Israel & Hamas: Just War vs. Pure Evil & the United States
As blog readers surely know, on October 7 thousands of Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and butchered and tortured many helpless Israeli citizens. On the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, they did things like the following:
A young boy and girl, 6 and 8 years old, and their parents were around the breakfast table. The father’s eye was gouged out in front of his kids. The mother’s breast was cut off, the girl’s foot amputated, and the boy’s fingers cut off before they were executed. And then their executioners sat down and had a meal.
In total, around 1,400 Israelis have been murdered by Hamas, and more than 4,500 injured. It was Israel’s 9-11.
In response, Israel invaded Gaza, intending to overthrow Hamas. Israel told civilians to leave the northern area ahead of time–but Hamas told them not to leave, and was turning people back into the war zone. (Did Hamas give early warning to Jewish civilians before launching their unprovoked attack? Hmm.) Hamas deliberately puts people in Gaza in harms way so that they can be killed, and then Israel can be blamed. Hamas’ main headquarters is underneath Gaza’s main hospital because Hamas knows that Israel respects human life, while they do not.
What are some things we can learn from this war?
1.) It is a just war for Israel. Anyone who recognizes that God blesses those who bless Israel (Genesis 12:3) should automatically be biased in Israel’s favor in a situation like this one, but even if one very foolishly rejects God’s Word, anyone with half a brain can see which side is right in this war.
2.) Hamas is acting like faithful Muslims should act. They are obeying the god of Islam, who told them: “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush” (Quran 9:5). The Quran is full of open-ended commands to violently kill people, and Muhammad was a bloodthirsty murderer, as one can clearly see if one reads his biography.
3.) Not just Hamas, but Muslims in general have an anti-Jew problem, because of their religion. Is every Muslim anti-Jewish? No–many Muslims do not care about their religion, just like many Roman Catholics don’t care what the Bible says or the Pope decrees. But the Muslims that do care about their religion are anti-Israel. Why is Rashida Tliab advocating and defending genocide of the Jews? Her district is full of Muslim immigrants. Islam in America–like Islam everywhere that it is true Islam–is violent and bloodthirsty, which is why the most dangerous evangelistic endeavour I ever had, where I was closest to being killed, was not at various Gay Pride parades, but in the American heartland politely and respectfully passing out the evangelistic work The Testimony of the Quran to Muslims. A majority of American Muslims are at least partially in favor of the brutal murders that Hamas committed on October 7, and around 40% of them approve the terrorist leader of Hamas. Imagine if 40% of any other demographic were in favor of terrorism. The people in Gaza voted in Hamas. Now since that vote there have been no other elections, since Islam is against democracy and in favor of dictatorship. There are no free and fair elections under Sharia law. But when the Muslims in Gaza had a chance to vote, Hamas won.
4.) Because the left is anti-Bible, and because Joe Biden needs Muslim votes in swing states like Michigan to win reelection, the Democrat party is becoming more and more anti-Jewish. Calling on Israel for a ceasefire is absolutely bonkers. More Jews were killed in a single day than at any time since the Holocaust, but Biden calling on $100 million in aid to the Muslims in Gaza and the West Bank for “humanitarian” purposes is about what the Babylon Bee described it as, and the money is certain to be diverted to support terrorism. Would we have been fine with calling for a ceasefire after 9-11 and then giving “humanitarian” aid to the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Biden should be calling on Israel to utterly obliterate Hamas. Hamas should immediately release all American hostages and all other hostages. Anyone who actually cares about the people in Gaza not getting killed should want Hamas overthrown as soon as possible.
