Sunday, March 10, 2013

Discipleship Series, Salvation Pt 1: 5 Worldviews of Salvation


FIVE VIEWS OF SALVATION

1.     Pluralism: Many are the roads to the One
a.     Many roads lead to God.
b.     No religion can claim to be the exclusive way or a superior way to God.
c.     This view has strong appeal due to the emphasis upon the cardinal cultural virtues of acceptance, tolerance, and non-judgmental.

                                               i.     Five Arguments for this view:
1.     Exclusive way to promote tolerance in an oppressive world.
2.      What others adhere to in their worldview is livable for them.
3.     Historically, world religions develop geographically. Thus, “How can Christianity claim to be the ‘best’ or ‘only’ way?
4.     Exclusive religions, such as Christianity, fail to produce ethically superior adherents.
5.     Popular pluralism views assume that all religions teach the same basic truth.

                                             ii.     Problem:
1.     They necessitate the abandonment of distinctive truths claims regarding the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the atonement, and the resurrection. They do not, however, single out Buddhism, which rejects some of the literature of Hinduism.
2.     They avoid the issue of truth. World religions give contradictory solutions to basic questions. Therefore, it is incorrect that all religions teach the same basic truth. (ex:
a.     God is personal (Christianity; Judaism) vs. God is impersonal (Vedantic Hinduism)
b.     There is one God (Christianity; Judaism; Islam) vs. Many gods (Shintoism; Mormonism) vs. No God (Theravadic Buddhism) 
c.     Humans are guilty of rebellion against a holy God (Christianity) vs. Humanity’s problem is ignorance (Hinduism) vs. suffering (Buddhism)
d.     Salvation is the transformation of the individuals (Christianity) vs. Salvation released from the cycle of rebirths (Hinduism; Buddhism)
3.     Adhering to the god Moloch. One is to sacrifice children.
4.     A proper method of evaluation of the ethical system should occur rather than the individual believer (ex:
a.     Buddhism claims to be a compassionate religion, yet says an individual may suffer because of bad karma in their past life.

2.     Universalism: All things reconciled to God
a.     All human beings are reconciled to God.
b.     No person will be eternally punished or separated from God.
c.     They do not base their position on Scripture but appeal to ethical and theological principles for support—namely, the injustice of an eternal hell and the eternal love of God.

                                               i.     Problem: This view takes away the freedom of man. God denies human freedom.

3.     Inclusivism: Salvation by general revelation
a.     Agrees that Jesus is the only Savior but believes in the possibility that some people can receive salvation without an explicit knowledge of Jesus.
b.     “God’s forgiveness and acceptance of humanity have been made possible by his death, but the benefits of this sacrifice are not confined to those who respond to it with an explicit act of faith.”
c.     Insist that devout believers of other religions will be saved, but only on the basis of Christ’s atoning work.

                                               i.     Problem
1.     Scripture indicates one must believe in Christ in order to be saved: “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31).
2.     Scripture also indicates one must repent of their sin to be saved: “And saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel’” (Mark 1:15).


4.     Postmodern Opportunity: Getting it right the second time
a.     People receive an after-death opportunity to develop faith in Christ.
b.     An individual who has heard the gospel message in this present age, this postmodern occasion functions as a second chance for salvation.
c.     An individual who never heard the gospel message in this present age, this postmodern opportunity functions as the first chance for salvation.
d.     One advocate of this view says that hell is as a hospital for sick souls who can receive a cure if one receives the medicine.

5.     Restrictivist: Salvation in the name of Jesus only
a.     Jesus is the Savior of only those who have explicit faith in Him.
b.     Another name for this view is exclusivism
c.     Throughout the New Testament, faith is stated as a prerequisite for salvation.
d.     Romans 10:13 says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.”


Thursday, December 27, 2012

The Queen James Bible (The Gay Bible)



Today, the homosexual community is crying out for acceptance in our society. The community accuses the Body of Christ, in particular, of practicing bigotry, stating that Jesus Christ loves all people and does not frown upon nor condemn another for seeking to have relations with the same sex. In order to show their case as factual, they leave out the passages that condemn homosexuality, and say such things as, “Jesus loves.” However, that was just the beginning of the twisting of the sacred Scripture.

Recently, there was an altered version of the 1769 King James that was released. This altered version, the Queen James Bible (Gay Bible), has changed eight verses (Gen. 19:5; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26; 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7). Of course, the text that was altered, removed, or replaced is done so to take out any form of homosexuality found within the passages of Scripture. The editors of the Queen James Bible say the following in regards to the alterations:
Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there. 
The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing countless translations and the evolution of language itself) means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive ambiguity.” In editing The Queen James Bible we were faced with the decision to modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it.[1] 
Matt Slick, from CARM.org, states the following about the Queen James Bible:

I'm glad they acknowledge that most translations condemn homosexuality.  But, the anonymous editors of the QJV changed the translations, reinterpreted them, and made them say the opposite of what the original languages state. It says on page one of the QJV:  "The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation."  Edit they did; translate they did not.[2]

The words of Mr. Slick, “Edit they did; translated they did not,” ring true. There was no proper translation of the biblical languages from the editors of this altered text, but simply an alteration to fit their depraved desires. The editor’s assertion of seeking to return to the “clean” source is nothing more than a lie, seeking to cause both those within the Body of Christ and the unbeliever to believe that the manuscripts actually did not condemn homosexuality.

The following are some facts about both the Old and the New Testament manuscripts.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

Up until 1947, the oldest manuscripts we had of the Old Testament text dated to A.D. 900. However, in 1947, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, which date back 1,000 years earlier than those manuscripts to 150 B.C., were discovered. The discovery of this text in Qumran demonstrates the accuracy of the text the Church had used throughout its history. What is astonishing is that the variation between the two texts was a mere five percent, and this variation does not compromise any sort of doctrine taught from the Old Testament text. They are simply variations in spelling. These manuscripts are dated 1,000 years apart, and there are no major alterations. 

