Dear Georgia, Khole, West and all the kids,

Dear Ge0rgia, Khole, West and all the kids,

Your daddy tells me you are confused with God. I know in Sunday school the parents tell you God loves us and God is good. Your question may be how can God be both Love and good and yet allow Uncle Dennis to get sick and die.

First let me say God knew you would ask that question. Did you know other children and parents have asked this same question for thousands of years? When you go to the library, look at a “time-line” and you will see how long thousands is.

Let’s go to God’s testimony (i.e. His records about Himself) and see what He says about Himself. Moses told the people of Israel, God, “He is the Rock, his works are perfect”. (Deut. 32:4) King David said, “As for God, his way is perfect”. (2Sam. 22:31) Jesus Himself said, “Your heavenly Father is Perfect”. (Matt. 5:48) Moses, David and Jesus all claimed to be speaking for God. So if God can only create (make) perfect things, how can anything God created have bad things happen to them. Something must have gone wrong to the things God made because God is perfect (i.e. only good).

If you read Genesis 1-2 you will see God created (made) and then said “it was good,” so all the birds, trees, and dogs were good at first. God made man and woman and they were also made by a perfect God.

That man and woman were Adam and Eve and they did something God told them not to do. That event allowed disease and non-perfect things to happen in the world. Remember when Buddy was hurt and he died? That event is something God never meant (intended) to happen. And this is what God never intended to happen to Uncle Dennis.

Now remember why I was not afraid to die because Jesus had promised I would live forever with Jesus after I died. Here are the best things to know about Jesus.

In Genesis 3, God throws Adam and Eve out of the Garden because they had disobeyed God. Well, in Genesis 3, God made a promise (remember this word) to Adam and Eve and to all of us including you and me. Even though Adam and Eve allowed disease and bad things to happen to God’s perfect or good creation, God promised us someone would come to allow us to live eternal (forever) even after if we die. That person promised to Adam and Eve was Jesus.

So now when you end your prayers at night you can thank God for Jesus because Jesus is the promise God made to Adam and Eve and for all including you and Uncle Dennis. (Gen.3:15)

When Uncle Dennis prays I always end by thanking God for being good because Jesus was who God promised. Now I know I can trust God because He kept His promise of Jesus, that even if I die now or one hundred years from now, I will live forever. Remember John 11: 20-26, Jesus said “…he (Uncle Dennis) who believes in Me (Jesus) will live (forever) if he die”. (vv. 25)

This is why it is impossible to blame God for the bad in the world. God made a good world and has kept His promise of Jesus even though God never made Uncle Dennis sick. Even though I am sick I thank God for keeping His promise of Jesus. I have a Good God who keeps His promises.

I am building the junk box for Christmas. I found some thing for all you guys the other day.

Love,

Uncle Dennis

P.S. I am happy because God has told us He kept His promise of Jesus in the Bible. You can follow God’s promise all through the Bible up to the time Jesus is born. (Luke )

David Hume (1711-1776) wrote: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”

On Capital Circle N.W. you may see a non-descript sign on the side of the road. It is simply a green star on a black square background, close to the ground, nothing else near. I often passed this sign and wondered what purpose it served. Signs do not arbitrarily appear so I began a quest to find its origin. After questioning several shop proprietors, the owner was found. He said it was easier to tell people to look for the green star than to look for his business sign among all the others.

A basic pattern of human thought is based on the principle of causality, which stated is, every effect must have a cause. Aristotle accepted this principle when trying to understand motion in the universe. He said for motion to exist there had to be an ultimate cause which started motion for all time. He called this ultimate cause an Unmoved Mover. Aristotle was not purporting a personal God but recognized all effects; including motion must have a cause. The atheist David Hume (1711-1776) wrote: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1:187). Indeed, in the same source Hume claimed that it would be “absurd” to deny the principle of causality.

Another pattern of human thought is the principle of uniformity, which says we can know the past from the present. The faces on Mt. Rushmore are too specific to be done by natural causes so we assume an intelligent cause. Archeologists use the principle of uniformity when they assume an intelligent cause (civilization) from finds of pottery and tool artifacts. Forensic science (i.e. the TV show CSI) uses the principle of uniformity to explain murders. If a body is found with a gun shot to the head a natural cause of death is not assumed. We overlook this thinking pattern but if we were to find a piece of paper with writing on it we would assume an intelligent cause. Why? Because we are intelligent causes who write and we use and make pottery and tools. The sign I saw could not place itself or rise from the earth on its own, so my assuming an intelligent cause for the sign agrees with the principle of uniformity. Not only did I find an intelligent cause for the sign, I found a meaning.

The sign on the road had a reason for being there and I wanted to know its purpose. I applied the principles of causality and uniformity to investigate the reason, or the “why” for the sign. Causality and uniformity are universal principles and they are the principles on which all scientific inquiries are based. Science would be meaningless if nothing had a cause or a reason for being. Whatever our belief system, these principles are used in everyday life whether we understand them fully or not. Just like the archeologist, Christianity uses the principles of uniformity to assume an original intelligent Cause. Evolutionists break with these principles and assume human existence came from a naturalistic, non-intelligent cause. I see the theistic view as being more consistent with the pattern in which we think. A Supreme Intelligent Being is an adequate assumption to explain the cause of human existence. Christianity assumes there is a Cause and we are His purpose.

The atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, made this statement about “why” questions: “Why are we here? What is our purpose does not deserve an answer." Mr. Dawkins believes we can ask where the laws of physics come from but not ask their purpose because this “implies some kind of deliberate purpose giver or purpose thinker." According to Mr. Dawkins, a why question worth asking is, “Why, after some period of billions of years, did life originate on this planet and then start evolving?” Mr. Dawkins says we can ask why as long as we are not looking for purpose. The problem is without purpose there is no meaning. Mr. Dawkins just wants facts for facts sake. He wants to know why life originated on this planet but he cares not for the meaning. If there is no meaning why ask why

Humanities literature is filled with the question of why. The common motif of one climbing a hill to ask a guru type a question of meaning is just one example. Life itself is often paralleled with as a journey to meaning. In the movie “City Slickers” Billy Crystal, apparently going through a middle life crisis, wants to know the meaning of life. Man has always assumed two things. There is a cause and there is purpose. ? I find it fascinating an individual, like Mr. Dawkins can claim an a priori knowledge of no meaning to all that has ever been.

“The Voice.”

Does God speak audibly or by an inner voice to individuals today? If He does, how do we prove what is from God and what is not?

During the recent election campaigns a man at a “Charlie Crist For Governor” fundraiser said the Lord had told him Charlie Crist would be the next governor of Florida. The man was proven right about Crist for governor, but he, nor we, can really prove he heard from God.

When I hear someone say, “God said to me….” I want to reply, “God told me to tell you He did not say that.” The problem here is neither one of us can prove God spoke. I cannot prove God did not speak to him and he cannot prove God did not speak to me. If it is taught God speaks today (audibly or through an inner voice) people are led into an arbitrary type of belief system. Those who teach people to believe God speaks today have no way of teaching how to prove beyond any doubt the voice or the prompting is God’s. It comes down to relying on pure feelings, or what you think is right or what you think you heard.

There are people today trying to find God’s perfect will for their lives by listening for “The Voice.” They spend more time and energy trying to hear God when God’s voice has already spoken loud and clear through His Word. They drown out God’s revealed revelation, the Bible, because hearing audibly is “more spiritual” than spending hours in study and understanding the historical content of already revealed revelation. The Bible claims to be, and is, the very breath of God’s final revelation of His purpose for man. The basic instructions contained in it are perfectly capable of guiding mankind through this life until He returns. We do not need to strive to hear God’s voice because He has already spoken in a rational discourse, the Bible.

Jim Jones said God told him to go to Guyana. Although there is nothing wrong with going to Guyana in itself, in hindsight, no one would dare say Jim Jones heard from God. The question is, do you believe and teach God speaks today other than through the Bible? If you do, you propagate the same beliefs or ideas that allow Jim Jones and others to claim an authority that misleads many, some even into death.

When we, as Christians, are asked how God speaks today, we must answer “He has already spoken through His Word, the Bible.”

Mr. Bentley is more in line with Gnostic beliefs than Christianity.

It has been said an individual can grow a beard, dress in a robe and sandals, and walk through America claiming to be Moses and find a following. I believe that is true of people who claim to have visions. If you watch any amount of Christian television you will eventually hear someone claiming to have a vision from God. However, the vision is totally unverifiable and the only authoritarian source for the vision is the seer.

Todd Bentley, the leader of the Lakeland, “Florida Healing Outpouring” revival, is the latest seer to entice crowds with wondrous accounts of 20 foot angels and his story of personally “…going to heaven via a pillar of fire through the church roof…..” He describes a hotel room literally burned down because an angel visited his room. Mr. Bentley has even had a female angel visit him with new revelation. Of course, nowhere in the Bible do we read of female angels.

Mr. Bentley is more in line with Gnostic beliefs than Christianity. Gnosticism was a direct counterpart to Christianity when the twelve Apostles were extant. The Gnostics took pride in visions they claimed to see and new revelation they received. They taught special rituals could catapult a person’s spiritual level. Gnosticism was very fond of naming the angels after their activity. Thomas Bentley has named the angel who started his revival “Winds of Change,” and has said one angel told him, “I am a healing angel….” Mr. Bentley claims all Christians should and can take trips to heaven. An add on his website says in part, "The School of the Supernatural Realms of Heaven" will get you ready to fly like an eagle into the supernatural realm!”

In her article June 21 article, “Lakeland Revival Is the Real Deal,” Krista Abbott testifies of the validity of Todd Bentley’s revival. Listen to the reasons Ms. Abbott gave for the revival’s validity. She said, “...my heart leaped” when she entered the structure and even though she was not cold. “I felt a chill on my arm.” As sincere as Ms. Abbott might be about her “experiences,” I suggest we as Christians look closer at the Bible when it comes to validating miracles and visions, rather than our feelings and others non-substantiated testimonies.

There is a sect in Christianity who thinks miracles of the New Testament are to be duplicated today. Mr. Bentley, his angel, “Winds of Change,” and his followers are an example of such a sect. They neglect the uniqueness of Jesus and the purpose miracles had in the New Testament. John the Baptist, while in prison, sent messengers to Jesus asking if he was the Messiah or should they look for another. Jesus told John’s disciples to report to him the miracles they were seeing. (Mark 11: 4-5) The reason miracles are a part of the Biblical revelation is to validate Jesus’ claims as the Messiah, not to be duplicated. Jesus’ miracles have an authoritarian source, God’s word. Mr. Bentley and others claim a pseudo-authority for their “miracles,” via duplication, but they still lack a Biblical purpose. To propose we need to duplicate Jesus’ miracles today is to lessen the uniqueness and purpose of those miracles which testified to Jesus as the Lamb of God.

