What I Want for My Children

Maybe it's because I'm 30 years old, or perhaps it's that next month I'll be 31. Maybe it's because I have a beautiful wife who I adore more than anyone on this earth, or that our daughter is a tinier reflection of her mother's innocence and beauty. Then again, maybe I'm just finally willing to reflect long enough on my life to wonder what really matters.

Whatever the root cause might be, my wife and I have casually discussed for some time how we want to educate our children: public, public charter, private/Christian, or home school? While my darling wife was fairly certain from the get-go, I was pretty uncertain - which is quite unusual if you don't me know well. I tend to know what I believe, and why I believe it. How I approach an uncertain subject is: slowly. I tend to be cautious, skeptical of new ideas, and always questioning. 

Therefore, to make our decision a bit simpler, we were able to quickly erase common public school and home school off our list. As time went on, and the realities of the cost of private education became known, we were able to cross that off the list. That left public charter schools, which have a growing reputation of being better performing schools and would be within our means.

We began discussing education prior to the recent Presidential election, and since that time any number of key events have compelled me to spend some additional time thinking about my daughter's future. Events such as the President's re-election, the Supreme Court effectively over-turning DOMA, and the varied attacks on religious liberty and practice in American civil society.

For the sake of time, I will limit myself to a few *recent* examples of encroachments on religious liberty. First, California upheld a law banning therapy from willing minors to receive therapeutic assistance in overcoming same-sex attraction. Second, San Antonio's city counsel joined 180 other U.S. cities and towns that have adopted some form of non-discrimination ordinance, which will not allow anyone with a bias against various sexual orientations and/or gender identities to be appointed to government positions. Third, in 2006, a photography business owned by Christians refused to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony. They were sued, and last month the New Mexican Supreme Court declared they were unlawful even though they had argued that to force them to photograph the celebration of a same-sex ceremony would go against their religious convictions. The concluding remarks by a majority justice in the case stated: "In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."

For those who are my age, you can think back to a time when a moment of silence was observed before the start of the school day. The students were informed that this could be a time of prayer, or simply of personal reflection or preparation as you start a new day. We were taught in the goodness of America and her place in the world. America was the land of the free, and the home of the brave. We were founded by those who escaped religious persecution, and sought a new world where they could live out their lives peaceably with religious liberty in hopes of being an example to other societies. Marriage wasn't up for debate - it could only be between one man and one woman.

My ... how things have changed. You'll have to forgive me, because I am still a little shell-shocked at the rapid rate of decay our society has experienced these past decades. I am not giving up hope; no, as a Christian there is always hope.

One day I had a long talk with a few of my non-Christian friends about education. I told them that home schooling was "back on the table" for how we might raise our children, and their reactions helped me formulate my opinion. In short, I got the distinct impression, more than once, that "Oh ... so what you're saying is: you're not one of us. And you don't want your children to become one of us either." These words were not said outright, but this was the general sentiment being expressed. I left that conversation and answered their sentiment: You're absolutely right.

That very night I told my wife my decision, and now we are both fully on board with home schooling. I don't believe home schooling is the only correct way for Christians to raise children, but we do believe it will allow an easier implementing of the Scripture that reads: "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6, NASB). What I don't want is to have to spend every day after school asking the question: "What do I need to correct today...macro-evolution? Age of the earth? How did the dinosaurs become extinct? The New Deal saved America? The Christian creation 'myth?' You have a GLASS [Gay Lesbian and Straight Supported] club on school? Your Christian club isn't allowed to do [such and such]? All religions are created equal? Same-sex couples are just as valid as hetero-sexual couples? Christianity is too narrow-minded?" ... etc etc etc.

It isn't that I won't be introducing my children to all of the above subjects. I will shelter my children from the world's influence, while at the same time introducing wrong concepts myself, but from a Christian perspective. That way my children will know where Mommy and Daddy stand on an issue. I want my kids to hear my thoughts on a subject before they hear about it from a secular classroom that approaches the world with an anti-Christian worldview.

