It's "Joseph, husband of Mary," not "Mary, wife of Joseph," or What's in a surname? Nothing we'd recognize, at least until the Middle Ages

A pastor asked recently how Luke, the author of his eponymous Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, could have come up with such personal details of the events surrounding Christ's birth in his Christmas account, since he wasn't there. The answer, of course, is that he most likely interviewed Jesus' mother Mary. The pastor then asked for Mary's last name.

Knowing that people in those days didn't have last names, one participant answered "Theotokos" ("Mother of God"), because that title identifies Jesus' mother uniquely among every Mary, Miriam, Maryam, or Maria in human history.

The pastor's response? "That's a title, not a last name." His answer was that Mary's last name is "wife of Joseph."

Well, "wife of Joseph" is a title, too. And it doesn't appear in the New Testament. (Last names didn't exist until the Middle Ages.)

People did have appellations that indicated familial, occupational, or locational associations. John the Baptizer, Jesus of Nazareth, Leonardo da Vinci. In Matthew 1:16, Joseph -- Jesus' stepfather -- is referred to "Joseph the husband of Mary."

So, according to the pastor's logic, that would make Joseph's last name "the husband of Mary."

How do the Biblical texts actually refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus? The name "Mary" turns up fifty-four times in the ESV New Testament; only nineteen times does it refer to Jesus' mother. Here are a few examples:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18).

"And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh" (Matthew 2:11).

"to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child" (Luke 2:5).

"And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, 'Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed [...]'" (Luke 2:34).

And just "Mary" in a number of verses (e.g., Matthew 1:16, Mark 6:3, Luke 1:27, Acts 1:14). Interestingly, the Apostle John never refers to his adopted mom Mary by name (he uses "His mother" in John 19:25).

Adding context to Scripture can help us relate personally to the people, places, and events from so long ago, but it needs to be done truthfully. And a pastor should be the last one to err or worse, fabricate.

Add "hatred of Christianity" to the list of reasons "Why nobody understands Islam"

The redoubtable Ronald Craig sees fit to throw the dirty bath water on the baby with this revealing bit:

"'Abrahamic' is one of Muhammad's lies."

Really? And "Christianity" is monotheistic. Please. LOL.

"Another example of those who hate Christianity so much that they'd ignore or otherwise facilitate the jihad against them[=it?]." (I think you meant "it" there.)

Nah, I hate human stupidity in general too much to waste time specifically on "Christianity". But yes, if you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging down the rest of the world with you (not in your plans, I know!), sure, I'd be more than happy to look the other way while you do so.

And seriously, all the hate-mongering you're engaged in? (Yeah, I know, you're just "defending" yourself. LOL!)

WWJD?

Here's my reply:

Speaking of "human stupidity," it's clear that you've wasted no time on either Christianity or Islam.

Here are a few points to consider:

-Christianity is not polytheistic: "Let us make man in our image" ("image" not "images"). "You shall have no other gods before Me." "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." "The Father and I are one." "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . " ("name," not "names").

Just because we can't comprehend YHWH's nature doesn't mean we can't apprehend His nature when He reveals it.

-If Muhammad had been a son of Abraham, he would have said and done what Abraham said and did. According to his own texts, Muhammad "sacralized" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Clearly, he was no son of Abraham.

-I did not mean "it." Jihad is being waged against you, but your antagonism towards Christianity blinds you to that.

-"you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging the rest of the world with you" indicates an utter ignorance of Islam. Even though you know nothing about Christianity, you ought to know by now that Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world, regardless of creed. You think you're safe, but Allah has special hatred for the godless like you.

-How is telling the truth about Muhammad -- whose words and deeds are actual hate; it takes a special kind of nescience (or perverseness) to confuse the two -- "hate-mongering"? No doubt, in your mind Churchill was hateful for telling the truth about Hitler before he began devouring Europe. Do you understand that, Ronald? Muhammad beheads fathers and rapes and enslaves their wives and daughters -- including prepubescent little girls -- and you're calling Christians "hate-mongers."

-We know what Jesus did. Unlike you, He never apologized for evil or conflated it with its resistance.

Deal honestly with the facts as they exist, Ronald.

Unlike Allah (and all other gods, in fact), YHWH's miracles were done in plain sight, in history; no secret Moon-splitting, midnight flights, nor "divine revelations" on the word of one, utterly-depraved criminal

A few thoughts on religious matters, offered to a friend . . .

It is wise to be skeptical.

Unlike Allah (and all other gods, in fact), YHWH's miracles were done in plain sight, in history; no secret Moon-splitting, midnight flights, nor "divine revelations" on the word of one, utterly-depraved criminal.

From a plain reading of the Joshua passage you note (an historical account not necessarily devoid of symbolic meaning; when you're the Author of the universe, you can have both), the day standing still was intended primarily to allow Israel to defeat its enemies.

On the other hand, YHWH's defeating Egypt when He delivered Israel from slavery there and their preservation during forty years of wandering were intended to show His power and mercy.

Christ's miracles too were intended as signs so that Israel (and we) would believe that He was (is) the Promised Messiah, but even those were considered by Him as secondary; His person and words should be enough:

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves" (John 14:8-11).

Unlike Muhammad's self-serving fusion of the "religious" and the political, Christ made a careful distinction between the two.

Faith in Him has nothing to do with societal majorities or being acceptable to friends, neighbors, or countrymen.

Jesus came to make us sinners acceptable to God. He came to bear our sins and be our Savior, to reconcile us to His Father in His body on the cross.

Christ does not demand that anyone believe, "Because I said so," or, "Believe, or else!"

He proved His power and love over and over again in public, in front of the whole world, in full view of multiple eyewitnesses (including hostile ones), in history.

As He did with Unbelieving (not "Doubting") Thomas -- who would not believe in the Resurrected Christ unless he saw and touched His wounds -- so Jesus does with us:

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord."

But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:24-31).

Let your sins be strong, for God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners

Be honest about just how bad your sins really are, because Christ paid for them all.

Great news for the wicked, from here:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?

Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

--Martin Luther to Philip Melanchthon,
on the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521

A God Who wails aloud for His children is not a god which creates them for Hell

God Incarnate sobs over Jerusalem, the very same souls Bob says that in His "sovereignty" He created for hell.

So, Calvin's god has gone from being a capricious monster to being a criminally-insane capricious monster.

By the way, the ESV heads the passage in question: "Lament over Jerusalem."

In response to Bob's comments (regarding Matthew 23) here:

if you check the actual context of the passage you'd find that there is no weeping involved

[. . .]

If you're basing the whole "jesus weeping" thing on the word longing; you've completely ignored the context. The pronouncement of woes is before this and after this passage

[. . .]

No weeping at all.

What makes you think that YHWH's pronouncing woes precludes His feeling sorrow over His children's unbelief and their resultant doom?

Unlike Calvin's god, Christ loves us all.

This is the same God Who prayed for those who crucified Him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).

This is the same God Who calls out to all people: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).

