Full-Proof Ministries

We need to be very careful in how we respond to things like this, particularly as Christians.  One thing we must not do is make personal attacks on Stephen Hawking.  To do so is not logical and I believe is a sinful response also.

What we must do is allow all ideas to be tested and follow what survives the tests.  If the claims of Christianity pass the tests, then we should be Christians.  If ideas exclusive to Christianity pass the tests, such as what Hawking is claiming, then we should follow those.  We should always follow the truth and not be afraid to allow our ideas to be tested.

I read the following at http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11542128 . . .

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” writes Hawking. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists why we exist.”

Let’s critique Hawking’s statement rather than critique Hawking, the man.  Assuming the quote is taken in context, Hawking claims “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”  In order for something to be created, it must not exist.  In order to create, something must exist to do the creating.  Therefore, for the universe to create itself, the universe must both exist and not exist at the same time.  This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, a basic foundational concept.  So it is safe to dismiss the idea from Hawking.

The city of Smyrna (its Church is addressed in Revelation 2:8-11) was, in many ways, like Ephesus.  They were wealthy and influential enough to compete with Ephesus and Pergamum for the title “First in Asia,” and, as William Barclay notes, if it were “inevitable that Ephesus should come first in the list of the seven churches, it was but natural that Smyrna its great rival should second.”  In addition to its wealth and influence, Smyrna was Asia’s most beautiful city, so much so that men would one day call her the Ornament of Asia.  But outward appearance and earthly influence is about where the similarities end.  Before discussing the letter to the church at Smyrna in the above referenced passage, some background information on the city itself is in order.

The city of Smyrna was founded around the 11th century BC by one of the four ancient Greek tribes known as the Aeolians. The city was not long under the control of the Aeolians when another Greek tribe, the Ionians, took her over. As an Ionian city, Smyrna thrived, particularly from its prominent location along major trade routes. But eventually, Ionian Smyrna met opposition from Lydia. Though they were able to withstand the attacks of Gyges , they did not fare as well against Alyattes II , who was later able to conquer and sack the city. Consequently, Smyrna lost its political identity, but did not completely cease to exist.  As evidenced by both an inscription and a fragment of the 4^th century, but their greatness was now a thing of the past. Smyrna would enter into a period of mere existence (a sort of life-through-death experience) until Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) purposed to rebuild the city. Ultimately it would not be Alexander, but his successors who would actually carry out this task. Antigonus (316—301 BC) and Lysimachus (301 BC—281 BC) bore this responsibility and receive credit not only for Smyrna’s rebuilding, but also her expansion and fortification. Hellenistic (Greek) control of Smyrna lasted until about 197 BC when ties were cut with Pergamum in favor of seeking alliance with Rome. To accomplish this alliance, Smyrna created the cult of Rome, which was affective enough that by 195 BC, deification of Rome had begun, starting with the goddess Roma . Sixty years later, Smyrna would come under complete control of Rome as the greater region became the Roman Province of Asia, with Pergamum as its capital.

The structure of the letter again follows that typical structure we have outlined in the two previous posts, with only slight deviation:

1. A Title for the Risen Christ

2. Praise of the Church

3. Rebuke / Criticism of the Church

4. Solution to the Problem Faced by the Church

5. Penalty for Disobedience

6. A Promise for those who overcome

7. A General Admonition

In this letter, we find one important distinction – numbers three and five are strangely absent.  The Risen Christ offered the church at Smyrna no rebuke and made no threats against them should they disregard His admonition!  What an incredible thing to be true of a church!

As the letter opens, Christ refers to Himself as the First and the Last, Who died and came to life. The first portion of this title – The First and the Last – is important for a couple of reasons, both of which pertain not only to the particular church being addressed, but to the entire body of Christ.  The reason is this:  it speaks to the very first doctrine that is attacked by cults and false teachers – the deity of Christ.  Allow me to explain the doctrine’s relevance here.  This “First and Last” title has been used once already in the Apocalypse.  Flip back in your Bible, or simply mouse over this reference to Revelation 1:17-18.  We find the exact same title being used here in chapter two.  The problem this creates for those who would deny the deity of Christ is that the first reference is to God the Father, while the title here is used to describe the Son.  Be sure to grasp the full weight of that connection – Jesus Christ is using the very same language to describe His eternality that is used of the Father.  If in fact Christ was only a creation of the Father, then He would certainly not be co-eternal with the Father.  The pronouncement here, however, claims just that for the Son, dealing a fatal blow to the false notion that Christ was anything less than divine.