Just scratching the surface, I have come to realize the immense responsibility of raising children and the truly wonderful gift that they are from the Lord God. I believe that parents have the duty to raise their children in the best way they know how, to provide them with the best opportunities available so that they may flourish in everything that they do. All parents want what is best for their children. As Christians, we go even further than this because our desire is everything mentioned earlier, but also that they love the Lord their God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. That their words and deeds might reflect the goodness of the Creator of all things. That is what I want for my children. 

Mr. President, I Plead the Fourth

I don't trust you, Mr. President. What's worse is that you don't seem to understand why someone like me doesn't trust you or your cohorts in the federal government. The fourth amendment. Have you had an opportunity to read it, Mr. President? Knowing how intelligent and well educated you are, I must believe you have read the whole of the Bill of Rights - if only as a result of the past few weeks. But, better to be on the safe side, so I shall list it here for you:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While you've made it impossible to vouch with certainty for all the actions of the whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, all that I do know for certain is that, were it not for him, I wouldn't know of the government's spying on her own citizens. He has been accused of treason, and specifically you accuse him of three felonies. The whole world knows that his revealing of your spying on Americans has created much embarrassment for you and the United States government. But embarrassing the government is not a crime. All he has done is make public that your government is acting against the fourth amendment.

There are allegedly governmental protections for whistle-blowers. Mr. President, you so clearly stated on the Jay Leno show (as if that is a preferred or respectable place to get news) that Snowden could have told appropriate superiors of his concerns. Come on, Mr. President - what do you take us for? He would have told some superior at the NSA and nothing would have been done, except that Snowden would have lost his job ... and a government official may have been assigned to watch his personal activities for the foreseeable future. If Snowden didn't tell us, we wouldn't know what you were up to, and you would be happier in such a parallel universe.

Where am I going with this? Allow me to be frank with you, President Obama - I expect one thing from the President of the United States of America: to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and to protect the rights and property of Americans. You have failed the American people in this. This is not a partisan issue, whether Republican, Democrat or Independent. The American people have a right to privacy.

"The fact that I said that the programs are operating in a way that prevents abuse ... that continues to be true without the reforms. The question is: how do I make the American people more comfortable," President Obama.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. President. From your vantage point the issue is not that the government is unjustly invading our privacy by collecting phone calls and Internet activity, but how you can help make the American people more comfortable with this unjust invasion into our lives. After all, it's just so-called "meta-data," isn't that right, sir? You're just collecting the data, but not listening to it without a warrant. And that makes it okay, right? Your lack of understanding these simple points staggers me. Why we ought to trust you since you've previously lied about collecting our data, is beyond me.

Suffering long and hard to consider where someone from your intrusive perspective might go next, you might ask of me: "So ... you don't like being spied on? What have you got to hide?"  That's the thing, Mr. President, nothing. I am a law-abiding citizen, who is commanded by Scripture to submit to the governing authorities. I abhor violence, and am utterly opposed to a revolution against the government. "I don't understand - why do you care that we record your phone calls and all possible Internet activity?" the President might ask. That is the great thing about being an American, Mr. President - I have a right to privacy. At least, I used to. I don't want Big Brother - that would be you, Mr. President - to know what I am up to. It is none of your business, plain and simple.

You've argued that intruding into our lives is the best way to protect our liberties.

... [Insert awkward silence HERE] ...

I would respond with this:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

The boat you have missed, Mr. President, is that I would rather have less safety in exchange for more liberty. My privacy is worth more to me than security. For as much as I value protection against terrorists, a government is also a potential threat that must be restrained to not overstep her bounds. Your government is only one step away from a terrible oppressive state. If you can't see that then I would ask you not to be so naive, Mr. President.

The fourth amendment is under attack, and you put forth your four-step plan for reform. Coincidence? Probably, yes. By the way, your four steps: meaningless fluff. I don't need help to understand why you believe you're right. I will only accept an apology for your unlawful intrusions, and a complete stop to these intrusions.

