. The Bible
tells us that God created man in his own image. (Genesis 1:27) This was the
culmination of the creation week. That is, everything else in the universe was
created before man. (Genesis 1:31-2:1) It is reasonable to assume, then that
the entire universe was created for man. Therefore, man is the most important
item in all of God's creation.
If there exist other
intelligent creatures on other worlds, then they must have been created by God,
also. (John 1:3) This poses some problems. Were they also made in God's image?
Do they possess a sinful nature? If, so, then how are they saved? Did Jesus
come to their world, also? What would be God's point in making two intelligent
species? No where in the Bible is there any hint of life outside of Earth, in
spite of what the UFO people say about Ezekiel. (They claim that Ezekiel's
vision of the "wheel within a wheel" (Ezekiel 1:15-16) was actually a
flying saucer and the living creatures he saw were aliens.)
Now, while I said
that most UFO sightings could be explained, I also won't rule out the
possibility that demons could cause themselves to appear to people as UFOs or
aliens to get them to question their faith in God. However, this, I believe is
a rarity. (For more information read Gary Bates good book Alien Intrusion.
available at www.answersingenesis.org.)
By the way, the whole
argument in favor of aliens is basically an evolutionary argument. If life
evolved on Earth, the argument goes, then it must have evolved elsewhere also.
The universe is just too big for Earth to be the only inhabited planet. That is,
the main argument in favor of extraterrestrial life is a purely speculative
one.
Another thought, UFO
people are also the hardest to try to talk to. Most of them have the conspiracy
mindset. I had an interesting conversation about Roswell with a student. He
asked why doesn't the Air Force just release their information about Roswell.
I told him that the Freedom of Information Act required the Air Force to
release the information in 1998. The did and showed that the crash in Roswell
was of a spy balloon system. He didn't believe me and said that was just what
the government wanted us to think. I said "OK, suppose I took you to Area
51 into Hangar 18 and showed you the wreckage and it actually was a spy balloon
system. Would believe me, then?" He said "No, I would think you were
just showing me what you wanted me to believe." The problem wasn't that he
couldn't believe the government. It was that he wouldn't believe the
government.
Many people are the
same way about the Bible. You can show them all the evidence there is that the
Bible is true and they still won't believe because they don't want to believe.
Usually that is because they don't want to give up a sinful lifestyle. You will
never argue anyone into Heaven. But, hopefully, with your arguments, you will
open their hearts to hear the gospel.
BC/AD
Here's a question about time to start the new year.
I received this question in my e-mail a while back.
"OK, think about this.....The politically correct terms now are CE (Common Era) and BCE )Before Common Era. I know it was done to get Christ's name out of it, but if the time is the same and 1 CE was at His birth what was accomplished by the change. We are still acknowledging Him, right? Or am I missing something? (worth discussing on your website? or am I the only one
"not getting it"??)"
There does seem to be a trend among the academic circles to change the method for numbering
the years from B.C.. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini i.e. "The Year of Our Lord") to the less religious B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era.)
One thing to remember is that the numbering of the years is completely arbitrary. Instead of using
the birth of Christ as a reference point, any event in history could have been used. For example, the Hebrew calendar bases its number on the years since creation, making this year 5768. The early church did not originally use the current system either. It was not invented until the sixth century. Most early Christians continued to use the calendars of their particular cultures.
Arguments in favor of changing are usually based on the idea of religious neutrality. "How would Christians like it," they ask, " if the years were numbered since the birth of Buddha?" People who
work with others of many cultures and religions prefer the new system because it supposedly eliminates cultural bias. However, this does not change the fact that the years are still numbered from the supposed year of Christ's birth. (He was actually born around 4 B.C. There was an error in the in the initial calculations.) When future schoolchildren question the origin of the calendar, the secularists would still have to admit that the turning point from BCE to CE was based on the birth of Jesus.
Actually the fact that this is how the years are numbered actually attests to the fact of Christianity. If Jesus wasn't anyone important then why would most of the world change their time system to honor him?