The second application of this title is that it speaks to the supremacy of the Risen Christ over earthly circumstances – even the most severe of earthly circumstances.  This is a principal that can be seen in the other letters as well.  Persecuted and struggling churches are exhorted to look beyond their circumstances to the greater spiritual truth that God has been and still is sovereign even in those troubling times.  In Smyrna’s case, it had to do with a specific, short-term, but severe persecution.  Even the Smyrnian church was to look beyond their circumstances and recognize Jesus as the First and Last.

The second title used to describe the Risen Christ is the One who died and came to life.  The meaning of this phrase might be more literally expressed as the One who “lived through death.”  Christ was the sacrifice, depicted in Hebrews, to end all sacrifices.  He was to die and be buried, but not without the expectation of a subsequent resurrection - predicted before his crucifixion and accomplished just three days later.  Though the body Jesus inhabited truly died, the Son of God remained, through that physical death.  He literally lived through death.

We now transition to the praise portion of the letter to Smyrna and one thing we are immediately struck with is how few words are actually spent to do so. This is certainly not to indicate that there is little good to be said.  Rather, it is the complete absence of any criticism of the church which speaks her loudest and clearest praise.  Christ contrasts (vv. 9) their earthly poverty and tribulation with their spiritual wealth.  Though they had little of this world’s goods, they were rich in the things that mattered.  All too often the opposite state of affairs exists in churches today.

The Smyrnian church was encouraged not to fear what they were about to suffer at the hands of the “Synagogue of Satan” – those who called themselves Jews, but were only so outwardly.  Being exhorted not to fear, however, was a clear implication that what was about to happen was a very fearful thing.  Indeed, they were about to be “thrown into prison,” which was almost certainly just a precursor to their impending execution.  Verse ten makes this very clear as Christ exhorts them to be faithful unto death, the highest earthly price one could be asked to pay.

This earthly suffering was not without its heavenly reward, however.  The Risen Christ offers to those faithful ones a crown of life.  As is often the case with the seven letters, we see again the physical contrasted with and superseded by the spiritual.  An earthly life stands to be lost while a heavenly (and far superior) life stands to be gained.  The only way for the Smyrnian church to overcome in their time of testing was to shift their focus from the temporary here and now to the eternal prize to be won – the crown of life promised in verse ten.

Our struggles in the modern, western church pale in comparison to those of the Smyrnians.  They had their lives threatened; we at most have our popularity threatened.  They persevered through slander and ridicule; we often compromise when our image is at stake.  They were physically poor, but spiritually rich; we have much of the world’s wealth, but have failed to store up treasures in heaven.  It’s hard to truly grasp the gravity of the Smyrnian call to stand strong when we can only imagine what it would be like to face the difficulties they faced.  But the call is the same nonetheless both for individual Christians today and the congregations we belong to.

So what will it be?  Will you run when the going gets tough?  Will you cave when the pressure is on?  Will you placate and politic when it’s unpopular or even dangerous to persevere? When you’re called to put everything on the line for Christ….will you be Standing with Smyrna?

Feel Free to use the Resources below for personal study or teaching on the Book of Revelation:
Blank Chart for filling out the attributes of the 7 churches
Same Chart with Answers
Map of the seven churches of Asia
Dr. Thomas Constable’s Commentary on Revelation
Dr. Bob Utley’s Commentary on Revelation

After doing a little studying of the seven letters, it’s easy to understand why Ephesus would have been the first addressed.  Geographically, politically, religiously, and demographically, it stood preeminent among the rest.  While we don’t know for sure that this is why Ephesus is addressed first, it seems a likely conclusion.