Praying that you might see the error of your ways, Mr. President,
Rusty

My, How Wise We Are

 

There are cases, and then there are cases - United States vs. Windsor - June 26th, 2013. This wasn't Roe vs. Wade, but it set the stage for her equal to come out into the spotlight. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is long gone, with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America exclaiming that they are indeed the first generation to get it right. THEY... no... WE are the single wisest generation ever to bless the human race with our existence. Not one generation, not one culture, not one society before us had the enlightened understanding that we now possess. Here is a selection of Justice Kennedy as he lays out his opinion on the case:

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’” especially require careful consideration. 

DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. (Bold MINE. Various source location removed).

Quite an explosive opinion, wouldn't you say? The Defense of Marriage Act "violates basic due process and equal protection principles," intends "harm" and "disparate treatment," is "motived by an improper animus or purpose" to "discriminate"  by "having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class" and to "impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages." To Justice Kennedy I would candidly ask: Upon what basis do you define marriage as between two loving adults? 

For this is now the issue. My own sense tells me that while I am intellectually outmatched by many on this issue, I can yet restate a common theme that this slippery slope of an opinion has now created. To what do I imply? Replace "same-sex couples" with "poly-amorous (polygamous) couples" in Kennedy's opinion and you'll see my inference manifestly. Justice Kennedy's unspoken presupposition throughout is that marriage can be defined by whatever whim American citizens believe at the time. Without reserve he believes marriage is an evolving definition, and will someday include same-sex couples on a broad scale. 

How naive of us if we believe for one moment this revolution will end once any 2 adults are considered a married couple. After all, why limit marriage to 2? I fear the sort of reply from 5 of the Supreme Court Justices to this question. 

The wise and quick-witted of our day wrongly accuse Christians of opposing same-sex marriage only because of the slippery-slope it then creates. While this is one element of the controversy, we believe that only God has the authority to define what marriage is. Christians, as the slaves of Christ, must wholly reject any understanding of marriage other than between one man and one woman, as the Lord taught in Matthew 19. 

Amidst the plasma grenades of accusation shot by the majority opinion, I sometimes wonder what it must be like to aid sinners in their suppression of God's Law. They accuse the opposition to same-sex marriage as desiring to do harm to an entire class of fellow-citizens, yet in reality they are causing harm by encouraging a culture of death. Sin may bring happiness in the short-term, but sin by its nature is deceitful and the only thing it can produce is death. If we love our neighbors, we will tell them the truth about God's Law, His just requirements, the wrath that abides upon sinners, and the only way of salvation by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. 

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Big Brother and the Christian

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, read the caption of a large poster that Winston passed by. Another poster read the same. Then another, and another. Cameras made it possible for the state's supreme leader, affectionately called "Big Brother," to watch nearly everything everyone did. Privacy? I wouldn't be surprised if the word was outlawed in George Orwell's created world.

Today as I stood before my three large and sturdy bookshelves, trying to locate my copy of 1984, I wondered if I was looking in the wrong section. That perhaps it had somehow migrated on its own to the non-fiction section. I knew this to be impossible, but I am inclined to return it to join my other non-fiction works once through with it.

My beautiful looking wife was the one who first informed me about the breaking story of Edward Snowden leaking information about the NSA's spying on private citizens. We were vacationing in San Diego, and either it is built into my natural disposition to doubt this kind of information when reported in the news media, knowing how they like to exaggerate about everything, or I was far too relaxed from the effects of the Gas-Lamp district. You can imagine how disturbing the news became to me, and undoubtedly to the reader, as more and more information was becoming known.

Commonly, I have heard from many fellow citizens, "I thought the government was already doing this," and carried on as if they had just told me about the bland breakfast they had that morning. Where has the passion that was once here during the time of the Enlightenment, the same zeal that pounded upon the will of every founder of our great nation? It seems to have diminished to such an extent that I have to look far and wide to find any. It is as if the every day Joe doesn't want to connect the dots: once the government unnecessarily watches and hears everything we do, our protected rights will not longer be protected.

