1 Why I Am (still) A Christian: Biblical Authority

Why This Series?

I am writing this series so that whoever reads this blog post will come to faith in Jesus Christ and be saved. I also am writing it to strengthen the faith of those who already claim the name of Jesus Christ. Many Christians have seriously compromised their faith through immorality, disobedience, and indifference because they don't obey what God wrote in the Bible.

Why am I a Christian?

My mind races to many answers. I could start by saying that I am a Christian because I heard the gospel (Romans 10:17), and God has given me the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and given me new life in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17) And I would be telling you the truth.

Notice I sprinkled that the last paragraph with Scriptural references. Most unbelievers pass by the verses Christians put in parenthesis because it means nothing to them. Why do I include them? Because as a Christian, I do not trust in my own wisdom. I do not trust human tradition either, nor do I trust human opinion or any other human beings' information.

The Role of the Authority of Scripture

I must start the defense of Christianity by beginning with the authority of Scripture. The information we have about Christianity comes from no other source. There is no higher authority than what God has revealed in the sixty-six books of the Bible. This assortment of books composes a single Book claiming something no other book in all of human history claims - to be the self-revelation of the one and only true God.

I am a Christian because God has communicated all we need to know for the right faith and practice in the Bible. Why do I believe this? Because this is God's own testimony given throughout the pages of the Scripture. 

The Self-Attesting Bible

The Bible is self-attesting. What does that mean? It means that there is no other source of validation than the Bible itself. If anything other than the Bible verified the Bible's authenticity, then that authenticator would be a higher authority than the Bible. 

I can easily prove that no other ancient document even comes close to the historical reliability of the Bible. Many fine books show the Bible not only meets but exceeds any standard used to authenticate ancient documents. While such a study is interesting, it would reinforce the false notion that the Bible needs external authentication. 

Even if skeptics read the finest, most scholarly books that defend the Bible's reliability, they will still walk away, shaking their heads in doubt. Why? Because they come to the Bible with their prejudice already in place. The problem is not whether I can prove the historical reliability of the Bible; the real issue is whether the unbeliever will acknowledge the Bible's testimony about itself.

The Bible’s Self-Authenticating Witness

The Bible claims that God is speaking over three thousand times. I challenge both the unbelievers and believers alike to see for themselves. I issue this challenge because most Christians, let alone unbelievers haven't read through the Bible.

Imagine if I wrote this blog post criticizing a book I've never read. What if I started the blog post writing, "I have never read the book I'm going to critique but..." What credibility would I have? None! Yet, I've listened to unbelievers express their opinion on the Bible without ever having read it. Oh, they may have read a verse here and a passage there, but they've never taken the time actually to read the Bible. 

This goes for most Christians as well. I listen to Christians debate theology, express opinions that don't line up with what the Bible says, or don't reference the Scriptures in their daily lives. My challenge to both unbelievers and believers is to read through the Bible. You can find it read on Audible or read for free on Youtube. There's just no excuse for not having read the Bible.

I have read the Bible through several times. I have read all of it in Spanish as well. I have a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek and have read many passages in the original language. I have also preached line by line through many books of the Bible and lead in-depth Bible studies throughout my time as a pastor. At this moment, I am about three-quarters of the way through rereading it again. I can tell you from experience, you cannot read the Bible without being confronted by God’s own witness of Himself on every page.

What We Learn in the Bible

I am a Christian because God commanded me to have faith in Christ through the authority of the written word of God contained in the Old and New Testament. From beginning to end, God calls us to trust in Christ.

I learn everything I need to know about this awesome God in the Holy Scriptures. In the pages of the Bible, I learn He is the creator of heaven and earth, that He is Holy, that He is just, that He is good, that He is One God who exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I learn that the Second Person of the Trinity became flesh, fully God and fully Man.

I learn that God the Father ordained the crucifixion of Jesus Christ through sinful human beings so that He might forgive the sins of all who believe in Christ. I learn the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, applies the shed blood of Jesus Christ to all who believe in Christ. I learn that all humanity is dead in their trespasses and sins, and only through God's decision can anyone be saved. I know about God's law and how the Holy Spirit writes the law of God on our new hearts. I learn why men and women are equal, why prejudice is evil, and why we should help the poor. It's all there!

No Logic, Science, or Morality Apart from Scripture

I learn that logic is possible only when you start with the Trinitarian God of the Bible. (Isaiah 1:18) Without Him, we cannot account for logical reasoning. Nor can we account for science. I learn that atheists can do science as unbelievers, but they cannot "do" science apart from the revelation of the God who ordains all that comes to pass through the counsel of His will. (Ephesians 1:11). Through Biblical revelation, we have the foundation for morality. The Bible reveals that God is good (Mark 10:18) and that He hates wickedness (Psalm 11:5) and that He will punish those who do not have faith in Christ. (Matthew 7:21-23)

In short, without the self-revelation of the self-existent God, as revealed in the Bible, you cannot prove anything. Without the Bible, we are lost in human subjective opinion and oppression. Without God, the law of the jungle reigns. It's every man for himself; might makes right through the evolutionary survival of the fittest.

Conclusion

I am a Christian first and foremost because God has given us everything we need to know for faith and practice in the pages of the Bible. I believe because apart from this revelation, we can't be sure of anything. Without this revelation, there is no foundation for salvation, logic, science, or morality.

I am a Christian because God has communicated all that we need to know in the pages of the Bible.

What about you?

The Death of the United Methodist Church: Part 3 - The Gnostic Connection

Introduction

I am wrestling with how to present this next analysis. What I am about to write has contributed significantly to the United Methodist Church's demise. It is perhaps the real reason the UMC is dying. 

In my first blog post, I identified Corporate Pluralism as a significant contributor. In my second blog post, I link this concept with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral where Tradition, Reason, and Experience slay Scripture as United Methodist "do" theology.

Background

Anyone involved in the United Methodist Church knows the tension, even hostility, between the theological left and the conservative right. I saw this as a young man when I attended the Bakerville United Methodist Church in New Hartford, Connecticut. I had the honor of knowing Pastor George Smith as a teenager and was blessed to serve as an assistant pastor for several years.

I remember talking with Pastor George at length about the direction of the UMC and what can be done about it. I was familiar with the Good News Movement and personally knew men like Rev. Riley Case, who worked relentlessly to bring truth to the UMC. There was a great divide back then, with a long ugly history. This hostility continues to this day, and the fruit is the "traditionalist" (an interesting characterization, to say the least) are being politely but forcefully told to leave. 

For years I couldn't understand what was happening in the UMC. At times, I experienced anger and outright hostility toward those of us who held to the truth of Biblical Christianity. I think I understand now what was going on.

The Clergy/Laity Divide

There is, and always has been, a great divide between clergy and laity in the United Methodist Church. You cannot find this distinction in the Bible. The Scripture indeed reveals that the role of elder/pastor/overseer is God's will. However, there is no elitism associated with ordination in the Bible, especially the kind you see played out in the UMC.

The term "clergy" comes from old French words that mean those with "learning, knowledge, and erudition." "Laity" comes from the Greek word "λαϊκός, laikos," which means people. In essence, the UMC has adopted more of an Anglican and Roman Catholic understanding of church leadership than the Reformed pastoral view. There is a great chasm between those who are ordained in the UMC and those who are not. This divide is where, I believe, Gnosticism has entered the UMC. 

The Development of Gnostic Clergy

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word for knowledge. It is the belief that knowledge, particularly esoteric knowledge will bring about spiritual enlightenment and salvation. This knowledge is given to the initiated, not just anyone. Many of our institutions of higher “education” are becoming more and more gnostic in orientation, this includes colleges, universities, and seminaries.

Much of the theology that United Methodist clergy learn and study in UMC seminaries is so esoteric that it is almost impossible to understand. I challenge my readers to pick up a book by Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann, Emil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann, and Friedrich Schleiermacher, to name a few. These theologians are routinely taught in United Methodist seminaries. Try and understand the intricacies of Process Theology, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, and Neo-Orthodox Theology. Those theologies are just the tip of the Gnostic iceberg. 

Paul writes in I Timothy 6:20-21:

O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen. (emphasis mine)

I have an undergraduate in Philosophy and a Master's degree in Divinity. I have been studying theology much of my life, and I still have difficulty understanding these various theologies. These theologians and theologies are examples of true Theological Pluralism, i.e. Gnostic Theology. I have, of late, undertaken a study of Karl Barth. Because of my Philosophy background, I can understand some of what he wrote. My knowledge of existentialism and Kantian philosophy helps, but to be honest, I am often lost. I guess I am not bright enough to receive enlightenment.

These theologians and theologies have one thing in common; they are all based upon esoteric knowledge*. The hideousness of Gnostic belief is that it uses familiar terms. The meaning of these terms to the uninitiated is vastly different than what we would expect. 

We see this same manifestation of Gnosticism in Freemasonry, for example. Only as you rise higher in the ranks, are you granted more light on the true meaning of the various words and concepts. It is no different for the seminarian as he or she advances through the ranks of United Methodism. As you advance, you are taught the “true” meaning of the Bible.

Another way to explain the new religion behind the UMC, many mainline denominations, even those in government is Perennial Philosophy or Perennial Wisdom. Essential, it is the belief that all religions are One. We may have different expressions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and so on. Understand this, and you will understand much of what is happening in the Church and in our Government.

While there are clergy men and women in the UMC who consciously espouse the gnosticism behind Theological Pluralism, many are unaware that they have replaced the true faith in exchange for a lie. (Romans 1:25) Many new seminarians and pastors blindly swallow the poison their mentors and professors feed them. These leaders disparage and mock Biblical Christianity by labeling it fundamentalist, traditionalist, and narrow-minded. Unless a new candidate understands the manipulation, they ingest the poison.

The Uninitiated Laity

The problem is, the poor unsuspecting, and uninitiated person in the pew is duped into thinking their Gnostic clergy-person is a Christian in the Biblical sense of the word. Nothing can be further than the truth. Most United Methodist pastors are Gnostics and are adept at teaching the Gnostic religion.

Gnostics can use Biblical terminology while meaning something significantly different. For example, the Gnostic catechism question on Gnosis.org asks:

7. Is God a Holy Trinity?

Yes. The Gnostic tradition has always affirmed the existence of God as the Holy Trinity consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I assure you what a Gnostic means by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is vastly different than what the True Trinitarian God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. Would you be surprised to learn that what most UMC pastor’s mean by the Trinty is significantly different as well? Remember this next time your pastor calls God Mother.

The average person in the pew could ask his pastor if he or she believes in the Scripture's infallibility, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, whether there is any other way of salvation outside of Jesus's death on the cross, and so on. I guarantee the Gnostic pastor will affirm every one of these doctrines and more. However, because the meaning of the words and theology is vastly different than sound Biblical theology, the person asking the question will never suspect. And unless you are aware of Gnosticism and how to bring it to the light, the Gnostic pastor will have you convinced they are just as Christian as you are. I assure you, they are not.

Signs of a Gnostic Clergy

These Gnostic clergy will occasionally slip or purposely push their uninitiated congregants toward Gnosticism with various "buzz words." Some of the signs of a Gnostic pastor are those who pray to Mother God, push for tolerance for same-sex marriage, insist on inclusive language when it comes to God, and much more. Once confronted, they will feign contrition, but it is only an act. They are taught to be patient because uninitiated laity have a long way to go to achieve enlightenment.

The Remnant

The truth is that there are very few Pastors like George Smith once was. What few are left are being driven out. I see many dedicated, trusting, and unsuspecting “laity” in the UMC. Many of this remnant have been in the UMC most, if not all of their lives. They are men and women who sincerely love Jesus Christ and were taught to respect their Elders and submit to their authority. Because of this, Gnostic pastors have walked unconfronted in most local churches. These faithful servants in the pew have given thousands of hours of service and tens of thousands of tithe money to their local church. Their money pays the salaries of Gnostic pastors to go on to further heights of enlightenment by paying for their “education.” These faithful people have been worshipping together for years in their local churches and they don’t want to lose their church. For these reasons, the sin perpetrated against these loyal members is all the more troubling.

