Posted by John L. Rothra on August 28, 2007 under General | 
I noticed a story about various newspapers refusing to print a recent “Opus” comic strip because it poked fun at radical Islam.
See the controversial comic here.
According to the FoxNews.com story, this same comic strip series poked fun at the late Jerry Falwell “without incident one week ago.” Allow me to simplify this: newspapers ran an Opus cartoon making fun of a Christian leader but refused to run one making fun of radical Islam. The logic: Christians are fair game, but Muslims are sacred.
This does not surprise me. It’s not uncommon for the secular world to mock Christians. Remember the controversial painting depicting Jesus in a jar of urine or the picture of Mary, mother of Jesus, covered in elephant feces? Christians cried out against these so-called peices of artwork and rightly so. Much of the world came to the defense of the artists claiming their freedom of expression.
As an American I cherish the constitutional right of artists to speak out using their art form. As a Christian I deplore the images of Christian figures, especially Jesus the Messiah, smothered in bodily waste products. So, how do I balance them? Simple. The artist has the right to express his or her views using their art form, but that does not mean that the piece respects others or makes its point in a decent manner. Further, those artists have the right to make those deplorable, disgusting pieces of so-called art, but that doesn’t mean the museums must display them.
What does this have to do with the cartoon and media hypocrisy? I believe the cartoonist had the right to make that cartoon. Furthermore, newspapers have the right to publish or not publish the cartoon. My difficulty is not with the refusal to publish the cartoon, but with the blatant hypocrisy and double standard in deciding what to publish and what not to publish.
The logic of the newspapers is this: it is permissible to mock Christians and their faith, but it is forbidden to mock Muslims and their faith. As I said, they believe Christianity is fair game, but Islam is sacred. If they claim not to believe this, then why do they practice it?
To say one religious group can be mocked and another cannot is to hold to a double standard. At this point, I can hear the shouts of those who may disagree with me.
- It’s about respecting the Muslim faith, not unfair treatment. However, if refusing to run cartoons mocking Islam shows respect, doesn’t it show disrespect to run cartoons mocking Christianity?
- We’re just practicing political correctness. However, is it politically correct to respect one faith and disrespect another?
- You’re just offended because you’re a Christian. However, does that make it right to offend Christians while ensuring no Muslim is offended?
- This isn’t about faith, it’s about decency. However, is it decent to ridicule one religion while mocking another?
When it comes to mocking Christianity, whether other faiths are mocked or not, it is not surprising that the secular world would oppose or even hate Christians. Jesus said:
Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. (John 15:20-21, NASB)
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God. (John 3:19-21, NASB)
When Christianity is mocked by the world, we should have three responses:
- Remember the word of Christ.
- Pray for those people to come to know Christ as their Lord and Savior.
- Share the gospel with the world with more boldness.
Posted by John L. Rothra on August 22, 2007 under General |
The Texas Rangers set a record today by coming back from a 0-3 deficit to win 30-3. Yes, folks, that’s a baseball score. You can read about it on ESPN and the Texas Rangers website.
The team that is in last place in the American League scored 30 runs. Not 30 hits, not 30 at bats… 30 runs! They are the first team in 110 years to do this and they now hold an American League record.
Some friends of mine from seminary liked to debate me over Texas reputation. I argued that Texas is the greatest state in the nation and they disagreed. It was a fun debate. Well, at least for one game, Texas is the best! Of course, I say this in jest.
However, this feat makes me ask one simple question: why haven’t they done this all year?
Apparently they are capable of big games. Nevermind the team they played because if they can score 30 runs against Baltimore, they should have had the ability to score enough runs to win more games. So, I ask the Rangers, why have you been holding back?
This is why we love sports.
Posted by John L. Rothra on August 17, 2007 under Eschatology |
In part two, eschatology was defined as including both personal and general eschatology. Scripture teaches about both, though general often receives the greatest emphasis in the popular study of eschatology. However, if one seeks to gain a full appreciation of eschatology, one cannot forsake personal for general nor vice versa. Instead, one must understand both aspects.
General Eschatology
General eschatology deals with future events that will happen to the entire universe, including the millennium, rapture, and tribulation (see eschatological terms in part two).
There is debate regarding the specific timeline and activities in general eschatology. Debates include the literalness of the rapture, its placement in the tribulation, the length of the tribulation, the events during the tribulation, and the literalness of the millennium. Each of these will be discussed in their specific sections.
