"Just World Theory" Versus God's Justice

     The Beatles, in a long-ago-circulated story, were in India studying with the Maharishi. A few of them went for a hike in the desert, and encountered a man who was immobilized from an injured leg. Adhering strictly to the teachings of the Maharishi, they decided to not help the man in any way, that way he could fully go through with the karma he had to endure. While consistent with Hinduism, this would be an extremist application of what is known as "Just World Theory"- a theory which says that the world is a place where good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. In other words, everything that happens to a person is their own fault. In Hinduism, for example, bad karma that comes back to a person is a result of their own actions or thoughts. 
   Just World Theory stands in contrast to sound doctrine, but could be deceptively similar to the undiscerning. This is because the Bible depicts a just and righteous God who executes judgments for sin and evil. The missing piece in comparison would be the doctrine of God's longsuffering nature. The Scriptures indicate that God is slow to wrath or anger. 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance." Another great biblical example is the Genesis 15:16 implication from the "sin of the Amorites" not reaching its full measure, that God tolerated the sin of the Amorites for 400 years before bringing judgment (the full measure attained). 
  We also know from study of the Bible that God brings trials and testing even on true believers. The whole book of Job tells the story of how God allowed the testing of Job's faith by Satan. The many losses that Job endured were caused not by the sin or lack of faith of Job. Trials by fire are understood biblically as refining us like as done to silver or gold. The replies of Job's friends, such as Eliphaz (Chapter 4- "the innocent do not suffer") and Bildad (Chapter 8- "God rewards the good") are in favor of more of a Just World Theory. However, by the end of the book, God explains that He is displeased with Job's friends for what they said, and that they have to present sacrifices to atone (Job 42:7-8). 
   All of this being said, Just World Theory itself has internal logical problems, where if one follows through with logical consistency, it produces conclusions that are inherently bigoted or absurd. For example, in Just World Theory the African slaves themselves are to blame for the early American slave trade- either collectively, or by each individual, they must be or have done something wrong. This bigoted conclusion could further lead to the scapegoating of an entire race for their plight- blaming their own evil (specific to them only) for the evil they are going through. We know this is not true. All men are born equally with original sin. As Christ said in Matthew 5:45-46, "for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"
  Taking, for example, the oppression of the Israelites as slaves in Egypt, if there was even a moment that God was not pleased that they remained in slavery, yet they still remained in slavery, then wrongful oppression is possible on earth. Exodus chapters 3-14 reflect that very situation, ending in judgments against the Egyptians to free Israel. For that period of time the Hebrews remained in slavery with the Egyptians while God did not approve of it. The Bible reflects a view where oppression is not to be taken lightly, but examined and called into question, if not even fully interfered with and ended. 
   Another obvious internal problem with Just World Theory is that it justifies lone acts of violence. This would be true, since anything that happens to a person is supposed to be just from a higher level of strata. Therefore a person victimized by an act of violence is blamed in Just World Theory either for their own evil, negligence, or lack of preparation. This further results in absurd conclusions, such as that school shooters are ethically justified. In the era of guns and other technology, the madness and rage of just one individual can unleash harm on a whole crowd of others. Too bad for these Just World adherents that "might makes right" is a logical fallacy. Adherents of the Just World Theory are themselves responsible for answering as to why they are holding to an ethically degrading view, such that results in bigoted conclusions, and justifies oppression and lone acts of violence such as school shootings. 
  Since Just World Theory is not a view really taught in churches per se, and is more properly understood as being from Eastern religions, it has become fodder for studies in Sociology and Social Science as to who adheres to these biases demographically. (I mean, let's be fair...how did that view ever spread in the U.S. and to who?) I see it as a country bumpkin theology to which Protestants are susceptible, but to which we're not supposed to be. It's a way of explaining away life in very easy, neat, and tidy terms justifying not only one's own position in life ("I got there by my own striving and hard work"), but explaining away the plight of others as something not to worry about so much, since they could be to blame in Just World terms. While this would seem to be a neat shortcut to avoiding personal guilt in one's outlook, it is not respected as properly correct in biblical terms. Just because there is a God who is just, righteous, and true, it does not follow that we live in a perfectly just world as described by Just World Theory. 
  

 

Top Ten Reasons to Become a Republican

  Republicans are a very diverse group of people, each with his or her own set of opinions and priorities when it comes to government and politics. But if you ask any Republican what their top ten reasons to become a Republican are, you’ll probably get some similar answers. Here are the top ten reasons why Republicans believe in the principles of the Republican Party, why we love being part of this party, and why we think you should consider becoming one too!

Republicans Respect Family Values

   Republicans have always been about protecting what’s precious to us. The family unit is at the heart of every healthy, stable society on earth. In fact, Republicans are willing to do what it takes to ensure that families thrive and stay together.

Republican Party Supports Small Business

   Unlike some Democratic politicians, many Republicans are pro-business and believe in allowing small business owners to have more control over their businesses, rather than imposing controls from above. Support for Small Business: The Republican Party is known for supporting small business and encouraging people to start their own ventures. Many Republicans are also against excessive regulation, particularly when it might affect a new or existing small business.

Your Freedoms Matter To Us

   The GOP was founded upon its core principle of individual rights and freedoms. If you’re concerned about your freedom, whether it be economic, political or religious in nature, then you may want to consider becoming a member of our party. We believe that these freedoms should be protected by law so long as they do not infringe upon another individual’s right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Our goal is simple: we intend to set policies that allow everyone access to life, liberty and happiness.