Mr. Narisetti not only wants to protect children but to stop what he calls ‘psychological abuse’ on society’s future.

In the June/July “Free Inquiry” magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism, an article “Religion and Child Abuse” appeared, written by Innaiah Narisetti.

Mr. Narisetti’s premise is clear when he states, “In one form or the other all religions violate the rights of children.” He questions at what age society ought to allow children “access to religion.” He wants the United Nations to restrict the “automatic” rights of parent’s to expose their children to religion. Mr. Narisetti also says, “Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable [children] minds...” and adults use these religious beliefs as a pretext to fight wars and promote other inhumane acts. Mr. Narisetti not only wants to protect children but to stop what he calls ‘psychological abuse’ on society’s future.

Atheists throughout history have deemed religion as the quintessential villain for most of society’s woes. Karl Marx taught religion was used by the rich to keep the working class in poverty. The author, Arthur C. Clarke considers religious beliefs a form of “superstition and barbarism.” Friedrich Nietzsche thought Christian virtues inspired weakness, not strength in man.

They plead their case against religion noting the brutality of theistic wars while ignoring the brutality of an atheistic Stalin. Certainly atrocities have been committed in the name of religion as well as non-religion. When arrogance is applied to any belief system, whether atheistic or theistic, the end result is oppression.

Christianity teaches man has separated himself from a perfect loving Creator but in evolution all men have risen up from an impersonal organic slime. Atheists, just like theist, are looking to explain the paradox of mans simultaneous greatness and cruelty. Atheists condemn religion as abusive but teach, by default, all thinking patterns come from the same micro organic pool. How can evolutionist claim authority to condemn one belief system over another? If the micro organic pool we all came from is the “designer” this friction between theism and atheism could be “its” purpose. If all humans came from the same impersonal organic source, our evolutionistic origins make us cohorts in all cruelty throughout history. Atheists have no authority to claim “any” belief system as abusive, unless they can prove that belief system came from defected micro organic pool “billions” of years ago.

On the inside cover of the magazine carrying the article “Religion and Child Abuse” there appeared a list of 21 principles called “The Affirmation of Humanism.” The following is number 4 (emphasis mine):

“We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.”

Mr. Narisetti and the Council for Secular Humanism have proclaimed their evolutionistic belief system superior. In seeking to protect children from so called, abusive religious beliefs, atheists are on their way to becoming the authoritarian elites and the repressive majority. In their attempt to inflate the greatness of man, they violate the freedoms of man. Atheists believe all men evolved from the same micro organic pool, however the atheistic view came from a superior non-defected pool.

Did a person called “I” want to move or did an autonomous body decide for me?

Our local science Museum hosted the “Our Body: The Universe Within” exhibit and according to the exhibit’s web site [1] their goal is to, “transmit knowledge about the human organism displaying the specimens in an artful, compelling and dignified environment.” These “200 specimens” are preserved by a process called polymer impregnation “whereby bodily fluids are replaced by liquid plastic”. Apparently this plastic allows the tissues to be left “intact down to the microscope sphere” allowing us to see the most intrinsic parts of our anatomy. Furthermore, the exhibit wants to let visitors explore the “body parts” which “allow us to think, breath, and move”.

The exhibit strips the body of the soul (self or I) by suggesting body parts allow us to think. Is the body an autonomous “human being”? When I choose to hold my breath, is the body choosing this act for me or am “I”. Are the muscles in my face smiling or am I? When the body is considered the end all one raises the dilemma of which came first the chicken or the egg. Did a person called “I” want to move or did an autonomous body decide for me? After touring this exhibit one might wonder if the bodies’ only usefulness after death is for scientific displays. As Christians, how should we view these displayed specimens in light of our faith? Does the body have a future after death? Will the body ever be something other than compost?

Throughout history, the battle has been to separate the body from the soul. In most eastern religions, losing attachment with the physical body is part of achieving a higher consciousness. Nirvana, for the most part, is enlightenment and freeing the spiritual self (soul) from the body, ending the cycle of physical birth and rebirth. Plato taught salvation happens when the soul is shed of its body. Strict evolutionists strip the body of its soul ending the need for salvation. Of all religions, the Judeo/Christian religions exclusively teach the physical body and the soul are good [2]. Judaism believed in a physical resurrection of the body. Daniel looked forward to a physical resurrection when he wrote, “…many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” [3]. In Jewish Apocalyptic literature, 2 Baruch, God is asked, “In what shape will those live who live in Thy day?” God’s answer is, “For the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead [which it now receives, in order to preserve them]. It shall make no change in their form, but as it has received, so shall it restore them...” [4] The implication is clearly a belief in a physical bodily resurrection. When Jesus (who was a Jew) told Martha her brother would rise again, Martha responded by saying she knew he would rise in the resurrection of the last day [5]. The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection whereas the Sadducees did not [6]. When the Sadducees asked Jesus whose wife a multiple-wed woman would be in the resurrection they are clearly acknowledging a teaching of a bodily resurrection [7]. Paul, being a Pharisee[8] believed in a bodily resurrection and taught so in 1 Corinthians 15.