Gnosticism - An Ancient Heresy

The early church had to combat Gnosticism in many forms. The epistles of John, for example, are masterpieces that fight against this age-old heresy. For instance, Gnosticism believes there is a little bit of good in evil and a little bit of evil in good. Sound like the Force of Starwars and Darth Vader? Perhaps you are thinking of the Ying and Yang symbol of eastern religions. Can anyone say Carl Jung? The idea that the Bible is both the infallible word of God but contains error is another form of this mixture of light and darkness. 

The apostle John speaks against this ancient heresy in 1 John 1:5-7:

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Words of Encouragement to UMC Members

If you are a United Methodist Church member, I have a few words of encouragement to give you.

First, you are not crazy. Your heart has been telling you for many years that something is significantly amiss in the UMC's pastoral leadership. Most pastors, district superintendents, and bishops are steeped in Gnosticism. But remember, the nature of Gnosticism is to hide in the darkness.

Second, the decline of your local church is not your fault. There has been a systematic Gnostic infiltration into the ranks of the clergy for decades. This infiltration is by design. The ultimate goal is not propagating the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the advancement of pseudo-Christian and pro-Gnostic values. This is not the first time Gnosticism has infiltrated the Church and, until Christ comes again, it is not the last.

Third, you are stronger than you think. God always calls us to be humble, but He never calls us to compromise. If you are in a United Methodist Church and recognize Gnosticism either in your pastor, district superintendent, or bishop, you are not out of line to speak out and confront the darkness. You should educate yourself more on this heresy, otherwise, you will be tricked or bullied into submission.

Forth, pray for your Gnostic pastor and witness to him or her. If they don't repent, demand a pastor who is thoroughly Christian. Educate yourself on the subtleties of Gnostic expressions amongst the clergy. Part of the beauty of Protestantism is our belief that we have a right to question the clergy and have a duty to do so. Members of the local church have been systematically trained to be passive, to not question authority. This time is over. 

Fifth, realize that if and when the United Methodist Church splits, your local church has a once in a lifetime opportunity to leave the apostate denomination with your buildings and land in tact. I doubt this opportunity will happen again. I would encourage all United Methodist local churches to pray and think long and hard about this opportunity. I will write more about this in the near future.

Sixth, be faithful to Jesus Christ and not a denomination. If the time comes to leave, wipe the dust off your feet, and don't look back. The judgment does indeed begin in the house of God. If the United Methodist Church's clergy do not repent and leave Gnosticism behind, God will judge them severly. 

Seventh, trust in the sovereignty of God. The Church is His Bride, and He will bring about His holiness and righteousness in Her. You are that Bride. Do all you can to remain faithful to Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

*I am well aware that there are true Christian theologians that may sound esoteric. I think of men such as Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Peter Jones, for example. There is a significant difference, however. God gifts these types of theologians not only to understand esoteric Gnostic Theology, but they are blessed to refute them as well.

---

Note:

If any of my readers, especially those who are part of the United Methodist Church, would like to verify what I am saying or know more, I suggest reading or listening to Dr. Peter Jones. Dr. Jones holds an M. Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a Th. M. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He taught New Testament at Westminster Seminary (Escondido, CA) until December 2002. He now directs truthXchange (www.truthxchange.com), a non-profit which emphasizes reaching college and university students who often encounter the "new spirituality" on their campuses.

A few quick resources may be beneficial such as, Gnosticism in the Mainline, Neopaganism Inside the Church, and A Gnostic Gospel should be enough to point you in the right direction.

The Death of the United Methodist Church: Part 2 - Quadrilateral Confusion

Introduction

One of the core methodological tenants of United Methodism is what is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. To outsiders, "quadrilateral" is a geometric term describing an object with four equal sides. In essence, this definition helps us understand the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

If I had a nickel for every time someone mentioned the Quadrilateral throughout my seminary and pastoral days in the UMC, I would be a wealthy man. The Quadrilateral is at the heart of United Methodism understanding and interpretation. It's how Methodists "do" theology.

I don't know if it is accurate to say that the Quadrilateral is a UMC doctrine. As I mentioned earlier, it is more a method of “doing” theology. And, as the name of the denomination suggests, Methodists love methodology. 

What is the Quadrilateral?

United Methodist Church's (UMC) Book of Discipline 2016 edition states on page 103,

Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.

The official website of the UMC states:

The phrase which has relatively recently come into use to describe the principal factors that John Wesley believed illuminate the core of the Christian faith for the believer. Wesley did not formulate the succinct statement now commonly referred to as the Wesley Quadrilateral. Building on the Anglican theological tradition, Wesley added a fourth emphasis, experience. The resulting four components or "sides" of the Quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For United Methodists, Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service. 

While UMC.org clearly states, "For United Methodists, Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine," the reality is that practically speaking, the Scripture ends up taking a back seat to tradition, reason, and experience. If you don't believe me, read what the Book of Discipline states on page 102 and 103 of the 2016 edition:

But, even as they (United Methodists) were fully committed to the principles of religious tolerance and theological diversity, they were equally confident that there is a "marrow" of Christian truth that can be identified and that must be conserved. This living core, as they believed, stands revealed in Scripture, illuminated by tradition, vivified in personal and corporate experience, and confirmed by reason. They were very much aware, of course, that God's eternal Word never has been, nor can be, exhaustively expressed in any single forms of words." (emphasis mine)

In my article on United Methodist Corporate Pluralism, I showed how Theological Pluralism is nothing more than pagan relativism. While allowing for "religious tolerance and theological diversity" sounds innocent enough, this has lead to the decline of the UMC and the inevitable church split where "traditionalists" are politely but forcefully being kick out of the denomination. The truth is, Theological Pluralism is the most intolerant form of "theology" there is. 

What is Scripture?

It is the self-revelation of the one and only self-existing Triune God who has revealed Himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The self-authenticating Bible claims countless times to be the very words of the Christian God. It reveals God's plan of salvation through the Second Person of the Trinity, the God/Man Jesus Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man. The Bible is infallible and inerrant in the original autograph. The Holy Spirit has preserved the integrity of any copies so that any discrepancies are insignificant, easily detectable, and do not change what God intends to communicate to us.

Contrary to what the United Methodist Book of Discipline says, God’s Word does give an exhaustive revelation of everything we need for correct faith and practice. There is nothing more that God intended to communicate to us this side of eternity. Of course, no mere words can exhaustively convey the majesty and immensity of God, but even in heaven, God will not contradict what He has communicated in the Bible.

Why do I take so much time to outline the doctrine of Scripture? It is because, practically speaking, United Methodism slays the Bible on the altar of tradition, reason, and experience. I have seen this repeatedly in my time as a member and pastor in the United Methodist Church. 

Tradition

Tradition must be subject to Scripture. Jesus Christ was adamant that tradition was a dangerous method to use when understanding the word of God. In Matthew 15:1-20, Jesus condemned tradition. Tradition has no place or authority in Biblical Christianity. Why, because eventually, tradition will take the place of Scripture.

Reason

Reason must be subject to Scripture. I could write volumes on this. People think that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Many Christians believe that faith takes over where reason leaves off. They believe faith and reason, while friendly towards one another, live in different spheres. As such, reason often trumps Scripture. 

The truth is that reason is not possible apart from the revelation of the Truinue Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Take away the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and you cannot prove anything. Logic, reason, and science is not possible apart from the Trinity. Without the God of the Bible, there is no way to account for the immaterial laws of logic, the consistency of rationalism, and the cause and effect necessary to do science. All are founded upon none other than the self-existing Trinitarian God.

We know who God is, how He holds the universe together, and His holy character because of His self-revelation in the Bible. As the Bible says, "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28). It also claims that all things happen "according to the counsel of His goodwill." (Ephesians 1:11) These two verses alone account for logic, reason, and science, but there are many more besides these.

Experience

Finally, I consider experience to be the worst member of the Quadrilateral. It is interesting that John Wesley added this to the Anglican Church’s “trilateral.” Human beings have all kinds of bizarre experiences. I've heard people testify to astral projection, encounters with aliens, and visitations of angels, even visitation to heaven. People experience sexual desire for anything under the sun. However, for the very reason experience is so strong, human beings will try to explain or justify it to the best of their ability. Paul drove this point home in Galatians 1:8, for example, even if you experience an angel from heaven preaching another gospel, let that messenger be accursed. 

Conclusion

We have many traditions that are contrary to Scripture. Atheistic reasoning often presents itself as contrary to Scripture rather than seeing Scripture as necessary for reason. Experience is so powerful that people seek explanations outside of Scripture or contrary to Scripture.

The United Methodist Church is splitting and dying because it has compromised the authority of Scripture. While it claims Scripture is "primary," practically speaking, everything but Scripture has ultimate authority in the UMC.

As I was finishing my Masters in Divinity at Asbury Theological Seminary, I was going through the process of ordination in the New York Annual Conference. I remember one of the questions in my examination asking what I thought about the Quadrilateral. Even back in 1987, I said that I do not hold to it. I told them that according to the Bible, there is no other standard by which we determine or understand truth. Tradition, reason, and experience must be absolutely subject to the Bible. Needless to say, they denied my ordination. It doesn't take a lot of thought to know why.

The Death of the United Methodist Church: Part 1 - Corporate Pluralism

A Son of Methodism

Before anyone judges me for blogging about the United Methodist Church, I must say that I have a legitimate ax to grind. My family belonged to the Methodist Church, long before the "United" replaced the "Episcopal" in the name in 1968. My great-grandparents raised their children in the Torrington Methodist Church. My grandparents did the same, as did my parents. There stands in the narthex of the Torrington Methodist Church a memorial to my grandfather Harold S. Patterson to this day.

I am a son of the UMC. I was born and raised in the Torrington UMC. I went to Sunday School, sang in the Junior Choir, attended worship, and was confirmed there. After we moved down the road to the Bakerville UMC, I went through the ordination process. I was married in the UMC to my first wife, as were two of my children. All of my babies were baptized in Methodist Churches. I attended Asbury Theological Seminary which was named after the Methodist minister Francis Asbury.

After seminary, I was ordained a deacon in the Northern Indian Conference and was ordained an elder in good standing in the Central Pennsylvania Conference. I served in over 11 different Methodist Churches throughout my tenure as an ordained pastor in the UMC. I eventually surrendered my ordination to the Central Pennsylvania Conference many years ago. I served in several pastoral positions in the UMC even after I left the denomination. My parents still belong to a UMC and my mother even pastored the Bakerville United Methodist Church in New Hartford, Connecticut for several years.

The Coming Split of the UMC

The United Methodist Church is on the verge of a split. The Liberals, Neo-Orthodox, Shamans, Wiccans, Gnostics, and Pagans are showing the "traditionalist" the door. While the Conservatives claim it is over same-sex disagreements, the divide goes deeper than that. The Conservative Traditionalists are starting their own denomination. Sadly for them, they are potentially taking with them destructive seeds from the UMC that will, if left unrecognized, bear the same ugly fruit.

There are two significant flaws in the UMC that is causing its demise and will result in the death of any offshoot denominations that spring from it. The first is what I call Franchise Churchianity, and the other is the Lack of Confessionalism and Church Discipline.

Franchise Churchianity

As a clergy member, I often criticized the United Methodist Church's business mentality. That it is a franchised business, there can be no argument. From the cross and flame logo to the 501(c)3 business not-for-profit incorporation status, the United Methodist Church is just another Brand.

A Bishop of the UMC gave a teaching to pastors and church leaders last year. He said that they must understand that the United Methodist Church is a franchise just like MacDonald. And just as you expect a Big Mac to taste like a Big Mac in whatever MacDonalds you go to, so you should be able to go into any United Methodist Church on any given Sunday and find what is offered is uniform throughout the denomination. This was not the first time I heard such talk. It was a common theme in district pastoral meetings, though they didn’t blatantly talk about MacDonalds.

I have often used this illustration to criticize the UMC. I was both vindicated and deeply saddened to hear a bishop of the church not only admit it but use it to help church leaders to understand the vision of Big MacMethodism. What is even sadder for me is that if and when the Church splits, those who leave, steeped in franchise Methodism, will go and repeat the same error yet once again by forming a new 501(c)3 nonprofit franchise. And so the madness continues.

Theological Pagan Pluralism

John Wesley’s Legacy

The second criticism I have of the United Methodist Church is perhaps more important than Big MacMethodism. The seeds of the destruction of the United Methodist Church were sown by John Wesley himself long ago. Few Methodist realize that John Wesley was a disobedient clergyman who often put pragmatism before sound theology. Few remember that the "holy club" of the original Methodists were thoroughly Reformed in theology. The current Calvinist Methodist Church bears witness to the roots of true Methodism.