The Work Ethic Matters

   The American work ethic is one of our greatest strengths. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 31% of Americans identified as Republicans, and 61% identified as Democrats. This means that for every Democrat who works hard, there are three slackers! In order for our country’s economy to thrive, it’s imperative that everyone takes pride in their work. The best way to do that is by becoming part of an organization with high standards like being a Republican.

We Support Traditional Marriage and Family Values

   The GOP has been an advocate for traditional marriage and family values for years. If you believe that your country should support these types of values, then it’s easy to see why you would be a member of the Republican Party.

Fiscal Responsibility

   The Republicans have always been known for their fiscal responsibility, believing in less government and lower taxes. The GOP has shown through their actions that they are willing to work toward reducing our spending deficit by cutting unnecessary programs and increasing revenue by lowering tax rates.

Gun Rights Are Important To Us

   Gun rights are important to Republicans. This is for many reasons, but largely because we believe in personal freedoms and don’t want our government telling us what kind of firearms we can and cannot own. We also think gun control doesn’t work—there are too many guns in circulation for one government regulation to make much of an impact.

The Constitution Is An Inspiration To Us

   Few people know that every single member of our founding fathers was a republican. Today, their statues and history are revered, reminding us all of where we came from and what made America great in the first place: traditional values like hard work, freedom, and equality. If you’re looking for inspiration to ignite your passion for success, look no further than our founders. They were brave individuals who stood up for their beliefs, even when they didn’t seem popular at first.

We’re Pro-Life And Protecting the Environment Is Important To Us

   For many, becoming a Republican has less to do with party affiliation and more about what you believe in. The Party of Reagan is also known as The Big Tent because it welcomes Democrats, independents, libertarians, civil libertarians and all different stripes of Republicans. Our mission is: limited government, personal responsibility, strong national defense and lower taxes. We believe that free markets are vital for achieving prosperity and social order while maintaining personal freedom.

We Believe In Protecting Our Vets, National Security, and Defending Freedom

    The GOP is strongly pro-veteran, pro-security, and stands up for freedom in all forms. A true patriot believes that each American has his or her own responsibility to protect their country from harm—it’s one of our most basic responsibilities as citizens. That’s why veterans across America look for opportunities to serve their country in uniform again and again.

Defeating the Objection: That there is a certain strain of human (like the Nephilim) that can't be saved from being that strain

   The objection as stated can rightly be called heresy from it being biblically incorrect and not sound teaching. Inherent in the wrong thinking of it is esoteric gnosticism in which parts or all of sound teaching are selectively rejected. Those propagating this point are gnostic heretics who rely on natural theology in combination with their erroneous gnostic peccadilloes. I've met staunch Jews who hold to a similar heresy that only those of a certain ethnicity are qualified to be saved. The doctrines of Mormonism contain yet another similar heresy, propagated by early Mormon leaders, that the pre-existing spirits of black people had sinned in heaven by supporting the rebellion of Lucifer against God [to say it more precisely, these premortal spirits were taught to have been neutral in the war in heaven and/or did not fight as valiantly against Satan] - a viewpoint that regarded them as spiritually unequal, but not necessarily barred from the Mormon concept of heaven.
   The objection is dealt with rather well by even just a small group of Bible verses. We know from Romans 5 that as a result of the sin of Adam (and Eve), death, condemnation, and sin spread to all men. Therefore, whatever ethnicity one is born as, they are still born under the condemnation of original sin. All have this, and so all have a "sin" or "wicked" nature. There is not one ethnicity more prone to sin than any other. The doctrine of "total depravity" spells out the human nature is thoroughly corrupt. We know also from Romans 5 that even "as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Romans 5:18). The stipulation there of justification to "all" is covenantal and in regards to those of any race or ethnicity being able to receive the gospel after the ushering in of the new covenant by Christ. Similar verses, such as John 3:16-17 that refer to "the world" being now saved are taken to mean that in the cross-section of the elect who are saved, we will find those from among all nations and ethnicities- whereas the old covenant was expressly, first and foremost, for the Jews, the children of Israel. Likewise, 1 Timothy 2:4 "all persons to be saved" is taken to mean "all sorts of persons." Thus is the gospel message supposed to be preached through the whole world (Mark 16:15).
    The biblical evidence that there is not one "strain" that can't be saved for being that strain is abundant. Paul seems to spend a large part of Galatians arguing against thinking like that. "There is [now no distinction in regards to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority]. And if you belong to Christ [if you are in Him], then you are Abraham's descendants, and [spiritual] heirs according to [God's] promise" (Galatians 3:28-29 AMP). Throughout the Bible I find precept after precept, verse upon verse, that salvation is through faith, not my fleshly ethnicity or ancestry. There's no need to belabour the point here for the reason that it is heavily promoted in the Bible to begin with.
   The idea of some "Nephilim" (defined irrationally by some as "angelic entities" or aliens) being involved with humans is drawn by these heretics (wrongly) from Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. There is no way to prove or assert that the "sons of God" in this passage are angels. It is more likely the fact of the matter that the passage is describing men who were "of God" in their thinking and conduct. As the Keil and and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says "But if the title 'sons of God' cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtue of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life." The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says, "There is no trace, however, in the book of Genesis, of any tradition respecting either the fall, or the rebellion, of members of the angel-host." To read into the passage that angels took human women as wives, is reading something into the passage that cannot be reasonably brought out from exegesis. The word "Nephilim" of Genesis 6:4 in the original language simply means "giants." They were "the men who were of old, men of renown" (6:4). It was likely a race of people like the Anakim who were large (Numbers 13:33).
   The scriptural evidence, interpreting other scripture with scripture seems to indicate that the verses Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 are talking about men, not angels. Even so, all the progeny described in Genesis 6:1-4 are destroyed and wiped off the face of the earth in the Great Flood in Genesis 7. No doubt my heretic opponents who are "of the devil" will want to say that a wicked (somehow unsavable) strain came through Noah even. While it is correct by sound doctrine that humanity is by nature totally depraved after the Fall of Man, the line and genealogy of Noah is blessed actually for being through Seth, not Cain. While it's possible that God did bless some ancestral lines over others, salvation is not by one's ancestry or ethnicity. Furthermore, the punishment of the Great Flood was a judgment upon humans for their evil (see Genesis 6:5).
   Like the other heresies I have written about, the one I have refuted here is especially heinous for trying to bind people's thinking into believing that they can't ever be saved from being from an evil ancestral line. These people have devised machinations of thought by which to send people to hell by eroding their faith through wrong beliefs. There is not one race more wicked by nature than any other, and such an assertion is actually patently racist also. The way to both account for the existence of evil, and to justify equality in the traditional sense, is from the Bible.