The Apostles Creed declares “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh”. Early church father Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165) said, “There are some who maintain that Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these same persons seek to rob the flesh [body] of the promise” [9]. Notice the body is given the promise of life eternal in its fleshly bodily form. Justin Martyr also said, “….He [Christ] has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life” [10]. Life in eternity, according to Christian teaching, is promised to the physical body as well as the soul. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224-1274) said, “The soul does not take an airy or heavenly body, or a body of another organic constitution, but a human body composed of flesh and bones and the same members enjoyed at present”[11].

Paul wrote, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” [12]. Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the evidence of our promised bodily resurrection. In the New Testament records, Christ Jesus’ appearances are replete with physical manifestations. Luke tells us Jesus showed himself to his apostles alive after his death by many infallible proofs, for forty days [13]. He walked and talked with his disciples [14]. He specifically encouraged the prodding of the nail scarred body, which three days earlier had held him on the cross. Jesus specifically asked for meat to eat so no one mistook him for a ghost [15]. St. John said, “….when he [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” [16]. Christ ascended [17] to heaven in the same body in which he died. The phrase, “….for we shall see him [Christ Jesus] as he is,” means how he was raised from the dead; physically.

A Sunday school teacher said our bodies in heaven would not have the same kind of blood running through them as we do now, implying our bodies are not good enough for heaven, yet when Christ Jesus’ body ascended into heaven it was the same flesh and bones (and blood) which hung on the cross. [19]. Regrettably, many Christians have a negative or Platonic [18] view of the physical body. Our fleshly bodies are not evil. They are part of creation which was proclaimed good. Scripture teaches we are not looking for a dissimilar environment or body. We are looking for what we are familiar with to be restored. The promise is the destruction of sin, not our bodies.
At Easter we celebrate the resurrected body of the Christ Jesus, and we forget the promise made to our own bodies. Understanding our bodies will be resurrected in the same material substance we posses now makes the promise of victory over death more tangible. Dr. Norman Geisler’s book, The Battle for the Resurrection, states, “God has promised to reverse the curse of sin on a material creation with a material resurrection.”20

---

[1] http://www.ourbodytheuniversewithin.com/

[2] Genesis 1 “…and God saw that it was good”. Gen. 2:7

[3] Daniel 12:2 KJV

[4] 2 Baruch 49:1; 50:2 as quoted in, Norman L. Geisler, “The Battle for the Resurrection” pg. 209 1992 emphasis mine.

[5] John 11: 23, 24

[6] Acts 23:8

[7] Matt. 22:23,28; Acts 23:8

[8] Acts 23:6

[9] Norman L. Geisler, “The Battle for the Resurrection” page 53, Nelson 1992

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., page 58-59. Emphasis mine

[12] 1 Cor.15:20 KJV

[13] Acts 1:3

[14] Luke 24:15-17

[15] Luke 24:39-43

[16] 1 John 3.2b KJV

[17] Luke 24:51

[18] Plato viewed all matter including the body as evil.

[19] Acts 1:3

[20] Norman L. Geisler, “The Battle for the Resurrection” page 32, 33, Nelson 1992

Oprah Winfrey has said, “Luck is a matter of preparation. I am highly attuned to my divine self.”

A shooting star was seen the night after the murder of Julius Caesar of Rome and since the Romans were very superstitious they believed Caesar had become a god. Caesars’ successor erected “The Temple of the Divine Julius Caesar” where Caesar’s body was cremated.

The superstition of humans possessing divinity is still with us. Oprah Winfrey has said, “Luck is a matter of preparation. I am highly attuned to my divine self.” Dr. Wayne Dyer, of PBS fundraiser fame, tells us, “You are a divine, infinite creation making the choice to be on purpose and to be connected to the power of intention.” One may start to wonder how we explain Darfur and the last two World Wars in light of the promotion of man’s divinity. (emphasis mine in both quotes)

The belief of divinity in humans also leads to an elitism, which makes the “Divine” believe they have the power to control circumstances by their thinking. Oprah has said, “The more positive you are about your life, the more positive it [life] will be,” (emphases mine). Dr. Dyer’s, “Power of Intensions” is nothing more than a formula to teach that your “thoughts” can alter life’s circumstances.

This belief of a divine spark or ‘piece’ of God in man has infatuated the church in the teaching God is within us. This idea comes from the scripture were Jesus says to the Pharisees, “the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17: 21) Ignoring the fact Jesus just told the “Pharisees” the kingdom of God was in them we have taken this to mean some divine part of God’s divinity is within our human nature. The phrase, “the kingdom of God is within you” was a Jewish idiom meaning the kingdom was very close at hand. The Pharisees were demanding an answer to their question, “when” the Kingdom of God would come and Jesus being the representative of God’s Kingdom was letting them know it was right in front of them. Jesus was not telling the Pharisees or anyone else they possessed divinity.

The Bible never teaches humans or Angels to be divine. Man and Angels are created effects of God and although the effect bears the image of his Cause man is in no way equal to it. For the church to accept or purport anything close to the mentality of humans possessing a divine spark or the ability to alter our circumstances with our thoughts is totally against Biblical teaching. To accept a human divinity is to put ourselves on an equal status with God.

The Bible teaches we are fallen creatures of a sinful nature. Paul tells us, there is none righteous and every man’s heart is wicked. (Romans 3.23) Although we may not like being called fallen creatures this explains Darfur and World Wars more consistently than “human divinity.”