5.) Because the mainstream media is dominated by the left, all kinds of false equivalencies are made between Israel’s just war and Hamas’s unjust murders. Inflated numbers of casualties in Gaza are repeated by major press organizations from figures spoon-fed to them by Hamas itself. Of course, Islam allows Muslims to lie. Reporters in Gaza can either repeat what Hamas tells them to report or they can get tortured and killed themselves, or at the very least get kicked out of the territory. How many Jewish reporters do you think are on the ground in Gaza getting information? Oh yes, the same number as the number of Jews who live in Gaza–zero–while in Israel Muslims are around 20% of the population and have equal rights (yes, the freest place for Muslims in the Middle East is in Israel). And even though Israel is the freest place in the Middle East for Muslim Arabs, usually only around 33% of Arab Israeli citizens oppose Hamas, and the large majority oppose Israel’s defending itself; immediately after this butchery of Israelis–including Arab Muslim ones–23% of Arab Israelis still do not oppose Hamas, while 33% oppose Israel defending itself even while the blood of their murdered and tortured fellow citizens is barely dry. Israel is pressured to stop fighting because its terrorist, true Muslim opponents in Hamas want as many of their own civilians killed as possible. (If you want information about Israel that is free from anti-Jewish bias, please check out FLAME: Facts and Logic about the Middle East, and consider their newsletter. They are a Jewish, not a Christian organization.) The mainstream media are very, very worried about the the three Nazis that are left joining with the 17 KKK members in the country holding a demonstration somewhere that has thousands of counter-protesters, but a blind eye is turned to the vast multitude of American Muslims who are actually in favor of killing the Jews.
6.) The fact that this is a just war for Israel does not mean that Israel is a righteous country. The vast majority of Jews reject and hate their Messiah, the Lord Jesus. Jews from all over the world are allowed to immigrate to Israel, but Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah are not allowed in. Tel Aviv is considered one of the most gay friendly cities in the world, despite the clear statements in the Old Testament about the abomination of sodomy. Moses in Deuteronomy 28 describes exactly what Israel has faced for the last 2,000 years since “all the people … said, His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:25):
And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. (Deuteronomy 28:66-67)
Israel is not going to have peace, not only because the nation is surrounded by Muslims who hate Jews like the Quran tells them to do, but because the curses of Deuteronomy are upon them, and will continue on them until they repent and believe on their Messiah, the Lord Jesus.
7.) As individual Christians and churches, the best thing we can do is preach the gospel to every creature. Love and preach the gospel to the Jews and send evangelists to them. Love and preach the gospel to the Muslims and send evangelists to them. How well equipped are you to evangelize Jews? How about Muslims? Do you have tracts for these two specific false religions? Love your neighbor as yourself. How well would you want a Christian to be equipped to speak to you if you were lost in one of these false beliefs?
8.) From a public policy perspective, the United States should support Israel because God has sworn in the Abrahamic Covenant that He would bless those that bless Israel, something repeated throughout the Old Testament. God used Babylon to punish His rebellious people centuries ago, and He uses Islam to punish them today, but woe to the Babylonians and to the Muslims who attacked the Jews! If someone says we give Israel too much foreign aid and we can’t afford it, he is consistent if he is also aware that foreign aid to all countries is less than 1% of the federal budget and is also in favor of the kind of drastic entitlement reform that could actually save us from defaulting on our national debt. If he doesn’t want to either abolish or drastically reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but is very indignant about foreign aid to Israel (most of which, for weapons, goes to American companies), his position is not very consistent. Once someone is a citizen here, he has freedom of religion and speech. He is free to be a fool and put on a white hoodie and burn crosses. He is free to be a fool and chant “From the river to the sea” and so call for genocide of Jews. But we should let as few of these people immigrate here as possible. Muslims who actually believe in Islam should not be let into the country, and those non-citizens who believe in Islam’s teachings about jihad should be deported. Furthermore, we need to recognize that, like Muhammad, modern faithful Muslims respect power, not truth. When Muhammad was powerful, he killed the non-Muslims; when he was weak, he advocated religious tolerance. If we want to deter terrorism and want there to be more peace, and less war, then Israel should be allowed to enact a ferocious response on Hamas that will discourage the Muslims who surround Israel from acting upon their religion’s murderous and anti-Jewish teachings.