I don’t have legalism. That should explain things

Many of you probably noticed that I have referred to secular songs multiple times in my posts. The reason why I can be a professing Christian and listen to and/or refer to secular songs...

ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: I don’t have legalism. That should explain things:    

"The Size of the Universe" is Not an Argument for Atheism

   Atheists and unbelievers like to point to the size of the universe as a supposed refutation of the book of Genesis account of creation which centers around the creation of human life. I was blessed to have once heard a lecture by Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross, in which he explained that scientific facts point to the very opposite conclusion- the universe seems designed to support human life. The universe must be the size that it is (it must have the exact mass that it has) in order for there to be the array of scientific elements that there are, and those elements are needed to support life on Earth. God created the universe as a whole (as well as human life) and designed the universe and the earth specifically to support human life.
    I was able to dig up for my readers here some of Dr. Ross's writing on the same subject.  http://www.reasons.org/articles/anthropic-principle-a-precise-plan-for-humanity
   Dr. Ross did write a complete book on the subject matter, as well, and the book is available on Amazon.com, called Why the Universe Is the Way It Is.

Confronting the objection: “What do modern believers have anything to do with Jesus and His promises?”

   The objection as stated has the bias that believers in Christ are somehow removed from His promises so that they cannot claim them as their own. The perpetrators of the objection would have us to think that Jesus was just some guy who lived centuries ago and in no way can modern "believers" in Him claim any link, relationship, or benefit. The idea must have its roots in ignorance or a false view Jesus Christ.

    The inerrancy, infallibility, and especially the historical reliability of the Scriptures has to be established. I cannot be your sole source of information for everything. There are plenty of good articles on the internet which have that information and good arguments in favor of inerrancy, infallibility, and historical reliability. Here are two such articles: http://www.findingtruthmatters.org/articles/inerrancy/

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/why-should-we-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/

     Once those things are understood, then we’ve established that the gospel books of the New Testament contain the historically accurate record of the life of Jesus Christ. It is not really incumbent upon me to prove all that, because having understood what the Bible is and having tested it for errors yourself, you would come to know its inerrancy and properties as God’s Word.

   From the promises spoken by Jesus as recorded in the gospel books, we can know as a fact that those who believe in Him receive his promise of eternal life, among other promises.  Here are just two of the quotes that promise eternal life to those who believe:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." John 6:39-40

     The specific sins of the specific people that Jesus saves were punished when Jesus died upon the cross. The well-known concept of "expiation" is literally the idea that the sins of those who believe in Jesus are placed on Him on the cross for God to punish and thereby annul. "Expiation" as an idea has it roots in the Old Testament as the concept of atonement in Numbers 8:7, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalms 65:3, 79:9. Expiation through Jesus is first of all prophesied in Isaiah, declared in the words of John the Baptist, implied in the words of Jesus, and spelled out further in the letters and epistles of Paul and Peter, and in the book of Hebrews. 

(in the prophecy of Isaiah): "But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him." Isaiah 53:5-6

(as declared by John the Baptist):
"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me." John 1:29

(as declared by Jesus):
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36

(by Jesus, after His resurrection):
"Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." Luke 24:45-48

(Paul):
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" - in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Galatians 3:13

(the author of Hebrews):
"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." Hebrews 9:28

(Peter):
"and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds you were healed." 1 Peter 2:24

     Jesus's promises are extended to those alive past his first advent (his first bodily time on Earth). They do not only apply to the disciples that were in His immediate presence while He was on Earth. They apply to any believers in Christ shortly thereafter until the present day. The following quotes are from the words of Jesus to support that conclusion. They tend to indicate that following him by being obedient to His words and loving Him place a person in His good grace and love. One would not have to have literally followed him around in bodily form to do that. In John 14 Jesus is explaining how the exact situation is going to work that He is leaving them and "going to the father."

(Jesus):
"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." John 14:21 

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me." John 14:22

"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14:25

"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full." John 14:10

     Jesus gave the disciples in his presence "the great commission," but instructed them to make more disciples in the absence of his bodily earthly presence. That would not be the case if Jesus only wanted the disciples in His immediate presence to believe in Him and receive His promises. The continuing intercession of Jesus from heaven after His ascension is described in the book of Hebrews and 1 John. His continuing role as mediator between God and man is spoken of in Hebrews and in 1 Timothy.