God knows and cares I am sick and can heal me.

As I lay in the MRI being scanned because the doctors found a tumor in the left side of my head, I remembered how I was raised to believe if you have enough “faith” in God he would heal you. Considering I do not accept God is performing miracles today, I asked myself what my hope is in.

I was raised under the false assumption that if you have enough “faith” in God, he would miraculously heal you. When I was a young boy, my father benevolently took advantage of my inexperience. At a rest stop, the water in the men’s room sink was controlled by foot pedals. I, not seeing the pedals, relied on my father’s magic words “hocus pocus” to turn the water on. I was impressed and more than willing to help the next person who did not know the magic words. As I repeated them for a man, nothing happened. I was stunned, embarrassed, and looking for an “exit” when he found the pedals under the sink. This is a great analogy of what it is like being raised to think miracles are at your command. When no miracle materializes, you are looking for an “exit.”

Of the many exits I’ve heard, the cruelest is to blame the person in need of the miracle for not having enough belief (i.e. faith) to move God to perform. I heard a man purport a woman was denied her miracle because unbelievers in the room drained the sick woman’s faith in God.

To me the most indecorous is to imply to the person’s loved ones the miracle of healing took place in heaven after the person’s death. First they are told God will honor a certain level of belief with a miracle on earth, and then they are told God was not satisfied with their level of belief.

A Biblical definition of a miracle is:

“…a divine intervention into, or an interruption of, the regular course of the world that produces a purposeful but unusual event that would not (or could not) have occurred otherwise” [1]

I have adopted the position called “Cessationism.” People who hold this position believe miracles happened in a specific time and for a specific purpose, not that they never happened. As a Cessationist, I do not expect or pray for miracles, or accept what people categorize as miracles, because I believe the purpose and time for miracles has ceased.[2]

Of the thousands of years of Israel’s history, miracles appeared in three limited time clusters. The “Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” defines these clusters as:

(1) The Mosaic period: from the exodus through the taking of the Promised Land (with a few occurrences in the period of the judges). Moses needed miracles to deliver Israel and sustain the great number of people in the wilderness (Exod. 4:8).

(2) The prophetic period: from the late kingdom of Israel and Judah during the ministries of Elijah, Elisha, and to a lesser extent Isaiah. Elijah and Elisha performed miracles to deliver Israel from idolatry (see 1 Kings 18)

(3) The apostolic period: from the first-century ministries of Christ and the apostles. Jesus and the apostles showed miracles to confirm establishment of the new covenant and its deliverance from sin (Heb. 2:3–4)[3]

Each time a spokesman (prophet) for God came to Israel, God confirmed him with signs and wonders (miracles). Moses was given signs [4] (miracles) to confirm his divine calling as a spokesman to the people of Israel. Signs and wonders were used in both Old and New Testaments to confirm spokesmen for God.[5]

When John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the Expected One or should he look for another, Jesus performed a list of miracles to send back to John (Luke 7:18-23). Jesus performed these miracles for the purpose of showing John and the people of Israel that he, Jesus, was the “Expected One.”

In Mark 2:5-12 a crippled man is brought to Jesus by his friends and instead of healing the man, Jesus told him his sins were forgiven. This was rebutted by the scribes in the crowd who asked, “Why does this man speak blasphemies, who can forgive sins but God? Jesus then asked them, “What is easier to say, your sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up your bed, and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (he said to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto you, Arise, and take up your bed, and go thy way into your house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all….”

The purpose of miracles was to show Jesus the Christ[6] had the authority to forgive sins. I heard someone ask, “If we [Christians] are to perform the miracles Christ did, what do we need Christ for?” In a simple way, this statement nails the whole point of miracles in the New Testament. If it were not for the miracles, Jesus would be just another man, and if Christians were profusely performing miracles today, we all could claim to be the “Expected One.” Those who believe biblical miracles are to be imitated actually dilute the past purpose of miracles which is to point uniquely to Jesus as the incarnation of God and His ability to provide life eternal. Christ walking on the water was not to be imitated, but the miracle of it was to point to his divinity.

God knows and cares I am sick and can heal me. If my brain tumor turns out to be malignant I will not be praying for or expecting a miracle. My hope will be in the historical record of the biblical miracles; miracles whose past purposes were to point to Jesus’ authority to provide forgiveness of sins and provide life eternal. If Christ did not perform the miracles he sent back to John in Luke 7 I have no hope.

---

[1] “Miracles and Modern Thought” Norman L. Geisler (Zondervan/Probe 1982) emphasis mine page 13

[2] It does not follow that I have to believe in an un-miraculous future when Christ comes back. That is another specific time.

[3] “Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” page 468

[4] Exodus 3, 4. Notice the signs of the serpent and leprous hand were to confirm to Israel not Eygpt. Moses first performed these signs to Israel so they would believe he was speaking for God.

[5] Acts2:22 John 3:2 John 9:16 2 Cor.12:12 Signs and wonders followed the twelve apostles to confirm what they spoke was the words of God. This is the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.

[6] Paul refers to Jesus the Christ repeatedly in his writings. Christ in the Greek means “Anointed One.” I think it is so important to remember Jesus the man was God incarnate. This is the doctrine of the Trinity.

Christians should remember Whose image we bear when crimes against humanity are committed.