John Wesley was the one who deviated from Methodism when he published his infamous sermon, "Free Grace." George Whitefield tried to call the rebellious Wesley back to the true faith. Sadly, Wesley spurned correction and continued to promote the pragmatism which eventually blossomed in the failing United Methodist Church. While I do not doubt that God used Wesley to bring many to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, I also believe Wesley planted the seeds for the dying UMC church.

What is Pluralism?

The heart of United Methodism is Theological Pluralism. Pluralism is a fancy name for relativism. In other words, the United Methodist Church has no backbone. It has no foundation other than human opinion and the whims of church democracy. The opposite of Theological Pluralism is what is called Confessionalism.

Confessionalism is an agreed-upon statement of faith that one must adhere to be a pastor and a member. There are many famous Confessions of the Church, such as the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the Heidelberg Catechism.

To take a stand on nothing means you open the door for anything. While a Confession of Faith does not have equal status with the Scripture, it is a way to unify the Church around theological standards that are Biblically based. The alternative is the relativism of Theological Pluralism.

The United Methodist Church sowed the seeds of destruction when it adopted Theological Pluralism. I will say it more forcefully; the UMC adopted a Neo-Pagan Confession of Faith, ultimately holding that there are no ultimate theological absolutes. The United Methodist Church has ordained shamans, Sophia worshippers, self-proclaimed pagans, freemasons, and people who openly endorsed sexuality that is condemned by the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

The lack of Confessionalism has made it impossible for the UMC to carry out Church Discipline. While there is a procedure for Church Discipline in the United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline, it has no real value or power. Because of this, there is no way to rid the pastoral ranks or the people in the pews of unrepentant heretics or sinners. The key word in that last sentence is “unrepentant.” There is no way to keep the church pure from the leaven that spoils the whole lump. (1 Corinthians 5)

The irony of the Church split is that the Progressives, or whatever you want to call them, are practicing a form of Church Discipline by cleaning the ranks of those who they consider to be out of line with their faith and practice. They are even willing to pay twenty-five million dollars to be rid of them.

Having a Church that is not a 501(c)3 not for profit corporation is no guarantee that it won't fall into the trap of a business mentality. Being a Confessional Church that practices Biblical Church discipline will not ensure the Church will remain faithful to Jesus Christ. However, both of these go a long way to help a Church not deteriorate to the point that the United Methodist Church has presently declined.

Teach Sound Doctrine

Paul wrote to Titus in chapter 2 verse 1, saying

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.

The Bible is clear; there is a true gospel and sound theology that must be proclaimed in the Church and by the Church. The Scriptures contain sound doctrine that can and should be part of the Church. It outlines the reason, the need, and the procedure for Church Discipline. The United Methodist Church has ignored the Bible in favor of Pagan Theological Pluralism. It has been hijacked by men and women who no longer hold to even John Wesley's theology. And it has no way to test and discipline those who have left the true faith.

My Personal Experience as a UMC Pastor

When I write these things, I am speaking from personal observation and experience. I had to leave the United Methodist Church because of the growing hostility to sound teaching. Seminarians holding to sound Biblical doctrine have systematically been weeded out. In every church I pastored, I battled against liberalism, paganism, corporatism, and neo-orthodoxy both with my District Superintendents and fellow clergy. In every church besides Bakerville UMC, I was pressured by the freemasons to join or be harassed. I was subject to hostility and hate by influential pastors of large churches. I was even denied ordination by the New York Annual Conference in 1987, though I had no problem being ordained in two different Conferences. So, I know what I am talking about.

The Church Victorious

I have complete hope in Jesus Christ, the great Bridegroom of the Victorious Bride, His Church. The gates of Hell will not hold back the power and dynamism of the True Church. The United Methodist Church is quickly leaving the True Church if it hasn’t already. Sadly, too many people in the pews either don’t care, don’t know how bad it is, or just refuse to leave a church that they attended for most, if not all of their life. I don’t blame the last group. For these people, my heart is truly sad. Your church has been stolen right from under your nose.

Until or unless the UMC rejects Theological Pluralism and becomes a Confessional Church that practices Biblical Church discipline, there is little hope that this denomination will revive. And if the offshoots from the split don’t learn the mistakes of the UMC, they will suffer the consequences of repeating the cycle yet again.

What will happen with the church split remains to be seen. I remain eager to see how it plays out.

The False god of Spinoza, Einstein, and Moore.

Recently, I was reading someone’s Facebook page. He shared a post by a woman named Jillene Moore. I will include the text of Moore’s post at the end of this blog post, so the reader can read what each of us wrote and make up your own mind. If you are at all interested in this subject, I encourage you to scroll down now and read it first. Or you can read it here.

Moore begins her post by saying,

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

She then gives a fanciful depiction of Spinoza's god. She paints this god with an optimistic brush. Assuming Spinoza would approve, how does she know what this god would say? It is entirely arbitrary and total conjecture.

This god supposedly reveals itself through sunrises, landscapes, and in the eyes of loved ones. Why didn't she include maggot-infested carcasses, garbage dumps, and train wrecks?

Whether she realizes it or not, Moore borrows her optimism from the Christian worldview. Only in the self-attesting Bible do we have the objective revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God. Without this, Einstein, Spinoza and Moore cannot account for why sunrises, landscapes, and the eyes of the loved ones are better revelations than carcasses, dumps, and train wrecks.

What does she mean when she writes that Spinoza's god "loves"? And why is "love" better than "hate"? Neither Moore nor Spinoza's god tell us. They assume it. Without an objective revelation of love, how can we even know what it is?

God reveals in 1 John 4:8 that "God is love." We cannot know what love is apart from the God of the Bible. It says in 1 John 3:16,

By this we know love, that Jesus Christ laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters.

Without this objective revelation, any notions of love are purely speculative. Again, Moore borrows from the Christian worldview when she believes that Spinoza's god "loves" rather than "hates" us.

The god of Spinoza, as revealed by Moore, cares nothing for morality. She opines that Spinoza's god says,

I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe."

Would she then say that it's okay to rape, cheat on your spouse, or that it's wrong to have sex with animals? Since this god never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you are a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing, why not do as you please to whomever or whatever you want?

If you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you can't say that any form of sexual expression is wrong. And if you do, you once again have borrowed the objective revelation of the Trinitarian God of the Bible, which limits human sexual behavior and says that the violation of His Law is the very definition of sin. 1 John 3:4,

Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The god of Spinoza knows nothing of law and sin. This god cannot say any form of sexual behavior is wrong. As soon as you try to put limits upon human sexual behavior, you assume once again the morality of the God of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:24,

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

It's either the self-existing God of the self-attesting Bible or the subjective, amoral, relativistic god of Spinoza.

Moore writes that you cannot know Spinoza's god through any "alleged sacred scripture." While there are many "alleged sacred" scriptures, there are none like the Bible. It is the only self-attesting Book that claims to be the sole and unique revelation of the one and only self-existing Trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No other book claims that it is "infallible" and "God-breathed." (2 Timothy 3:16)

Only the God of the Bible provides the foundation for rationality, science, and morality. Apart from this self-attesting revelation, we cannot prove anything. How does Einstein, Spinoza or Moore know anything about their god? Again, maybe cesspools reveal more about this god rather than fluffy white clouds. Without an objective standard, it's all fairytales and wishes.

Any person that claims that anything can be proven presupposes the Christian worldview as revealed in the Bible. The very idea that something can be proven presuppose the God of the Bible exists; otherwise, we choose meaningless humanistic subjectivism that cannot prove anything. Who needs proof of anything in a God-empty universe?

We can’t have scientific proof apart from the Bible. The atheist Hume clearly demonstrated that we cannot assume the uniformity of nature. Science is impossible without this assumption. Science is only possible when we start with the God in whom

we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:28

Quite frankly, I am terrified of Spinoza's god. Imagine a universe where

"there's nothing to forgive."

This god makes us with

"passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will."

Since this god does not hold us accountable or threaten punishment for "being the way you are," why aren't we "absolutely free" to do whatever the hell we please to anyone we want and not ask forgiveness?

Imagine if humanity believed and acted on this presumption. What's to stop people from carrying out whatever atrocity they want? Even the idea of an "atrocity" must assume the Christian worldview rather than Spinoza's god. To agree with Spinoza's god, you cannot say anything is wrong. You have no moral basis for condemning the holocaust or Stalin's genocide of his people. Moore wants to paint Spinoza's god with a rainbow pallet, but this god paints with the pallet of blood.

Spinoza founded his god by his own subjective idealistic thinking. However, the Bible is the only objective revelation of the one and only God of the universe. Yet, even those who deny God continue to testify to His existence. Moore does so by assuming meaning in what she is saying, by assuming sunsets are better than carcasses, that enjoyment is better than misery, that the god of Spinoza is true, and the God of the Bible is false. She assumes she is saying something meaningful about a meaningless god.

For Spinoza's god, as depicted by Moore, there is no such thing as sin. In the Bible, God revealed that sin is real because He is holy, which means He is wholly set apart from sin. God defines sin, and no one else. The Bible reveals that God punishes sin. The glory and beauty of Biblical Christianity is that the Second Person of the Trinity became fully Human and died as a substitute for all who believe in Him. Believing in Him means that we repent of our sin and look to Jesus Christ for our salvation. The Bible says all who call upon Jesus Christ will be saved.

God then sends the Third Person of the Trinity to fill us and make us as pure and holy as Jesus Christ Himself. The Spirit writes the Law of God on our hearts so that we obey God not only outwardly but inwardly as well. God empowers us to love one another, not according to our subjective whims, but according to His Law given to us in the Bible. This is why it is wrong to rape, cheat on your spouse or have an affair with a goat.

The god of Spinoza speaking to us through Moore hasn't offered anything but meaningless sentimentality and permission to do whatever the hell we please. This god is the ultimate expression of narcissistic humanity.

The god of Einstein and Spinoza is nothing new. You can find it all throughout the Bible. Sometimes it is called Moloch, sometimes Baal, sometimes Astorath, and under many more names. In the end, we learn that this god's name is ultimately Satan.

The choice is always the same, both in Biblical times and in our times:

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. Joshua 24:14+15

Me? I have made my choice. I answer as Joshua did in the same verse,

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I'm happy to dialogue if you want to talk about what I've written.

Jillene Moore’s Facebook Post, November 19, 2020:

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

According to Spinoza, God would say: “Stop praying. I want you to go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

“Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

“Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe.

“Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes—you will find me in no book!

“Stop asking me, ‘Will you tell me how to do my job?’ Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry or bothered. I am pure love.

“Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you, I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will. Why would I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How could I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

“Respect your peers, and don't give what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life—alertness is your guide.

“My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, not a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now—and it is all you need.

“I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.
You are absolutely free to create in your life. It’s you who creates heaven or hell.

“Live as if there is nothing beyond this life, as if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist. Then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is an afterlife, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask, ‘Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?’

“Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

“Stop praising me. What kind of egomaniac God do you think I am? I'm bored with being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

“Stop complicating things and repeating as a parrot what you've been taught about me. Why do you need more miracles? So many explanations?

“The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.”

By Any Other Standard but the Bible: A Book Review of Dr. Greg Boyd’s, Inspired Imperfections: How the Bible’s Problems Enhance Its Authority

Inspired Imperfections is the story of how Greg Boyd went from an emotional experience he had in an oneness Pentecost apostate "church" to construct a new "faith" built upon mythology, neo-orthodoxy, and his own flawed reasoning. It is an account of how you can believe the Bible is filled with "errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material," yet still use that flawed Bible to construct a mythical Jesus of your own making. 

This book displays Boyd's deep faith in the presuppositions of evolution, historical-criticism, man's reason, and anything else but the Bible itself. It is a book that attempts to rescue the Bible from itself. 

After reading Imperfect Imperfections, Boyd hopes the reader can use ideas he gleaned from this flawed Bible as the guiding principle to interpret the Bible itself. 

In short, Inspired Imperfections is Boyd's brilliant self-deception that he seeks to foist upon unsuspecting Christians. Based upon most of the reviews on Amazon and other sites, he has done a masterful job.