(Jesus): "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20.

"And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." Mark 16:15-16

(the author of Hebrews): "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." Hebrews 7:25

(John): "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 1 John 2:1-2

(Paul): "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5


(the author of Hebrews): "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises." Hebrews 8:6

     Thus, the promises for eternal life to those who believe in Christ are clearly stated in the Bible. The Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 15:6). It is clearly indicated throughout the Scriptures that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross takes away the sins of the world- those who would believe in Him. The literal sins of those specifically who believe in Jesus were placed on Jesus and punished at the cross so that Jesus takes away all of their blame, shame, and guilt. The Scriptures clearly indicate that that and all the other promises given to believers are still valid for those who believe in Jesus even after He ascended to heaven. 
   While I have focused mainly on the eternal promises for salvation, the initial objection, "what do believers have anything to do with Jesus," also dangerously and incorrectly seeks to nullify the truth of what is currently involved in believers' relationships with Christ while they are still alive on earth- that is to say, the "temporal blessings" that come from Christ. Believers in Jesus are members of "the body of Christ" which is the church (the people that comprise the church) and have an identity in Christ. (Romans 12:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12; 12:27). Believers have Christ in them (Romans 8:10). So to say that modern believers have nothing to do with Jesus is totally incorrect. 
   I have focused first on, and emphasized the salvific/redemptive dimension of all this, but to not do so is to downplay the the severity and consequences of the Fall of Man. "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men" (Romans 5:18). That is to say, I have tried to give it proportionately the same emphasis as the Scriptures. From Christ to those who believe and are saved comes "every spiritual blessing," even temporally (Ephesian 1:3). The first chapter of the book of Ephesians contains a good explanation of the many blessings and "inheritance" promised to those who can claim "adoption as sons" through Jesus Christ. We have a good savior who cares. He does not redeem us for heaven later just to simply leave us in disregard on Earth. Believers in Christ can claim all the promises of the Scriptures, including being "sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory," (Ephesians 1:13-14), and many other promises.

Visiting the prisoners

 Some people have wondered if they should have been visiting people that they knew were prisoners. One place in the Scriptures that gives ...

ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Visiting the prisoners:

Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows

"Inherent in the problem having to do with breaking a vow that one has previously made (from a Biblical point of view) is the classic distinction between "law" and "grace"....."

(for the rest of the post, click here)- ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows:     .

My Doctrine

   It has become more and more apparent to me that giving a doctrinal statement somewhere would help my ministry and life efforts, so I am going to freely give it right here. (thankfully, I won't have to write or rewrite a whole creed or confession.) I am hoping that it will help heal schisms, mainly through persons being reconciled to God through Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:18).
   My doctrine is Protestant and Reformed. The closest confession or creed to how I actually believe is the Westminster Confession of Faith. I hold to the five points of Calvinism in "tulip" form which are: 1) Total Depravity 2) Unconditional Election 3) Limited Atonement 4) Irresistible Grace and 5) Perseverence of the Saints.  I hold to Sola Scriptura and agree the canon is closed. I am noncessationist on the topic of spiritual gifts. The modern giving of prophecy, however, is not equivalent to revelation of canonical importance unless it's mirroring something already said in the scriptures (like what I wrote about here), and in that case since it's already in the Bible, and so then one is not adding to canon in that case anyway. The Scriptures contain sufficient teaching for life, morals, and salvation. I am not the only person with a Reformed Theological stance who is a noncessationist when it comes to spiritual gifts. With me on that viewpoint of noncessationism would also be Vincent Cheung and Wayne Grudem.

The Nihilism Hypothesis

   The Nihilism Hypothesis is a hypothesis which I have generated from current societal observation. My hypothesis is that the epistemological failure of evidential apologists is resulting in philosophical nihilism on the parts of many people in society, perhaps on a grand scale. The essence of the problem is that who would subscribe to a worldview that they cannot know for sure to be true? I myself would not. Yet, I subscribe to a worldview that I know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not sure that evidential apologists can say that they know their worldview is true to the same capacity as that. I have had online discussions which seem to indicate that that may very well be the case of the matter.

   The way that philosophical nihilism is being expressed by the madding crowds is in the form of sayings and platitudes, like "no one cares," and "I don't care." That this point of view would result in people acting and talking like modern Philistines is not surprising. They don't have the right view of themselves and others, so cannot give an honest assessment of anything at all in the realm of knowledge. 

   I praise God that I can know for sure my worldview is true, and that I can know beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died on the cross, and resurrected. I know that "saving knowledge" can be held way beyond reasonable certainty.
   One could accuse me of arguing from subjectivity, but what do the Scriptures say? "that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 2 Colossians 2:2-3 NASB

Dismantling of Documentary Hypothesis in Favor of Mosaic Authorship of Deuteronomy (Supplemental Approach)

