Full-Proof Ministries

Author Archive

Before the Halloween season completely dies for another year, I wanted to repost a blog article written Halloween day in 2007 by my friend and co-author of this blog, Joe Myzia.  His article takes a different angle on the subject of Christians and what their perspective of this day should be.  Enjoy!

“Reformation Day or Halloween? Whose day is it? Either way, I see it as God’s day. Every day is God’s day.

^5Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind. ^6Those who regard one day as special do so to the Lord.

The Holy Bible : Today’s New International Version. 2005 (Ro 14:5-6). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

I had a big talk from my heart this week with the Tuesday night group that meets at my house. One of the things I emphasized with them was to not be afraid to ask themselves tough questions. This is something that I’ve learned to do in the last decade.

There is nothing to fear from tough questions. Let me give an example:

“Am I legalistic or being legalistic about something(s)?”

Have you ever run into a Christian that claims they are legalistic? You know, I never have – not once. I am never legalistic (at least that is what I think) but I can always point to someone or some church that is.

You know what I also tend to see myself and many, if not most, others do? If the question is presented, or the point is suggested, that we are legalistic, then we quickly dismiss it.

“No, I’m definitely not legalistic.”

Why are we so quick to dismiss the idea? Probably because of pride. I don’t want to admit that I’m legalistic about anything.

“The Independent Baptists down the street, now they are legalistic. Me? No, I’m not. They only allow the King James and their women must wear skirts.”

I’ve heard it said that most people in prisons don’t think they’re that bad. They can always point to someone else who is worse. Now, I’ve never done prison ministry and I’ve not interacted with prison inmates, but that’s the pattern I see with myself. Are you prone to be like that? Do you claim instantly that you are not legalistic because you can point to others who are?

Here’s my key question for today –

What do you have to lose by facing the tough questions?

Don’t quickly dismiss the questions. Take the time to ponder them.

What if I am not legalistic? Then I have no reason to fear pondering the question. I can examine it and conclude, “you know what — I honestly don’t think I struggle with this.”

But what if I am legalistic? Then don’t I need to ponder that question? How can I ever escape it if I never face the possibility head on that I might be legalistic?

Here’s another question to think about. If legalism is only a problem with a few extreme fundamentalist churches, then why did God address it so much in the New Testament? I think he addressed it so much because I think that most of us struggle with it more than we think we do or are willing to admit. I can easily say I’m not legalistic because I don’t add works to salvation. A lot of Christians have that simple of a definition. But legalism isn’t only about justification, we can also be legalistic about our sanctification.

And that’s where I think most Christians can fall into the trap of legalism. That’s what the book of Galatians deals with: not justification legalism, but sanctification legalism.

So face the questions head on. Don’t quickly dismiss them. You can only harm yourself in doing so.

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.

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.

Jeff wrote a commentary on 1 Peter 3:15 in which he pointed out (somewhat amusingly) that he had highlighted the part about always being ready to give an answer, but did not highlight the part about doing so with gentleness and respect.  Readers may not always pay attention to comments on posts Jeff or I do, but one reader brought up something that others may think about from time to time that I think is worth addressing.

What about when Paul apparently wasn’t gentle or respectful?  What about how Jesus sometimes dealt with people such as the Pharisees and other religious leaders?  Is there a time for us to use “stronger” words?

My approach is that Paul is an apostle.  I am not an apostle.  Jesus is the Christ.  I am not the Christ.  Since I am neither the Christ, nor an apostle of the Christ, I simple obey the apostle of Christ in 1 Peter 3:15.  That’s my approach.  I’m not saying that someone may not have a better thought than I.  However, whenever I use “stronger” words, it seems to close more doors than open them.  Rather than using stronger words, I study to find better, more effective words.  I ponder what may be a better question I could ask someone to get them to think outside their box a little more than they have thought before.

I installed a Bible verse application to my Facebook account a few days ago. The second day of having it, the verse for the day was 1 John 3:16. I think we should look at that verse and some context on both sides of it. So here we go . . .

^11For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. ^12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. ^13Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. ^14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. ^15Anyone who hates a fellow believer is a murderer, and you know that no murderers have eternal life in them.

^16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for one another. ^17If any one of you has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in you? ^18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

The Holy Bible : Today’s New International Version. 2005 (1 Jn 3:11-18). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

I recently finished reading a wonderful book entitled Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy by Greg Ganssle.  If one wants to be good at theology and apologetics, it really is helpful to equip oneself in philosophy.  I once heard Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the Bible Answer Man radio program, state that his most effective employees at the Christian Research Institute were those who were trained in philosophy.  Jeff Whittum and I are both currently reading Dr. Norman Geisler‘s Systematic Theology Volume 1.  I have no doubt that one of the things that makes Dr. Geisler’s theology book so much better than so many others I’ve read is not only his theological training, but his extensive philosophical training and study.