By the way, Russia is also guilty of awful war crimes in Ukraine. (Did you know Ukraine has the second largest number of Baptists of any European country–only less than the UK?) Deterring Russia means letting the Ukrainians defend themselves. Ronald Reagan, in God’s good providence, won the Cold War by helping to arm those who fought the Russians when they were invading. We should balance the budget and pay off our national debt by fixing entitlements, and that can be done while, without putting any Americans on the front lines to fight, we send weapons to an imperfect but pro-Western nation with freedom of religion that the Russians decided to butcher the citizens of in their cruel, unjustified, barbaric, and wicked invasion.
The Experience of Divine Hiddenness
Is God Hidden?
Is God hidden? Yes and No. God doesn’t hide Himself. In people’s experience, He remains hidden. That doesn’t mean He is in fact hidden. They experience Divine hiddenness.
In scripture, people experience Divine hiddenness. Job said to God (13:24):
Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?
The Psalmist says in Psalm 10:1:
Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?
Unbelievers claim the hiddeness of God in Isaiah 45:15:
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
God Himself says that people say He hides Himself. They are Egyptians, Ethiopeans, and Sabeans (Isaiah 45:14). This isn’t new at all.
Argument for Atheists
Divine hiddenness is a hot new argument for atheists. It shows up in the most recent material of philosophical atheism:
However, “divine hiddenness” refers to something else in recent philosophical literature, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s landmark book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993). In this context, it refers to alleged facts about the absence of belief in God’s existence, on the basis of which one might think there is no God.
For example, Schellenberg argues that, since there are nonbelievers who are capable of a personal relationship with God and who do not resist it, there is no perfectly loving God, while Stephen Maitzen argues that naturalism better explains the “demographics” of nonbelief than theism and Jason Marsh argues that naturalism better explains “natural nonbelief” than theism. Understood in this way, divine hiddenness constitutes putative evidence for atheism.
Some people do not recognize the existence of God and they use as their basis the reason that God hides Himself from them. Others acknowledge God exists, but He does not appear to them in their estimation enough for them to believe. They live like He doesn’t exist.
The Crown Performance
People require God to give them, what I call, the “crown performance.” They expect God to come to them like a traveling minstrel. They hold Him hostage. If He will not provide the necessary experience they require, they will not believe in Him. What I’m describing is unbelief. Unbelief requires more and then more revelation from God.
As an argument, Divine hiddenness contrasts with the sovereignty of God. Men become sovereign. If God does not accede to however unbelievers expect Him to appear, they can ghost Him. God must obey their chosen methodology, because they are ultimately in charge. It exalts their intellect, which is too lofty to accept God’s kind of evidence. He’ll just have to do better, if they will acquiesce to Him.
Those who embrace the hiddenness of God set the terms for God’s revelation. He must accede to their expectations. If not, they justify their unbelief with hiddenness.
Sincerely Seeking?
Many of those who use Divine hiddenness as their reasoning for unbelief proclaim their own sincerity. They really want God. These unbelievers truly seek for Him, based on their own testimonies. If He would give them but a glimpse, a brief flash of light from Him, they would believe.
God says, I’m not going to hide. I’m revealing myself to everyone (Rom 1:19-21). It’s not that people can’t know God. They refuse the means by which He reveals Himself. Rather than receive His revelation of Himself in the manner He gives it, they want something else.
Unbelief makes excuses for not believing. To the unwillingness to receive what God shows of Himself, Jesus says in Matthew 12:39:
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it.
Then He says it in Matthew 16:4:
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it.
The gospels record this teaching of Jesus again in other places (Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29). A sign points to the reality of God’s existence.
God Wants Relationship, Not Mere Acknowledgement
On Divine hiddenness, I wrote earlier this year:
People may not use this exact language, but in essence they very often ask a question concerning God, “Why is God so hidden?” God could have made more evident His existence and the truth of Christianity. He could make his existence as plain as anything. First though, scripture doesn’t read like God tries to persuade belief in His existence. No, God manifests Himself toward free reception of a saving, love relationship with Himself.