If only Boyd learned the real lesson of his evolutionary biology teacher, who said, "It's always good to critically reexamine our foundational assumptions in science." (see Introduction, page xiii) Boyd swallows the presuppositions of evolution, historical-criticism, and human authority hook, line, and sinker. He has a remarkable faith in Man. He believes in anything but the self-attesting revelation of the self-existing Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, given to us in the Bible. 

Boyd misrepresents Biblical inerrancy throughout his book. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen has shown in his excellent article Inerrancy of the Autographa, any copy errors of the Bible are so inconsequential and infrequent that the Bible's integrity is preserved. Besides, the Bible has so many reliable copies, more than any other ancient book, that any minor copying errors are easily detectable.

Moving along, Boyd holds a heretical view of the Trinity. For him, the Trinity is Father/Mother Godself, he, and she. (see his Introduction, pages xx, xxi)

This book is a guide on how you can believe in Jesus apart from Scripture. On page 18, Boyd relates how C.S. Lewis helped him understand that you don't need the Bible to believe in Jesus. This Jesus is vastly different than the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is given in the historically accurate account of how the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:8 that if anyone proclaims a different Jesus than the one presented in Scripture, they offer a false Christ. The Jesus of Dr. Greg Boyd is based upon mythology and the neo-orthodox "theology" of Karl Barth.

Speaking of Karl Barth, Boyd takes after his mentor in many ways. Both distrust the self-revelation of the self-existing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through His self-attesting Bible. Both do not believe in history as presented in the Scripture. Both accept the presuppositions of evolution and the evolutionary presuppositions of historical-criticism. Both believe the Bible must be rescued from itself through redefining Biblical theology according to an existential worldview. Both assume "glory to man in the highest," that is, Man is the measure of all things. Boyd and Barth's only real difference is that Boyd thinks his "Cruciform Inspiration" is better than Barth's "Christocentric" theology. 

Boyd cannot see that every one of his critiques starting on page 74 of Barth can be applied to his theology. 

What Boyd never answers is by what standard does he determine what constitutes "errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material?" My question does not have to do just with the Bible. It has to do with how Boyd determines these things overall. The standard(s) that he uses has to be error-free, logically consistent, 100% accurate, and objective to determine what is or isn't morally offensive? 

Here is Boyd's Achilles heel. In fact, this is the Achilles heel of anyone who denies the absolute authority of inerrant (in the original autographs) and infallible (defined as "cannot make a mistake") Bible. The Bible self-attests to its reliability, integrity, trustworthiness, inspiration, and infallibility. In short, there is no other standard than the Bible itself. 

To presume anything less is to destroy the foundation of science, reason, and morality. It is to set Man as the ultimate standard rather than the self-existing Trinitarian God who revealed everything we need to know about Him and what He requires of us in the Bible.

Boyd implies those who presuppose the Bible as the only authority are committing "Bibliolatry." (see his Glossary on page 174) I ask Boyd and anyone who adheres to this book's theology, How can you say you honor the King but teach that His Word is filled with errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material? 

Those of us who presuppose the Bible as the only infallible standard do not worship the Book, but we certainly do take seriously "Every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

I could accuse Dr. Greg Boyd of Boydolatry, that is, believing that Boyd, or any other human being for that matter, can stand in judgment of God and His word and make Man's reason the ultimate standard to judge the Bible. 

It's your choice. Do you believe in the fallible theology of Dr. Greg Boyd or the infallible (defined as "cannot err") Bible?

In short, this book is a piece of rubbish. Don't waste your money, instead buy anything from Dr. Greg Bahnsen or Dr. Cornelius Van Til. Both these men will affirm your confidence in the necessity of starting with Sola Scriptura.

The Executive Order You Need to Obey

Today is Thanksgiving. It is an official holiday where our government decrees that we as a nation are to give God thanks. Did you know that the word "holiday" comes from the old English words "holy day?" I read that George Washington made the first executive order by proclaiming day of Thanksgiving day on October 3, 1789. 

Exactly seventy-four years later, Abraham Lincoln issued an executive order proclaiming the last Thursday of November "as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise." Franklin D. Roosevelt, too, made an executive order making Thanksgiving a permanent national holy day. Ever since, the president of United States of America has affirmed and upheld this holy day of Thanksgiving.

That's right, the United States of America's government established, affirms, and promotes a national holy day where we as a nation are to set aside a holy day to give thanks to God. But doesn't this go against the First Amendment, the establishment of religion? Not at all. The government should acknowledge and give thanks to the One True Trinitarian God who revealed Himself in the Bible. The separation of Church and State does not meant the separation of State and God.

It makes no sense to give thanks to the universe or mother nature, or anything else. The Bible is clear that there are no gods but the One True God who has revealed Himself through Scripture. In His Holy Word, God demands that we give thanks. Here are a few examples:

Enter his gates with Thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name! Psalm 100:4

I will give the Lord the thanks due to his righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the Lord, the Most High. Psalm 7:17

And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Colossians 3:15

That our nation is in crisis, there can be no doubt. Our whole world is changing rapidly, and I don't think it is for the better. Many people are hurting today. Even here in the United States, I see more and more people on the roadside with signs that say "Homeless and Hungry." I won’t even talk about all that’s happening around the election or the latest news about COVID-19.

What's going wrong? The answer is found in Romans 1:18-23 where it says it is because God is not honored, and people do not give Him thanks. Read for yourself:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Emphasis mine)

The rest of Romans 1 tells us what happens when we fail to honor God as God or give thanks to Him. If the rest of chapter one isn't a description of what is happening in our country and in our world, I don't know what is. 

Today, we have a choice as a nation. We can obey this executive order and give God thanks, or we can continue on in our foolish ways. I want to encourage you to take this day to seriously, honor Him, and give Him thanks. 

Will The Real God Please Stand Up?

To Tell The Truth

I remember a television show when I was growing up called To Tell the Truth. In the show, celebrity panelists are presented with three contestants who have something about them that is not obvious. The panelists have to question the contestants to determine who is telling the truth and who are lying. Two of the contestants can lie all they want, but the real person must always tell the truth. After questioning the contestants, the panelists have to vote on who they think is telling the truth. At the end of the show, we have the moment of truth. The announcer asks, “Will the real Person, please stand up?” and the real person reveals himself.

As I interact with other Christians through reading their blogs, checking out their social media, or dialoguing with them in one form or another, I am amazed how different their understanding of God is from the God I read about in the pages of Scripture. At times, I get discouraged because I feel like the God many Christians believe in is so different than the one I see revealed in the Bible. I wonder how many Christians would vote for God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture if they were a panelists on To Tell the Truth.

Contrast of Gods

To illustrate my point, first I list just a few common beliefs about God that most American Christians believe. Next, I show that God says the complete opposite in the Bible. I try to make it this stark so people can see the contrast.

The American God

God loves everyone.

The God of the Bible

God hates the wicked.

Though God has a general love for the “world” and He loves His lost sheep (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10), He hates those who defy Him in thought, word, and deed.

Example Verse: 

You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:4–5

The American God

God changed His mind. Certain behaviors that were once considered sinful are now deemed holy in the eyes of God.

The God of the Bible

God does not change nor do His standards of righteousness. 

Example verses: 

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Numbers 3:19

For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. Malachi 3:6

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. James 1:17

The American God

Everyone is going to heaven.

The God of the Bible

Jesus Christ was clear in many of His parables that there is coming a day of judgment where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12) 

Example verse:

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41+42

The American God

If you are sincere, you will go to heaven. 

The God of the Bible

Sincerity will not save you. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that is manifested through Spirit-empowered obedience that will save us. This is not to say that Christians do not sometimes fall into sin. (1 John 2:1) We do. But when we do, we know that the Father is not pleased and will chastise us until we leave our sinful ways. (Hebrews 13)

Example verse:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

There are many more examples, but these will suffice to make my point. You may not like what the Bible says, but you cannot deny that it says what it says. 

Two Views of Scripture

If I had to diagnose the difference, I have to say it comes down to people’s understanding of the Bible. It comes down to two views. The first view is that the Bible is the only self-attesting book that reveals the self-existing triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This view takes what God says of Himself in the Bible. God claims the Bible is infallible; that is it cannot err. God reveals in the Bible that He is the foundation for science, reason, and morals. He claims that His written word is True and is the Standard of Truth. 

The second view is expressed in many different ways but can essentially be traced back to an authority other than Scripture. The authority is ultimately a person, whoever they are, who decides for himself what the Bible means.

The first view assumes God has one intended meaning in the Bible, and He is the one who has the right to determine what it means. This view uses all the literary tools available to us to get at God’s intended meaning. If those who hold to the first view encounter anything in the Bible that contradicts what they think, believe, feel, or experience, they know they must change and not the Bible.

Those who hold to the second view use another standard to determine whether what the Bible says is true or not. This takes many forms. For example, some assume that miracles are impossible, so they either dismiss the miracles in the Scripture or try to explain them away. Another example is those who want to live life according to their own standards. They don’t like that the Bible says their lifestyle is sinful. Hence, they twist the Scripture until they are satisfied that the Bible doesn’t mean what it obviously says and that Christians for thousands of years were mistaken in thinking that behavior is sinful. 

The Final Authority

I can give thousands of examples, but they all boil down to one common difference from the first view. What is that difference? That Man is the final authority of truth over the Scripture. The first view does not deny that people have to use their minds. This view fully engages the mind but also considers that our minds can’t always be trusted. Romans 1:28 talks about how God “gave them up to a debased mind.” Romans 1:21 says people become “futile in their thinking”, and “their foolish hearts” become “darkened.” It is not until people, by the power of the Holy Spirit, submit themselves to God through Jesus Christ that they can be “transformed by the renewing of their minds.” (Romans 12:2) 

And we can’t trust our hearts as Jeremiah says in 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Which God would you vote for if you were one of the panelists on, To Tell the Truth where different “Gods” were the contestants? Would you vote for the god that makes you feel good about yourself, or would you vote for the God who has revealed Himself in the Scripture?

The Lie Detector Test

If you were on such a panel, there is only one way you could know whether the “God” you were questioning was telling the truth or not? You would have to open your Bible and verify his answer. If it did not match up with the whole of Scripture, you would know who is lying and telling the truth.

It is time to read the Bible. Take time to examine everything you think, believe, and feel in light of the Scripture. Familiarize yourself with the entire word and not just the popular parts posted in memes on social media. And if you find anything contrary to what you think, believe, and feel or is contrary to what someone else is saying or doing, you must go with Scripture and not with man.

The real God has stood up! He has revealed Himself in the Bible. If you worship Him, you won’t just win on a tv show; you will have life for all eternity! Follow any other god and you will lose.

A Presuppositional Evaluation of Dr. Greg Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic

Introduction to Dr. Greg Boyd and "The Cruciform Standard"

Many people love and admire Dr. Greg Boyd. For those who don't know him, he is a famous theologian, pastor, and author. He is currently the senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota and is the author of countless books, articles, and blog posts. Superscholar.org lists him as one of the twenty most influential living Christian scholars of the 20th century. 

Since he is so well known, I thought I would familiarize myself by checking out Boyd's Reknew.org blog. Because of my philosophy and theology background, I was curious to get to know his thought. 

As I read through his blog, I could see why many Christians follow him. He is thoughtful, insightful, and innovative. At the same time, I could also see why it would be difficult for Christians to discern his theology problems. He received his Ph.D. magna cum laude from Princeton Theological Seminary. He received his Master of Divinity degree cum laude from Yale Divinity School and his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Minnesota. He is pretty darn smart. 

A series of his blog posts from May 1, 2012, May 2, 2012, May 9, 2012, May 16, 2012 caught my attention. These posts, I believe, give insight into the way his mind works. I believe they capture the foundational process and presuppositions that permeate all his work. 

It sounds like his faith took quite a beating from his professors in college and in Princeton and Yale. I think that the attack on his faith caused Boyd to separate his head from his heart. He has difficulty with the Bible and Biblical Reformed Christianity, yet he claims to have a deep love for Jesus Christ.

I guess he didn't have the resources to withstand the onslaught to his intellectual faith. Yet, somehow he emerged with what appears to be "faith" in Jesus Christ. It is my impression that he has spent his professional life trying to reconcile how to believe in Jesus Christ while at the same time, not believing in the certainty of Scripture. It also strikes me that he's trying to be the smart kid in the class by coming up with theological innovations.