This is the same God Who declares: "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

This is the same God Who promises:

". . . God . . . desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all . . ." (1 Timothy 2:3-6).

No, the God Who lamented:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not" (Matthew 23:37)!

(Did you read that? What is the hen's attitude toward her offspring? Does she delight in pronouncing woes against them? Is she indifferent to their destruction? And that's not my analogy, it is the LORD's.)

Is the same God Who weeps for Jerusalem in Luke 19:

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation" (Luke 19:41-44).

The word translated here "wept" (klaio) is "wail aloud, sob, bewail," not silent tears or misty eyes.

If the Son of God wails aloud for the physical destruction of the people of Jerusalem -- and their rejection of Him, for they "did not know the time of [their] visitation" -- what makes you think He would be indifferent to (or pleased with!) their unbelief in Matthew 23?

But no. Your god is licking his chops at the chance to put some reprobates on The Machine in The Pit of Despair.

Bob concludes with:

As far as all of the other things you've stated; God creating people on whimsy, God capricously sending people to Hell..

Those are straw men and you know it.

You don't have to like Calvinism, but at least represent what the doctrines say accurately; that's only fair.

The fact is; God IS sovereign...yes, even in the matter of one's salvation and your anger at it doesn't change that.

If you want to be taken more seriously in the future; you'd be better off to lose the Ad Hominems and misreprestation of Calvinism.

"God IS sovereign" is code for "God creates people for Hell." The only problem is, that is not the God of the Bible. A God Who wails aloud for His children is not a god which creates them for Hell.

And it can't be ad hominem if the point of my argument is that Calvin's god is a monster, which makes him a blaspheming heretic.

Speaking of misrepresentation, as to the false claim that I've lied about Calvin, here is the heretic in his own words, from the Modern History Sourcebook: John Calvin: On Double Predestination:

"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them."

Calvin taught (and so do all who teach and defend TULIP) that God predetermines who goes to Heaven and Hell (Unconditional Election,"U"), that Christ died for only some, not all, people (Limited Atonement, "L"), and that God's grace is irresistible (Irresistible Grace, "I") which, if true, means that God does not shower His grace on all.

According to your man's own words in the passage above, Calvin's god denies its spirit to the many it created for hell. It denies those it created for destruction knowledge of it.

How can the god which denies its spirit to the people it's created for perdition be the same God Who wails for doomed unbelievers, prays for the forgiveness of His executioners, desires that all should be saved, and dies for all people to reconcile them to His Father?

It can't.

Post scriptum:

So, how do you know whether or not you're going to Heaven?

The answer is, you can't know, because Calvin's god chose in its "divine sovereignty" to create some for heaven and some for hell.

So, which is it? Are you one of the elect, or are you one of those of whom at the end of your life others will say -- just like I've heard leading evangelicals say -- "He never was really a Christian."

I hope for your sake that your flip of the cosmic coin turned up the right face.

Or, you can trust in the Son of God Who died for the sins of the whole world.

That "whole world" would include you, which means that you know your sins are forgiven, you have been reconciled to the Father, Heaven is opened, and eternal life is yours.

Believe Christ, not Calvin.

Mistaking the bondage of the will for evidence of a god that creates people for Hell

Offered in reply to Ken's defense of Calvin's Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace, which begins by claiming that the verses from Romans 3 that I did not include in my last response means that God predestines people for Hell:

Romans 3:23-24; but you left out verse 22 and 25-26 . . . The text does not say that "every single individual was justified in Christ by His death on the cross".

But it does: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace . . . ."

Do only some sin? Do only some fall short?

"All" is the subject of the second part of the compound predicate also. Paul was good with words. If he meant to limit the number of people justified (declared "innocent") by Christ's blood, he would have.

In Paul's Ministry of Reconciliation "God was reconciling the world to Himself" in Christ's body on the cross.

"World" means "world."

I think that part of the problem here is a confusion between Objective and Subjective Justification.

What does Scripture say?

God declares the whole world "justified" in Christ (Objective Justification). Only those who trust in Christ will experience this gift (Subjective Justification).

Do you believe that many people do go to hell because of their sin and their unbelief in Jesus?

Again, what does Scripture say?

All die because all sin. All of us are, by nature, sinful and unclean. We justly deserve God's temporal and eternal punishment.

Everyone in Hell deserves to be there, including every Christian.

Judging from his sermon, Piper's fundamental error is in mistaking his realization that we play no part in our salvation for a confirmation of the un-Biblical elements of Calvin's theology.

The fundamental concept of Total Depravity is taught in Scripture, but the idea that God does not call all, send His Spirit to all, seek the salvation of all, long for all to be saved, atone for the sins of all, and justify the "all" who have sinned and fallen short of His glory makes Him a liar.

Jesus warned us that unless we become like little children, we will not enter the Kingdom of God. Part of that is just believing what He said.

It is our duty as Christians to speak all of and only His Word.

Can anyone produce Scripture that says Christ died for only "some"? That He sends His Spirit to only "some"? That Jesus came to save only "some"? That YHWH is willing that "some" perish?

If not, then Calvin's heresies must be rejected as such.

If not, then one can hardly extol God's "sovereignty."

No genetic basis to homosexuality

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not -- and it appears now that there is no evidence of a genetic component -- it is an expression of our sinful human nature.

The Sixth Commandment (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions), "You shall not commit adultery" is speaking not only of the physical union of one person with another who is not their spouse. This fact Christ makes clear in His Sermon on the Mount: Even looking at a woman lustfully, a man is guilty of breaking the commandment in his heart. The Apostles wrote also by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the body is His temple; therefore, we should honor God with our bodies. Numerous passages relate God's expectations for holiness, purity, and decency.

The Sixth Commandment not only restricts behavior, it shows us that we are to use our bodies as gifts from God for His glory and according to His will, and that is within one marriage between one man and one woman.

For those who want to argue that "they can't help it," yes, who can help sin? All of us break God's commandments, we all violate His will in thought, word, and deed every day. None of us is innocent. None of us has the right to condemn others for their sin. However a desire contrary to God's design enters into the human heart -- whether through an accident of biology, indoctrination, victimization, or the desire to do evil -- we must tell the truth.

All honest people have a responsibility to tell speak God's Word, to uphold His commands, to obey them, and to encourage others to do the same. Christians especially.

The APA is an interesting case. Homosexuality and other perversions of God's design used to be classified as mental illnesses; with enough political pressure, it removed the designation. What will they say now that there is no evidence of a genetic basis?

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."

"On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding 'no,'" Byrd wrote. "However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: 'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'"

A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

"Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy," he said.

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA's recommendations for additional information.

"Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups," Byrd wrote. "The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a "gay" gene, too.

For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the "sickness" of the ex-"gay" movement.

Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the 'innateness" on homosexuality:

* A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

* Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.

* And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals.

Some attacks have been physical, such as a 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. Police told WND, there was a confrontation between an individual who got upset over the PFOX message about leaving homosexuality and a volunteer at the fair booth.

"One officer told me today he was on patrol at the fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed," said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.