A general structure is set up in the letter to Ephesus that will be followed pretty closely with the next six.  This pattern is as follows:

1. A Title for the Risen Christ

2. Praise of the Church

3. Rebuke / Criticism of the Church

4. Solution to the Problem Faced by the Church

5. Penalty for Disobedience

6. A Promise for those who Overcome

7. A General Admonition

With only one exception, all titles for the Risen Christ come from chapter one.  In this particular letter, Christ is referred to as “[He] who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.” (Rev. 2:1).  This title comes from Revelation 1:16 and is explained just 4 verses later.  The seven stars are said to be the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

In verses two and three of chapter two we see the praise offered to the Ephesian church.  They are said to have worked, toiled, patiently endured.  Christ goes on to say that the Ephesians cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, finding them to be false.  They had been bearing up for Christ’s name’s sake and had not grown weary.  Later, in verse six, we find it said of them that they “hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans,” a group of false-teachers misleading the people.  All in all, this sounds like a pretty healthy church – intolerant of error, hard working, discerning.  So what was the problem?

Verse four brings us their downfall.  Christ says of the Ephesian church that they had abandoned the love they had at first.  There are two schools of thought as to the object of the love they had lost.  Some commentators see this as the love they once had for Christ.  Others would refer you to Ephesians 1:15 as grounds to interpret this as love for one another.  I would submit the the latter (love for each other) is a natural byproduct of a love for Christ – like two streams issuing from a single fountain.  However adept they were at combating false teaching at this time, they had ceased doing so with the same motivation they had at first – whether love for Christ or for each other.  From the founding of the church at Ephesus around AD 52, they had battled with unorthodox teachings creeping into their congregations.  We see examples of this in Ephesians 4:14, both of Paul’s letters to Timothy, possibly in 1 John, and now here in Revelation 2:2,6.  Slowly, but surely they seem to have found a method for dealing decisively and effectively with the poison of false teaching, but orthodoxy for the sake of orthodoxy had become their motivation and the process was mechanical and empty.

But their rebuke came coupled with a remedy to the new problem they were made aware of.  Christ gives them in the first part of verse five a three part solution – Remember, Repent,  Do.

1. Remember – they are exhorted to remember the place from which they had fallen.  Often it is easy to forget how far we have fallen until we look at where we started.  Many of us have experienced the cycle of coming to the cross in amazement of what Jesus has done for us.  We are thrilled to tell others about His work on the cross and its accomplishment in our lives.  We are motivated to show the same love to others that our Lord had shown to us.  But after a while, time has a way of dulling the initial excitement.  We continue to go through the motions, but only for the sake of saving face or being “religious.”  We may be experiencing the exact same problem as the Ephesians in that orthodoxy has become our motivation, feeding on the pride of being right rather than the love that would compel us to share God’s truth with others.

2. The Ephesian church is next exhorted to repent.  Repentance will never come without realizing we have something to repent of. Ephesus is made plainly aware of their problem, commanded to remember the distance they had fallen, and are now told to repent.  Repentance doesn’t come easy for most of us – it involves admitting we were wrong about something.  It becomes especially difficult when we are supposed to repent of doing the right thing, but for wrong reasons.  Never is sin more easily justified than when it can be made to “look good” on the outside.  Often we find comfort in the motions when the love that ought to drive the motions is gone.  Never does the Christian life mean less or become less effective, however, than when we are motivated by looking right or playing the part.  Christ wanted them first to recognize that there was a problem (Remember) and then repent of it.

3. Do.  The Ephesians’ final word of instruction to turn this thing around was to do the works they did at first.  Since love was the motivation of the works they did at first, whatever the actual works were, had to be better than the ones they were currently performing without love.  We are not told specifically what they were, but we do know that they lie in stark contrast to the “works” that the church is currently doing.

If, we are told, the Ephesian church failed to do what the Lord told them to do to correct the problem, the penalty would be severe.  They are told that if they fail, Christ will remove their lampstand from its place.  You may remember that the lampstand was a symbol for the church.  You see, the lampstand itself was not the light, it was only privileged for a time to hold the light.  We, as the body of Christ, have nothing in and of ourselves worth sharing.  We can offer no life-transforming truth apart from that which was imparted to us.  Our jobs as individual Christians and collectively as the body of Christ is to shine the light of the Gospel to a dark and dying world.  Like I said, we are privileged to be used by God, but that is no inherent right.  The Ephesians were told that their lampstand would be removed if they did not correct their problem.  You see, God is not in any way dependent on us to accomplish His will.  While He is gracious enough to allow us to be a part of His plans, they will come to fruition with or without our cooperation.  Ephesus had been given their ultimatum.  The consequences of their decision would be severe and lasting.