By the way, many people think that AD stands for "After Death" referring to the death of Christ. I always like to point out that if this is true then what about the years between his birth and death. AD actually stands for the Latin "Anno Domini (the year of the lord.)" That is A.D. 2014 (the A.D. should come first) means 2,014 years since the Lord came.
I received this question in my e-mail a while back.
"OK, think about this.....The politically correct terms now are CE (Common Era) and BCE )Before Common Era. I know it was done to get Christ's name out of it, but if the time is the same and 1 CE was at His birth what was accomplished by the change. We are still acknowledging Him, right? Or am I missing something? (worth discussing on your website? or am I the only one
"not getting it"??)"
There does seem to be a trend among the academic circles to change the method for numbering
the years from B.C.. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini i.e. "The Year of Our Lord") to the less religious B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era.)
One thing to remember is that the numbering of the years is completely arbitrary. Instead of using
the birth of Christ as a reference point, any event in history could have been used. For example, the Hebrew calendar bases its number on the years since creation, making this year 5768. The early church did not originally use the current system either. It was not invented until the sixth century. Most early Christians continued to use the calendars of their particular cultures.
Arguments in favor of changing are usually based on the idea of religious neutrality. "How would Christians like it," they ask, " if the years were numbered since the birth of Buddha?" People who
work with others of many cultures and religions prefer the new system because it supposedly eliminates cultural bias. However, this does not change the fact that the years are still numbered from the supposed year of Christ's birth. (He was actually born around 4 B.C. There was an error in the in the initial calculations.) When future schoolchildren question the origin of the calendar, the secularists would still have to admit that the turning point from BCE to CE was based on the birth of Jesus.
Actually the fact that this is how the years are numbered actually attests to the fact of Christianity. If Jesus wasn't anyone important then why would most of the world change their time system to honor him?
By the way, many people think that AD stands for "After Death" referring to the death of Christ. I always like to point out that if this is true then what about the years between his birth and death. AD actually stands for the Latin "Anno Domini (the year of the lord.)" That is A.D. 2014 (the A.D. should come first) means 2,014 years since the Lord came.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Whatever Happened to Free Speech
I read in the paper today that Phil Robertson is being kicked off of Duck Dynasty because he said that homosexuals are sinners. He even quoted scripture to show why he believes that. I've only seen a few episodes of the series, (Other than sports I don't watch much TV) but I've discovered that I have quite a lot in common with the four men on the show as far as beliefs.
What scares me is that we've gotten into an Orwellian state where people with sincere religious beliefs aren't allowed to say their mind for fear of censure. What's next? Putting him in jail for having such beliefs in the first place. I know some who would agree with that. I thought the first amendment protected speech other than obscenity or fighting words. He certainly wasn't trying to pick a fight, just state what he sincerely believes, and I've heard much worse obscenity on that same TV network.
I understand that the network has the right to air what they wish and not air what they don't wish, but by refusing to allow this man to state his opinion for fear that it would offend a portion of the audience just proves what conservatives have been saying for a long time. The media is controlled by the left wing who want to use it to spread their agenda. Namely the acceptance of homosexual behavior.
By the way, stating support of homosexuality on television also offends a large portion of the audience, the Christians. But we know how to counter it. We just don't watch. Maybe it's time we spoke up more for our free speech rights.
UPDATE! Due to public demand, Phil has been reinstated. It seems A&E realized that there are a lot of people who agree with Phil and they DO watch TV.
What scares me is that we've gotten into an Orwellian state where people with sincere religious beliefs aren't allowed to say their mind for fear of censure. What's next? Putting him in jail for having such beliefs in the first place. I know some who would agree with that. I thought the first amendment protected speech other than obscenity or fighting words. He certainly wasn't trying to pick a fight, just state what he sincerely believes, and I've heard much worse obscenity on that same TV network.
I understand that the network has the right to air what they wish and not air what they don't wish, but by refusing to allow this man to state his opinion for fear that it would offend a portion of the audience just proves what conservatives have been saying for a long time. The media is controlled by the left wing who want to use it to spread their agenda. Namely the acceptance of homosexual behavior.
By the way, stating support of homosexuality on television also offends a large portion of the audience, the Christians. But we know how to counter it. We just don't watch. Maybe it's time we spoke up more for our free speech rights.