God knows the evidence sufficient for people with open minds and hearts. If you seek Him while He may be found, He will be found (Isaiah 55:6-7). But that means you want Him. This is your first act of worship of God, an offering of your soul to Him. This is more than mere acknowledgment of His existence, like the demons (James 2:19).
Faith in God’s love and knowledge acquiesces to the superiority of His ways. He displays His goodness and mercy in the way He reveals Himself. First, God uses it to bring the most people to Himself and, second, He leaves suitable ambiguity against hardening hearts toward Him. God does not force lost men to believe. He gives ample time and opportunity to encounter the dramatic, true story of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and His glorious resurrection and ascension. The foolishness of God is wiser than men, His weakness stronger than them.
A big difference exists between God hiding Himself and His revealing Himself in an unsuitable way to an unbeliever. Just because someone says he’s sincere in his seeking doesn’t mean he is. God judges that sincerity by His Word and that professing seeker falls short.
Eschatology and Political Activism from the Right and the Left
Living in the Last Days
If you travel in evangelical circles, you might hear language especially today that says, “We’re living in the last days.” Those words, “last days,” occur eight times in the King James Version. These are two prominent usages:
2 Timothy 3:1, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”
2 Peter 3:3, :”Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.”
“Last days” in the Bible is not very specific. When the Apostle Peter uses the words in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he refers them to a partial fulfillment now over 2,000 years ago:
Acts 2:17, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”
The phrase, “living in the last days,” did not start appearing in written material until the middle of the nineteenth century, when men would write something like the following:
There are features of the last days of the last times, and they are characteristic of these days and these times; we are therefore, living in the last days of the last times, and, consequently, expect the speedy appearance of the coming of the Son of Man.
This was from an article, “Elements of Prophetical Interpretation,” by J. W. Brooks in a book, The Literalist, published in 1841. As popularly used, most refer these “last days” to a seemingly very short time before the rapture from the earth of the saints.
A Vision of the Reign of God on Earth
Many, many and from various factions oppose the literal approach to biblical prophecy and that everyone presently abides in the last days as such. They reject the concept that the world will degenerate until the return of Christ. If that be the case, political activism is of little point. On the other hand, if persistent human effort might bring the reign of God on earth, then reasons exist for lobbying, campaigning, protesting — violent or non-violent, community organizing, and political action.
Early Roman Catholicism by envisioning the church as New Testament Israel also saw the church as the kingdom of God on earth. Instead of circumcision as the entrance requirement to the kingdom, water baptism became that, a New Testament circumcision. A false form of millennialism, this position says the church is already God’s kingdom with a view toward its ultimate perfection on earth. Roman Catholic theologian Augustine in AD413 wrote in his City of God:
The Church is already now the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly, even now His saints reign with Him. . . . It is then of this kingdom militant, in which conflict with the enemy is still maintained, and war carried on with warring lusts, or government laid upon them as they yield, until we come to that most peaceful kingdom in which we shall reign without an enemy.
Spiritualizing Old Testament Israel and finding in its Old Testament prophecies a fulfillment in the New Testament church subscribes to advocation of positions of power for realizing God’s kingdom on earth. According to this eschatological position, the church inherits Old Testament mandates for domination over the earth.
Postmillennial Liberation and Dominion Theologies
Mirroring Viewpoints
The left and the right both compete for power with the divine charge of liberation on the left and dominion on the right. These two mirroring viewpoints easily find support for the replacement of Israel. This might also adapt into justifiable eradication with an underlying disposition of antisemitism. Both acquire their ordination from a form of postmillennialism and a hermeneutic of spiritualization and allegorization, the latter the rationalization for Roman Catholicism.
The left and the right become strange bedfellows with relationship to Israel under the same umbrella of eschatology. Palestinian Liberation Theology buttresses a decolonization theme and advocates Palestinian freedom “from the river to the sea.” Thomas Ice writes then concerning postmillennial reconstructionism:
The danger lies in their misunderstanding of God’s plan concerning the future of the nation Israel. Reconstructionists advocate the replacement of Old Testament Israel with the church, often called the “New Israel.” They believe that Israel does not have a future different from any other nation.