Revelations such as these wouldn't trouble me near as much except for the fact that Christians are hastening down the same path as the world but in the opposite direction. We now stand in opposition to the culture and the government on a great many things: homosexuality (and all that it entails), abortion, euthanasia, sex education, evolution, religious expression in public life and in our schools, governmental fiscal responsibility, engaging only in just wars, ... among other things.

All it will take is for the government to begin criminalizing opposition to their views on any one of the aforesaid matters of contention, and Christians will immediately begin to feel the blunt force of the most powerful nation on earth. I hope I'm not coming across as conspiratorial, mind you, but I see this as a natural furtherance of their cause.

Pause you, reader - consider Winston's "Big Brother," and whether his all-intrusive government claimed to peruse every moment of every individual to punish them? Did they not claim and believe that it was for the good of the society at large? How did they handle any opposition, even he who kept to himself and posed no meaningful threat? Why, they forced submission. It wasn't enough for Winston to go through the motions. No. His thinking was required to change.

Now reader, Winston's world is fiction. But Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, China's Communist Party, and any number of Islamic states ruled by Sharia Law are not fiction. What I am aiming at is this: when a government has absolute power over her citizens, this is usually accompanied by an utter loss of freedom.

Looking back on my childhood I distinctly remember my parents instilling in me, however subtly and yet all-encompassingly, the love of God and country. Today it saddens me to see the state our nation has chosen to reside in, and it is becoming increasingly clear that I may one day be forced to choose my allegiance between these two loves. My friends, if this choice is ever put to us, there can only be one answer for the Christian: the triune Lord of the Bible. Oh it may be wholly against the grain to not acknowledge what Big Brother demands of us, but we cannot falter our witness in any way. Our love of the gospel of Jesus Christ will forever trump our love of any government.

Lest we begin to naively believe that this would be the first time God's people have encountered oppression by the culture or a governmental power, the Scriptures record examples for our benefit. Remember the Apostles once they were captured and brought before the Jewish leaders: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Remember also the author of Hebrews, writing to encourage those Jewish Christians that there really is nothing to go back to. He writes of the many victors of the faith down through the ages, and in chapter 12 says: 

"Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, ² fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ³ For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Hebrews, 12:1-3, NASB).

Let us not pretend that I know any certain thing about the future, for that is solely God's domain. So whether we will endure persecution, whether we are able to find favor amidst an oppressive government, or if God's common grace is extended to our land to repent us from the direction we are headed, I do know one thing: the Judge of all the earth does what is right.

Thanks for reading,
rustypth

Such were some of you

Do you feel it? ... The pressure? I sure do, and it is steadily increasing. On the news, in my twitterfeed, and at the workplace. Everywhere I turn I see and hear discussion about the promotion of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Can I be honest about something: I'm a Christian man and I don't particularly enjoy talking about this subject.

But you know what? It is being crammed down our throats, and there is no way to avoid this issue. I wish that we could; I wish there was a way to not focus on this. But as Christians we should "always [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15b, NASB).

Therefore, if we want to be honest and engage the people around us with the gospel then this issue is bound to come up. The issue is partially about homosexuality, to be sure, but it goes deeper than that. Our message is one of hope for a lost and wicked generation: Christ came to save sinners and has accomplished His purpose on the cross of Calvary. Going beyond the brunt issue of sexual preferences, the underlying issue is the rulership of God over the lives of humanity. 

You see, God is the Creator of heaven and earth and He has the sole right to determine what is right and what is wrong. We shouldn't deny that homosexuals have same-sex attraction. In fact, the Bible acknowledges this. However, simply because one has a desire to do something does not mean it is morally good. For example, the thief has a desire to steal from others and this is declared as sinful in Scripture. Even though stealing might bring temporary happiness to the thieving person, it can only bring negative consequences. It harms others and himself in the long run. The same is true of homosexuality.