Twelve year-old Jessica Lunsford’s killer, John Evander Couey, was found guilty and the jury recommended death. The news came across the television, as a man sitting next to me said, “I have not one ounce of sympathy for John Couey.” What really surprised me was the audacity of this man professing no feelings toward another human being sentenced to death. I reminded him we all bear God’s image. When another image bearer is killed, we should have sympathy because of Whose image is being destroyed. He gave me a puzzled looked. The conversation ended.

After God executed humanity, except Noah and his family, in the flood, He reminded Noah of the glory which man reflects. “…For in the image of God made he man.” (Gen.9:6)

Whether noble or deranged, humans share a common feature, God’s image. Man is different from the animals because he is made in the image of a personable, reasonable and rational God. Our Scriptures teach our bodies were made from the dirt of the earth. Then God gave us our soul which contains personality, the image of God. Personality is a combination of the ability to think, feel, and will. These are common in all humans, varying in degree only. It has been said personality “is capacity for fellowship.” Humans have been honored with the distinction of having fellowship with their Creator.

Christians should remember Whose image we bear when crimes against humanity are committed. We should not be the loudest supporters for the execution of any human for the sake of revenge or justice only. Our Creator honors man, not for man’s sake, but for the image which man bears. Understanding the distinction our Creator has given us, we need to consider wisely the motive we portray for executing another image bearer.

In 1998 some Christian leaders, the loudest supporters for capital punishment defended convicted killer Karla Tucker, who showed signs of conversion. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others found themselves defensive of their past rhetoric in favor of the death penalty. Pat Robertson on Larry King Live said, “And, you know, mercy trumps justice” for not applying the death penalty to Karla Tuckers’ case. Many people accused Pat Robertson and others of being hypocrites because suddenly they wanted to change their usual posture on capital punishment. The Christian leaders had a problem; they wanted all to see Karla Tucker as an image bearer of God as a reason for mercy, but the argument for God’s image being defamed had hardly made the analysis in Christians position for capital punishment.

The Christian community has screamed so loud for the death penalty as a political litmus test we have lost the real reason why God allowed the death penalty in the first place. E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post and advocate against capital punishment wrote back during that time, “The best case for the death penalty is that it is the only just sentence for a human being who takes the life of another.” Whether he knew it or not Mr. Dionne was expressing the Biblical view of Genesis 9:6 for capital punishment better than the Christian leaders were. God said “Whoever kills a man, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.” Man is not an autonomous piece of flesh except for the sacred image—personality­­—of ­­­­God we bear.

Capital punishment is Biblical, but the reason for its existence has been forgotten. We are not executing a human for what they have done to a fellow image bearer but for Whose image they destroyed. It is the image we bear that is sacred not our rights for revenge or justice. For this reason alone, dishonoring the image of God, man should execute man.

Date of Execution: February 3, 1998

Offender: Karla Faye Tucker #777

Last Statement: Yes sir, I would like to say to all of you – the Thornton family and Jerry Dean’s family that I am so sorry. I hope God will give you peace with this.

Baby, I love you. Ron, give Peggy a hug for me. Everybody has been so good to me.

I love all of you very much. I am going to be face to face with Jesus now. Warden Baggett, thank all of you so much. You have been so good to me. I love all of you very much. I will see you all when you get there. I will wait for you.

Is there a problem with this claim?

In his book "Prayer" Philip Yancey says, " Brennan Manning, who leads
spiritual retreats several times each year, once told me that not one person
who has followed his regimen of a silent retreat has failed to hear from
God."

Is there a problem with this claim? For one it posits that the regimen
followed gives a guaranteed result. The other assumption is that God has not
spoken adequately enough to man so as to require Mr. Manning's (or any other
formula) regimen.

Philip Yancey is a well known Christian author being promoted by almost
every church in America. He has written several books like, The Case for
Christ and The Case for Faith, in which he methodically takes the
necessary logical steps to show the rationalization for believing in Christ
and for having a Faith. In the Cases for Christ and Faith, he points his
readers to a studious approach to the Bible and posits historical
investigations in order to believe the dialogue God has given to man. Those
two books will strengthen your belief in God and what He has done in times
past.

However, now when it comes to prayer he goes down a contradictory turn. Mr.
Yancey wants to convince us that although, "I heard no audible voice, and
yet at the end of the week [of Brennan Manning's retreat] I had to agree
with Brennan that I had heard from God."

Which is it? Do we believe the teachings of the Bible based on historical
evidence and prepositional truths in a rational dialogue or do we follow the
Brennan regimen to know God has spoken. Should any teaching in the Bible be
based on any one subjective notion? That Mr. Yancey has confessed to "no
audible voice" and has agreed that Mr. Brennans' regime allows Gods voice to
be heard, makes me wonder why Mr. Yancey bothered at all with investigating
the historical background to prove the existence of Christ or a rational
Faith of the Bible. Why not just ask God to speak all those truths in the first place?

Don't worry Mr. Yancey no one will challenge your suggestion that God speaks
in subjective ways. You are already like most Christians today, who are not
content that the Bible is a sufficient enough dialogue from God to man. Who
needs content when you can take a course on how to hear from God?