"Based on the description the officer was given, he located the suspect at the fair. Another officer escorted that gentleman off the fair grounds," his statement continued.

The result? Pro-homosexual activists vigorously condemned Griggs for "making up" the story when she alerted supporters about the situation.

"Regina Griggs has lost all credibility and must resign in shame for her dishonest behavior," wrote Wayne Besen, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Truth Wins Out. "What PFOX did was warped, twisted and an insult (sic) real hate crime victims."

Those who condemn homosexual behavior also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her.

Misguided priorities

A playful little bit from here in response to a defense of Doorman-Priest, who admits in another post at his site:

"I have been thinking a lot about this topic over the last few days since contributing to another blog dicussion. Now I know I shouldn't do this. I shouldn't comment on a blog where the original post and the content of the subsequent string is clearly entrenched beyond the point of hearing an alternative perspective. It isn't just that I enjoy being the voice of dissent . . . ."

And in the "About Me":

I am a Candidate-Pastor within the Lutheran Church, and have oscillated between evangelicalism and radical liberalism. A radical liberal with Lutheran, Anglican and evangelical tendencies? I know. It is something of a niche market. Many Christians I meet seriously irritate me and I sometimes think I am a misanthrope.

Obviously someone for whom Truth is paramount.

In response to that defense:

Erika,

The greatest commandment can only be fulfilled if we are telling the truth about God.

Yes, we should give others the benefit of the doubt (which you'd see I did if you read my first reply to Doorman-Priest over at Steve's site), but what do you do when experience, common sense, and the author's own words tell you that seeks not to edify but to cause trouble?

As for the meaning of "lie," here are two definitions: "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood," and, "To convey a false image or impression."

How is, “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff,” not blasphemy?

And again, is it "rude" to point out error? Is it "rude" to point out persistent error forcefully?

You wrote recently about Christ using a whip to chase out thieves. Was He "rude" too?

And I've not yet called anyone a "viper."

Regarding Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple . . .

"And then he lays into the worshippers and tips over the tables.... you know, someone like that would get an ASBO these days.
He might be tried for inciting hatred, for GBH."

He might even be called "rude."

And after referring to me as a "street urchin," without knowing anything about my motivations . . .

So, is "street urchin" "rude"?

Isn't it our first duty to "accept the integrity of those we disagree with"?

Apparently, one can blaspheme the Living God and that's okay, but woe to the one who points out the blasphemy!

Sincerity saves, civil discourse, and xenophobic Islamophobes

More from here:

Doorman-Priest,

I. Civil discourse

I assure you that I never intended to harm or offend you with my earlier comments.

I did intend to prick your pride (Luther calls it “sharp mercy,” I think), because you entered the discussion at Steve’s with “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff.” Couple that with claiming that all “moral” people worship the same god and that sincerity saves, and I recognized someone putting a stumbling block before others.

You might notice my first reply to you there began with, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . ,” because what you wrote was not something that would be welcomed by anyone who believes Christ’s Word is true. What you posted subsequently did not indicate a desire for dialogue either. All of that is more appropriate to a place like belief.net.

Would you admit my “Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?)” was funny?

II. All gods are the same god

You’ll have to forgive me if I thought you meant all gods were the same god, since you wrote: “There is only one God . . . that God is Allah, YHWH . . . Waheguru and so on.”

There are several problems with saying that all religions worship the same God, however imperfectly:

1) YHWH doesn’t say that. Can you show us where He does?

2) YHWH speaks of many false gods, describing them as “demons.” Is it rude of God to call others’ sincere, if flawed, efforts at knowing Him, “demons”?

3) Saying that, “all who do the best they can, God will accept,” is contrary to Scripture, and leads to people’s destruction, for salvation is in Christ alone.

4) If people can be saved by the sincerity of their effort, then Christ died for nothing.

Unbelievers need to hear (just as we believers do) that their sin is great and leads to Hell (Law), but God has forgiven their sins in Christ (Gospel).

(By the way, have you noticed your supporters arguing for NOT trusting the Word of Christ? Do you support that?)

III. Freedom of speech

As to free speech, its only limitation should be where truth ends (and even then, you have to be careful). Freedom of Speech is one of the first unalienable, God-given rights to be curtailed and then extinguished by tyrants (along with the Right to Bear Arms). If you don’t have the freedom to say something that offends someone, then you don’t have freedom of speech at all.

I agree that we should not “incite hatred.” That phrase, though, raises a red flag, for I hear it used most often by Muslims and their Useful Idiots to silence criticism of those aspects of Islam that promote the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims, the abuse and degrading of women, the violation of children, and the denial of freedom of speech and conscience to all.

So, is it “hatred” to point out error that leads to Hell? Is it “hatred” to warn others that an ideology which has warred against non-Muslims for 1400 years is coming to town (or, in the case of Europe, is now mayor)? Is it “hatred” to expose the fact that Islam’s god and founder require or endorse genocide, murder, rape, slavery, pedophilia, theft, and deceit against non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls?

Wouldn’t it be “hatred” toward God and Man to remain silent in the face of all this?

IV. Christ is Allah?

You’ll have to forgive me for thinking that you said Christ is Allah. It might have something to do with your writing, “God is Allah, YHWH . . . .”

V. Interpreting Scripture

Being a Lutheran, you understand the Analogy of Scripture. We use Scripture to interpret Scripture as its authors (and Author) intended. In this, we use our God-given Reason and our knowledge of language, culture, history, etc.

It would be misinterpreting the Word of God to take literally a excerpt intended as symbolic. It would be wrong to understand poetry as history (though there may be historical content within it). It would be heresy to take a portion of the Old Covenant and apply it to those under the New.

(And since you are a teacher and minister, you must be familiar with my understanding of Revelation, for what’s in a name?)

I would make one more point about the Old Testament: Jesus said that all of it testifies of Him.

VI. Xenophobic Islamophobes

You write that I “generalise and give the impression that all Muslims are fundamentalists who act as one.” I disagree strongly.

I have quoted Allah. I have noted Mohammed’s words and deeds according to Islam’s own authoritative documents, those very texts on which Islam is founded.

The fact that citing Qur’an and Sunnah sounds to you like demonizing all Muslims says more about those texts and your reaction to them than it does about my words.

I would ask again, where have I erred? These documents are easily available to the Infidel with an ISP. And I wouldn’t rely on Muslim friends. Just like Christians, there is much variability among Muslims in terms of their knowledge, zeal, and veracity.

Because it is unfair to paint with a broad brush, I do not attack all Muslims; I do expose their prophet from Hell and his Allah.

I’m curious. You repeat many of the propaganda points jihadists and their apologists use to deceive non-Muslims (not intentionally, I believe; President Bush did this all the time). Have you never investigated these texts for yourself?

As to your friend, I will not accuse her of taqiyya (did you look that up yet?). It is notable that she uses several of the same “arguments” that jihad’s apologists do. I’d like to share with you what she didn’t say . . .