The general admonition given in every one of the letters (though some receive it in a slightly different order) is for “He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”  There are a couple of interesting points to be made from this phrase that we will see in all seven letters.  The first, and I believe the more obvious of the two, is that each of the churches seem to be given direction to read each others’ mail!  All of the churches were not only to learn from their own particular situation, but also from the trials or triumphs of those surrounding congregations.  Second, I think it is crucial to see the individual aspect of this admonition – let him who has an ear to hear, not let the church who has an ear.  While collectively we form the whole body of Christ, our responsibility as an individual is no lessened by the corporate aspect of these letters.  Even if your entire church seems to be headed in the wrong direction, you have the individual responsibility of heeding the Spirit’s warnings.  It may prove to be a lonely road you end up walking, but you are to walk it nonetheless.  We will all be judged one day as individuals; there will be no discount for the price of “corporate” sins.

Ending on a positive note, the Lord promise the conquerors in Ephesus that heed His warning (verse 7) that He will grant them to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.  While we can only speculate as to the exact interpretation of this phrase, this and all the following letters seem to emphasize a contrast between the physical world and the spiritual world as if to remind us that our focus should be on heavenly things and we should place far less emphasis on the here and now.  This mention of the tree of life is possibly a reference to the return of the Edenic state in which the world was originally created, and that state to which it would eventually return, when Christ takes His seat on His eternal throne.  Whatever the exact implications of this promise are, we certainly want to be a part of it!

So learn what you can from the letter to the church at Ephesus.  Do the right things, yes, but first make sure that the underlying motivation for doing so is love – love for Christ and love for one another.  If you find yourself just going through the motions, stop.  Take a step back and recognize it for what it is – cold, lifeless, mechanical.  Remember the point at which you first embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the thrill it gave you to serve Him simply because you loved Him.  Realize the distance you’ve fallen and repent.  Decide at that point that you will no longer seek to just look the part, but to be wholly devoted to Christ and to others.  Only when you’ve done these things, is it possible for your to do again the things you did at first.  Ephesus was a real, historic church with real problems.  That first century church is no longer here, but its problems are.  Let’s learn from their mistakes.

Though most, if not all commentators agree that the 7 letters of Revelation 2 and 3 were written to literal churches in the first century, we modern Christians could learn much from the struggles they faced and the problems they were exhorted to overcome.  It comes as no surprise that these passages are the most frequently preached in all of the Apocalypse.

I’m currently teaching through the book of Revelation to a group of teenagers in the area.  It would be impressive enough if these teens were just to come faithfully to any Bible study, but at this particular study, Joe and I are asking them to tackle subjects that many adults would rather avoid.  I’ve already mentioned that I’m teaching through Revelation.  On alternate weeks, Joe is teaching through a course on logic.  Like I said, it’s an impressive thing that they continue to come week after week to learn to rightly divide God’s Word.  Joe has obviously done a good job with them.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand.  I am going to start a series of posts on the seven churches we just covered, with points of application for each.  Every one of them offers something we can learn from – whether it is something to emulate or something to avoid.  It would be good to try to relate each of the items addressed to both the current climate of Evangelicalism in general, and to us (individuals) in particular.  I, for one, know that I struggle with many of the same issues these first century churches dealt with.

Before I do so, however, I want to give you a chance to “chew” on the passage yourself.  The Holy Spirit’s guidance far outweighs any insight I may have and is better than any commentary.  The passage, again, is Revelation 2:1-3:22 (though it would be helpful to read Revelation 1:1-20 as well since it sets the stage for the seven letters.)  Just mouse over the highlighted text and it will pop up on your screen in the English Standard Version.  For now, here’s a sneak peak at the upcoming posts for the 7 churches:

1.  Error-Free in Ephesus
2.  Standing in Smyrna
3.  Placating in Pergamum
4.  Thoughtless in Thyatira
5.  Sleeping on the Job in Sardis
6.  Faultless in Philadelphia
7.  Lukewarm in Laodicea

Each letter follows a similar structure wherein the Risen Christ is given a portrayal or description that unmistakably refers to His deity – most of them coming from titles used of God in chapter one.  Next, the church addressed is given praise for something they have done well (all but two receive some sort of praise).  The commendation is followed by a rebuke (two are excluded from rebuke).  The church is then given a solution to the situation they are facing, a consequence of disobedience and a promise for over-comers.  All the letters include the exhortation “He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.  It is noteworthy that although each letter was addressed to a specific church, each of the churches is invited to read the others’ mail!  The idea here is probably that each church could learn from the mistakes of the others even if they were at the time innocent of any of the particular problems of the others.