Paul, describing the church at Corinth, says: "Such were some of you..." (Emphasis MINE). This begs the question: what were they? He explains just prior to saying this, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." Corinth was a wicked city, full of wicked people. In God's free grace, He delivered many Corinthians from the consequences of their sins. Praise be to God that He did not just declare them not guilty of their iniquities! No; He then saved them from themselves and their sinful lifestyles! Notice: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

What we have to proclaim to our fellow citizens is a message that everyone needs to hear: God is just and holy, and we are not. He gave us laws to obey, and we have broken them every day of our lives. Because of this we deserve to die, face His judgment, and be cast into Hell to pay for our crimes for all eternity. But God sent His one, unique Son - God in human flesh - to live the perfect life we could not, and die on the cross in the place of His people. We are commanded to turn from our wicked ways and trust in Christ to save us from our sins. We must count the cost, because Jesus requires the utter denial of ourselves in order to follow Him.

Ironically, the world doesn't have a problem with Jesus or with Christians, until we arrive at this point: repentance. Jesus preached it; He requires it of all people everywhere because there is a final Day of Judgment coming where we will all stand before His judgment seat.

Did Jesus shy away from this issue? Surely he must have known how unpopular it sounds to the culture (then and now)! 

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-3, NASB). 

Faced with 2 difficult scenarios, Jesus was asked whether the murder of innocents by Pilate, or the tragedy of a tower collapsing and killing people, meant that those people were greater sinners than the rest. The Lord put things in perspective for those asking and simply said this: "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." This is our message - the wrath of God abides on you. Therefore, turn from your sins, towards Christ, trusting Him to save you.

I say all of this, knowing Christ's message is a hard message. Even the disciples were frustrated about Christ's message: "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60, NASB).  Here was Jesus' response to the disciples: 

But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6:61-65, NASB).

The Lord of all things, however, knew what he was doing - He still knows what he is doing. Rather than appealing to worldly wisdom to persuade the culture, Christ preached a message of repentance and faith in himself. This is our message to proclaim today.

Even though many who call themselves Christians keel over at the first sign of pressure from the world, we cannot do this. We can either be friends with the world or with God. My pastor said it best recently: 

"The only power the world has over you is what you give to it by loving the things in the world." 

Amen!

We need to be a people concerned about God's truth found in His inspired Word. We need to live lives consistent with the message we claim to believe in. We need to speak to our friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances about the gospel of Jesus Christ, all in humility and love. May we not shy away from the opportunities Christ has given us, especially while we have freedom to do so.

I will leave you with this, one of my favorite texts of Scripture: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 15:58, NASB). 


Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Are you salt and light or are you good for nothing?

¹³ “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.”

¹⁴  “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. ¹⁵ Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. ¹⁶ In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” – Matthew 5

So many people today who call themselves Christians are far too willing to throw God’s truth under the bus. They call things “political” or non-relevant to the gospel. They are unwilling to call sinful things wrong. I’ve heard things from professing believers such as,

 “Gay marriage is not a big deal. It does not affect me, why should I care? Let’s just love people and show them the gospel!” 

Jesus loved people by telling them they were wrong. He told them they needed to be saved, but he did not stop there, he also told people what they needed to be saved from. Lying, cheating, stealing, having no regard for the poor and those in need, the various kinds of sexual immorality, etc. You are going to have to talk about these things and call them evil and wrong if you are going to accurately represent the gospel. 

Salt is used to preserve things, and light is there to counter darkness. What are you preserving by surrendering to the culture? Does your light shine, or do you say “x sinful thing” is not a big deal? Christians should be shouting from the rooftops, “This is wrong!” We should be so unwavering in our commitment to the proclamation of the truth that the only recourse the world has is to throw us in jail. Are you salt that has lost your saltiness? I hope not, because Jesus says that you cannot be restored and that you are good for nothing. What does that mean for you?