“Jihad” is Arabic for “struggle.” It is true that one use of jihad refers to the struggle against sin, unbelief, etc. What those Muslims Who Know (I’m not saying your friend is one of these) never tell non-Muslims is that this particular teaching is based on one hadith of questionable authority and that “jihad” is used usually to describe warfare against non-Muslims using any means necessary, including “qital” (combat) to establish the rule of Allah.

Are you aware that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects warfare against non-Muslims?

As for “Christian fundamentalists,” what do they have to do with jihad? A Christian who thinks dancing is a sin is a far cry from a Muslim who carries out his Allah-given duty to separate your head from your body. Neither is a “Christian fundamentalist” who interprets literally even the symbolic parts of the Apocalypse going around blowing people up for Christ.

I notice also that you’re using (I don’t think intentionally) a common ad hominem attack used by Muslims to try to demonize those exposing their god and prophet: I must not know any Muslims.

This is a variant of the: “I’m not a racist because I have a [insert non-Caucasian ethnicity here] friend.” Who I know makes no difference to the truth of what I write, since I am not talking about people I don’t know, I’m talking about texts and history and current events that are available for study to all with the courage to examine them honestly.

And no, it isn’t pretty.

Again, I ask, where have I erred? Please show me from Qur’an, any of the ahadith collections considered most reliable by mainstream Islam, or Sirat Rasul Allah (I have a copy here in my bookcase; do you?).

A "good enough" gospel just isn't good enough

All gods are not the same god.

Christ is not Allah, for how can the One Who taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," be the same demon which commanded, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

God does not accept us on the basis of an imagined piety or reverence, but on the basis of the blood of Christ.

How can a faithful Christian contradict the Word and mislead those in need of salvation into thinking they're going to make it into Heaven because they're "reverent" and "pious"?

From here:

Doorman-Priest,

"You accuse me of multiculturalism. Thank you."

No, I speculated that the motivation for your “all gods are the same god” was “multiculturalist intellectual cowardice.”

If I am wrong, I apologize.

If I am right, will you admit it?

“According to my (albeit ENGLISH) English language dictionary”

In America, "multiculturalism" is often used to refer to the elevation of foreign cultures (in whole or in part) over traditional American culture whether or not they merit it.

Truth is sacrificed out of fear of offending others, and that fear is used by special interests for political advantage.

“the word you were so fruitlessly groping for in that context was PLURALISM as I suspect you felt I was arguing that in some way all religious roads lead equally to God.”

No, you were saying all gods are the same god. That is irrational on its face and contrary to Scripture.

When you say “Christ is Allah,” that is blasphemy.

“I am perfectly clear on the issue of repentance/confession and atonement following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus who is Christ and Messiah and God’s guarantee of salvation. I am very sorry if you have misunderstood my position.”

I can only judge by what you write.

When you say everyone worships the same god (“Christ is Allah”) what interpretation can one reasonably make but that you believe all gods are the same god?

“I think where your confusion has arisen is over the universality of that salvation – not as a key doctrine itself but as a current reality or as an unrealised potential.”

Salvation is not universal, atonement is. Christ has paid for the sins of the whole world, but many reject this gift through unbelief.

“I have been able to accept Christ’s saving substitutionary sacrifice.”

Then why do you contradict Him?

“My Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic and I suspect some Atheist friends (I know no Hindus) have certainly not understood and probably not properly heard. The odds are also stacked against those of a non-Christian background for a variety of reasons: not the least language, culture, family attitudes and religious upbringing. As someone who is an out and proud Christian and who works closely with people from a number of faith backgrounds I know how unlikely it is that they will truly hear or understand the gospel, although I do not seek to set limits on the working of the Spirit.”

First, I commend you for helping others.

Second, I would point out something that deserves your attention: You say that you have non-Christian friends and work closely with people “from a number of faith backgrounds” who are highly “unlikely” to hear the Gospel.

You are an “out and proud Christian,” teacher, and minister. How then can you have any friends who will never hear the Gospel proclaimed?

It is your duty to speak the truth (Law and Gospel) so that they might come to faith, even if some (or all) of those friends are offended, even if your co-workers start calling you names, even if your devoted fans at your site suddenly find you “intolerant.”

Jesus said that if we love anyone more than Him, we are not worthy of Him.

“I am wondering Amillennialist, if your concept of God’s justice requires him to judge people by the same standards.”

My concept?

Here we approach the essential conflict: Instead of speaking the Word of God as He has revealed it to us, you offer instead your own opinions.

What does God say about that? In Deuteronomy 29:29 Moses writes, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Where's the room for speculation?

In Revelation 22:18 the Apostle John warns: “if anyone adds to them [the words of this book], God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

That should cause every man to be cautious in how he treats Divine Revelation, especially teachers, who will be judged more harshly (James 3:1).

“My understanding of scripture suggests that God does apply his standard consistently, but that he accepts a variety of pleas.”

Where does He say that?

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

“1 Cor 15.22, 2 Cor 5.19, Col 1.20, 1Tim 2.6, 1Tim 4.10, Heb 2.9,1 Jn 2.2, Rom 11.32, Rom 3.23/24, Rom 5.18, Jn 1.9, Jn 1.29, Jn 12.32 and Jn 12.47 . . . the weight of which suggests that there is a universal salvation.”

No. In their entirety the declare the mercy that God has had on all people. Christ paid for the sins of the whole world.

(Great passages, by the way.)

That many through unbelief reject this gift is a fact stated by Christ Himself. In Matthew 23:37 He laments, “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” In Chapter 22:14 He states, “many are called, but few are chosen."

“scripture is not clear cut here and . . . It won’t change the fact that scripture seems to suggest something which some Conservative Evangelicals are not comfortable with.”

Scripture is clear cut: Christ has reconciled the whole world to His Father, but through unbelief many reject that gift. In those cases, the only payment left for sin is the one a person must make himself, and that isn't pretty.

“Now, remember that I am not arguing that all spiritual roads lead to salvation. Some will clearly NOT be saved. However, as I have said before it is not for me to put limits on God’s grace.”

None of us should. But it is for you to say what He says, no more, no less.

“There ARE those who earnestly search for God who will never hear or fully understand the gospel through no fault of their own.”

What does Christ say? “Whoever believes in him [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18). In Romans 10: “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for 'Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'"

“Regardless of the mad and evil things some others may do in the name of the same religion – and they are probably not saved – we must not forget the many good, honest, decent, pious folk who seek to live with compassion and integrity and at peace with their neighbours. There are, after all, universal moral laws.”

Which we all violate.

We all do “mad and evil things.” No one is “good, honest, decent, or pious” in the sight of God, for He declares:

“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).

You're promoting a “good enough” gospel, but that's not good enough. You remember what the Apostle Paul said about those who preach a false message of salvation (Galatians 1:8), right?

“if I were a Muslim, I would not find my way to the gospel via your particular witness. Your comments on Islam offended me and I am not a Muslim: they showed a crass prejudice and a simplistic desire to demonise others while failing to see the faults in front of our faces.”

Speaking of “simplistic prejudice”!

Your words here are an example of suicidal ignorance in service to multiculturalism, for what did I write that was untrue?