     The internal evidence for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is in fact, strong, so if you ask my real opinion, the main issue at hand in regards to the question of Mosaic authorship has more to do with faith than evidence or logic. Since the Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, the narrative histories as presented therein are genuine, priceless, and true, as are the various assertions. The original name in Hebrew for this book meant "These are the words..." taken from the first verse of it which says "These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness..." And that preface sentence introduces the whole book? I don't know how unbelievers and liberal theologians find their way around that except for the fact that their foolish hearts are darkened and the scholars have engaged in a strange level of skepticism, rationalism, and prideful conjecture that undermines what should be the primary aims of their field. Nonetheless the documentary hypothesis, one of the main fallback notions for those who reject Mosaic authorship, can be easily disproven and disregarded for the fact that it rests on and finds its impetus from a series of false premises.
     Generally, the documentary hypothesis was a theory to explain authorship of the pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). This approach to Scripture dates back to the Age of Reason. These "scholars" argued in favor of at least four different sources for the pentateuch. In this hypothesis, Deuteronomy itself is conjectured as a different "source" from the four other Mosaic books and they thought it was from hundreds of years after the death of Moses. They simply think it was written at the time of the reform of king Josiah in 2 Kings 22. I beg to differ. While the text of 2 Kings indicates that Josiah's staff found the lost and forgotten book of the Law (the Old Testament up to that point), there is no indication that Josiah or his people wrote, rewrote, or revised any of the Scriptures. While I am arguing for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in particular, I seek to dismantle this entire documentary hypothesis approach which deals with all five books of the pentateuch. If the hypothesis as a whole is undermined, the the approach to Deuteronomy that it provides is undermined as well, due to the fact that it depends on several essential premises and presuppositions to make it seem right. According to Oswald T. Allis, there were four main areas considered by these critics when supporting the documentary hypothesis: 1) the variations in the divine names in Genesis 2) the secondary variations in diction and style 3) the parallel or duplicate accounts 4) the continuity of the various sources (from Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949. p. 22.) My readers might also want to check out several respectable sources on the documentary hypothesis, such as:
 http://carm.org/documentary-hypothesis#footnote1_ce4nxrn  and  http://www.theopedia.com/jedp-theory
     Let me begin to discuss here several of the main problems with the documentary hypothesis.
1) HEBREW WRITING AT THE TIME OF MOSES
     Those in favor of the documentary hypothesis support it in part from the premise that they think there was no writing at the time of Moses (or let's face it- they're so lacking in faith that they may think Moses never lived even). There's abundant evidence from archaeology that written alphabets existed before the time of Moses indeed. Some examples are:
1- The Code of Hammurabi- from the period of 2000-1700 B.C.
2- a Ras Shamra tablet showing Ugartic alphabet is the same as modern Hebrew
3-water pitcher from city of Lachish from about 1600 B.C.
For the scholarship and references on these three artifacts, see this article on the same subject- https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36
2) VARYING NAMES OF GOD DOESN'T MEAN DIFFERENT WRITERS
    The use of different names for God in the Pentateuch does not lead to, of logical necessity, the conclusion that there must have been a group of different writers or sources. The proponents of the documentary hypothesis use the different names of God present in the writing as the main premise for finding the conclusion that there were different writers or documents. Moses easily could have known these different names of God. He, after all, visited with the Lord face to face as a man speaks with his friend (Exodus 33:11). The different Hebrew names of God used in Deuteronomy have a different meaning, emphasis and import as to God's attributes, but the explanation of this is best explained in the Jewish writings. The use of the different names does not of logical necessity indicate different writers or documents, when it could also be a literary tool to emphasize different attributes and qualities of God. What is more likely the case of the matter is that Moses knew the different names Elohim and Yahweh and used them expressively in the speeches and writing in the five books of the pentateuch. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html
3) APPEAL TO AGE (BACKWARDS) FALLACY
     Implied in the arguments of those who don't support Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in any capacity, whether it be the supplementary approach, the documentary hypothesis, or otherwise, is a logical fallacy of a backwards appeal to age. The fallacy of appeal to age is supposed to be, generally, assertions that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man, and thus conclusions that rely on this wisdom are seen as more true. One cannot say if previous generations had better wisdom, knowledge, or information or not until it is tested and proven logically. To say that they did or didn't as an unproven premise is vapid intellectually. I can visit my local hoe-down and give them a six-pence to receive that level of thinking and information. Proponents of the documentary hypothesis and other late authorship theories seem to rely on the basic idea that understanding of the things of God developed and accumulated slowly over time. Their approach to the names of God indicates this intellectual bias. While it is true the Scriptures exhibit a foundational principle of progressive revelation, the first five books of the Bible are rich and deep with the basics of theology. It is not understood all that Moses knew, because only the canonical writings seem to have survived (most other writings can be debunked, such as the Zohar which is considered pseudepigrapha and not trustworthy). The reasoning here is somewhat circular because I am depending on the historical narratives of Scripture for the fact that Moses lived. The question at hand is in regards to authorship, though. A lot of the respected scholarship takes for granted that Moses lived, but those scholars merely seek to answer in their research and writing whether the historical figure Moses wrote Deuteronomy. They're committing a similar mistake, though, by reasoning in a circle, pre-assuming Moses' existence (it's highly implied in their work, typically, I think).
     It is better to keep things simple and just say that Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy cannot be debunked from a backwards appeal to age. The book is well attested to in ancient manuscript documentation. It is part of one of the most excellent preserved histories of ancient Israel- which is the Old Testament.
     The idea that the book seems too ancient to have been preserved and transmitted across generations very well is similarly fallacious. One cannot assume that it was not preserved just because it is an ancient text. It does not follow of logical necessity that it is impossible that the original text has been preserved and transmitted accurately just because it is an ancient text purportedly from the time of Moses. One possibility is that the original text has been preserved perfectly, and that is the viewpoint I adhere to. [An understanding of cold hard propositional logic is necessary to understand what I'm saying here. I am not employing mathematical probability or historical understanding, just propositional logic].
4) THE RATIONALISM AND LIBERAL SCHOLARSHIP INVOLVED ARE THEMSELVES MERELY A PHILOSOPHY
     Generally, the documentary hypothesis is outdated pseudo-scholarship with deep philosophical biases from doubt, atheism, secularism, and unbelief. From such a starting point as that, there is no way for scholars to trust the authority of the Scriptures, as well as the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. To apply literary criticism and textual criticism to try to reconstruct the writing of the pentateuch would obviously result in an intellectual travesty and the scandalous of undermining of the faith of many. Simply taking a historian's approach to the document "Deuteronomy," I do not think there really is a problem with treating it as generally what it appears to be (by and large the words of Moses to his people).  See my previous blog post about extra-biblical evidence for the link to the "truthbomb apologetics" article on how historians examine ancient documents.  http://thereformerblog.blogspot.com/2016/03/extra-biblical-evidence-for-historical.html Even though this article is primarily about New Testament scholarship, the same problems exist in terms of a great need to bridge people's thinking across disciplines in order to see that there are perhaps other valid scholarly approaches to Scripture besides those approaches maintained by unbelieving scholars and believed by their deceived followers. The documentary hypothesis was supposed to be just that- a hypothesis, not a fully proven theory. The unbelieving atheistic philosophy of the original scholars shaded and darkened their approach to the Scriptures a great deal.Their approach, their intellectual tools, and their hypothesis is a worldly philosophy, and shouldn't be a considered a respected academic research. Since the hypothesis is old and kind of outmoded, it is fun for me to "pick on," but I don't think there will be many proponents of it who will be very concerned. There a variety of other theories and models that they rely on. I might touch upon a few of these others in a future blog post here.
5) PARALLEL/DUPLICATE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENT SOURCES
     The name Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is derived from the language of the Septuagint- an ancient version of the Old Testament in Greek (Latinized form of the LXX title). This is a misnomer, however, because the book is simply the words of Moses giving the same law again to a second generation- those who had not died in the plague in the wilderness on the journey to the promised land (Deuteronomy 4:3 and Numbers 25). Twenty-four thousand people died in the plague mentioned in Numbers 25. The words of Moses in Deuteronomy were originally intended for the remaining people-  the next generation, ostensibly, who found themselves old enough at that point to receive Moses's reiteration of God's law. The different and new audience could definitely explain the differences in style and voice from the previous books. Moses's love and care for them, that they receive and understand what God expected was outstanding and excellent. Since Moses was reiterating Israel's history and God's law, promises, and covenant to a people group whose membership had significantly changed (though a lot of them were there before, just young), we can expect a change in style and voice which is well-put and tailored to that group receiving and understanding. Add in to the equation the fact that by that point Moses had a greater amount of leadership experience compared to the time of the Exodus.
    The book of Deuteronomy details the giving of the law again to a next generation of Israelites who had survived the plague. It is repetitive with previous material for that reason. To miss that point in scholarly endeavors is really asinine. When scholars postulate such theories as the documentary hypothesis, what they actually seem to cover over and hide is God's love, care, and concern, and Moses's care and concern for his people in making sure they understood God's law and what would be expected when they finally took the promised land.
    If repetitive passages at the micro-level are the concern, it is known that Deuteronomy contains chiastic structures which are simply a literary device. There is no evidence to say that Moses couldn't have known how to use chiasms by the end of his life. There is evidence to say he did in fact know about them, because chiasms are used in the book of Genesis even.
     I support the viewpoint that Deuteronomy is largely the work of Moses himself, but there could easily have been a redactor or secretary involved in penning the autograph. I tend to think that second person was a contemporary of Moses's. The intro in 1:1-5 and the account of Moses's death could easily have been written by such a person.This viewpoint fits into what scholars call a "supplementary" approach or hypothesis, and would actually be very acceptable academically, I think.