Personal Eschatology
Personal eschatology deals with future events that happen to individuals. This includes what happens to the saved and the lost both after death on this earth and at the coming judgment (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1; 1 Pet 4:5). Ultimately, the saved person spends eternity with Christ and the unsaved person spends eternity in hell (John 14:1-3; 2 Cor 5:6-8; Rev 20:15; 21:8). It is God’s desire that you be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4; Learn what God did for you and why).
Sanctification. This a theological term meaning to be “made to correspond to [God’s] holiness.”1 Wayne Grudem offers a less technical definition, describing it as “a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives.”2 Other theologians offer similar definitions, some more technical and some less technical. However, they agree that it is a lifelong process in which believers are made more like Christ.
The process of sanctification is a lifelong process during which believers are made less bound by sin and more holy. Our lives go through a long cleansing and purification process. This is not a passive process but is a very active one. As believers, we are to strive to be more like Christ and resist sin and temptation. However, it is not by our mere actions that we become more like Christ; God makes the change. God works through us and our obedience.
Sanctification has a role in eschatology. Once we enter the presence of Christ, whether it is after the final judgment or after our death, believers are made completely sanctified. This process, however, begins with salvation in Christ. Unsaved individuals are not sanctified.
Glorification. This is another theological term used to reference what happens to believers when Jesus returns. At the Second Coming, Jesus will raise all the bodies of the believers and reunite the body with the soul. The bodies of all believers will be transformed to be resurrection bodies similar to that of Christ. It is not known how similar they will be. This is the final step of redemption of the saints.
Some may be asking questions such as how God will resurrect those who were cremated, severely decayed, or whose bodies were devoured by animals. To this, I offer only one simple response. God created everything ex nihilo, out of nothing (Gen 1:1). Furthermore, God created man from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7). If God can create the entire universe out of nothing and can form man from dust particles, then he can unite the body that has been devoured or cremated.
Hell. Many scholars debate the existence of hell. Those who believe hell to be a real place debate the substance of hell. Arguments are presented by many from around the world for their particular understanding of hell. However, the view most widely held understanding of hell is that it contains a never-ending fire that burns without consuming and that those in hell suffer in complete anguish.
Hell is a real place rather than a figurative term. Scripture describes this place in various ways, including the following:
- Outer darkness (Matt 25:30)
- Fire language: Eternal fire (Matt 25:41); unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43, 48); flame that causes anguish (Luke 16:24); place of fire/fiery (Matt 5:22; 18:9; James 3:6); fire and brimstone (Rev 14:10; 19:20); lake of fire (Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14-15)
- Eternal punishment (Matt 25:46)
- Place where worm does not die (Mark 9:48)
- Place where people weep and gnash their teeth (Matt 25:30)
- Place of torment (Luke 16:28); everlasting torment (Rev 14:11)
- Reserved for Satan and his angels (Matt 25:41)
- Place where the unsaved are sent (Rev 20:15)
Based on these texts, I am convinced that hell is a real place where Satan, his angels, and the unsaved suffer torment and punishment forever in a fire that neither destroys nor ends. Personal eschatology for the unbeliever is eternity in hell.
Some may dispute the lack of destruction based on Matt 10:28, which states, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (NASB). This passage talks about destruction of the body and soul occurring in hell. However, those who read this passage this way overlook some important details.
The Greek word translated here as “hell” is geenna (gehenna). This word refers to Topheth, a ravine south of Jerusalem called the “valley of the sons of Hinnom” (2 Kings 23:10). Jewish belief in Jesus’ day was that this is the location of where God would institute his final judgment. Furthermore, this valley served as a picture of condemnation because child sacrifices took place there (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). Some preachers refer to a trash pit that contained a fire that never ended due to the constant addition of more garbage. However, this teaching is not well documented in Scripture. In short, Gehenna (hell) is a place of torment, condemnation, and fire.
Another thing to notice is Matthew’s use of the word dunamai (to be able, to have power). This term serves as a qualifier. Jesus is not saying that the body and soul will be destroyed. Instead, he is saying that God is capable of destroying the body and soul in hell. A holistic reading of Scripture (taking all the various texts that teach about hell) offers a clearer picture. Those cast into hell will suffer eternal punishment.