Have you studied Qur'an? Ahadith? Sira?

What did I say here about your Muslim friends? Or all Muslims?

According to Islam's own “sacred” texts, Allah and his apostle require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse to convert:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

That Muslims slaughter non-Muslims to shouts of “allahu akbar” is a common occurrence. Are you really unaware of Indonesian Muslims beheading Christian schoolgirls on their way to school? These are not random psychotic or sociopathic episodes; these acts are committed in obedience to Allah and in accord with Mohammed's example.

As for his raping little Aisha, that fact is amply attested to by numerous ahadith. Here's one:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

The reason Mohammed's example is such a problem for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls is because Allah says of him: "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

What does that imply for the faithful Muslim?

Instead of being offended at my telling the truth, why are you not offended at Islam's “divinely”-sanctioned barbarism and depravity?

“My Muslim friends say “Not in my name” to the lunatic fringe”

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. If you'd like to know if your friends are truly not “lunatic,” share with them the passages I've posted here. A decent person can only be horrified at such filth.

Based on my experience, odds are their heads will explode, or you'll get a good dose of taqiyya (look it up).

“just as I do to the historic Crusaders”

Every atrocity committed by Crusaders should be condemned. At the same time, it should be remembered that the original call was made in response to desperate pleas for help from eastern Christians enduring centuries of jihad.

“quisling clergy in Nazi occupied Europe”

And every act of un-Christian cowardice should be condemned.

You might also want to recall that many Christians – including Lutherans – risked and gave their lives to save their fellow human beings.

And it wasn't “Hitler's pope,” it was, “Hitler's mufti.”

“the IRA and on to the Topeka Baptists, all who have done untold evil in the name of Christ. There is no monopoly on evil.”

That is true.

Taken individually, the crimes commanded by Allah and committed by Mohammed – and therefore mandatory for faithful Muslims – are not unusual. What makes Mohammed's “religion” especially vile is that he took all of the worst of Man's impulses, made them “divine,” indulged them, and required others to do the same.

“In my personal experience unless someone has made it clear to me by word or deed, that he is my enemy, he remains my friend.”

That is commendable.

“If someone earnestly seeks God in the only way they know how, and have no chance of hearing with understanding the saving works of Christ, Does God condemn them?”

What does God say?

The soul that sins is the one who will die (Ezekiel 18).
No one seeks God (Romans 3).
Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14).
We are saved through faith alone (Ephesians 2).
Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10).
Whoever does not believe in Christ is condemned already (John 3).

“If you believe he does, I must ask you: Is that the God of Christianity or the God of Right Wing Republican Evangelicalism, given that the two may not be the same?”

What did Jesus say? “Whoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

You've implied that I'm a “Conservative Evangelical” and a “Republican.” Neither are true in the sense that you intend.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but here I sense again the antagonism toward Christianity that led me in my first reply to you at Steve's to say, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . .”

“Unless someone has shown in word or deed that he is God’s enemy is not God right to ascribe righteousness to him as a friend as he did to Abraham?”

But we are by nature God's enemies (Romans 5:10).

And as for Abraham, what does God say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3).

“Of course Christ is the benchmark and standard of our salvation”

That sounds like something we do, in which case it is again a false gospel.

Christ is neither a “benchmark” nor “standard,” He is Our Salvation.

“but the Biblical passages above reveal to me that while God indeed judges us on our discipleship of Christ it is possible to be an unknowing or anonymous disciple.”

God judges us either on the basis of Christ's payment for sin, in which case we are declared “just,” or He judges us on the basis of our own sin, in which case we are doomed.

Your option is contrary to Scripture.

“I leave the last word to the theologian and writer C.S. Lewis and his Narnia stories:”

I like and admire C.S. Lewis.

He is not Christ.

“Lewis is suggesting that God’s grace is, indeed, extended beyond the limits we might expect. But that is down to God’s grace and not our judgement. God may well choose to act towards others in ways which surprise us and it is not for us to question God’s grace. We do not know the mind of God.”

Yes. That is another reason you should say only what God has said, and not contradict His clear word.

Making things up to suit your sensibilities is not faith.

“those who we reject because they don’t fit into our self imposed pigeonholes of who God accepts.”

Whom have I rejected? Pointing out error is not limiting God; He calls us to that. Both Law and Gospel must be preached.

What was Christ's message? “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

“we approach God by the name we have been taught and if that isn't the "correct" or given name, God doesn't care providing we approach in reverence and penitence.”

But God says, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1), and:

“what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22)?

A last encouragement to say only and all of what God has said:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'" For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? Behold, the storm of the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked” (Jeremiah 23:16-19).

Peace be with you.

What's in a name? When looking for clarity about God, everything

My first comment here in response to the person below was offered with the thought that perhaps he was well-intentioned but confused. From his response, it seemed necessary to demonstrate to him his error a little more emphatically.

His basic argument consists of three parts: 1) Since every religion calls its deity "god," then all gods must be the same being; 2) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, it must be that no one really knows who God is; and 3) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, every religious opinion is as good as every other (except of course, the one that says they aren't).

The essential answer comes in my last comment:

“Only one of those is his given name but he answers to them all.”

You’re confusing multiple names for one person to mean that one name for many persons makes them all the same person.

My first reply:

Doorman-Priest,

On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . .

If your wife were to indulge her marital urge with Bob or Kevin or Derek, would that be a problem? Would her defense of, “They’re all men” satisfy you?

You are confusing the use of the common noun “god” for all deities being the same one.

Christ is not Vishnu is not Allah is not Abaangui.

And later . . .

Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?),

That’s quite a few errors for so brief a post. I’ll address each one:

“There is only one God”

According to you, but as you admit, you don’t really know, so why should we listen, right?

YHWH says there are many gods. And none of them shall you have before Him.

Only one god is true, and He has revealed Himself to us. His name is I AM That I AM.

His Son, Jesus, claimed that name for Himself also.

“therefore whatever name we call him/her”

As I just noted, He told us His name. At least have the decency to respect what Someone wants to call Himself.

“whatever we perceive that God to be”

Here, as later, you imply that everyone’s opinions of god(s) are equally true. Even if our knowledge of God came only from Nature and Conscience, that would be false.

Since YHWH has revealed Himself to Humanity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you’ve gone past natural, human ignorance and self-deception and into outright blasphemy.

You call YHWH a liar.

So, you claim that Christ ordains genocidal prophets marry their best friend’s daughters when they’re six-years-old and begin raping them when they’re nine.

You’re a liar.

“and however inadequate that revelation”

YHWH’s revelation is sufficient. The only inadequacy is your willingness or ability to tell the truth about it.

“(or perhaps more to the point in this context however inadequate we believe that revelation to others to be), it can only be the same God.”

Equating a god commanding the slaughter of all who refuse to submit to its rule with the Christ Who taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” is not “inadequate revelation,” it is [a] lie straight from the pit of Hell.

“Why do we think God cares what we call him”

Something along the lines of, “You shall not take the name of [the LORD your God] YHWH in vain,” perhaps?