I am writing this article for two reasons. The first is for my benefit. As the Bible says, "iron sharpens iron." I want to exercise my intellect by evaluating someone as educated as Dr. Greg Boyd. I intend to apply the Presuppositional Apologetics that I have been learning from Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. K. Scott Oliphint.

The second reason I am writing this article is because of Boyd's prolific influence. He is a famous theologian admired by many Christians. Many evangelical pastors even respect him. However, I believe Boyd's theology is fundamentally flawed. It is difficult for those in the pew to discern the problems with what he is propagating so I will try my hand evaluating a portion of this thought.

In the blogs mentioned above, Boyd fleshes out what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." I will mainly focus on the blog post he wrote on May 16, 2012, titled, Scripture's God-Breathed Imperfections. I think this post best articulates Boyd's presuppositional basis for his theology.

I contend that "The Cruciform Standard" is fundamentally flawed, inconsistent, intellectually confused, unbiblical, and, to be blunt, somewhat deceptive. I do not doubt his sincerity, but a person of Boyd's stature and influence has a moral responsibility to teach sound doctrine. I aim to demonstrate that "The Cruciform Standard" is anything but sound.

Dueling Definitions

The Definition of Biblical Infallibility

The first red flag was how Boyd defined "infallible." While "infallible" may have other nuanced meanings in different contexts, it has a specific meaning when used in connection with Biblical theology.  

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "infallible" as:

1: incapable of error: UNERRING

an infallible memory

2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint: CERTAIN

an infallible remedy

3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "infallibility" as:

INFALLIBIL'ITY

INFAL'LIBLE, adjective [Latin fallo.]

1. Not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons. No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only.

2. Not liable to fail, or to deceive confidence; certain; as infallible evidence; infallible success.

To whom he showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs--

The Greek word τεκμηρίοις (tekmēriois) is translated as "infallible" in the King James Version of the Bible in Acts 1:1-3:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ESV (emphasis mine)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek term.

STRONGS NT 5039: τεκμήριον

τεκμήριον, τεκμηριου, τό (from τεκμαίρω to show or prove by sure signs; from τέκμαρ a sign), from Aeschylus and Herodotus down, that from which something is surely and plainly known; an indubitable evidence, a proof (Hesychius τεκμήριον. σημεῖον ἀληθές): Acts 1:3 (Wis. 5:11; 3Macc. 3:24).

The term "infallible" in the context of Biblical theology means "incapable of error." Thus, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility means that the Bible is presupposed to be incapable of error. This is in line with what the Bible says of itself. For example:

This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. 2 Samuel 22:31, ESV

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Proverbs 30:5, ESV

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. John 17:17, ESV

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15, ESV.

Dr. Boyd's Definition of Infallible

Rather than taking the Bible as what God revealed about Himself or use "infallible" as it is typically used in Biblical theology, Dr. Boyd uses a synonym rather than a definition when he defines "infallible." He writes:

Does this mean that we must reject biblical infallibility? It all depends on what you mean by "infallible." "Infallible" means "unfailing," and for something to "fail" or "not fail" depends on the standard you use to measure it.

While some dictionaries use "unfailing" as a sub-definition, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary lists "unfailing" as a synonym for "infallible." The Bible can be described as "unfailing,"but it does not have the same meaning as "not capable of error." 

Indeed, Boyd is correct when he writes: 

It all depends on what you mean by "infallible."

No wonder he equivocates on his definition of "infallible." Biblical infallibility means that the Bible is "not capable of error." 

Throughout these blog posts, what Boyd means by Biblical infallibility is that the Bible is full of error, and another standard must be presupposed. That is why on May 9, 2012, he titles his blog post, "Why Christ, not Scripture, is Our Ultimate Foundation." He wrote:

If the reason you believe is anchored in your confidence that Scripture is "God-breathed," then your faith can't help but be threatened every time you encounter a discrepancy, an archeological problem, or a persuasive historical-critical argument that a portion of the biblical narrative may not be historically accurate. 

For Boyd, Biblical infallibility means the Bible is not only capable of mistakes, it is filled with errors; hence he has to redefine "infallible."

Boyd's Most Important Question

Dr. Boyd asks perhaps the most critical question, not only of these blog posts but of all Christendom:

So when you confess Scripture is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing? 

This is the point, isn't it? If the Bible is "infallible," it is the standard. If it is not, then there must be another infallible standard by which the Bible is judged. Before I get into how Dr. Boyd answers his question, it is essential to review what a "standard" is.

The Biblical Canon

The Bible is composed of books that make up the "canon" of Scripture. The word "canon" comes from the Hebrew word "qaneh" and the Greek word "kanon." Both refer to the standard by which other things are measured. 

By definition, the Bible is the standard by which all other standards are measured. The standard must be infallible, or else it is not the standard. If another standard measures a standard, it cannot be the Ultimate Standard. This means that the standard you use to measure the Bible is the Ultimate Standard, and the Bible is not.

I Answer Boyd’s Question

When I confess Scripture is "infallible," I presupposed the Bible itself is the Standard in and of itself. I presuppose what the Bible says about itself, that it is the self-attesting revelation of the self-existing Trinity. This one Standard measures all other standards. There can be no different standard that measures the Scriptures. If there were, it would be the Ultimate Standard. Since the Bible is the self-revelation of the self-existing Triune God, the Book itself reveals the mind of Ultimate Standard; God Himself. Not only does God reveal His mind, but He also reveals His character, His morality, His rationality, His sovereignty over creation, His aseity (self-existence), that He is One and Three, etc. 

The revelation of God gives the preconditions necessary for science, morality, and rationality. In the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til:

The argument for Christianity must therefore be that of presupposition. With Augustine it must be maintained that God’s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives. The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. - Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (P&R, 3rd ed., 1967), 298.

This is how Biblical Christianity answers Boyd's question. To answer this question in any other way means there is a higher standard than the Bible. Furthermore, if the Bible is not presumed infallible, nothing can be proved whatsoever.

Boyd - A Standard Unto Himself

The question that needs to be asked of Boyd is: 

So when you confess Scripture is "fallible," what standard are you presupposing? 

Instead of the Bible being the Standard, Boyd presupposes four measures that prove that the Bible is "A Shaky Foundation for Why We Believe." In the words of Boyd:

If your standard is modern science, for example, I'm afraid you're going to have a very hard time holding onto your confidence in Scripture, because last I heard, scientists were pretty sure the sky wasn't a dome that was "hard as a molten mirror" (Job 37:18) as it held up water (Gen.1:7) with windows that could be opened so it could rain (Gen. 7:11). So too, if your standard is perfect historical accuracy, or perfect consistency, you're going to sooner or later run into trouble as well for similar reasons. In fact, I would argue that you're going to run into problems if your standard is even uniformly perfect theology. For example, we instinctively interpret references to Yahweh riding on clouds and throwing down lightning bolts to be metaphorical (e.g. Ps. 18:14; 68:4; 104:3). But ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this. They were simply mistaken.

Boyd presupposes four standards that show the Bible's fallibility; 

• Science

• Perfect historical accuracy 

• Perfect consistency 

• Uniformly perfect theology

It makes no sense to have four ultimate standards; otherwise, there would be a competition amongst his four criteria to see which standard has the right to be the maximum standard. Behind each of these standards is a hidden presupposition that must come to light.

If each of Boyd's proposed standards is not the Standard, what is? If it is not the Bible, as we have seen, then what is? It can be none other than Reason itself. While Boyd does not say it overtly, he presupposes that by Reason we can use science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology to show that the Bible is fallible. He presupposes the infallibility of Human Reason; otherwise, we could not use science or know what perfect historical accuracy is, or have the ability to detect perfect consistency or uniformly perfect theology. 

Therefore, Boyd is presuppositionally a humanist. He "puts God on the dock" to borrow a phrase from C.S. Lewis. There is no middle ground. Either God and His revealed word are the Ultimate Standard or Human Reason is. 

Boyd is not the first to propose Human Reason as the Ultimate Authority. This presupposition goes right back to the Garden of Eden when Satan tempted Eve by asking: 

Did God actually say…? Genesis 3:1, ESV 

From that moment on, the battle between presuppositions began, is the Ultimate Authority God or Man?

In the end, Boyd has presupposed that his reason is sufficient to determine that science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology render the Bible fallible. Since this is so, Boyd presupposes himself as the Ultimate Standard. The standard he uses is his rationality to measure the Bible, and by his reason, he finds it lacking. 

Evaluating The Tools Of Reason

Since Reason is Boyd's Ultimate Standard, what is the function of science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology then? In the end, they are the practical tools that Boyd uses to measure the Bible.

The questions I want to ask Boyd are these: 

• How do you know that your Reason is accurate? 

• By what standard do you determine whether your Reason is true or not? 

• Why are you willing to give your Reason the status of Ultimacy over the Bible? 

• How can you be that confident in your Reason? 

• And if you are so confident, what standard are you using to determine that your Reason should be the Ultimate Standard? 

Boyd can't use Reason itself to measure his own Reason. That would be absurd. He cannot use science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology as measuring tools of his Reason. If he did, then isn't he begging a serious question? How can the tools of Reason be used to measure whether Reason itself is accurate?

• By what standard do we measure the accuracy of science?

• How do we know that something has perfect historical accuracy?

• What standard do we presuppose to determine whether something has perfect consistency?

• And finally, what standard do we using to measure uniformly perfect theology?

Suppose we presuppose Reason as our Ultimate Standard. In that case, we come back to Boyd's original question but we need to apply it to Reason rather than Scripture, "So when you confess Reason is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?"

We come back to the problem of the Ultimate Standard. If Boyd presupposes we can use his tools to discredit the Bible, the same question can be asked, how does he know that his Ultimate Standard is accurate or not? If you use another Ultimate Standard, then that is the Ultimate Standard and not the standard he is evaluating.

In the end, Dr. Boyd has no way of knowing whether his Ultimate Standard is Ultimate or not. His epistemology (how does he know that he knows?) collapses in a series of self-defeating presuppositions. In essence, by rejecting the self-attesting Bible as his Ultimate Standard, he has no way of knowing anything. 

The "Barth" Connection

Boyd writes:

Does this mean that we must reject biblical infallibility? It all depends on what you mean by "infallible."

Since Boyd believes innovation is a virtue, he proposes an innovative way out of these theological and epistemological problems. 

What does Boyd mean by "infallible?" He believes the solution to all his problems is found in what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." In his blog on May 1, 2012, he posted an article called, "Christ-centered or Cross-centered." In essence, Boyd is trying to refine Karl Barth's "Christ-centered" theology. 

Boyd’s problem with Barth's "Christ-centered" theology, according to Boyd, is that:

the Jesus of the Gospels provides too wide a target, so to speak. His teachings and actions can be interpreted a lot of different ways, depending on what you want to emphasize. 

In other words, Boyd is uncomfortable when others interpret the Bible in ways he doesn't like. 

It should be noted that Boyd does not repudiate Barth's theology. He opens the blog post on May 1, 2012, by saying 

Thanks largely to the work of Karl Barth, we have over the last half-century witnessed an increasing number of theologians advocating some form of a Christ-centered (or, to use a fancier theological term, a "Christocentric") theology.

While an evaluation of Karl Barth’s theology goes beyond the scope of my critique, Boyd greatly admires and imitates his mentor in many ways. I suspect that if you genuinely want to understand Boyd's theology, you must first understand Karl Barth. I recommend reading, The New Modernism, An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner by Dr. Cornelius Van Til.

Introducing "The Cruciform Solution"

Because Barth's "Christ-centered" theology leaves too much room for others to use Jesus in ways that make Boyd uncomfortable, he proposes what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." Just as Barth believed that we must interpret the Bible through the Christ, so Boyd offers that we must interpret Scripture through the cross of Christ. 

Dr. Boyd writes:

If we accept the view that all theological concepts should be centered on the cross, then it means that our understanding of "biblical infallibility," as well as "biblical inspiration," should be centered on the cross.

For Barth, Christ is the interpretive principle by which we must interpret the Scripture. For Boyd, he proposes that we should interpret the Bible through the cross of Christ. Both agree that the presupposition by which you measure the Bible is not the Bible itself but a different standard we learned from the Bible.