The wonderful news is that God does not desire that you suffer in hell. All who have sinned are guilty and, therefore, face judgment and hell for their sin. However, God sent his son, Jesus, to take the punishment for you. Jesus died on the cross, taking the wrath of God upon himself, so all who believe in him will be saved. Salvation is offered to you freely because Jesus paid the price already! Will you accept God’s free gift of grace and love?
To summarize, eschatology includes both personal and general eschatology. Personal eschatology deals with what happens to individuals; general eschatology deals with what happens to the whole universe.
Previous Articles in Series
1 Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, J. I. Packer, eds.,
New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), s.v. “Sanctification,” by K. Bockmuehl.
2 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 746.
Posted by John L. Rothra on August 15, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching |
As a Baptist minister and seminary student, I have heard the myriad of arguments against the “health and wealth” preachers, also called the “Word of Faith” or “prosperity” preachers. Religious television brings such sermons to millions, if not billions, across the globe. The prosperity preachers tell their audience that God wants to make you rich and wealthy. Often they ask you to plant a “seed,” namely money, in their ministry or the ministry they are promoting. In return, they say God will bless you with the prosperity. Some have gone so far as to say that you must claim that seed for something, such as physical healing or financial increase, and God will give you what you declare.
Baptists often oppose such preaching as unscriptural, untruthful, and dishonest. Some critics I have heard went so far as to call it heretical. While I reject the lengths to which such preaching often goes, I must admit that they have recognized something many Baptists forget. Jesus did promise blessings on this earth to the faithful.
Luke 18:29-30 states:
And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life” (NASB).
Notice the phrase “at this time and in the age to come” in Jesus’ statement? In Greek this phrase reads this way: en tō kairō toutō kai en tō aiōni tō ercomenō. This section includes two periods:
- this time (tō kairō toutō)
- age to come (tō aiōni tō ercomenō)
These two periods are divided by the conjunction kai (“and”). This single word both unites the periods and distinguishes them. It unites them in that both periods will experience the reception of “many times as much” (pollaplasiona) as what was sacrificed (house, wife, brothers, parents, children) to serve God. It distinguishes them as two different periods in that the blessing will occur in the present and the future.
Now that we see that Jesus is promising blessings in both the present age and the future age, the question left regards the type of blessing. There are two places to look to help us understand the specifics of the blessings. First, Jesus said that we will receive “many times as much” (pollaplasiona) of what was sacrificed. The things sacrificed are home and family. The second is the phrase “eternal life” (zōēn aiōnion). Jesus is saying that those who sacrifice in order to faithfully serve God will receive eternal life.
Some preachers may say that this means Jesus is promising earthly gain and salvation to those who work hard, creating a Scriptural dilemma. Such a reading, when Scripture is taken as a whole, cannot be sustained. First, salvation is not a reward for doing good deeds but is a free gift of grace (Rom 5:1; 6:23; Eph 2:4-9). Second, Jesus promised persecution to his followers, not riches (Matt 10:22; 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:16-17). Further, one can look at the apostles who were tortured, beaten, imprisoned, and eventually killed (John was the only one not martyred) for their faith and service (Acts 12:1-3; 2 Cor 11:23-27). One would hardly say that Jesus must have failed to uphold his promise of earthly wealth and health to these faithful followers. Therefore, one cannot rightly understand Jesus’ statement as promising earthly gain.
For brevity’s sake, I shall quote Thomas Constable (Department Chair and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary), who succinctly defined the blessings that Jesus promises to those who sacrifice to serve him.
Everyone who denies himself or herself the normal comforts and contacts of life to advance God’s mission will receive a greater reward from God for doing so. First, that one will receive deeper spiritual comfort and more satisfying human contacts in the present life (cf. Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37). Second, he or she will receive an even better and enduring life in the coming kingdom.
The conclusion that this passage teaches seems clear: those who sacrifice to serve God will be blessed in the present and in the future. Those blessings include more meaningful interpersonal relationships and greater life in the future kingdom.
To those preachers and teachers who say that to expect blessings on this earth for serving God I say this: consider Jesus’ own words. He promised blessings on this earth, not just in heaven. To reject blessings in the present is to reject the promise Jesus made to his followers. He did not promise to make us rich and free of all sickness. However, he did promise to bless us in this present life.