“when people are trying to have communion with him”

So, monsters ripping Christian schoolgirls’ heads from their bodies to shouts of “allahu akbar!” is “communion” with the one, true god?

You’re sick.

“and are approaching in reverence and faith?”

So, was Mohammed approaching the one, true god in “reverence and faith” when he began raping little nine-year-old Aisha? He said he was: “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”

“We may not believe “others” have got it quite right”

What does Christ say?

“it’s a good job God isn’t bound by our prejudices and shortsightedness”

Isn’t denying the clear word of Christ, isn’t denying the truth, “prejudiced and shortsighted”?

“and can apply his grace wherever he chooses. I am not going to put limits on the grace of God.”

Your lies limit the grace of God by denying it to billions.

True humility would say what Christ says. It would definitely *not* blaspheme YHWH by equating Him with deities from Hell.

True humility, true religion, would say what Christ says, not multiculturalist, intellectual cowardice.

“You have made God in your own image when his enemies are exactly the same as yours.”

The faithful Christian makes Christ’s enemies — the devil, all his works, and all his ways — his own. The devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. And sons of hell bar Heaven to those who want to enter it.

Christ our Righteousness

Offered in response to a friend:

"I have read all of the Gospels . . . and understand what is required of one who is seeking salvation of the Christian variety."

Respectfully, this indicates a lack of understanding of the faith. The Bible's clear teaching is that by observing the Law, no one will be saved, but because of God's great mercy, Christ died for us. There is nothing required of us, for God's Son has done everything.

"what I read in both the Bible and the New Testament and do not find a seamless thread connecting the two."

The one unifying theme of the Old Testament writings is the Messiah-to-Come; the New Testament writings all testify to the Messiah-Who-has-Come-and-Will-Come-Again.

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures [the Old Testament] because in them you think you have life, but they testify of Me."

A post-Resurrection account describes Jesus showing to two Christians that the Law and Prophets ([the] Old Testament) all spoke of Him.

"I did not get from the last prophet in the Bible the same impression that is expounded upon by Paul about Jesus as the Messiah as well as other topics."

By "last prophet," do you mean an Old Testament prophet? In that case, John the Baptist was the last prophet, and he said of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!"

If you meant the last book written, Revelation, then that was the Apostle John, author also of one gospel and three epistles.

Every author has his own style, audience, and purpose for writing.

Revelation, as apocalyptic (and therefore highly-symbolic) literature gives an overview of the New Testament period. Basically, the Church will suffer terrible persecution, but those who remain faithful to the end will receive eternal life.

(I'd be happy to discuss Revelation further with you. Do not expect it to be like any other book except Daniel and Ezekiel.)

"for the Jews there is a criteria that is to be fulfilled by the Messiah and ALL OF IT was to be fulfilled."

Yes, except for those parts that have to do with the End of the World.

"Christianity and Judaism are religions each in their own right and not connected in any way.

That is not true.

Again, Jesus is the Messiah promised since Adam, His Scriptures [are] all Hebrew/Jewish, His Apostles were all Jews, the first Christians were Jewish, [and] traditional Christian worship comes from its Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The faithful Jew -- as Paul points out powerfully; see his comments on the true Israel, the true children of Abraham who are circumcised in the heart and not necessarily in the flesh -- is the one who believes in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is the unfaithful, rebellious, and apostate (or ignorant) Jew who rejects the Messiah.

Jesus made that clear when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM."

"Christians would be Jews--and not the other way around since the Messiah is intended to bring the all of God's people to the Jews either in righteousness or conversion, while the Jews fulfill their covenant with God as the intended priests of the world."

And the Jews did not keep their part of that covenant. Recall the conditions of that agreement: Israel had to keep all of YHWH's commandments. They did not. They broke the Covenant, which is why the Messiah came to institute a New Covenant, a New Testament in His blood for the forgiveness of sins!

As I noted above, Christ came to reconcile the whole world to His Father, both Jew and Gentile. Paul actually describes Gentile Christians being grafted into the plant (of God's people): If God does not spare natural branches for their unbelief in the Messiah, then neither will He spare those grafted-in branches.

Again, Paul talks about all who trust in Christ -- whether Jew or Gentile -- as being the true Israel. Peter also makes the same point calling Christians -- Jew and Gentile -- ["]a chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God [. . . ."]

I hope you will look into these things more deeply. Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews," and "I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me."

Seven hundred years before the Messiah appeared, the prophet Isaiah wrote, "He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed."

Some thoughts on Arminianism

I received a kind note today.

Here is most of my reply:

. . . Theologically, I try to say only what God says.

You are right in saying that Calvinism's bad theology causes them to trash Scripture. That's why I made the point that we should remain silent where God does.

. . . I have a few thoughts regarding Arminianism:

1. God from all eternity predestined to eternal life those of whom He foresaw that they would remain steadfast in faith to their end.

God says that He predestined believers to eternal life. I think that is the place we should stop.

Calvin's gross error was [concluding] that since God predestines people to Heaven, He must also predestine people to Hell, even though Scripture does not say this!

Interestingly, God speaks of those who sin against Him being "blotted out" of "My book" in Exodus, while in Revelation, Christ speaks of those remaining faithful to Him not having their names "blotted out" of the Book of Life.

God's intention is for all to have eternal life. You can't have a name blotted out of a Book unless it's already in it.

2. Christ died for all mankind, not only for the elect.

Absolutely!

3. Man cooperates in his conversion by free will.

Since the Scriptures speak of us being "dead" in our sins, faith as the gift of God, and our utterly sinful nature, I do not believe that we can choose Him or contribute anything to our salvation.

John 1 speaks of believers being born, "not of human will," but, "born of God."

4. Man may resist divine grace.

Yes! Jesus lamented over Jerusalem, ". . . I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing."

5. Man may fall from divine grace.

The Scriptures warn believers against falling away from the faith into unbelief (which rejects God's grace).

I think the place where the "once saved, always saved" crowd errs is in thinking that because Christ will not allow us to be taken from Him, we cannot take ourselves away (through unbelief).

Since Scripture states both, we should too.

Calvinists aren't the only people who hate me. I've got Muslims and Darwinists after me, too.

Romans 9 shows God's compassion and mercy, not His capriciousness and malice

In response to courteous comments here.

. . . God being malicious is something that you've drawn out of a Calvinist view, not Calvinists.

I don't think I've written that Calvinism says God is malicious and capricious.

Several of Calvinism's doctrines contradict the Word of Christ in ways that make its god malicious and capricious.

Attributing such characteristics and attitudes to YHWH blasphemes Him.

God works on a scale of just to merciful, unjust or malice don't enter his character at all.

YHWH is fully both at the same time. In Christ's body on the cross, He punished all men's sins and had mercy on all.

Calvinism denies that mercy to many.

I don't think the parable of the sower has anything to do with predestination.

The Parable of the Sower is relevant because it doesn't show God creating bad soil or never sending the Word to some (both Calvinist heresies).