We’ll include links to some helpful resources as they become available to help you get the most out of your study of the seven churches.

Blank Chart for filling out the attributes of the 7 churches / Same Chart with Answers

Map of the seven churches of Asia

I just finished reading Roger Olson‘s Pocket History of Theology pretty much as a filler book between larger volumes I was looking to tackle.  I’ve read a few popular surveys of church history to date and am often bogged down by the myriad of numbers, dates, and names thrown at me in even a relatively short book.  I’m often left wondering whether the numbers, dates, and names I do remember from a particular church history were even crucial to the overall study.  If you’re anything like me, you may just want to know what was really important in the grand scheme of things and how each of those important events helped to shape Christendom as we know it today.

Roger Olson, in his Pocket History of Theology boils off the dross to give you the pure gold of historical theology and paints a seamless picture of only the most influential bits and pieces.  Of course, the whole story cannot be told in just over a hundred pages, but if you can identify with the difficulty of keeping it all straight, this book would be a refreshing place to get a new start at attempting to do just that.

.

Growing up, I always viewed Arminianism as some sort of “faith plus works” model of salvation.   That idea was further established by those friends of mine who came from supposed Arminian circles that very much did believe that their salvation was in part dependent on the salvific work of Christ on the cross and in part due to their constant striving in good works.  Though I knew not what label to affix to their theology at the time, I grew to be certain in later years, that they practiced what is known as Arminian theology.  In all reality, however, what my friends were guilty of embracing was more of a folk-theology digression from true, Classical Arminianism.

In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger E. Olson makes a strong defense of Classical Arminian theology against many of the commonly-held, yet thoroughly unwarranted caricatures of Arminian Theology.  He does this in ten chapters, each tackling a separate Myth projected onto Arminianism by those outside (and, unfortunately by some supposedly inside) the Arminian camp.  The 10 myths are as follows:

1. Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
2. A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is Possible
3. Arminianism is not an Orthodox Evangelical Option
4. The Heart of Arminianism is Belief in Free Will
5. Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God
6. Arminianism is a Human-Centered Theology
7. Arminianism is Not a Theology of Grace
8. Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination
9. Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
10. All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

I believe this book would be beneficial for both Calvinist and Arminian alike.  It has always been my conviction (though sadly not always my practice) that to be fair we ought to get our description of a particular theological persuasion from the best, most able proponents of that persuasion. All too often, we are satsified in obtaining our description of a theological camp we differ with from the detractors of that view, rather than “the horse’s mouth.”  Let us all be gracious enough to read the perspective of those we think we disagree with before deriding them as sub-Christian or heretical.  Those are strong terms that ought not be used flippantly.

---

If you are interested in purchasing this book, it is available at the following links:

Were the Books that we find in our Bibles today hand-picked to fit a certain mold or was the process more objective than that? This post is an attempt to answer a particular objection I was confronted with to the truth-claims of Christianity by a friend and has to deal with what is called the Canon of Scripture.  (Canon is just a fancy Greek word that meant “measuring rod” and by which we understand the canon to be that “rule of faith” that recognized – not selected – certain books as authoritative and inspired of God.) 

The early church was never popular.  Besides the fact that Jesus was doing miracles left and right (and then the Apostles followed suit with miracles), by and large the crowds were unimpressed spiritually.  They liked magic tricks, but that was about where it left off.  Being unpopular from the get-go was bad enough, but “The Way” or Christianity, was proving to be quite the competitor to the Judaism of the Jews or the pantheism of the Romans.  Before long, both camps were persecuting this up-start religion. 

After what is known as the Edict of Diocletian, wherein the sacred Scriptures were to be burned by law, the Christians were forced to determine not which books would make for the best story, but which books they were willing to die for….and die they did.  This edict, coupled with the fact that a heretic by the name of Marcion had developed his own canon of sorts (or list of books that he held to be the Bible), the church at large needed to respond with an authoritative list of books of their own.  The process was not at all hodge-podge, pick and choose as some have supposed, but they had several criteria they used to discover (not determine) which books belonged.  I’ll quickly define just a couple of the most important ones here:

1. Apostolicity – was the book either written by an apostle, an associate of an apostle, or was approved by an apostle (by quoting it, etc.)
2. Catholicity – not whether or not the book was Roman Catholic, but universal in its acceptance.  Catholic actually literally means universal.