²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ ²³ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ – Matthew 7

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible and Daniel

Those that know me well know that I spend just as much time studying the “opposition” as I do studying my own views. So much so that I can probably argue against my positions just as easily as I argue for them. I also seek out the best opponents I can find, not just the famous or infamous. For instance, if I were an atheist I would not just read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”, come up with a few simple arguments against it, and be able to sleep at night. Lewis’ work is good enough on the surface, but as my friends and family can attest, I’ve been quite outspoken about how bad it actually is for several years now. I do this not because I hate C.S. Lewis. I do this because maintaining intellectual integrity is of supreme importance if we are going to genuinely search for truth.  That is why I am regularly astounded by the blatant lies and misrepresentations found in “skeptical” works on the bible. For instance, I have started to read the often cited (on the internet anyway) “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” which is available online for free (link). I decided to check a couple of the more potent parts of the bible to see what they could possibly say about those sections of scripture.

I started with Daniel chapter 9. Anyone who knows the bible will know why I picked this book and this chapter. It predicts the Messiah’s first coming and His death to the very day and was written hundreds of years before the events. It’s a pretty shocking display of God’s power and authority over time, and it is also an undeniable proof of the authenticity of scripture and Jesus being the Son of God. So what did these skeptics say about Daniel 9? They quote almost the entire section between v. 21-27, file it under the “absurd” category and call it “compete gibberish” from Gabriel. Well gee, I’m convinced!

So I decided to check a few other things to see if I could find some “good stuff” that stumped me and forced me to do some research. In the Gospels I came across the usual attacks on the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, the same tired arguments that totally ignore the differences in the types of genealogies that are being presented and to whom and for what purpose. As well as other such arguments not meant to convince anyone who actually knows the bible, but to make those that don’t know it and don’t believe in it feel warm and fuzzy. So I went back to Daniel and started with chapter 1 verse 1. There’s a lot of history in Daniel and I wanted to see what, if anything, they could pick apart.

1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, 

Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

Their issue with verse 1?

“The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling.”

That seems like a pretty good one. The problem with it is that it’s a bold-faced lie. The first issue is with the 606 b.c. date. The first year of Jehohiakim’s reign was 607 b.c. according to the accession-year system (which was the system used in Babylon and would no doubt be the system Daniel used since he was living in Babylon and trained in Babylonian schools) making 605 b.c. during the third year of his reign not 606 as they claim.

That still does not get us to 597 b.c. though. But what did happen in 605 b.c.  was Nebuchadnezzar’s conquering of all of the king of Egypt’s territories in Syria and Palestine. Although, other than Daniel 1:1, we don’t have a direct reference to Nebuchadnezzar attacking Jerusalem in 605 b.c. we do know that at the time he was in fact in Palestine with an army conquering, and that Jerusalem did belong to the king of Egypt at the time because its king (Jehohiakim) had been put in place by the king of Egypt. So it’s pretty safe to assume from the historical record and the biblical account that Nebuchadnezzar did besiege several cities in Palestine (including Jerusalem) even though they are not directly mentioned. Can you blame the Babylonians for not writing down “oh and we conquered Jerusalem too!” and just simply recording the fact that they took the whole land?  For instance, when we talk about Hitler’s invasion of Poland we don’t mention every town and city he went through, because there’s no point it’s just assumed he was there by proxy of his army.

Oh and by the way, Nebuchadnezzar did invade Jerusalem in 597 b.c and Jehohiakim was dead at the time. His son Jehoiachin was somewhere between 8 and 12 years old at the time. So hey, they got that part sort of right. Good for them.

So what the people that have put together the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” have ended up doing is proving themselves to be, at best, embarrassingly ignorant. As I continued to examine other passages from this mess of a website it became pretty clear that this was not the best material for trying to critique the bible. In fact, it was more of the same old garbage that I read again and again. My search for decent skeptical material on the bible continues and to no avail. The pure hatred for God and the bible from Atheists is astounding. They attack it and mock it relentlessly and in increasingly creative ways, and yet none of them can offer an actual argument against it. So keep it up atheists, because the only thing you’re succeeding in doing is creating that awkward moment when your attacks don’t destroy your opponent but instead fortify their position.

Sources:

Archer, Gleason. "Daniel" The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985

Archer, Gleason. A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1978.