It shows that the responsibility for unbelief is ours.

. . . Romans 9 especially verses 14-24 . . . clouds the issue of God's will in choosing and man's role in accepting. As well as whether people can actually be destined for Hell. I'm still considering my thoughts on this passage, but when considering how God chooses I think it's essential to include this passage.

God says:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide" (John 15:16),

". . . God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).

"he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

"by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2: 8 and 9).

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28).

"He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . ." (2 Corinthians 5:19).

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stone to death those sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you were not willing" (Matthew 23:37)!

What does Romans 9 say? Paul shows that despite Israel's rejection, God's promises are sure and are received by faith.

Regarding Jacob and Esau, Paul writes, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call . . ." (Romans 9:11).

Paul's point here is not that God hates (or rejects) people just because He chooses to do so (Calvinism's Double Predestination), it is that God's blessings depend on His mercy and are received by faith, not by works.

Being the older and favored son, Esau was to receive his father Isaac's blessing. Isaac asks Esau to hunt and prepare a "delicious meal," after which he would bless him. While Esau is out obeying his father, Jacob's mom, having overheard their plans, conspires with Jacob to deceive Isaac into obtaining the blessing.

So, the one who received the promise, Jacob, did not deserve it. Like Jacob, we receive the Promise not because we deserve it (we deserve condemnation!), but because of His mercy.

Romans 9 also mentions Pharaoh. Is the fact that God says of him, "I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (Romans 9:17) evidence of His creating people for destruction? Is Paul's statement that God hardens whom He hardens proof of this?

Paul does not state that the hardening God did was His "sovereign choice" (that subtitle in the ESV and NIV is human commentary, not Divine revelation) to condemn someone; rather, he declares that its purpose was to show His power to the entire world.

Does God's patience with "objects of wrath prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22) mean that He created people for Hell? No, since we believers are by nature, "objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).

And God is patient with those "objects of wrath" in order that they too might repent. Paul writes, "do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4).

Calvinism denies God's kindness, forbearance, and patience to many.

Most importantly, Paul shows us that the reason Israel is rejected is not because of "God's sovereign choice," because of its unbelief, through which they reject Christ:

. . . Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Romans 9:30-32).

God exercised His saving power for all people by sacrificing His own son on a cross

Thank you for your comments, Dusty.

First off, I had no idea you were a Roman Catholic.

I am not.

I just figured if you could argue what appeared to be a Calvinist position without claiming to be a Calvinist, I could mention Roman Catholicism without being Roman Catholic. :)

(I was fairly horrified that you characterized me as a representative of Calvinism, as if the statements I had made in order to shine some light on some of the monstrous implications of your own theology were meant as straight representations of Calvinist thought.)

It appears that you don't really understand "my" theology.

if you believe in an all-powerful God Who has sovereignly decided to send people to an eternal life of total misery, oftentimes after enduring an earthly life of total misery, simply for not believing in Him, even though He has the power (being all-powerful) to save them.

God exercised that saving power for all people by sacrificing His own Son on a cross.

The problem here is the assertion that God sends people to Hell "simply for not believing in Him."

What does God say? "The soul that sins is the one who will die."

All sins -- not just unbelief -- send people to Hell.

(What would you do with the murderer? Rapist? Pedophile? Genocidal monster? Mohammed? Yet Christ died for his sins, too.)

UNBELIEF REJECTS GOD'S SAVING POWER. That people end up in Hell is not evidence of His cruelty or indifference, it is evidence of people's utter wickedness.

If one rejects Christ and His payment for sin, there's only one payment left, and it's coming out of your own pocket.

To blame God for punishing sin is like hating a cop for arresting a rapist. It is perverse.

You're appalled that the God of Calvinism has "created people for Hell"... Fair enough.

Thank you.

But you don't seem to understand that your God, in His omnipotence and omniscience, has essentially done the exact same thing

No, creating people for Hell is not dying on a cross to take away their sins.

Is that not obvious, even to someone with "latent Calvinist tendencies"? :)

since you believe that Hell is populated with souls that He knew full well would end up there before He laid the foundations of the earth (i.e. before He decided to go ahead and create those souls, despite His foreknowledge of where they were gonna end up).

6 of one, half dozen of the other, as they say.

Foreknowledge is not predestination.

Knowing that your child will suffer (perhaps terribly and chronically) and die (pretty much guaranteed!) means that you should have never given birth? Or committed infanticide?

a diatribe offered by a person who believes in a God who created hell for millions of people

What does God say? Hell was created for the devil and his angels, not for man.

Man was created for Life, and even though we reject it -- even though we make ourselves enemies of God! -- in His mercy Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

The Calvinist denies both those essential points. He says that God created only a few for Life (the rest for Hell), and that Christ died for only a few.

THE CALVINIST DENIES GOD'S SAVING POWER TO MANY.

The contrast couldn't be more stark.

(Yes, obviously I do have Calvinist sympathies--particularly from a purely academic and intellectual standpoint--but I have severe enough problems with all rigid theological systems, including Calvinism, that I can't rightly call myself by any of their names.)

Which is why it is best to ask, "What does God say?"

Supporting Calvin's heresies by making a false moral equivalence between deities

More in response to someone who, if he is not a Calvinist, has latent Calvinist tendencies.

It appears that Mr. McDust is trying to support Calvin's heresies by making a false moral equivalence between his god and Christ. His main argument is essentially one, giant tu quoque.

Where in my comment did I say I was a Calvinist??

I don't think you did.

Judging by the emotional and defensive tone of your comments in response to posts critical of Calvinism, I assumed naturally you were. Who else would try to make Christ as monstrous as Calvin's god?

So, are you a Calvinist? If not, why would you attempt to equate the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with his capricious beast?

Or do you just hate Roman Catholics?

The main thrust of my comment (including the "drunk boyfriend" example) was to point out to YOU that YOU "blame God" for evil (that is, if you affirm that God is sovereign), just as much as you accuse Calvinists of doing. I can't believe that point was lost on you.

One cannot lose that which never existed.

Your "argument" does not apply to me since I do not blame God for human evil. Neither do I mistake God's patience -- His desiring that all should repent and live -- for malice, indifference, or impotence.

God will address every wrong that needs addressing.

If Christ were to wipe out every evil, who would be left? Would you prefer that?

You have blood on your hands, too.

I'll ask you again -- Do you believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing? That's a simple question, right? And I would prefer that you answer that question in the comments section of this post, please. So that people can easily see the entirety of what I actually said, rather than seeing your carefully [. . . ] version of what I said, in which you intentionally distort my original meaning.

I included a link to your comments. What a clumsy thing to do if I wanted to "intentionally distort" your meaning. If I wanted to do that, I'd delete your comment entirely and have my way with your post.

If you believe that God is truly all-powerful and all-knowing (i.e. sovereign), then you yourself are just as legitimately accused of "blaming" God for evil and for people going to Hell as Calvinists are. Now, note: I'm not saying it's a LEGITIMATE accusation--I'm saying it's JUST as legitimate as your accustation is against Calvinists.