For Boyd, the Bible certainly is not the Ultimate Infallible Standard because Reason, through the tools of science, history, the criteria of perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology, has shown him this to be so.

How The Cruciform Standard Crucifies Itself

Boyd believes he has found an innovative way around the problems of Scriptural "infallibility." His solution is to make the cross the infallible standard by which the Scripture must be interpreted and understood. Perhaps this is why he originally defined "infallibility" as "unfailing" rather than "incapable of error." What Christian would affirm that the cross will fail us?

The problem with “The Cruciform Standard” as the infallible standard is that our knowledge of the cross comes from the Bible. In other words, Boyd learned about the Ultimate Standard from a fallible book. This leads to many theological and philosophical problems for Boyd.

Here are some questions that reveal his confusion:

• If the Bible is flawed, how can we know that the information we have about the cross is not based on one of the faulty sections of the Bible?

• How can an "infallible" standard be based upon a "fallible" source?

• How can "The Cruciform Standard" be a higher standard than the Bible if the source of "The Cruciform Standard" comes from the Bible?

• So when you confess "The Cruciform Standard" is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?

• Why don't you use Reason and Reason's tools, i.e., science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology to evaluate Cruciform as you did with the Bible?

The Conclusion of the Cruciform Standard

The conclusion is that Dr. Boyd's Cruciform Standard is fundamentally flawed. He is arbitrary in his application of Reason, and its tools. He uses them on the Bible, but not on his Cruciform Standard. 

The bottom line is that "The Cruciform Standard" is unbiblical. While it sounds spiritual to use a "cross-centered" theology, this is not how God used the cross in history. The cross is how God redeems the world through Christ, not the interpretive principle we are to use to understand the Bible.

Van Til to the Rescue

Barth mistakenly used "Christ" as the interpretive principle of the Bible. This is the problem with neo-orthodox theology. It uses Biblical terms and redefines them to suit the presuppositions of the theologian. As Dr. Oliphint wrote to me in a personal email on October 5, 2020:

Van Til's point is not — is never — to reinterpret or redefine Scripture. Never. So, what could he mean?... To "begin with" the ontological Trinity is to begin with God as He is in Himself — the a se Triune God of Scripture. That means that in our reasoning, in our thinking, in our living, in our entire lives, we recognize, as Paul put it to the Athenians, God is never in need of anything. Instead, He is the "interpreter" of all things. All things are from, through and to Him alone, and not to us. The "ontological" Trinity is the Triune God in Himself, and completely self-sufficient. Then, given that truth, we begin to see the centrality of Christ as the Mediator, as the One who reveals the Father to us, and as the One who sends His Spirit to and for the church.

The alternative is to begin with a dependent god, a god who is subject to our every choice, a god whose control of the universe is only partial.

So, CVT's main point was an ontological one, not a redemptive one. He wanted to remind us of who God is in Himself, and urge us to think of all things in light of His character, in the first place, and not in light of ourselves, or even of our relationship to Him, in the first place.

I hope this helps.

K. Scott Oliphint

Professor of Apologetics

Westminster Theological Seminary

PO Box 27009

Philadelphia, PA 19118

The Bible does not just reveal Christ. The Bible is the self-revelation of God who self-exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This raises questions about Dr. Boyd's understanding of the Trinity. God is not just the Son. He is also the Father and the Spirit. The Son's role is the Mediator, who reveals the Father and sends His Spirit, not how we interpret the Bible.

Presuppositionalism - The Way Out

There is a solution to Boyd's theological confusion. This solution not only solves his question about Biblical infallibility, but it solves his problems with the problem of evil, the search for the historical Jesus, his issues with the anger of God in the Old Testament, and a whole host of problems with which Dr. Boyd is wrestling.

What is that solution? The answer can be found in the original question, Boyd asks: 

So when you confess Scripture is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?

He must presuppose the Bible as the only "infallible" Standard! Anything else is intellectual, theological, ethical, and philosophical suicide. The only way out is to presuppose the only Ultimate Standard, the self-attesting Bible that reveals the self-existing Trinity. 

I encourage Boyd and anyone ascribing to his theology to take a serious look at the Presuppositional Apologetics of Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. While Dr. Van Til can be credited with first articulating Presuppositional Apologetics, Dr. Greg Bahnsen made Dr. Van Til accessible to the person in the pew. 

The Superiority of Presuppositional Apologetics Over "The Cruciform Standard"

Presuppositional Apologetics (PA) talks about the "myth of neutrality." Boyd is caught in the myth that Christians can use Reason as their Ultimate Standard and that the unbeliever will be won for Christ by Reason. PA exposes the humanism behind using Reason as the Standard, as I have demonstrated in this blog post. I used PA to do an internal critique of Boyd's claims and show that his "Cruciform Standard" is no standard at all.

PA takes the Bible's self-attesting claims seriously. While Boyd wants to keep the Bible as a source of knowledge, why would he want to keep a source that is, according to him, fallible? The Bible claims to be the perfect word of the Lord. If it is not, God is a liar, for He claims something in the Bible that is not true.

If the Bible is a flawed book, how can we trust what it reveals? The Bible claims to be the self-revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God. If the Bible is fallible, how do we know that God's supposed revelation is even real? The best that Dr. Boyd can claim is "reasonable certainty." In Boyd's own words:

I feel I have very good historical, philosophical, and personal reasons for believing that the historical Jesus was pretty much as he's described in the Gospels. I also feel I have very good reasons for accepting the NT's view that Jesus was, and is, the Son of God, the definitive revelation of God, and the Savior of the world. I, of course, can't be certain of this, but I'm confident enough to make the decision to put my trust in Christ, and live my life as his disciple. (emphasis not mine)

How different this is from what the Bible says of itself. For example:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,  it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4, ESV (emphasis mine)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV (emphasis mine)

How The Bible Makes Reason Possible

Science

As Dr. Greg Bahnsen proved, Presuppositional Apologetics lays the groundwork for the preconditions of intelligibility. He showed the absurdity of using science to measure Scripture since science itself cannot exist apart from Scripture's "infallibility."

Perfect Historical Accuracy

Boyd presupposes a concept he called "perfect historical accuracy." Apart from the Bible, how can Boyd know that anything is perfectly historically accurate? Unless he is omniscient, it is impossible for a human being to claim to know history perfectly. The Bible reveals that God is not only present throughout all of history; he is the creator of history. (Ephesians 1:11) History does not judge the Bible; the Bible reveals an entirely accurate account of history. The Bible judges history. Suppose there is a historical discrepancy between a human document and the Biblical account. In that case, the only logical conclusion is that the infallible Bible is accurate and the fallible human information is false.

Perfect Consistency

The Bible has a perfect consistency. It is arbitrary to claim the Bible does not. Boyd offers no proof of inconsistencies in the Scripture. Even if he or anyone else put forth a supposed inconsistency, because of the Bible’s self-proclaimed infallibility, we know before hand that there is no inconsistency in the Scripture. We do know, however, that human reason is fallible and limited. It comes down to trust; do we trust human reason or God’s infallible word?

Perfect Theology

Finally, PA solves his problem of seeking "perfect theology." Apart from the Bible, how would Boyd know what constitutes "perfect theology?" Apart from the Bible, how does he know that the cross is "perfect theology" as well? The Bible has uniformly perfect theology from beginning to end; Boyd does not. 

It should be noted that the examples Boyd uses in his blog post of May 16, 2012, to show the Bible fallible are poorly done. Boyd writes:

…last I heard, scientists were pretty sure the sky wasn’t a dome that was “hard as a molten mirror” (Job 37:18) as it held up water (Gen.1:7) with windows that could be opened so it could rain (Gen. 7:11).

…we instinctively interpret references to Yahweh riding on clouds and throwing down lightning bolts to be metaphorical (e.g. Ps. 18:14; 68:4; 104:3). But ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this. They were simply mistaken.

How does he know whether the “ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this?” The Biblical authors obviously understood metaphor, poetry, similes, hyperboles, and so on. If they didn’t, why else would these literary devises be all throughout the Bible His examples are arbitrary and unsubstantiated, and easily proved wrong.

It's like claiming that since the Bible declares the "trees of the field shall clap their hands," scientifically proves the Bible to be fallible since we know that trees don't have hands. Quite frankly, I'm appalled to see Boyd take pop shots at the Bible like this. It reminds me of the hostile atheistic philosophy professors I had in college. 

A Challenge to Dr. Boyd

I wonder if Dr. Greg Boyd will ever read my blog post. Perhaps he will. If I had the opportunity, I would challenge him to answer, or at least acknowledge what his Ultimate Authority is. I demonstrated that his Ultimate Authority is himself. In other words, Boyd is his own Ultimate Authority rather than the self-existing Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself through the self-attesting Scriptures. 

Dr. Boyd, 

I am calling you to repent. It is time to stop putting human reason or your reason or anything else above the word of God. I understand that it is not popular to presuppose the Bible to be the "infallible" word of God. I understand that professors throughout your "education," destroyed your confidence in the Bible. It is time to decide who you will believe. Will you accept the foolish self-revelation of the Triune God in the infallible Bible, or will you believe the "wisdom of men?" As 1 Corinthians 1:20 says:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ESV

To use any other standard than the Bible is to judge God and His infallible word. As Jesus clearly said to Satan in Luke 4:12:

You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. ESV

I pray that you come to the Reformed faith, presume the Bible to be the Ultimate Standard, reject Barth's presuppositional basis, and become genuinely Trinitarian. 

A Challenge to Disciples of Dr. Boyd

Finally, I am calling those who subscribe to Boyd's teaching to take a closer look. My blog post is only one aspect of his confused teaching. Others have written about the confusion behind Open Theism in books like Bound Only Once. 

Resources for Further Study

I offer a link the following resources for anyone who would like to pursue this matter further. These resources will not only enable you to see where a person or a theologian has veered from the truth; you will be able to think from a truly Biblical perspective. I believe Presuppositional Apologetics is the best articulation of the method given in Scripture on how to defend the faith. Again, I hope that I have demonstrated an adequate PA application in this blog post by evaluating Dr. Boyd's Cruciform Standard.

 Sola Gloria Deo

Bias, Presuppositions, and Intellectual Honesty

The Unbiased Illusion

I was listening to someone recently who claimed he wasn't biased. He believed he was objective and not influenced by anything but logic, reason, and science. He said this in the context of why he supported his particular candidate for president. He couldn't understand how people could be so stupid as to vote for the other candidate. 

Sound familiar?

His Facebook page is filled with memes that make fun of the other side. He has articles that definitively prove that his stance on whatever was correct. What was interesting was all the views he expressed were precisely in line with his party affiliation. He dismissed any challenges calling his view into question.

What bothered me was that he was completely unaware of his own biases. I do not find this person to be unique. Most people I encounter these days are heavily influenced by information that is anything but objective. Nowadays, "Fake news" is defined as whatever the opposition is reporting. 

Aids to Bias

This is a serious problem with the advancement of algorithms that track and feed us according to our online behavior. Documentaries such as Social Dilemma reveal the dark side of social media that provides people only the information they want to see.

The truth is everyone has a bias. We all have things that we presuppose to be true. A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset. Everyone lives by faith, even the most ardent scientist. How can this be? The scientist believes many things before he or she even starts an experiment. Would you like some examples?

“A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset.”

The Illusion of Objective Science

Science is based upon observation. By observation, I mean things that can be experienced by the senses, especially sight, though smell, taste, sound, and touch can and do play a significant role. Let's take sight, for example.

What exactly are you "seeing" when you see an object? Light hits the retina. The retina converts the information into electrical impulses that are sent along the optical nerve. The occipital lobe then converts the signals. The brain then takes this data and interprets it according to how the brain is hardwired and shaped through experience.  Once the information is "seen," the person has to analyze the information further to make sense of it.

Newborn babies or blind people who recently received their sight have to grow in their understanding of the sense data they are "seeing." In my example, we've come a long way from light hitting the retina to a person understanding the data. I haven't even touched on what exactly is light, and whether it is absorbed, reflected, or generated by objects in and of themselves. 

As you can see, something as familiar as "seeing" is based upon a multitude of presuppositions. How do we know we are "seeing" the object as it exists after the information has gone through processes in nature and our brain? This is just one assumption the scientist has to have to do science.