There are certainly other criteria that were used (the list ranges in number of criteria listed, but not in substance). 

Here are some quick videos (just a couple minutes a piece that would be worth looking at:
Lee Strobel – Former atheist discusses the reliability of the Bible
Dr. Wallace answers your question more specifically
Dr. Bock speaks to those “gospels” that never made it into the Bible

This was not meant to be an exhaustive answer to your question regarding the compiling of the Sacred Scriptures, but it does present the other side of the story.  I hope you’ll read what I wrote and take a moment to watch the videos (they’re very short) before you make a final decision.  Truth, at the end of the day, is what matters. 

I hope this post finds you doing well and pursuing Truth.  After all, the truth is what sets you free. – John 8:32

I recently read already gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it by Ken Ham & Britt Beemer.  One thing I think I need to do is either do these reviews right away (I read this the first week of April) or take more notes in order that I can go into more detail.

Let me point out at the beginning of this that I am not a fan of Ken Ham.  Being honest . . . he drives me nuts.  I just want you to know that upfront.

From the back of the book . . .

If you look around in your church today, two-thirds of the young people who are sitting among us have already left in their hearts; soon they will be gone for good.

The fact that the church is losing a ton of its youth is pretty well known.  Numbers vary from report to report, but they are high.  In this book Ken and Britt reveal (from the back again) . . .

The views of 1,000 twenty-somethings, solidly raised in the church but no longer attending – and their reasons why.

One interesting thing is the thousand aren’t random across a spectrum of twenty-somethings including atheists and/or agnostics and/or people raised in liberal churches.  These thousand came from conservative churches.

I appreciate Ken Ham’s concern for the youth.  Youth are who I have a burden for myself so I appreciate that focus of this book.  Another good point that Ken stresses is the need for apologetics.  On page 93, Ken quotes two passages that I think are the solution to the problem.  He quotes 1 Peter 3:15 as he stresses the need for apologetics and he also quotes 2 Timothy 4:2-4.  Paul tells Timothy in that passage to preach the word.  Ken stresses hard that there is a lack of teaching the Bible.  Ken writes on page 123, “. . . I firmly believe that one of the reasons people aren’t living by the word is that they aren’t being taught the word.”  I agree with him about this problem.  Many churches teach from the Bible, but they don’t teach the Bible.  What do I mean?  They preach topical series and use individual verses as launching pads instead of teaching through the text verse-by-verse in context, teaching through entire books so that Christians understand what a book teaches and how that book applies to their lives.  I risk really sidetracking on a soapbox of mine, so let’s stop there.

So Ken has some great emphases in this book.  He points out a serious problem.  He points out good solutions.  He makes one serious flaw in my viewpoint.  He absolutely mistakes the cause of so many youth departing.  Ken blames it on the church teaching “millions of years.”  This is Ken’s soapbox.  It’s a terrible one.  Why?  Because it’s not one of the B.A.S.I.C.S. (see my post on B.A.S.I.C.S.).

Ken writes on pp 73-74 . . .

The problem we are studying, of course, is that 60 percent of the students who grow up in the Church have lost that connection . . . What happened? How did we get here? I believe it all started when the Church gave us “millions of reasons” to doubt the Bible.  The book of Genesis gives us a clear account of the creation of the universe, of the world, and of everything that lives, including humanity.  A simple literal interpretation of these passages makes it clear that this creation took place in six days, with God resting on the seventh, just a few thousand years ago.

I listen to all of Ken’s podcasts.  He blames nearly everything that’s wrong in this world on this very point.

Ken hired Britt Beemer and his company to do a statistical study to get the information for this book.  Unfortunately, it appears Ken didn’t pay attention to the information.  We’re these kids taught “millions of years” in their youth at church?  Largely not.

Ken tells us about these 1,000 people on page 45 . . .

Of those  who attended Sunday school, over 9 in 10 said that their Sunday school classes taught them that the Bible was true and accurate.

Only 1 in 10 said their pastor/Sunday school teacher taught that Christians could believe in Darwinian evolution.