Dennis Cogdill
jgdoctrine@gmail.com

“The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Google “Thomas Jefferson Bible” and you will find “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” In 1803, Jefferson removed the miracles from the Biblical Gospels but kept the morals teachings of Jesus. Our fifty-seventh Congress liked it so much they had an edition published in 1904. Mr. Jefferson’s Bible ends with no resurrection. “There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” (Life and Morals, 132)

Jefferson, along with most of our founding fathers, was a Deist. He believed God was like a watch maker who designed the universe, wound it up and walked away. Thomas Jefferson’s idea of God, although nominal, led him to a moral belief that all men were endowed with certain unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Believing God created all people equal, Mr. Jefferson also saw slavery in the United States as something to be abolished.

French Atheist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) believed man to be autonomous. He said, “we remind man that there is no legislator but himself…” and, “there must be an absolute truth……it consist[s] in one's immediate sense of one’s self.” Sartre believed the absolute freedom of all men led to all human activities as being of equal value. The man who helps a little old lady across the street has no additional moral standing than the one who runs her over.

Both Jefferson and Sartre are trying to give reasons for man’s morality, otherwise known as ethics. Jefferson praises the moral or ethical teachings of Jesus but leaves him in the grave. If Jesus did not do the miracles acclaimed to him, why should we follow his example any more than Socrates or Plato? Sartre erases God all together and calls man his own "legislator" for all moral decisions. Mr. Sartre's position of no God leaves man's morality dangling with "each" man able to self-govern his own behavior without a judge.

Socrates (427-347 B.C.E.) fought this battle of ethics against another Greek Philosopher Protagoras, who's famous slogan was, "Man is the Measure of all things." Socrates believed man’s morals to have a transcendent base verses being individualistic.

It is a logical necessity for there to be Personal Moral Giver because if not, each individual becomes his own ruler. If each man is “absolutely” free from a transcendent moral base, there is no standard moral rule except what “each person” decides for themselves. If man is the measure of all things, then the dictator cannot be held accountable for “injustices” in which he has legislated as the rule.

The Bible exposes man’s dilemma of morality from the beginning. The Bible states a Personal Moral Giver as the authority behind why "thou shall not.” It proclaims man guilty, as the one who walked away from a Personal Moral Giver, and explains man’s yearning for morality by revealing him to be made in the image of a moral God.

There has to be some authority outside of “man’s morality” to say thou salt not kill, steal or cheat on one’s spouse. If we are going to accept the morals of the Bible we have to accept them in context with the supernatural. To tell someone “you ought to” without a sufficient base gives them the right to ask, “Who made you God?”

Faith literally means trust.

Faith literally means trust. If you have faith in something you believe or trust in it. The Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines faith as “confidence in or dependence on a person, statement or thing as trustworthy; trust.” Faith in the New Testament primarily means to trust in the statements revealed by God through scripture. Occasionally the phrase “the faith” is used to signify the believed propositional truths of the Bible. Some examples are Jude 3 “….exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith….delivered unto the saints.” In Acts 14:22 Paul is “…exhorting them [Christians] to continue in the faith.”

The best place to understand faith is in the book of Hebrews. The book's main premise is to show Jesus Christ as our hope. He also represents God’s trustworthiness to keep His promise. Hebrews 6:13 says, “For when God made [a] promise to Abraham, [God] could swear by [no one] greater, [so] he swore by [His own nature of trustworthiness].”

From Adam and Eve to Abraham, God promised to redeem man from his fallen nature. Jesus Christ was that promise. Hebrews 10:23 says, “let us hold fast the confession of our hope [i.e. Jesus Christ] that [our faith or trust] waver not; for [God] is faithful that promised.”

Hebrews 10:32 says, “The just shall live by faith.” This verse quotes Old Testament Habakkuk 2:4 where the Hebrew word for faith denotes God’s quality of trustworthiness. The author of Hebrews and Habakkuk are saying we live by the revealed scripture which claims God is trustworthy to keep his promise.

Chapter 11 of Hebrews is often called the faith chapter. Eighteen times in this chapter we have the phrase “by faith” followed by a patriarch's name who followed God at his word. When we read, “By faith Abraham believed God…” we are to understand Abraham considered God trustworthy.

The strength of faith or the ability to believe is only as strong as the source trusted in. As Christians, the Bible is our source of faith. God never intended us to have a blind faith and has provided an historical account of His actions in fulfilling His promise of salvation.

Some teach faith as a force within you to be conjured up to acquire temporal things. Faith has nothing to do with making something happen by believing hard enough. This mentality puts the individual as the source of their own faith. The Old Testament patriarchs "were still living by faith when they died" waiting to see the trustworthiness of God revealed. Martin Luther said: “….Promise and faith must necessarily go together. For without the promise there is nothing to be believed..."

Humans can only bow their knee and accept the promise of a trustworthy God. The Bible shows us what kind of God we are bowing to. We do not believe in Heaven or God because we have seen them nor because we can prove them. Biblical faith is totally dependent on a trustworthy God and Jesus Christ is evidence of God's trustworthiness. I saw a sign this weekend that said, “Faith is unlimited.” Just remember faith in and of itself is not sufficient without a personal God to have faith in.

Come find God’s destiny for your life!

Come find God’s destiny for your life! God has ordained you to prosper!

Preachers will assist you to the next level in finding the divine appointment God has for your life. They teach their airplanes and fancy church buildings are a creation of their faith in God and encourage you to dream big because God is big. Emphasizing God’s power and His unlimited resources, they invite you to their churches to build a better life using God’s “specific plan” for you. One congregation was told God would raise up a millionaire among them so the pastor could fulfill the vision God had given him.