The Babylonian Chronicles at the British Museum

2 Chronicles and 2 Kings in the bible

Strangers and Exiles on the Earth

I love going to a church where multiple times a year a sermon has the potential to become my new favorite. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church has been that kind of church since I began attending nearly 10 years ago. Today's sermon by my Elder James was one of these sermons that will rival for a place amongst my other top favorites. Today's topic: Hebrews 11, and Abraham's faith:

⁸ By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. ⁹ By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; ¹⁰ for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." (Hebrews 11:8-10, NASB).

The letter to the Hebrew Christians was meant to encourage those former Jewish believers to remain steadfast in their faith, and that there was nothing to go back to. You see, Jesus Christ had come to fulfill the promises given long ago; one of those promises was given to Abraham - that through Abraham all the nations would be blessed.

How strange it must have seemed to Abraham to receive this kind of promise, but even more than this the seemingly unclear way in which the Lord chose to lead him. He gave Abraham a command to go to a place he was unfamiliar with ... in fact, he didn't know where he was going! This might seem like a subtle point, but Abraham had an implicit trust in God and His commands. He didn't question God's wisdom, or make up a bunch of excuses to put off what he knew good and well what was demanded of him.

Hebrews chapter 11 is known well as the great Hall of Faith chapter because it serves as a reminder of the great cloud of witnesses that had come before who possessed saving faith. Although implicit and unquestioning trust is one part of faith, there is another vital element: obedience. Notice that when Abraham was called he obeyed God's command.

Remember the words of our Lord, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3b, NASB). The true gospel of Christ includes repentance, a turning from sin and all desires contrary to what He commands. Now, I am not at all denying that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone, but just that a true faith is never alone, and is accompanied by obedience to God. It is this message of repenting from sin unto faith in Christ that our world needs to hear.

Something else was brought out about Abraham's faith that I never considered: he was patient. The author of this epistle goes on to say:

^"13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. ¹⁴ For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. ¹⁵ And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶ But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them" (Hebrews 11:13-16, NASB).

I don't know about you, but without all of the clear revelation we have now, it would have been hard for me to obey God the way Abraham did. He was told he would have descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore, and yet at one point, he was told to sacrifice his son! He had faith that God's promises would come to pass ... even though he never lived to see the fulfillment of these promises.

He saw the promises from a distance, and confessed he was a stranger and exile on the earth. He was looking for a heavenly city, and not an earthly city. Do you embrace that? Do you have the patience to know the promises of God even if you don't experience their fulfillment in your lifetime? These are some of the questions that the Holy Spirit used to convict me this morning.

Looking at our culture today, it is easy for me to believe that I am a stranger and an exile living in a foreign land. I don't belong here. I long for the heavenly city that is our promised future hope. But that day has not yet come ... and we need to be patient until the Day of the Lord arrives. May we be found faithful witnesses, so as to be not ashamed at Christ's coming.

We May Have Lost the Cultural Battle, but...

Unless you're one of the few who has never gone to a public school, worked for a large corporation, been to a coffee shop, watched television, or had access to the Internet ... then you've seen and heard the arguments by homosexuals being proclaimed from the rooftops.

Just what are the arguments?

(1) Same-sex marriage is marriage equality.
(2) It is a civil right.
(3) How can you honestly deny us happiness by denying us the same rights as straight couples?
(4) The only argument against it are religious reasons - don't try to force your religion on me.

The truly sad thing today is that any one of these arguments, by itself, would silence most opposition in our society. Especially the younger generation, who simply keel over at first hearing this kind of persuasion. No critical thought is applied whatsoever. I saw a poll on CBS that found 73% of people under 30 support gay marriage. I mean, what do you expect from an entire generation raised by a generation of secularists?

Since our President took office a second time, the realization hit me that we are losing the cultural battle ... if we haven't lost it already. We may have lost the cultural battle, but we have not lost the argument. More importantly, the gospel of Jesus Christ is just as relevant as ever, and we as the people of God ought to be eager to discuss sin, repentance, and the hope found solely in the Lord.