Corrupted Views of Israel
Ice continues:
While Reconstructionists do believe that individual Jews will be converted to Christ in mass in the future, almost none of them believe that national Israel has a future and thus the Church has completely taken over the promises of national Israel. In contrast to the eventual faithfulness and empowerment by the Holy Spirit of the Church, Reconstructionist David Chilton said that “ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’s Kingdom.”
John MacArthur also tied together these two theological ideologies, saying:
There is another kind of theology that’s existing today, it’s called Liberation Theology. It is a form of theology that says that the church is to take dominion over the institutions of the world. That’s another form of dominion theology or kingdom theology. And what it basically says is that the church’s mandate is to take over the institutions of the world. That’s the liberation theology side. And what dominion theology says is that we are to take over the powers of darkness.
Dovetailing of Leftist and Rightist Values
Harvey Cox writes in an article in The Atlantic:
By far the most striking discovery I made . . . was the remarkable similarity between the rhetoric . . . of liberation theology. Both (postmillennial dominion theology and liberation theology) focus on continuing the ministry and work of Jesus. Both place the concept of the Kingdom of God, albeit interpreted quite differently, at the center of their respective theologies.
Leftist and rightist values dovetail around eschatological belief. Neither provide a true and real solution for the present or for the future. Instead of depending on a plain reading of the text of scripture, they spiritualize it and read into it a false vision of the future. This then reflects on a relationship with Israel.
Judaizers followed the Apostle Paul into his churches after his first missionary journey and attempted to turn the churches of Galatia into a form of New Testament Israel. They removed required distinctions between the church and Israel to make the church into Israel. This confused the real solution for man’s problems found only in Jesus Christ. It corrupted the church. A kind of Judaizing continues perverting the church through its insidious false eschatological vision for the world. In so doing, it also assaults Israel and annuls the promises God will still fulfill for this chosen nation.
Does the KJV Translate Hebrew and Greek Words Too Many Ways?
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only (KJV) debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Is this true? In part 10 of my review of the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of Scripture I point out the severe flaws in this argument by Dr. James R. White against the King James Version, and the KJVO position.
In our debate James White argued in the same way that he did in his book: “[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word … the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289). The numbers White cites are inaccurate, and White fails to point out that in the examples he supplies where the Authorized Version (allegedly) translates words in too many different ways in English modern versions such as the ESV, ASV, NRSV, and NET actually have more, not fewer, different translations than does the KJV. James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly. Learn more by watching debate review video #10 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
The Purposeful Contortion and Confusion of End Time Truth (Part Two)
No explanation of origins succeeds at explaining how everything got here, including how people got here, except for the biblical one. And the biblical one makes sense, because it fits everything that we see. Evidence also confirms the Bible.
An explosion turning into terrific, complicated design, either physical or biological, just can’t be true. We have no basis for believing that, and people really don’t. They opt for the explanation, but not because it is true. It is convenient for personal autonomy. It’s a method for blocking God out of the psyche.
Naturalistic End Time Belief
On the other end, people invent an ending too. It says, everything will burn out and turn into free floating space junk. The universe will go silent. Despite Star Trek, Star Wars, and any other fictional alien story, no life will exist.
How it ends is some kind of global warming, global freezing, collision of an asteroid, called an “impact event,” a world wide nuclear holocaust, or the spread of a incurable deadly disease that kills everyone (pandemic). The latter probably doesn’t work, because it probably just kills people. Animals of many different varieties survive, running around and doing what animals would do without people here. Perhaps they wait for the inevitable evolution into something closer to people.
The avoidance of end time catastrophe in this naturalistic sense means people doing a better job of not destroying the planet. They do that apparently by adapting. This means the soon end of carbon emissions.
Apocalypse
People call the planet ending catastrophe, “apocalypse.” Those who know the Bible might find this ironic, because that’s the Greek word for the Book of Revelation. Revelation doesn’t provide such an ending as what men call an apocalypse. People don’t even know what the apocalypse of Revelation is.