I could go on about the uniformity of nature and how the philosopher David Hume called the very foundations of science into question. On what basis do we know that events in the past will consistently perform the same way in the future? Hume says we don't know. Science has to assume that they do; otherwise, how can we do science? In other words, the scientist has to accept a set of presuppositions to do science. So even the scientist lives by faith. And if this is true of the revered scientist, how much more for the rest of us mortals.

I started this post talking about a person who believed he was objective in all his views. If something as precise as science has presuppositions, think about how many assumptions someone must have to hold a particular political viewpoint. Indeed, everyone truly lives by faith. Will a person be honest about their presuppositions or be intellectually dishonest by denying he has any?

There is only one way out of this labyrinth. It is to be intentional and honest about your presupposition. One of the most critical tasks we have as human beings is to dis-cover our presuppositional bias. What do you hold to be true? What do you take for granted to assert that any of your views are correct? Have you ever examined your presuppositional assumptions? 

How To Discover Your Presuppositions

The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias boils down the most critical questions to origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. How you answer these questions will help you identify your bias, presuppositions, and what you take for granted in your thinking.

Origins deal with the question of from where do we come? Some say matter always existed. Others say that God created us. Did we evolve over millions of years? Or were we created by God as talked about in the book of Genesis? What about the Big Bang? How you answer the question of origins will help determine the presuppositions you hold to make sense out of life. As you answer this question, you can discover why you think the way you do.

The next question that will help you identify your presuppositional foundation is the question of meaning. What is the meaning of life? Is it to get rich, help others, serve God, win, and propagate children? Perhaps you do not believe there is any ultimate meaning in life. That in itself is a presupposition by which you interpret reality, assuming there is any such thing as "reality." Perhaps "life is but a dream" as suggested in the childhood song, Row Row Row Your Boat.

Another question that will help you identify your assumptions of life is the question of morality. What is right, and what is wrong? What standard do you use to determine either one? That standard is your presupposition. Some use the Bible; others use intuition; still, others say that "might makes right." There are many ways to answer this question. How you determine what is moral and immoral will help you understand yourself better. 

The last question that Ravi Zacharias identifies is the question of destiny. This question completes the loop. Where did we come from is the question of origins. What is the meaning of life is the question of truth. What is right and wrong is the question of morality. Destiny answers the question of where we are headed. Do you think we are continually in the evolutionary process of getting better? Do you believe there are heaven and hell? Do you think we are, as the song says, "Dust in the Wind," that we are headed anywhere, that we are molecules falling through space with no final destination? 

These questions not only help you identify your presuppositional basis, but they also help predict how you will think on a multitude of issues. Those who assume God's existence, that we are created in the image of God, and that life begins with conception will be against abortion. Others who believe that human happiness is the ultimate meaning of life may think that a woman's right to choose is more important than giving up a career to raise a child. Many presuppositional factors will weigh in on how you answer abortion or any other problem for that matter.

Being Honest

The point of this post is to call people to intellectual honesty concerning their presuppositions. It is dishonest to say that you have no bias, that all your views are based on science, that you are correct in everything, or that you see everything clearly and everyone else is just wrong. I implore you to have the intellectual decency to admit that you have a bias just like everyone else. I challenge you to take time to think through what your presuppositional foundation is. 

There are benefits to this intellectual honesty. You will be able to evaluate news sources better. It's not enough to have someone else tell you something is "Fake news." Imagine not only being able to spot where a news story is factually wrong, but also to understand the news source's bias. For example, a liberal feminist will report the news differently from a fundamentalist Christian or a conservative Trump supporter. Why?

Intentional Presuppositional Honesty

I have intentionally chosen my presuppositional basis. What is it? I hold that the Bible is the only authoritative standard to answer origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Biblical authors claim their message to be from God around 1,900 times. The Bible declares "God said" or "Thus saith the Lord" over 4,000 times. The Bible is the only self-attesting book in existence. There is no way around its claim to be the word of God. Isn't this circular reasoning? Or course it is. But it is intellectually honest reasoning. God Himself attests that the Bible is His word. 

An intellectually honest person will admit that all other theories or philosophies beg the question as well. For science, truth is only that which you can empirically verify. Of course, that statement itself cannot be empirically verified, thereby showing that science's very foundation is self-begging and self-defeating. To believe that government or popular vote determines truth is untenable, especially considering that governments and populations have committed horrible atrocities in the past. How would we even know that an event is an atrocity unless we had a standard outside of ourselves to determine that it is atrocious or not? This kind of reasoning is circular as well. “We know something is an atrocity because we know it is wrong.”

It is impossible to account for logic, reason, or science apart from God as He revealed Himself in the Bible. Without Him, you cannot prove anything. Otherwise, we are left in a meaningless universe devoid of meaning. We are "Dust in the Wind," and dust cannot account for anything, not even itself. 

The Bible reveals that God is the only self-existing Being who exists in Unity and Complexity. He reveals Himself as the Author of life (origins), the Definer of the meaning of life (meaning), the Law Giver (morality), and the Giver of eternal life (destiny). These questions cannot be adequately answered apart from Scripture.

Apart from Scripture, there is no way we can know our origins. If we are naked apes that evolved from stardust, there is no way to account for meaning. Molecules in motion have no sense. When morality is not rooted in God's character, it is subject to the whims of humanity, and those whims turn out bloody, as history repeatedly shows. The Bible tells us where we are headed, either to heaven or to hell.

Paul says in Colossians 2:8 that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Jesus Christ. In Him is where intellectual honesty starts and where it ends. I choose Him as my presupposition foundation. How about you?

How To Make Black Lives Matter

Thesis:

Making black lives matter can only happen when our definition and understanding of justice begins with the submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and obedience to His word as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

Introduction

Black lives matter has become a significant movement in the United States. You cannot drive far without seeing a BLM sign posted in the front yard of America's lawn. I've seen them in the most affluent, to some of the poorest neighborhoods in Connecticut. The people who post them are of all colors, creeds, and socio-economic statuses. People are horrified at the blatant acts of violence against the black community and want to do their part.

Since I don't have a front yard, I thought I would do my part by showing how to truly make black lives matter. I will argue that BLM's underlying principles only have meaning if understood from a Biblical worldview. Concepts such as human dignity, justice, and societal change are meaningless unless you start from the revelation God gave about Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. I contend that the Black Lives Matter movement, while well-intentioned, cannot sustain their cause unless and until they work toward change by beginning with the conversion of individuals and nations to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Foundation of Human Worth

Created in God's Imagine

There is only one Book that proclaims the truth about humanity. In Genesis 1:26+27 Bible boldly states:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26&27

The Bible does not say some human beings are better than others. It doesn't say one gender or ethnicity has less value than another. All human beings are created in God's image, starting with the original humans, Adam and Eve. Being made in God's image includes people with greater or lesser amounts of melanin in their skin. 

Because of this claim, all human beings have infinite value. We have worth because God created us in His image. No one has the authority to claim intrinsic superiority over another human being. To start from any other religious, theological, philosophical, or theoretical basis, other than the Scripture creates racism, classism, sexism, and every other negative "ism" there is. Take the God of the Bible out of the equation, and you have humans competing against humans. In other words, "survival of the fittest." 

The Folly of Evolution

Contrary to popular opinion, Evolution is not based upon science. At best, it is a theory and not a very coherent one at that. Science is based upon observable events that can be repeated for verification. While we can observe selective breeding, we do not see amebas transitioning into higher and more complex life forms. Simple single-celled amebas do not gain complexity and information through natural selection. The very thought of it is not only unscientific; it is illogical. Yet, so many believe in Evolution, and it is taught in public schools as if it is science.

If Evolution is true, what basis does anyone have to say one life matters over another? If all humanity is, are sophisticated animals, what does it matter if the stronger kills the weaker? Instead of repudiating this, people should be celebrating the advancement of Evolution in motion. The very thought is ludicrous.

The only viable alternative to faith in Evolution is the truth, as revealed by God in the Bible. Acts 17:26 says we all are of "one blood." We are one blood because God created our original parents, Adam and Eve. Human beings are made in the image of God regardless of the color of their skin, their socio-economic circumstance, where they live, or how they live.

The Cross and Human Value

Even more significant than the creation of humanity in God's image is the revelation of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The Bible reveals that the second Person of the Trinity became a Man to provide a way to be made right with God. God the Father sent His only-begotten Son to be crucified on the cross as a substitute atonement for sin. 

Nothing gives humanity more meaning and dignity than God becoming a human being and willingly laying down His life for sinners. Jesus Christ didn't die for sophisticated animals. He died for fallen human beings made in the image of God. The Bible says 

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

The invitation is given to all humanity, regardless of skin color. Jesus told His disciples to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15) The "whole creation" refers to all humanity from the indigenous tribes in South America to the super-rich of Silicon Valley. 

Why do black lives matter? They matter because black people are children of Adam and Eve just as much as blond and blue-eyed people are. They count because Jesus Christ died for the sins of all who believe and trust in Him. They matter because God is our Creator, and in Him, all human beings are worthy of dignity.

How We Know That Justice is Just

Let's move to the concept of justice. Justice only has meaning because of who God is in and of Himself. No higher authority or standard determines what is just or unjust other than the self-existing Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without this, human beings have no objective standard to determine whether an action is just or unjust. Without God's revelation, Man is the ultimate authority, and the survival of the fittest holds sway. The stronger determines what is just in the same way a lion prevails over the weaker. No one faults an animal feeding upon the more vulnerable. No hungry animal is tried for murder because it is bigger, stronger, or faster than its prey.

Self-Law, God's Law, and the Meaning of Justice

How do we know that justice is good? Good is good because God is good. He defines what is right by His very nature. Anything that does not conform to His heart is evil. Eve's first temptation in the garden was to determine good and evil for herself rather than by who God is and the Law He gave. (Genesis 3) The word "autonomous" literally means self law (auto = self and nomous = law). As soon as human beings become autonomous, that is a law unto themselves, there is no ultimate standard for goodness, justice, or truth.

In short, without Biblical revelation, justice has no meaning. It has no ultimate standard when individuals, organizations, and governments reject God and His Law. Murder is wrong because it goes against God's revealed Law. On this basis alone, those who do wrong should be punished, and it is by this standard alone lawbreakers are found guilty. 

The Bible reveals that injustice, racism, and murder is wrong. (injustice - Proverbs 17:15, racism - Romans 10:12, murder - Exodus 20:13) Each is wrong because they go against the character of God. 

Outrage Against Injustice Testifies to Biblical Truth

If people don't know the Bible or if they reject the special revelation given in Scripture, their outrage towards injustice testifies that the Law of God is written in the very fabric of creation:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:19-21

The fact that people who are not believers are outraged at injustice is proof that Christianity is true. The most evident proof that injustice is wrong is given in God's special Biblical revelation. Yet, even without special revelation, human beings have a sense of justice by observing creation and by the testimony of their hearts. 

How We Make Black Lives Matter

How do we make black lives matter? The answer is not through protests, nor by defunding the police. It is not by replacing one humanistic law with another man-based law. Racism will not change because the majority posts signs in their front lawn. Nor will it come through education or revolution. All these things may help, but they do not solve the root of the problem.

The problem is in the fallen human heart. It doesn't mean we shouldn't protest or work toward reforming the police or try to influence legislation or let people know where we stand or try to educate or even revolt against an unjust and corrupt government. 

They do not go far enough. It is like putting a bandaid on a festering wound. None deal with the root of the problem. God shows us the hard truth concerning humanity and the human heart:

As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together, they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

Or 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

What is the answer? Again, the Bible reveals the solution. God calls for each individual to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The human heart is changed as it is "crucified with Christ." (Galatians 2:20) Romans 6 tells us that when we are in Christ, we cannot continue to live in sin. When we are in Christ, we have the power to walk in the newness of life. The Bible promises that we will be filled with the Holy Spirit and have the ability to not only live according to God's standards of holiness, but change society to be empowered to live according to God's Law. (2 Corinthians 5)

The Role of the Government in Making Black Lives Matter

The government's primary job is to enforce God's Law by punishing evildoers and commending those who do right. (Romans 13:1-5) As we submit to Christ, we have the objective standard by which our government can enact and enforce Law. This Law is not based upon human opinion, majority rule, the survival of the fittest, or any other social standard. The Law is based upon the revealed character of God both in Biblical revelation and general revelation. When this happens, the government will appropriately punish systemic injustice, prejudice, or racism and pass laws to curb these behaviors. A godly government will justly punish all lawbreakers not submitted to the one and only Living God.