If it's okay with you, I'd briefly like to discuss the same-sex marriage arguments listed above. Because the first time I heard them, I was a bit surprised. After all, who wants to deny equality, civil rights, or the happiness of others? Or even, impose religious beliefs through legislation!

As a Christian man I don't hate homosexuals. But I do believe those behaviors are sinful, as described in the Bible. God is the Maker of heaven and earth, and He alone has the right to tell us how to live, who to love, and how to express that love. Furthermore, the Lord designed marriage as the first institution as that of one man and one woman. Marriage will always and forever be between a man and a woman, no matter how much our culture wishes to redefine it.

Redefinition is really what this is all about. Redefinition, and recognition. It is not enough that Christians tolerate homosexuals, we must approve of their behavior by calling it marriage. Others have rightly pointed out the inconsistency of the advocates of same-sex marriage who claim they want marriage equality. They don't want equality; not really anyways. If they did they would open the floodgates to allow anyone to marry any number of any thing he or she (or it) wants to marry.

But the vast majority of homosexuals would not support polyamory (polygamy), incestuous adult relationships, bestiality, or pedophilia. The question needs to be asked, however ... why don't you support these groups' civil right to marriage equality? They are also people with hopes, dreams and desires, who only want to be happy in this life. Do you want to deny them this? You're kidding yourself if you don't see the slippery slope the arguments for same-sex marriage have created. This is not to say that because paving the way for other redefinitions of marriage makes same-sex marriage sinful, it is just to point out that others will (and are) use the same arguments to further expand what marriage is.

The gay-marriage debate is not the Civil Rights debate from the 1960's. Christians are not saying that gays are unequal in value or human dignity as compared with the rest of the human race (unlike those 50 years ago). We are not denying services to homosexuals. What we refuse to do is redefine marriage to be something completely different. Because you claim to love someone does not inherently give you the right to marry that someone.

Are we trying to deny you happiness? If we hated homosexuals we would promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage, because it is sinful and is, therefore, the worst thing for you. But it is because we love God and our fellow man that we cannot endorse sin.

No amount of legislation, or government backing will make marriage something other than between one man and one woman. Western Civilization might call a same-sex relationship marriage, but it can never be marriage, not truly. God is the ruler of this universe, and has rightly ordained how His creatures should live.

So what message do we offer to the homosexual? What is our response to their arguments? Simply this: that they, along with the whole human race, are born sinful and guilty of the wrath of God. Homosexuality is a sin, and they are guilty of other sins as well. Because of their sin, they ought to be judged by the Lord, found guilty, and condemned to pay for those sins forever in Hell - where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Christians were born just as guilty as they are, and were once unbelievers who likewise hated God and refused to worship Him and give Him thanks.

But God, being rich in mercy, entered into His own creation and humbled Himself by taking the form of a man - Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. Jesus lived a sinless life, and kept God's requirements of the Law that we are hopelessly unable to keep. He was also crucified on a cross to pay for the sins of God's people.

Death could not keep him, and three days later was resurrected for our justification.

Because we are hopelessly unable to keep the perfect standard that God requires of us, we all fall short of His glory and are deserving of judgment. If, however, you turn from your sins unto Christ, and trust in Him through faith (not by your own works/good deeds) to deliver you from the consequences and lifestyle of sin, you will have your sins forgiven, and a new relationship with the true and living God, being spared from the wrath to come. All those who have faith in Jesus have been justified - declared not guilty of their sins - and have a lasting peace with God that cannot be broken. Jesus bore His people's sins on the cross and fully paid for them; His righteousness is considered to be yours through faith alone, which is how you have a right-standing before God. Not by your own works, but by the works of Jesus Christ.

My prayer for you is that you will turn from your sins, unto the true God of the Bible. I pray that He might save you from your sins and your sinful lifestyle, and that you would come to know the one true Lord of all creation. I pray that the words of Paul, found in his first letter to the Corinthians would become true of you:

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, NASB).

Thanks for reading,
Metzger