Apocalypse is Jesus coming back to earth with unveiled glory. He came the first time as Savior and He appears the second time as Judge. People are basically correct in that apocalypse is end time destruction, but it is an angry God judging the world because of sin.
The world’s population doesn’t promote talk about sin. People don’t want to hear about sin. They hate that. People want to hear good news, but not what the Bible says is “good news,” the gospel. Good news to the people of the world would be living however they want without destruction. They despise any warning of destruction that comes because of sin. People revel in the idea that destruction might come because of carbon emissions. No problem there.
Preachers and theologians cooperate with the naturalistic end time viewpoint, the cataclysmic ending of the planet, by confusing and contorting what the Bible says about the end. Their views show very little urgency. The true view of the end is urgent. Many Bible preachers today mock any kind of urgency as kooky, elevating instead their spiritualized, allegorical, and subjective positions. Why not opt for a naturalistic view, if the people who are supposed to know the Bible aren’t themselves clear about how everything ends?
Eschatological Boldness
Christians today are very often afraid to make a statement about naturalistic end time views. They are so unsure about how the world will end that they most often stop telling the world what the Bible says. Professing believers are not really that offended about the naturalistic explanations like climate change. They don’t think Christians should speak in dogmatic fashion about what the Bible says.
Even professing Christians consider biblical end time teaching to be questionable. They diminish it to something on the level of art on the other side of the campus from the engineering department. It can’t be viewed like science. Someone cannot trust the Bible that much, especially for prophecy. As a result, Christians themselves and then especially the world is not prepared for how the world will really end.
The shame felt over eschatological beliefs debilitates Christians. They won’t talk about those beliefs in public. Instead, they leave conversations about the end for very private enclaves of the few like minded. This is not the will of God. God expects boldness on talk of the future. The Bible portrays a clear picture of what to expect for the future.
Christians should unequivocally reject the naturalistic end times explanations. They are repugnant and an offense to God. Naturalistic eschatology capitulates to the world system. What the Bible says about the end is not a mere theological position. It is the truth. Everyone around needs to hear what will really occur in the future. They need a thorough debunking of the modern false views of how the world will end.
Scriptural Authority
People want to live like they want. A major contributing factor eliminates future judgment of God. Satan and his minions attack the teaching of the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Confusion over the second coming, when Jesus comes and judges the world, takes away a major motivation for salvation and personal purity. If people don’t think Jesus is coming, they can or might live however they want. They don’t consider the consequences of their sin.
Christians with boldness must stand on the teaching of creation and of the end of the earth. They must embrace what scripture teaches. Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden, “Thou shalt not surely die.” The capitulation to the world on the end times offers a similar lie to the people of the world. They miss the blessing (Revelation 1:3) of an important warning of their dire future without Jesus Christ.
The Purposeful Contortion and Confusion of End Time Truth
A primary way Satan keeps people deluded about life and the world is by his contortion and confusion of either origin or end time truth. God reveals with pristine clarity the beginning and ending of everything. Both of these revelations are vital for faith and practice. Satan wants people deceived on how they got here and what will happen to them in the future.
Naturalism breeds more lust. I like to say, it means we got here by accident. No one’s your boss, so you’re your own boss. That sounds great to most people, doing what they want to do. Since they just happened, no design, they aren’t accountable to anyone or anything. They live like they want, which, based on the nature of man, means following lust.
Origins
Even if someone contemplates a possibility of God, that isn’t strong enough to replace the dominion of lust in a life. All the truths about God transmit from Him as origination of everything. Other truths about God diminish when He didn’t create us. The elimination of God creating man for HIs glory greatly decreases the power and importance of everything else scripture says.
The perversion of beginnings relates most to its compatibility with the theory of evolution. Modernists of the nineteenth century began rethinking the meaning of Genesis to fit with Darwinism. An allegorical interpretation of the first three chapters of the Bible allows to read evolution and an old earth into Genesis.