UPDATE! Due to public demand, Phil has been reinstated. It seems A&E realized that there are a lot of people who agree with Phil and they DO watch TV.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
The Twelve Days of Christmas: The Truth
First of all, most Americans don't even know what the twelve days of Christmas are. They are the twelve days from December 26 to January 6. In many other countries, Christmas is not a day of partying and gift giving, but a day of religious solemnity. That is, on Christmas, they actually observe Christmas. The day of giving gifts is January 6, sometimes called Epiphany or Three Kings' Day. The custom to which the populr song refers is the custom of giving gradually nicer gifts on each of the twelve days.
The Biggest untruth about the song going around today is that it was written as some coded reference to Biblical truths. Such as the two turtle doves meaning the two testaments etc. This makes as no sense as there is no connection between the items in the song and what they are supposed to represent. How am I supposed to remember testaments from turtle doves, or gospels from calling birds? It's hard enough remembering the entire song without having to remember what everything stands for. There is an excellent article about this on Snopes.com here http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp
I don't mean to ruin this for anyone but I don't mind letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
The Biggest untruth about the song going around today is that it was written as some coded reference to Biblical truths. Such as the two turtle doves meaning the two testaments etc. This makes as no sense as there is no connection between the items in the song and what they are supposed to represent. How am I supposed to remember testaments from turtle doves, or gospels from calling birds? It's hard enough remembering the entire song without having to remember what everything stands for. There is an excellent article about this on Snopes.com here http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp
I don't mean to ruin this for anyone but I don't mind letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Christmas Songs That Aren't
While listening to a collection of traditional Christmas songs, it occurred to me that many of the songs which we so readily identify with Christmas actually don't mention anything about Christmas. I've made a partial list below. Please comment to add some more.
Winter Wonderland
While this song mentions the season of winter and many things associated with it, Christmas is not mentioned at all. This is true of several others on the list including...
Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow
Frosty the Snowman
Jingle Bells and
Jingle Bell Rock
In fact the only version of this song I've heard that really rocks is the version by Geoff Moore and the Distance on Sparrow Records' "CHRISTMAS" album.
Sleigh Ride
is actually a good song (especially the Boston Pops' instrumental version) but again doesn't mention Christmas in the lyrics. It does say something about a birthday party, though.
Not so common is the song
Marshmallow World
I actually dislike this song very much because my mother had it on a Johnny Mathis Christmas album and my little sister played it to death one year.
Often included on Christmas compilations is the song
My Favorite Things
from The Sound of Music, A musical which has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas.
The biggest surprise to most people, though, would have to be
The Hallelujah Chorus
While the song comes from an oratorio about the life of Christ, this chorus is actually sung for the resurrection. It's really an Easter song but nobody sings it, then.
There's my list so far. I may add more as I notice them. Feel free to comment on these and add some yourselves. Also go here and buy my book. (I need the money for Christmas presents.)
Winter Wonderland
While this song mentions the season of winter and many things associated with it, Christmas is not mentioned at all. This is true of several others on the list including...
Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow
Frosty the Snowman
Jingle Bells and
Jingle Bell Rock
In fact the only version of this song I've heard that really rocks is the version by Geoff Moore and the Distance on Sparrow Records' "CHRISTMAS" album.
Sleigh Ride
is actually a good song (especially the Boston Pops' instrumental version) but again doesn't mention Christmas in the lyrics. It does say something about a birthday party, though.
Not so common is the song
Marshmallow World
I actually dislike this song very much because my mother had it on a Johnny Mathis Christmas album and my little sister played it to death one year.
Often included on Christmas compilations is the song
My Favorite Things
from The Sound of Music, A musical which has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas.
The biggest surprise to most people, though, would have to be
The Hallelujah Chorus
While the song comes from an oratorio about the life of Christ, this chorus is actually sung for the resurrection. It's really an Easter song but nobody sings it, then.
There's my list so far. I may add more as I notice them. Feel free to comment on these and add some yourselves. Also go here and buy my book. (I need the money for Christmas presents.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)