One in 4 said their pastors and Sunday school teachers taught that Christians could believe in an earth that is millions or billions of years old.

Over 4 in 5 said their pastor or Sunday school teacher taught that God created the earth in six 24-hour days.

Only 1 in 16 said their pastors or Sunday school teachers taught that the Book of Genesis was a myth or legend and not real history.

All 1,000 of these people are not “attending church” today.  But when you look at those stats, it appears most of them were not taught “millions of years.”  So how can the church teaching millions of years be the cause of their departure?  It can’t because most of them weren’t taught it in church!

You may not like what I say next, and I am not claiming to speak for Jeff and all of Full-proof when I say this.  This is just Joe Myzia talking.  I think the cause of their departure may not be “millions of years” but “thousands of years.”  Now that doesn’t speak for everyone because the stats do show some were taught an old earth/universe view.  However, it does speak for most of them as we look at those stats.  More than 4 of 5 were taught literal six 24-hour days.  The heaviest stat in Ken’s favor is that 1 of 4 pastors taught Christians could believe in millions/billions of years.  But even that only has 250 of 1,000 being taught old earth/universe.

As Christians, we should be well-informed in as many ways as possible.  My personal opinion is that the view of a young-earth/universe has been brutally assaulted by a gang of facts.  However, while that has happened, the evidence for Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian evolution has been also brutally assaulted.  Old-earth/universe does not automatically make macro-evolution true (macro-evolution is the idea that one species becomes another).  I think this is where Ken makes mistakes.  Ken regular makes category mistakes by automatically throwing macro-evolution in with an old earth/universe.  This can, and often does, result in “straw man” representations of old-earth Christians.

So how do I propose that kids taught young-earth creationism are in danger of falling away?  First of all, if students aren’t taught firmly that this is an area of debate in Christianity, but rather are taught with hardcore dogmatism that the earth is young, and if the scientific evidence becomes too convincing for them against the young-earth view, then they may have the misunderstanding that they have no other Christian camp to go to.  Thus, they may jettison the whole Christian worldview.  Secondly, teach a proper understanding that the Bible is sixty-six books, not one book. If a young adult sees the Bible as one book and struggles for a period in understanding one book, they can’t throw out the other sixty-five automatically.  Remember, we couldn’t always purchase a leather-bound codex with all sixty-six books in it.  They were all individual documents created at individual times. Thirdly, teach proper apologetics and good linear thinking in how we come to conclusions.  I can’t find the page, but Ken states somewhere in the book (and often in podcasts and public speaking events) that we believe in the resurrection because the Bible is the word of God and the Bible claims Jesus was resurrected.  He’ll do it in a question and answer type format.  He’ll ask, “Why do we believe in the resurrection?  Because the Bible says so.”  I do not think that is the proper way to teach resurrection and creation apologetics.  Oh, I absolutely believe the Bible is the word of God, but we don’t have to posit that to prove the resurrection.  The only place we must get to is proving that the gospel accounts and/or Paul’s epistles are historically reliable.  If Matthew states that Jesus said X, then Jesus said X.  If Mark says Jesus did Y, the Jesus did Y.  Proving the divine authorship and inerrancy of these books is further down the line in our argumentation in good apologetics.

By teaching teens in a way that they take the whole Bible as one book and getting them into a mindset that we believe X because the Bible says X, once they begin to have a doubt about one point they begin to doubt the entire Bible.  Once they don’t believe one doctrine, they toss the whole worldview.

By teaching teens:

• the difference between essential Christianity and non-essential Christianity (and we can’t give this lip service . . . we can’t say something is not an essential and treat it as essential after that, and this is what Ken does)
• about ways in which Christians disagree and why different Christians hold those views and respecting Christians who hold a differing viewpoint than we do
• how the Bible came to be book-by-book, how it was inspired and written down and then how it was transmitted through the centuries to today

we can equip them so that they don’t fall away from the faith if a non-B.A.S.I.C.S. point is challenged.  The age of the earth/universe is a debatable point inside the pale of orthodox Christianity.  Let’s not confuse this issue with an issue such as who God is or how one is saved or any other B.A.S.I.C.S. doctrine.

What place should opinion hold in the search for truth?