With people unsure about the beginning, it’s no wonder they doubt the ending. Even theologians turn eschatology into a non-essential now. They relegate prophecy to ambiguity. Many churches have removed most of their eschatology from their doctrinal statements. You don’t need a position to fit into a church. It’s too uncertain to require for even professing Christians.
Endings
On a recent prophecy post I wrote here, an anonymous commenter (whom I did not publish) called crazy (he used “nutjobs”) churches that talk about or preach prophecy. Opinions and speculation abounds on end time events.
The doctrines of Christ, salvation, man, and angels dovetail with prophecy. When Jesus arrived in the first century, very few were ready or awaited His coming, because they had detached from prophetic reality. The promises of God become of no effect as people falsify what He says will happen in the future. This then deadens their anticipation and smothers their hope.
History functions in a chiliastic manner. You could call it “going full circle.” Paradise lost and paradise regained. The destruction of the first necessitates the destruction of the last. This renders meaningless everything in between. Why believe anything if you can’t know how it starts and how it ends?
Many theologians and church leaders have capitulated to the attack on the origin and the ending. This relegates most everything to what people call, living in the present or living in the moment. I understand that concept in a positive way to a certain degree. Living in the moment requires mindfulness and focus on the task at hand and perhaps gratefulness for what you’re experiencing in the present. However, God wants futuristic living for the saints, an outlook of expectation.
A Forward Look
Scripture requires a forward look. Paul in Philippians said, “reaching forth unto those things which are before” (3:13) and “we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (3:20). Jesus said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33). If we can’t know our beginning or ending, we lose the basis for living like scripture says. An ultimate motivation for Paul was “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:10).
‘Putting on the helmet of salvation’ (Ephesians 6:17) relates closely to last days events. Salvation is complete in the future. If people can’t be sure about most of the details, what can and do they mean? How would we be sure that these uncertain things could be true? This is where it stands in most ways today in eschatology.
Spiritualizing
The fastest growing view of the future is to spiritualize or allegorize the future. People allegorize almost all of the prophetic passages and they take on numerous different possible meanings. This has become not just possible but the preferred take in many places.
Now men spiritualize and allegorize the first few chapters of the Bible and the last book of the Bible. People can make it mean what they want. It’s no wonder people won’t take God’s Word seriously and churches are apathetic. If people can’t really know the beginning and the ending, why care about everything in between?
Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?
In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:
[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.
I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.
I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).
However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:
Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)
While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)
I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.
The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.
–TDR
The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part Two)
Free Will
When you read “free will,” you read two words, one of which is “will.” “Will” is simple. A mind is capable of choosing, like ordering a flavor of ice cream or reaching into the candy bowl for Snickers or Reeses.
There are layers here. The will is the capability of the mind choosing, but a motive directs the will in its choice. Many different factors may or can combine to bring someone to volition. Scripture deals with them in several various instances.
The word “free” has to do with opportunity or power. Someone can and has the opportunity to do what he wants. The question arises, does anyone truly have the power and opportunity? Is anyone really free in his will?
In part one, I see in scripture that the free will of man exists by the very use of the terminology “free will” in scripture. What though goes into free will?
Concerns in the Subject of Free Will
From my vantage point, I see six main types of concerns in the subject of free will. One, God created man, wants love from man, and man needs free will to love God. Hence, God created man with free will.
Two, free will explains suffering. God allowed men a choice to sin and the consequential curse that brings suffering to men. Suffering isn’t God’s fault. It’s ours. This does not mean that God cannot allow suffering or deliver from suffering, but it rose from man’s sin.
Three, apparently if man has free will, then he becomes the deciding factor of salvation and God doesn’t then get the glory. This assumes a salvation decision makes man’s salvation by works. Scripture doesn’t read that way, but it’s a kind of logical argument for determinists.
Four, if man doesn’t have free will, then God determined sin and becomes the author of sin. God is not the author of sin according to James 1:13. His hatred of sin would also assume He’s not the author of sin. God created beings with the potential to sin, but He didn’t create sin.