Posted by John L. Rothra on August 8, 2007 under Science and Bible |
A recent article on FoxNews.com reports some recent findings that put a large kink in evolutionary theory.
Now, there may be some readers that think my statement of going back go the drawing board is too harsh. However, I’m not the only one who states this. Meave Leakey’s team who made this discovery made this statement. I quote:
Leakey’s team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus.
Now, why is it necessary for evolutionary theory to go back to the drawing board? Allow me summarize the article and mention some highlights. Also, I encourage you to read the article yourself.
To summarize, two human skulls were found in Africa that scientists conclude lived at the same time. The problem: one is supposed to be the ancestor of the other. The conclusion: evolution was not as linear, clean, and clear as once thought.
The article states (emphasis added):
The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.
The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.
But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s journal Nature.
Researches conclude that this discovery “makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis.”
As a result, the famous picture of evolution showing humans going in a straight line from monkey to man is not valid.
Of course, this is not the first time evolutionary theory was forced to return to the drawing board. Evolutionary researcher Bill Kimbel, science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, said “that old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple” (emphasis added). He continued by saying that “the more we know, the more complex the story gets.”
Kimbel didn’t stop there, either. The story reports this:
Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Despite the constant need to rethink evolution, reshape it, reanalyze it, redraw it, evolutionary scientists continue to hold fast to something that seems to find new ways to fail. And it is not just me who says it has failed. Even evolutionary scientists, as I’ve noted, have claimed the need to change everything.
Why must things change so often? Because after claiming to discover the truth, new discoveries force science to change. The problem is not with the discoveries, however. The problem is with the interpretation of the discoveries. Nevertheless, scientists remain adamant that evolution is true, despite its constant revisions since Darwin first published his “what if” book. According to the article, because scientists believe evolution is true, Fred Spoor, professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London, said that “they [H. erectus and H. habilis] have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record” (emphasis added).
Now, allow me to provide a simple lesson on the scientific method. According to Wikipedia, it is a process of “gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” Put simply, people gather measurable, observable, empirical evidence and test it to see if a hypothesis is true. If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be considered proven true. If it is not measurable, observable, and empirical, then the hypothesis cannot be considered proven true.
Now, apply this to evolution’s idea of man’s history.
Spoor says that evolution is true, but that there is some missing, undiscovered evidence that exists. In other words, we know it’s true, but we don’t have all the evidence. Now, is an unknown, undiscovered skeleton or skeleton part testable? Is it measurable? Is it observable? So far, the answer is no. We cannot test the unknown. Therefore, because the history of man according to evolution depends, in part, on unknown evidence that does not meet the scientific method, one must say evolution’s theory of man’s origins is not proven true. It is only a hypothesis.
Many scientists reject the existence of God. Why? Because God cannot be observed, tested, measured, etc. Yet, many of these same scientists hold that man came from monkeys, despite the fact that they admit to a missing piece of evidence. They place their theory, in part, on evidence that cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be observed. If God does not exists because he cannot be observed and tested, then man did not come from apes because that missing link cannot be tested and observed. Without that link being tested and observed, evolution remains a hypothesis and, at most, a theory. Not a law.
Now, I’m sure there are some who are saying that I’m holding to a double standard because I accept a God that cannot be observed and tested. However, I never claimed that God falls under the realm of science. I accept God’s real existence out of faith. I do not claim he is scientifically proven. I believe there is some evidence in nature that points to him. Just like evolutionists hold to some evidence that points to their idea. However, I’m willing to say I walk in faith… will scientists make the same claim?
In conclusion, this discovery does not completely disprove evolution. It does, however, force it to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate its ideas and theories. While science keeps trying to determine where we came from, I’m interested in where I’m going. Will I go to heaven or hell? I firmly believe I’ll go to heaven, not because of what I’ve done, but because of what God has done.
Some say heaven and hell are not real, but that when we die, we just cease to exists. If you are one who holds this belief, let me ask you a simple question. What if you’re wrong? If I’m wrong and you are right, then I have lost nothing. If you are wrong and I am right, then I gain everything and you face judgment.
God loves you and wants you to be in heaven with him. However, because we all have sinned, we are guilty before God. However, because of his love, God sent his own son to take your punishment for you. By placing your faith in Jesus alone for salvation, you can be saved. God loves you… will you accept his love?