Known "Socialist" Sanders Commits Economic Fallacy in Speech...

     Recently, known "socialist" Bernie Sanders, as part of his 2016 presidential election campaign, stopped in San Pedro, CA to give a speech and committed a well-known economic fallacy called ...ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Known "Socialist" Sanders Commits Economic Fallacy...:  

Christianity was not invented at the Council of Nicea

     Despite the fact that we are in the age of information, there are still people who think that Christianity was invented at the Council of Nicea.  (?)   No, Christianity was not invented at the Council of Nicea. I found this great and informative video created by the director of the Ratio Christi Club at Cal State Fullerton outlining church history in regards to what is called the first council of Nicea. I am sorry that all this will be a news flash for some people.
https://youtu.be/JHi3RbtF7Zk?list=UUUNOVDpnXxNYqEO8sjvqU1A

Proof we're on the leading edge

    This is just proof that The Reformer is on the leading edge. I've released several physical copies of the first print issue on the "downlow" and look what gets written in The Week magazine three days later! It's talking about reforming the jail system which is what I (the editor-in-chief) wrote about in the print edition of The Reformer.
http://theweek.com/articles/618960/how-26yearold-white-woman-died-horrible-death-american-jail
    It just goes to show you that we at The Reformer are on the leading edge.

Say What You Will About Liberation Theology....