Five, the Bible does not at all read deterministic. God is sovereign, but His sovereignty doesn’t contradict man’s free will. The two do not contradict. God does not cede His authority by allowing men to decide.
The Debilitation of the Sin Nature
Six, free will given to man by God is debilitated by the corruption of his sin nature, even as seen in 2 Peter 2:19:
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
This bondage is so complete that Jesus says in John 15:5:
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Without Jesus, man can do nothing. This is also seen in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The Illusion of Free Will
Men are so darkened in their minds that they operate in bondage. This speaks of the illusion of free will. In Romans 8:8, Paul writes that man in the flesh “cannot please God.” That doesn’t sound free, does it? He cannot. In the previous verse, “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The carnal mind cannot subject to the law of God. That also does not sound free.
I hear today especially young people about their loss of free will. They even consider this “loss” as a kind of deviance. On the other hand, they consider the choice of sin to be free. Sin isn’t freedom. Jesus said in John 8:34: “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”
Sin is not freedom. It is bondage. What I’m writing here is why the subject of free will is a knotty problem. Their freedom is illusory.
Freedom comes from God. The way out comes from God. The grace of God allows free will. God created man with free will, but sin brought bondage. God’s grace brings freedom.
Satan deceives everyone and especially young people today, that they are free because they can choose evil. That “choice” is an illusion. The exhilaration of their choosing evil is part of the deception and bondage. They find themselves in great peril in these chains of darkness. And they don’t view their new Satanic religion as deviant. It’s the same sociological pathology held by the opponents of Noah while he prepared the ark.
The Inclination of the Grace of God
On the subject of free will, confronting the knottiness, Jonathan Edwards distinguished between natural ability and moral ability. Sin does not stop a man from making choices. He makes them. Because man can and does make choices, he has responsibility before God.
Even though he chooses, moral depravity chains a man to sinfulness. Everything he does is ruined in some way, so that he makes no good choices even when he makes good choices. That sounds contradictory, but he cannot please God and that makes everything bad. Even when he’s trying to please God, his remaining rebellion and rejection of truth ruins those too. That is the moral inability of Edwards.
Edwards contrasts with ancient theologian and heretic, Pelagius. Pelagius saw inability as injustice, because God commanded man to obey. If man couldn’t, then God was unjust. God isn’t unjust, so man must be still good to a certain extent. Pelagius depended on flawed logic like determinists also do.
God can hold man responsible for choices, because he has the ability to choose. The freedom of choice, however, is an illusion to all except those who encounter the inclination of the grace of God. God’s grace exerts its power in the means God chooses for the reality of free will. The lost have free will in their natural ability and potential for moral ability, ability only experienced by true believers through the grace of God. They are free indeed (John 8:36).
The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part One)
If someone says man doesn’t have “free will,” he contradicts what scripture says. The Bible uses the terminology, “freewill,” and mainly in the freewill offerings of animals in the Old Testament sacrificial system. However, the Old Testament uses that same Hebrew word on occasion for free motivation of an act.
Old Testament Usage of Free Will
Judges 5:2, “Praise ye the LORD for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.”
Psalm 54:6, “I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O LORD; for it is good.”
Psalm 110:3,, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.”
Psalm 119:108, “Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments.”
That’s four and I stopped looking for more.
New Testament Usage of Free Will
The Greek word that translates the Hebrew word for free will is in the New Testament:
Philemon 1:14, “But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.”
Hebrews 10:26, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”
1 Peter 5:2, “Feed the flock of God which is among you,, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.”
Those are some varied examples of free will in the Bible. If one were to believe or think in no free will, based on scripture, it would seem there would be no examples of free will in the Bible, yet there are.
Because I see free will in verses in the Bible, and I think there is greater proof than the actual mentions of terms for free will, I believe in free will. That comports with my experience. It also aligns with how all of scripture reads. At the same time, some who think they have free will, I’m saying, it is illusory. These people say they want free will. They want others to allow or give them free will. And yet, what they think is free will really is not.
In the next post, I will continue this one, Lord-willing.
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
Recent Comments