The Steps to Make Black Lives Matter

• First, the leadership of Black Matter needs to submit to the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:10-11)

• Second, the leadership needs to renounce any associations with the godless philosophies of Evolution, Marxism, and Atheism. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)

• Third, BLM needs to focus on the conversion of individuals and nations to Jesus Christ (Romans 10:14-17) 

• Fourth, BLM needs to root concepts of injustice, racism, and truth in the character of God as revealed in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

• Fifth, BLM needs to work to establish God's Law as the foundation of our legal system (Romans 3:31)

Who Am I To Speak

Some may criticize me for speaking about Black Lives Matter as a white man. What right do I have to say anything? I think the answer to this lies in that most of the BLM signs are posted on the lawns middle-class white people in suburban America. While my take is different from most white Americans, I believe that if those in the BLM movement welcome their forms of expression, I too have the same right.

I believe I have a duty to speak, considering the racist education I received in my public school "education." I have written elsewhere that the Evolutionary indoctrination that is perpetrated in public schools is inherently racist. It is time for Christians, and all seeking justice for that matter, to speak out against racism as it is taught in public schools.

Finally, I cannot sit idly by as false solutions are given to a severe problem. The teachings of Evolutionary Marxism begets revolution. I believe our country is in the midst of the most significant cultural revolution in our nation's history. This revolution's unifying factor is the rejection of Biblical Christianity and the foundation of God's Law in our justice system. Humanistic law prevails, and as such, we are caught in the Evolutionary trap that change can and will come only through revolution. Here we are back to the survival of the fittest. It is a false answer that will result in a bloody end. 

The answer to all humanity's problems is found in the simple phrase in the Lord's prayer,

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

It is only in Christ that Black Lives Matter. The sooner we learn this, the sooner justice will come!

Even so, Come Lord Jesus!

Patterson’s 10 Rules of Biblical Interpretation or Why You are Having Trouble Understanding the Bible

Rule #1: You don’t interpret the Bible, the Bible interprets you.

Rule #2: If there is something you read in the Bible that you don’t agree with, you must change, not the Bible.

Rule #3: There is only one meaning to Scripture that matters and that is God’s intended meaning. Our job is to find out what He meant to communicate. Anything else is superfluous and a waste of time.

Rule #4: You cannot truly understand the Bible apart from the Holy Spirit, yet anyone can understand what the Bible says.

Rule #5: While there is only one meaning to Scripture, there are as many applications as there are people.

Rule #6: First obey what you read in Scripture, then you will understand. Obeying the clear parts of Scripture prepares you to understand the difficult passages.

Rule #7: The Bible is the only self-attesting Book that is the self-revelation of the self-existing triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man and many Scriptures speak of Him. Yet, the Bible also reveals the Unity of God, the Fatherhood of God, and that God is the Holy Spirit. It is a mistake to interpret the Bible as only revealing or speaking about the Second Person of the Trinity.

Rule #8: God uses different literary devices and genres. If you don’t understand this, you will remain confused as to what the meaning is.

Rule #9: There is always a structure in writing. Try to understand the skeleton of how a passage is put together and you then will grasp the whole.

Rule #10: The Bible is not made up of two Books, one old and one new, nor is it 66 Books. It is One Book that reveals all that we need for faith and practice. If you read it as two Books or 66 Books, you will not understand it. And just as you can’t understand a book by reading one sentence or one chapter, so you will not understand the Scriptures as you should unless and until you read it in its entirety.

Are You a Dangerous Christian, or are You Just "Nice"?

Modern Christianity has produced a new phenomenon: the nice Christian. A nice Christian bears little resemblance to the dangerous Christians we read about in the Bible and throughout history. The nice Christian is just that; nice.

John Wesley told Christians not to be "nice." Why did he say this? The Latin roots of the word "nice" mean "ignorant" or "silly." Modern Christianity has become nice in the truest sense of the word. I'll spare you my rant on all the ways. Instead, I will write about the dangerous Christian.

The world, the government, and the minions of Satan hate dangerous Christians. These are believers who fear nothing but God. Jesus tells dangerous Christians that the world will hate them because they hated Him first. (John 15:18-27). Dangerous Christians are told to "love not the world." (1 John 2:15-17). Why would they, they are not citizens of this world. (Philippians 3:20)

This is why governments all throughout history hate these Christians. Nice Christians line up to show just how obedient and subservient they are. They salute the flag, send their children to public schools to pledge allegiance to the state, and stand whenever the National Anthem is played. Dangerous Christians dare to remove the American flag from their sanctuaries and do not sing patriotic songs, refusing to acknowledge that Caesar has any place in God's worship. They refuse to incorporate their church and become a state 501(c)3 state corporation.

Dangerous Christians are the bane of ungodly governments. They refuse to pay homage to the gods of the state. (Exodus 20:5) They would rather face perishing by fire (Daniel 3) than bow down. The Caesars hated these Christians as did tyrants all throughout history. They hate them because this kind of Christianity has brought down every major government in the past. When given the choice of obeying God or ungodly government, these Christians always obey God. (Acts 5:29)

The problem with dangerous Christians is they have already died. (Galatians 2:20). They fear no one and nothing, only God. It's difficult to intimidate someone who believes that killing them only ushers them into the presence of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:8) In fact, these Christians believe that dying for Christ increases their reward in the afterlife. (Matthew 5:10) No, they don't get 72 virgins. They receive Jesus Himself! And for them, there is no greater reward.

Compared to the love of dangerous Christians, the love of nice Christians is pathetic. Nice Christians never speak difficult words, don't offend anyone, and do not want to impose their religion on anyone. Not so with dangerous Christians. They speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), follow the lead of their Savior by offending the crowd (John 6:60-62), and continually impose the gospel's message on this lost world. (2 Timothy 4:2)

Dangerous Christians will give you the shirt off their backs if you are in need (1 John 3:17), yet command that food be withheld from a slacker (2 Thessalonians 3:9-11)

Dangerous Christians defend the innocent and vulnerable with fierceness and tenacity that makes nice Christians uncomfortable. (Psalm 82:3) Nowadays, nice Christians wear masks to protect the irresponsible, while saying nothing about the hundreds of ways people jeopardize their health daily, let alone anything about their eternal soul.

Dangerous Christians stand outside of the abortion clinics that, by the way, remained open during the pandemic's height as an "essential service." Instead of chastising others on Facebook for not wearing a mask, they begged and pleaded with mothers to spare their unborn children. They are so dangerous that governments have to pass special laws limiting the protesting of dangerous Christians so women can have guilt-free access to slaughter their baby in their womb.

Dangerous Christians know the corruption of the human heart and so are suspicious of profit-driven media. (1 John 4:1-3) They wage war against lies, arguments, and opinions that are anti-God and anti-Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:1-6) The media and its disciples can't stand the difficult, penetrating, and insistent questions of dangerous Christians.

These Christians love science, but they don't trust the scientist (Jeremiah 17:5), especially when they have motivations to please those who sign their paychecks. There is nothing more annoying than a Christian asking difficult questions of power or profit-driven science.

Dangerous Christians are not perfect. They make mistakes. Many of them are former adulterers, fornicators, haters, blasphemers, thieves, and alcoholics. (1 Corinthians 6:11) There is plenty to criticize in their lives even now, but no one is faster to admit that than these Christians themselves. They know what a miserable lot they are apart from Jesus Christ. Tell them how hypocritical they are, and they will heartily admit it. Though, they dare to say they are saints and believe they are as holy as Jesus Christ Himself. They indeed are an odd bunch.

Who are these dangerous Christians? They are the ones who call the world to repentance, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the orphan, and provide for the widow, all for Christ's sake. They have only one ultimate cause, and that is the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 25:35-40) While they work for social change, they know that the world can not change unless the root cause of sin is rooted out by the power of the Holy Spirit. These Christians are intolerant of all other religions and are zealous for the One True God, who has revealed Himself in Scripture. They are people of one Book, one faith, and One God.

If you don't know any Christian like the dangerous Christian I've described, you are probably friends with a nice Christian or perhaps are a nice Christian yourself. If you'd like to join the motley crew of dangerous Christians, put down your phone and computer right now and ask God to make you one. Call upon the Holy Spirit to transform you into someone the world, the flesh, and the devil would consider a dangerous Christian.

Christians: Where’s Our Passion?

If Bible-believing Christians proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ and advanced the kingdom of God with the same passion, intensity, and determination as BLM and the LGBTQIA+ crowd, I wonder what would happen in our world and in our nation. Perhaps we really don’t believe as deeply in our message as they do in theirs. Just saying.

(A Very) Thin Blue Line

God helps us if the only thing that keeps the USA from sinking into chaos is a Thin Blue Line. I am not taking a crack at the police here. A nation that does not fear God and cannot practice self-governance is as close to collapse as you can get and the police can't stop it. The only thing that holds us from total destruction is the mercy of God. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit writing His Law upon our hearts will transform this world. The transformation must come from within and that can only come through faith in Christ and establishing the law of liberty (James 2:12).

Para Carlos

Mi amigo Carlos Unda me hizo una pregunta:

"Una pregunta y es seria. Porque la Biblia fue escrita hace cientos de años en un lugar que ni conosco en una lengua que ni entiendo y porque necesito que otros seres humanos me la traduzcan, me la expliquen y me la interpreten, seria mas fácil para dios mandarnos la biblia ya traducida y en forma directa sin intermediarios? Bueno eso es lo que yo pienso con todo respeto."

Es una pregunta justa y excelente. Gracias por preguntarme. Todavía estoy aprendiendo español, así que perdone mis errores gramaticales.

De hecho la Biblia fue escrita hace miles de años y muchos lugares no conocemos. Es muy difícil entender las linguas de la Biblia original pero no es imposible. Podemos comunicar en español porque me tomé el tiempo para aprenderlo. He aprendido y estudiado Hebreo y Griego para entender la Biblia mejor. Pero hay muchas herramientas disponible para estudiar la Biblia con ti mismo. Puedes comprobar las traducciones por ti mismo para ver si son precisas o no si quieres. También puedes comparar muchas traducciones en español para tener una idea del significado original Ambos es trabajo pero es posible pero vale la pena.

Pero en mi opinion no es necesario tener otros para te la interpreten. Aquí está la principal diferencia entre los protestantes y los católicos. Hay un dicho para los protestantes, Solo Scriptura. En otras palabras no necesitamos la Papa o la tradición de la iglesia para leer, entender o interpretar la Biblia. Otros pueden ayudarnos pero tenemos la derecha conocer la Biblia sin intermediarios.

Además, en muchas denominaciones protestantes la gente puede cuestionar a sus pastores y destituirlos de sus cargos si el pastor enseña doctrinas que no son bíblicas y que son obviamente un error. Es muy parecido con el gobierno civil. Tenemos el derecho de remover a los tiranos de sus cargos e incluso derrocar al gobierno si es necesario.

No sé exactamente por qué Dios escribió la biblia de la manera en que lo hizo pero tengo ideas de mi mismo. En esencia la Biblia es una historia de amor. En última instancia es un relato de cómo Dios hizo un camino para salvar a la humanidad perdida convirtiéndose él mismo en un ser humano en Jesucristo y tomando nuestro pecado sobre sí mismo para que podamos convertirnos en los hijos e hijas de Dios. Es una historia de un Hombre inocente siendo castigado en lugar de personas culpables.

Tel vez la pregunta real es no sería más fácil para Dios revelarse directamente a todos las personas todo el tiempo? Por qué usar un libro?

En mi opinión, eso nos quitaría la capacidad y el derecho a elegir. ¿Quién quiere ser forzado a creer en Dios? Hay suficiente evidencia de Dios, pero también está oculta. Se necesita fe. Dios se revelará a cualquiera que lo busque, pero se mostrará en formas que aún tienen fe. ¿Sé que Dios existe al 100% y que la Biblia es verdadera? Lo sé porque si el Dios Trino de la Biblia no existe, nada tiene sentido. Quitar el Dios como se reveló en la Biblia y no hay base para la ciencia, la razón o la moral.

Con respeto, esa es mi respuesta.