    Say what you will about Liberation Theology people- at least they have an ethical basis for wanting to be treated right as people! The person in this video (with the youtube/hangouts username "psycho") is an atheist. Where is his ethical basis for fair treatment if the Bible is casually and calmly disregarded?

   The Christian in the video is James (all4Hisgloryalone) from our third street apologetics ministries. I enjoyed the video.
    In the May issue of The Reformer Magazine I address the issue of how/could/would/should the Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" be applied to current criminal justice systems such as that of the United States of America at the state and local levels. (notwithstanding the rich historical implications as our current system has some Biblical derivation.) See http://reformermagazine.webs.com/issues
Links about liberation theology-
http://www.theopedia.com/liberation-theology
http://www.britannica.com/topic/liberation-theology
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/liberation_theology.aspx
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

Argument from Moral Conscience- Islam

     In regards to my last post, some may wonder why I'm presenting information which proves that there's no way around a literal interpretation of the Qur'an if I don't want Muslims committing horrific acts of violence. Let me reassure people that the tension is not within my own worldview, but that of the followers of Islam. Everyone meets on the common ground which is God's created world with God-given conscience, and that is one of the main points of contact Christians have with the unbelieving world. Our Bible explains creation, conscience, and morals, and is consistent on all points, including God's commands. If one follows the teachings of the Qur'an and adopts Islam as his or her worldview, then one will be subscribing to a worldview in conflict with what one knows in one's conscience to be acceptable moral behavior. There will be no way to ever resolve that internal tension in one's thought system for as long as one is professing Islam as one's worldview. It looks like the writer of the article I was commenting on, Nabeel Qureshi, got bend out of shape for a long time during his life in trying to resolve that internal tension, and then finally abandoned Islam for Christianity. You cannot ask me, Mr. Black, to help others resolve it any other way. There is no other way out of it- the foundational doctrines of Islam were set down long ago even. Furthermore, the teachings of Islam are not the truth of the matter. People are being sold a bill of goods which is actually a pack of lies. This pack of lies says, among other things, that all paths lead to God and all paths lead to heaven. Not true. (and that type of universalism and relativism is not supposed to be a teaching in Islam at all! They just tend to talk that way!)
   If there is some kind of difficulty here, it is the various dilemmas involved in how to get the necessary truths out to people when those truths are going to have a reprehensible quality to them due to the fact they've already bought into a pack of lies. I would agree that not all truths are worth speaking. Some truths are worth speaking, though. The flawed doctrines of Islam have to be exposed for what they are so that people can see properly what they've been asked to believe in, follow, endorse, etc. Morality is on my side in these arguments, as Islam, when properly examined and exposed, will be shown to endorse, condone, sanctify and justify immoral and unconscionable behavior.  Conscience does not allow for the type of senseless and needless violence supposedly commanded by "Allah" in the Qur'an.

Quran Interpretation and the Attack in Brussels

   I was not surprised to hear that the attacks in Brussels were conducted by Muslims. This is an interesting article from USA Today-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/
  Now Mr. Qureshi (writer of article), what about the doctrine of abrogation in Islam, based on Surah 2:106 which says, "None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Y. Ali) .  Aren't the more peaceful verses of the Qur'an which conflict with the more violent verses supposed to be abrogated by the more violent verses which conflict with them? There is no way around proper interpretation of the Qur'an as "literal" in regards to the violent verses. (but obviously I'm not agreeing people should follow the violent verses, either. They should receive Jesus in their heart and follow Him as God, Lord, Christ). A realize that Mr. Qureshi is on the same side as me in this, and that his testimony could help take Muslims by the hand and lead them to the Lord.
   Here's a good resource on abrogation in the Qur'an: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/the-islamic-doctrine-of-abrogation   And another one-  http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)
   Trust me, I understand muslims tend to follow the leaders of their mosques and always refer me to them for answers, because they count on their imams for interpretation (or how to deceive unbelievers as to how they're interpreting). I'll be heading over to a mosque one of these days to just ask a few questions.

A Vision of Hell

     A lot of people that know me wonder why I act as I do and place emphasis on things in life such as my blogs, and why I prioritize the way I do. To tell you the truth several years ago I was shown a vision of hell, by the hand of God I'm sure. I did not have a near death experience and go to hell. I did not experience hell in a dream world. I was simply shown an extensive vision of hell in my mind's visual field. I have seen such a vision on two different occasions. All this is quite aside from the details of my preparation to run this blog.
     It is not really necessary to share the full extent of my vision here- the vision falls into the category of "spiritual experiences." The vision didn't contradict the scripture's teachings on hell. There were simply a lot of small details in the vision that the Bible is silent on. When I tried to tell others, the details of the vision caused disputes. Therefore, it would only cause division and arguments to describe everything I saw in the vision in this post. The bible tells me to avoid endless and needless arguing. But not only would I be speaking in some respects where the Scriptures are silent, also my investigation subsequent to the vision took me into some territory and terrain where it is hard to say for sure if I am right. I was even, at the time, looking into Bob Morey's book Death and the Afterlife, and was able to confirm several more things from the vision from that book.
     Jesus taught extensively about hell, as the Bible inerrantly records. What we know from Jesus's teachings in the scriptures is that:
1) you can't leave hell if assigned there (Luke 16:19-31)
2) God gave humanity sufficient warning as to how to avoid hell (Luke 16:27-30)
3) it's a fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42)
4) there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42)
5) it's a place of outer darkness (Matthew 8:12)
6) it is punishment for eternity (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11)
7) it's a place of torment (Luke 16:23)
8) worms don't die there (Mark 9:43-48)
9) it is comparable to a fiery garbage pit called "gehenna" (Matthew 5:29 for example)
10) there are differing levels of punishment in hell (Matthew 11:20-22)