Feeding on people’s lack of contentment and a desire for materialist wealth, these pastors preach what they have accomplished circumstantially and then package and sell the outcome as “God’s favor” on their lives. They teach blessings are God’s favor, but when blessings are absent in your life, a convenient Devil is pulled out of their hat.

Poverty will always be a part of our socioeconomic system. The Bible never speaks against having money, only the love of it. In the book of James there are two kinds of Christians contrasted; one of humble circumstances and the one that is rich.

“Let the brother of humble circumstances glory in his high position [in Christ] but let the rich man glory in his humiliation, [in Christ] because like the flowering grass he will pass away.” (James 1:9, 10)

After the stoning of Stephen (Acts 6-7) a heavy persecution came on the new church and some Christians found themselves poor and destitute. James is not condemning wealth but is warning the rich and poor Christian alike, not to judge themselves or others based on economic standings. James says in this same chapter to count it all joy whenever “any” trial comes your way. Notice James never tells the poor brother to dream big and believe God for more money. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught the accumulation of wealth by simply believing God for it. The Apostle Paul warns us of people who:

“……shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty…..headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2Tim. 3:2, 4).

Pastors promoting wealth as God’s guarantee, degrades the Christian brother of humble circumstances and glories in those who have achieved the “promise” of wealth. If you have not acquired God’s destiny of wealth, the rich brothers are dangled like a carrot along with the future announcement of bigger blessings to come to keep you believing. These churches no longer teach about a returning God but what you have coming in His name.

We as Christians are not to look at life with a fatalistic attitude but we are not to expect a utopia either. Our Bible explicitly says this is not the world God intended us to live in and we are to wait patiently for His return when He will restore all things. Teaching people to trust in Christ for God’s mercy, not the thickness of their wallet is the gospel message. Christ Himself is the blessing.

Does God speak today.

Charles Stanley, (November 5, 2006, TV broadcast channel 45, Tallahassee Florida) was propagating how God (audibly or through an inner voice) talks to people today. Mr. Stanley believes and has said many times how God has spoken to him. Pointing his finger at the TV audience, he warns his critics who do not believe God speaks today, to “not put God in a box.” Between Mr. Stanley’s statements of hearing God’s voice and pointing his finger, the impression is made to disagree with him jeopardizes one’s own personal experience of hearing God’s voice.

Erroneous beliefs such as God speaks to individuals today, have become cemented from a lack of dividing the Word correctly. We think in metaphors and clichés instead of realistic and convincing arguments. I call it the “church sign syndrome.” The billboards of most churches represent the depth of thinking you find in the presentation of God and His Gospel. Preachers say they like to keep things simple because too much thinking on doctrine causes divisions. Children of the church are consumed by culture’s principles because in the church, harmony over doctrine is more desirable than our children’s minds.

My problem with Mr. Stanley or anyone’s assertiveness in warning me to “not put God in a box” is the cliché is wrapped in absurdity. If putting God in a box constitutes limiting His ability, then God has already put Himself in a box. In Titus 1:2 it says God cannot lie. We do not read He will not lie but, He cannot lie. Also in James 1:13 it says God cannot tempt man. Again, it does not say God will not, but God cannot tempt man. Scripture has already revealed God as good. (Luke 18:19). His nature puts Him in a box just as our nature puts us in a box. We cannot change our nature of sin and God cannot change His nature of goodness. In possessing a purely good nature, He cannot lie to or tempt man. God does not have the power to do anything against His nature of goodness and our beliefs do not have the power to change an immutable God.

Mr. Stanley and others use clichés as imitations of scripture to justify subjective beliefs. The only way Mr. Stanley can propagate God speaking today is through clichés and taking scripture out of context. Mr. Stanley used Hebrews 13:8 to assert God speaks to individuals today. Unlike his cliché to “not put God in a box” we can examine the scripture Mr. Stanley referenced to see if it provides a reasonable premise for his position. Paul warned Timothy (2 Timothy 2:13) to explain the word of truth correctly, and to not be ashamed about standing up for a correct interpretation of scripture. Does this scripture (Heb. 13:8) tell us we can expect to hear (audibly or through an inner voice) the voice of God today?

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:7, 8 NIV)

Hebrews 13:8 is used to argue since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever we can assume God still speaks today. Chapter thirteen is a closing chapter of exhortations to the Hebrews for practical daily living. Verses 7 through 17 are encouraging the Hebrew Christians to remember their leaders and to “imitate their faith.” “Consider the outcome of their way,” means to notice how they died, or more accurately, the character they portrayed to the end. “All these people were still living by faith [trust] when they died.” (11:13)

The Hebrew Christians were being told Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient enough and they needed the legalistic ways of the Mosaic laws to obtain righteousness. Verse 8 is reminding the Hebrew Christians of their leaders who trusted Jesus and His efficiency over the Mosaic Law. Christ is completely trustworthy because His sinless nature was and is sufficient to provide a final sacrifice for covering of their sins. Hebrews 13:8 is pointing to the goodness of God and the immutable nature of Christ.

God’s nature of goodness cannot change, but God has changed how He deals with man. The sacrificial system of worship has been done away with and there will never be another flood “to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11). Hebrews 13:8 does not reasonably prove the notion of God speaking to individuals today. However it could be used to explain all sorts of notions when lifted out of its context and separated from its true meaning. When done so, it becomes nothing more than a worn out cliché.