I just finished listening to a debate (or rather a discussion following a formal debate) between Messianic Jew Dr. Michael Brown and Jewish Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on the British radio station Unbelivable, which can be found either by clicking the website link provided here or visiting the iTunes Podcast of the show.  While listening, I was impressed (or perhaps at times unimpressed) by the method of engagement by the American Rabbi Boteach.

While this may seem simply a matter of bias, allow me to explain.  As I would naturally tend to side with the conclusions of Dr. Brown, it is not then always true that I would conclude with Dr. Brown’s methodology. To put it another way, I may agree with the ends, but not the means.  That being said, had Dr. Brown made the same mistake in his approach, I would have no problem contending with him on the same grounds – regardless of whether or not I agreed with his conclusion.  Two individuals may drive separate cars and take separate routes to the same destination, but that does not mean that while they arrived at the same place, the routes were of equal merit.

As to how it related to this debate, throughout the entire discussion, Rabbi Boteach made appeals to an emotional distaste for the claims Dr. Brown was making.  Understanding fully why the Rabbi found such things distasteful, nevertheless it bothered me that he was using his subjective analysis as an argument against what was being said.  I was surprised to see such an accomplished Jewish scholar resorting to such weak argumentation.  It occurred to me that a quick post might be in order to address in a general sense, this faulty method of arguing – especially since we laymen are even more prone to guilt in this area.

Essentially, Rabbi Boteach was allowing his opinion (driven by emotion) to become the foundation for his argumentation.  Which leads us to the question: Does opinion have a place in matters of right and wrong? Obviously, as I have already laid out much of my thesis against this method, my answer would be a resounding “NO!”  My reason for that is quite simple: there is no limit to the breadth of opinion on any given subject.  In point of fact, there may very well be as many opinions as there are those given opinions.  No one in their right mind would argue that each person’s opinion is as close to the truth as any other.  Truth, to the contrary, by its very nature is narrow, and gives no consideration to matters of sincerity or desire of those opining.

Consider a classroom of students all asked to give the sum of 2 and 3.  The number of answers could likely match the number of students.  The teacher, however, has only one answer in mind – the correct answer.  While each of the students may be equally convinced in their minds and equally sincere in their hearts, truth excludes those factors as adequate criteria for determining truth.  (You may recall a previous post in which we gave consideration to a section of Dr. Norman Geisler’s Systematic Theology where he deals with Truth and Relativism.)  Hence, we cannot allow our emotional appeals to drive our argumentation when seeking to determine truth.

I urge the reader to listen to the dialogue yourself and consider the contention I’ve made in this article.  Sometimes seeing is believing – or in this case hearing is believing.  Give it a listen and let me know what you think about both the debate and our analysis of it.

In a previous post, we critiqued a common [mis]use – or more appropriately under-use – of 1 Peter 3:15.  In this post, we’ll be considering a similar tendency we have with another verse – James 4:7.

James 4:7 is a very popular verse to cite when dealing with spiritual warfare.  Whether you’re trying to motivate yourself in difficult times or encourage a friend who’s down.  James 4:7 is no doubt a great verse to do just that, but I think often we leave the most important part of the verse out.

In the physical world, motivating statements can sometimes trigger just the adrenaline rush we need to finish strong.  That’s what is so important about half-times in sporting events.  The coach is given one more opportunity to say something inspirational or motivating to the team that just might be all they needed to get the job done.  We often use James 4:7 in similar fashion.  So what’s wrong with that? you might ask.

Well, when it comes to spiritual warfare, the best way to win is to admit defeat right off the bat.  I know, I know – that doesn’t sound very encouraging.  But the first step in victory in the spiritual realm is to admit that we don’t have it in and of ourselves to get the job done.  We have to rely on the supernatural aid God grants us.  I believe that is why it is so important to focus on the opening words of this verse:  “Submit yourselves therefore to God…”  You see, that is the vital component of spiritual victory.  Only then does “resisting the devil” go from futile to forceful.

The truth of this teaching can be seen as early as the Genesis 3 when Eve attempts to match wits with the Serpent in the Garden.  Because she was not submitted to God, she was unable to resist the devil.  How important it is for us today with all the temptation all around us to not miss that vital piece.  You wouldn’t go to battle without the proper armament.  Don’t go to spiritual battle without the proper spiritual armament either.  God bless you as you

The end result is a fleeing Devil and a spiritual victory.