     This is just a short list of information about hell from Jesus's teachings. I can tell you from examining the biblical evidence that the vision I saw probably really actually is what the different levels of hell look like (different levels of punishment). Jesus taught with a high level of class and dignity (with perfection actually), when he talks about hell- his language is loaded with enough information to warn us that hell is a bad place we would not want to go to. However, he does not over-indulge in all the finer details of the various types of torment people will undergo here. It is simply a smattering of the right type of detail- with precise language. I just say this because the vision I saw was very much an atrocity [that is not to say God is unjust. I can't find a better word that encapsulates all of it from a human point of view], and gave me the feel that hell is a place that no one in their right mind would want to go to. Have faith in Jesus to save you from that destination.
     To bring the discussion back around to where I began, I've seen what hell looks like. The experience has influenced me and contributed to the way I order my life.

Future of The Reformer

      My long term plan for this blog is to transition to a print magazine with a staff of writers, and continue this blog as a place where I publish my "inklings," opinions, and short articles. The print magazine will be a Christian worldview publication covering a wide variety of topics. I will have to keep it newsletter-length at first to keep it affordable for people, and while we're pulling together advertisers. The original vision of The Reformer was to have a Christian print magazine at the level of class and quality of writing of Harper's or The New Yorker. It will not happen overnight, but steps can be taken in that direction.
  I will obviously keep the audience of this blog apprised of news in regards to progress on the print magazine. Suffice to say, this blog will continue.

A Hard Question for Muslims

  In reference to the video- A Muslim Tries My Question from TheReformedapologist youtube, this blog's writer.
     A lot of hard questions for Muslims will have to do with scriptural preservation and Qur'an preservation. The main question I asked the muslim in this video was, "Why (in his belief system) did God (Allah) preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?" There are internal contradictions in the beliefs of muslims concerning this point, and it is made more complicated by the fact that the Qur'an may or may not imply that we should find that the New Testament was corrupted. According to this person, the Qur'an never claims the injil (gospel or New Testament) is corrupted - Qur'an Contradiction...  A different muslim was telling me in comment boxes on youtube that the Qur'an implies corruption of the New Testament text in what appeared to be Quran 5:72-73. Either way, those who believe in the Qur'an will have trouble answering the question. If they accept that the New Testament was never corrupted, then how are they then going to resolve the obvious contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an? If they believe the New Testament was corrupted, then how will they deal with the internal contradictions in the Qur'an, because of the various verses dealing with the injil (gospel) and how Allah preserved the "message sent down." And if that verse (Qur'an 15:9) only means the Qur'an was preserved, then why did Allah, (being sovereign over the possible preservation of texts in their point of view), preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible (in Muslims' points of view)?
   Not to mention the fact that the Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (Qur'an 6:115, 18:27, 10:64). See also the Sam Samoun article on this.  This would seem to be in contradiction with the beliefs of most Muslims that that New Testament was changed, because the Qur'an teaches that the injil (gospel) is from Allah.
    I don't think it can be said, either, that the Qur'an depicts that there was a separate different "injil" given to Jesus from what the Christians had at the time, and that this "injil" just got lost, not corrupted. If that was the case (that the original injil was just lost) then why didn't God preserve this, but preserved the Qur'an? If it was the same as the Qur'an, why is it called "injil," a different name and talked about in such terms as Qur'an 3:3, as if there's an old and new testament, a law and a gospel? No, it is talking about the Bible. Qur'an 3:3 and other verses (13:38, 53:36-37, 87:19, 4:163, 17:55, 21:105) seem to say that the law and the gospel were a separate previous revelation from the Qur'an. Sam Shamoun also wrote an article about the Qur'an confirmation of the Bible   There is very much evidence to say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible as we know it now as God's word.
     I've written down the serious of questions I asked in the above video and the way muslims should be answering below, because it sets up the final question well about scriptural preservation.

1. Does the Qur'an speak of the Bible?
Muslim:  Yes       (see http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm) (note- though Qur'an 29:46 and others are supposed to be "abrogated" verses.)

2. Does it speak of the Gospel?
Muslim: Yes.  (Qur'an 5:46, 19:30, 3:3)

3. Did God give the gospel in the Bible to Christians?
Muslim: Yes  (Qur'an 5:47, 5:68, 6:114, 48:29

4. Did God give the Qur'an?
Muslim: Yes  (Qur'an 44:1-3, 97:1, 2:185, 17:106)

5. Is Allah sovereign over the preservation of the Quran?
Muslim: Yes  (Qur'an 15:9)  The Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (6:115, 18:27).

6. Why did Allah preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?
   ?

  The discussion went into the nature of God, because at the time I knew that the Qur'an says that "Allah is the greatest of the deceivers" (Qur'an 3:54, cf. 8:30)  (see also Sam Shamoun's article on this.) which means that the very nature of the Allah of the Qur'an is different than the nature of the God of the Bible.
   The above questions bring to light a set of contradictions in documents and beliefs which are a very big mess, but the mess is in Islam. Also, all of this is just the beginning of the discussion. I published a followup video after the first video "A Muslim Tries my Question" on TheReformedapologist, linked here: Question for Muslims, part 2  In this video I followed all the thinking through to its logical consequences.