For those with no background in philosophy, there may be no better place to start than Dr. Ganssle’s book.  First of all, it’s short.  The last page of the index is page 187.  It’s not tiny print either.  It isn’t large print, but it isn’t tiny.

Secondly, those pages are divided into 27 chapters.  This means that if we divide 187 pages by 27 chapters, we end up with really short chapters.  The longest chapter is 11 pages.  Many are only 3 or 4 pages long.  This is nice for the fact that many people are intimidated by philosophy.  I don’t think people need to be intimidated by it and Ganssle’s book is the place for any and all who are (and even those who aren’t).  The chapters are bite sized and if you knock out one a day, then in a month you’ll have finished this small, but effective intro to philosophy.

Thirdly, Ganssle is very conversational in his style.  He writes as if he’s sitting in your living room having a conversation with a friend.  In all three of these ways, his intro to philosophy is easier than any other I own.

You won’t learn too many of the $50 big words of philosophy in this book.  You won’t learn a history of philosophy.  You won’t learn many of the names and dates of people or the fancy names assigned to their concepts.  What do you expect in 187 pages?  But Greg teaches you and me how to think.

His book divides into four parts:

1. Introduction
2. Reasons to believe in God
3. God and evil
4. What is God like?

In the introduction he spends 6 chapters on things like what philosophy is, what faith is and deals with the issue of whether or not we can be neutral in dealing with topics like God.

In the section of Reasons to believe in God he spends 10 chapters going over three of the most commonly used and accepted arguments for God:

1. cosmological argument
2. teleological argument
3. moral argument

Though again, he doesn’t use the big words I just used.

He spends six chapters in part three (God and evil) going over . . . well, God and evil.  Here he explores issues such as freedom and determinism.

In part four (What is God like?) He goes over some basic theology of a theistic god such as omnipotence and omniscience.

There’s no glossary.  There really doesn’t need to be.

Great read.  I recommend it highly.  I might read it again soon just to see if I can pick up another nugget or two or just to let his style permeate mine a little more.

Anytime that I’m teaching at a church for the first time, I present a message of mine called B.A.S.I.C.S. I’ve taught it many times and I tweak it along the way too.  B.A.S.I.C.S. is an acronym to help me remember essential Christian doctrines.

By essential I mean that a doctrine is definitional for Christianity, Evangelicalism in particular. In other words, if a person rejects any of these, then what they believe is not Christianity by definition. The letters in B.A.S.I.C.S. remind us of the following doctrines:

• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Atonement by substitution
• Second Timothy 3:16 (The Bible is the inerrant word of God)
• Incarnation or Isaiah 7:14 (Jesus was virgin born AND is truly human)
• Colossians 2:9 (Jesus is also truly god – I also talk about the Trinity at this point)
• Second Coming of Jesus

Christians can disagree about dozens, perhaps hundreds of other things such as:

• Are sign gifts for today?
• Is the millennium pre, post, or a?
• Is the rapture pre-trib, post, mid, partial or pre-wrath?
• Calvinism or Arminianism or something else?
• Is the description of Hell literal, allegorical, or are the lost annihilated?
• Are we eternally secure or can we lose our salvation?
• Is the earth/universe young (6,000 – 10,000 year old) or old (13.7 billion years give-or-take)?
• Should we immerse or sprinkle in baptism?
• Should we baptize infants or not baptize them?
• Which is the correct way to interpret the book of Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, or futurist?

And on, and on, and on, and on the list goes. However, we can disagree about such things. You and I could debate one of these, but hopefully we can discuss this over a burger or go out for a burger afterward.

Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying they’re unimportant. Indeed, they are important. But they aren’t definitional.

This is a question you might get asked by a skeptic. It came up in a debate that the Tuesday night students and I were watching (as this implies . . . I teach a Tuesday night Bible study at my house for teenagers). A couple things come to my mind:

1) Jesus did appear to unbelievers. Do you remember when the apostles first told Thomas what had happened? He was hardly believing.

^24Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. ^25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

The Holy Bible : Today’s New International Version. 2005 (Jn 20:24-25). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

The response to this is usually that Thomas was one of his immediate/intimate followers. I don’t buy that as an excuse for the fact that Thomas was pretty adamant against the claim of the other ten remaining apostles. But even if we grant that, we have Jesus’ brother James and the Pharisee Saul who came to be known as Paul. So there are three unbelievers that Jesus appeared to.

What I find interesting is how many Bible commentators and scholars who I respect miss this point and state that Jesus never appeared to any unbelievers, but only to those who believed. They haven’t thought this through.

2) Think about what this request is really asking for. What the skeptic is asking for is for an unbeliever who saw Jesus but didn’t convert. There is no such person. Can you imagine it? “Yep, I saw the resurrected Jesus and I don’t believe him.” It really isn’t a reasonable request.