Calvinists teach that God creates people for Hell (Double Predestination). Those who end up there roast only because of His "divine sovereignty."

That is blasphemy, since the Bible says that those who end up in Hell do so because of their own sin.

Calvinists also teach that God did not die for all, does not have mercy on all, does not work in the hearts of all. The Bible says that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world, reconciling us all to His Father through His body on the cross.

If you DON'T believe that God is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, then you're guilty of heresy/blasphemy; in which case, if I were you I'd maybe focus a little more on my own severely flawed theology rather than the flawed theology of others.

So, you call teaching God's holiness and mercy -- not His capriciousness and malevolence -- and human depravity "heresy/blasphemy."

Are you sure you're not a Calvinist?

So, take your pick -- is God all-powerful and all-knowing or is He not? I'm looking forward to your answer, right after this comment... in the comment section... of THIS post... Thanks.

God is omniscient and omnipotent. That doesn't mean that He creates people for suffering.

Analogies often break down easily, but since the Word of God is not enough for you, I'll try one.

You are arguing that for Someone to know their child will suffer evil in this life and still create them makes God a monster.

You've just smeared every mother and father who's ever lived.

Because you affirm that God is sovereign-- YOU believe that God, before He created this existence exactly as He did, foresaw the situation of LOTS of people going to Hell. And yet God decided to go ahead and create this existence exactly as He did anyway. That is, He had the choice to create this existence any way He wanted, knowing LOTS of people would end up in Hell if He created it this particular way, and, in light of this knowledge, He decided to create it this particular way.

So (again, assuming you DO believe that God is all-knowing) how is it that you are less legitimately accused of "blaming God" than Calvinists are?

The Calvinist's god creates people for Hell and denies Christ's atoning sacrifice to many.

The God of the Bible creates people for eternal life, and restores that life through Christ's atoning sacrifice for all.

If you can't make that simple distinction, there's not much more to say.

A malevolent and capricious god

Allah owns no monopoly on heresy or blasphemy (though it's pretty much cornered the market on "religious" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery).

John Calvin's god -- though he and his followers use the language of the Reformation and associate themselves with Luther at every opportunity -- is blasphemous, capricious, and malevolent.

How else can one describe a god that calls itself "Christ" but is His antithesis? The Scriptures state clearly that YHWH loves all humanity, that Christ's death was for all people, that He takes delight in the death of no one, that God wants all to trust in Him and to live. But Calvin's god?

According to the false reformer, Christ died for only those who would believe (Limited Atonement). How does one determine who these true believers are? Worse yet, how does one know if he or she is one of them? Calvinists make up nonsense about knowing that they possess saving faith by their works, but even then, what about those who fall away from the faith? What about their works? And how does one know he or she is not one of them?

Calvinists say they never were a true believer. Under Calvinism, no one can know that their good works are indicative of saving faith and not just makeup on a corpse hiding future apostasy. This does not reflect the language of Scripture, which warns Christ's people against unbelief and shows us that our confidence is not to be placed in our own works, but in the person and work of Christ, Who loved us all and gave Himself to take away all people's sins.

Calvin also taught Double Predestination, another vile doctrine contrary to Scripture. The Bible speaks only of believers being predestined to eternal life; nowhere does the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob speak of creating people for hell. Such a lie makes Him a capricious monster, which may be why Jefferson confessed that he could never believe in Calvin's god.

Both blasphemies, Limited Atonement and Double Predestination, teach and preach a false Christ. A false christ means necessarily also a false gospel. The Apostle Paul declares bluntly of anyone who preaches such a message: "Let him be eternally condemned (anathema)!"

There are other problems with Calvinism besides a mutant works righteousness and false god. It also makes the Means of Grace -- Baptism and the Lord's Supper -- into nothing more than symbols, which denies the power, immediacy, and incarnation of the Son of God.

I had recently the opportunity to observe elements of a children's program offered by a local, generic community church. It turns out that in addition to what appeared to be Decision Theology, the undershepherd responsible for this congregation's instruction also believes in Limited Atonement and Double Predestination.

I wrote to him of my concerns. As of this this writing, he has not replied. While it is possible that he has been busy, the Internet ate my note, or some other event has prevented him from replying, perhaps it is just that he has no satisfactory answers for the problems inherent to his theology.

My original note:

Hello, Pastor . . . ,

. . . I'd like to share with you a concern.

I noticed that Monday's thought of the day was "Choose to believe."

My concern is that many . . . will internalize the understanding that an unbeliever can choose to believe in Christ. Is that the message you intended?

The Scriptures state that we do nothing to save ourselves; even faith is the gift of God, which the Holy Spirit creates in us through the Gospel.

Christ told His apostles, "You did not choose Me, I chose you . . . ." John 1 states that believers are born again not of a "human decision," but "born of God." Paul states that we are "dead in trespasses," that while we were God's enemies Christ died for us, and that the Holy Spirit works in us "to will and to do."

When Christ says in Revelation that, "I stand at the door and knock," He's speaking to Christians, not unbelievers.

Looking forward to your reply . . . .

And here that is:

. . . The issue of salvation that you brought up seems to be one side of a two-sided coin.

The age old question is... "is one converted because of God's work of regeneration within, or does God regenerate the individual because of his or her repentance and belief"? I am assuming by your email, that you would hold that the many- especially children- are converted because of God's work of regeneration within. In other words, you hold that predestination is the act of God regenerating one from a consequence of sin (an inability to choose God or anything good...AKA total depravity). As a result of that regeneration (a work of God), the individual can not resist that call and will be saved. I am not trying to put words in your mouth... this is more of a restatement to make sure I understand your concern.

I believe in predestination... that God chooses those whom He will save. However, it also seems evident in Scripture that there is a need for a response.

Paul's response to the Philippian jailor was "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Peter makes a similar statement in Acts 2:38 where he says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the the Holy Spirit."

Your question... "can an unbeliever choose to believe in Christ?" My answer... "I believe we are all unbelievers when we choose to believe in Christ... however, those of us who repent and have faith have been elected by God (an inner working of God on the hearts of those whom He chose) prior to that decision".

As I started with... this is a question that has been discussed and argued by men much smarter than I for generations. I hope this issue is not one that places us as competitors, but as partners aiming to serve the same Lord and submit our lives to the same Savior.

To which I responded:

Hi, Pastor . . . ,

We have not met . . . .

My concern was that the message "Choose to believe" (and now, "Choose Christ") gives the false impression that we have something to do with our salvation.

A new concern is the idea that "the individual cannot resist that call and will be saved." Are you implying that God does not call all people? For if His call is irresistible, but only a few are saved, then He must call only those few.

Where do the Scriptures define "predestination" as "God choosing whom He will save"?

Are you implying that Christ only wants some people to be saved? Where does He say that?

Would you say also that Christ died only for some people?

What of those who fall away from faith?

Would you say that God predestined to hell those who end up there?

Cordially . . . .

Believers are commanded to teach and preach all of and only the Word of God. Anything else comes from the evil one.