 THE NEW TESTAMENT
 
The number of manuscripts for the New Testament is more than 24,000, both partial and complete. Moreover, there are 86,000 quotations of the New Testament text found within the Early Church Father’s writings and in thousands of lectionaries. Within the 24,000 manuscripts, there are over 150,000 variants. That seems to be a huge number! However, most of these variations, 99% to be exact, are of no significance. These variants include misspellings or the order of words being reversed. Of the remaining 1% (50 variants), doctrine and any moral commandment remain unaffected.[3]

Comparison of the New Testament text to other ancient text[4]:

Ancient Author
Date Written
Earliest Copy
Number of Copies
Accuracy of Copies
Caesar
1st cent. B.C.
A.D. 900
10
- -
Livy
1st cent. B.C.
- -
20
- -
Tacitus
c. A.D. 100
A.D. 1100
20
- -
Thucydides
5th cent. B.C.
A.D. 900
8
- -
Herodotus
5th cent. B.C.
A.D. 900
8
- -
Demosthenes
4th cent. B.C.
A.D. 1100
200
- -
Mahabharata
- -
- -
- -
90%
Homer
9th cent. B.C.
- -
643
95%
New Testament
1st cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100)
2nd cent. A.D. (c. A.D. 130)
5,000
99+%


As shown in the above chart, the New Testament text is superior to other ancient texts. Compared to other ancient texts, the New Testament is the most reliable with its accuracy and multitude of manuscripts.

If the biblical manuscripts were altered and in need of being corrected, as the editors of the Queen James Bible say, then they must disprove the absolute accuracy of the text that is listed above. Because God is not the author of confusion but the author of the Scriptures, we can rely on modern translations, such as the King James Bible, and see that the Queen James Bible is nothing more than a perversion of God’s truth.

For a greater understanding of the Queen James Bible and its fallacies, please read Matt Slick’s article found on the CARM website: http://carm.org/queen-james-bible.






[1] “Editor's Notes,” The Queen James Bible, http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/ (accessed December 27, 2012).

[2] “The Queen James Bible, the Gay Bible,” CARM, http://carm.org/queen-james-bible (accessed December 27, 2012).

[3] Ron Rhodes & Marian Bodine, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), 165.

[4] Ibid., 167

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Social Networking: Blessing or Burdensome?


Photo from http://seonewsblog.net/


For me, proclaiming the Gospel is my greatest desire and what gives me great joy. I can spend hours discussing the Bible and theology with whoever will listen. My passion to share the message of God to others began heavily once my father passed away in March 2011. Throughout any given week I would post between 15+ status updates and/or links, encouraging the Body of Christ with quotes, scripture, and my reflection on the things of God. Through the constant posting, I would receive comments that were very encouraging. Moreover, folks would share many of my status updates to encourage others on their friends list.

There were many times when I would receive inbox messages thanking me for my encouragement, giving me encouragement, asking me legitimate questions in regards to the Bible, giving prayer requests, and folks who struggled with addictions such as homosexuality and drugs. It was an abundant blessing to receive such messages. I knew the LORD was using me as a vessel on something so simple such as Facebook.

Social networking seems to be the way of communication in our modern culture. I can remember as a child when Yahoo Messenger was the dominating social site, then it went to MSN Messenger in my teenage years, then into early adulthood came MySpace and, the greatest to date, Facebook. However, the question is, are these sorts of social networking sites a blessing or a burden to the believer’s soul?

The Blessings for the Body of Christ

The following are blessings that can found within the social network as a believer:

·      Proclaiming the Gospel: Whether someone comments, or sends you an inbox, multiple sets of eyes are seeing the truth you are posting. You are reaching the lost each time you post.

·      Edification: Giving and receiving edification will occur with each biblical/godly post that is given (ex: Godly YouTube videos; Scriptures; sermon links, etc.)


·      Intercessory Prayer: Just as the Bible is the LORD’s communication to man, so prayer is man’s communication to the LORD. When in need of prayer, you can quickly send out a group inbox message or update a status, asking for the Body of Christ to lift you before the Throne of Grace.

·      Staying up with Family and Friends: Family and High school reunions are no longer what they used to be. Keeping up with folks is as simple as searching a name and clicking a button. You are able to follow a person’s progress in their life, whether it be an education, a new marriage, or a pregnancy. You are in the loop as much as they post on their social site. 

The Burdens for Me

Although there are tremendous blessings for believers within social networking, , there are sometimes more burdens than blessings. These burdens range from pride, strife, and envy to anger, laziness, lust, and wastefulness. Whether one wants to admit it or not, we have all fallen into one of these categories at one time or another. More than likely, while believers are browsing for hours on Facebook throughout the day, they won’t realize when they do something that is burdening them, thus grieving the Holy Spirit.

Multiple times I have seen believers arguing with other believers about a certain doctrine. An example is the popular Calvinism/Arminian argument. A lady who was attacking Calvinism on her status began to argue with another lady who supported it. In a nutshell, the one who opposed Calvinism made the claim that the lady who supported it wasn’t saved and “needed” Jesus. Moreover, a supporter of Calvinism would post almost daily rants against Non-Calvinists, asserting that anyone outside of Calvinism was not truly Christians. What’s the problem with these two folks? They were condemning one another because they did not believe in a particular doctrine. Unfortunately, these two doctrines will be debatable until King Jesus comes back.

So, what are some of the problems and burdens for believers on social networking? They are as followed:

·       Pride: Admit it, at one time or another you’ve wonder how many likes your post could receive on Facebook. Whether we admit it or not, when we watch our status to see how many likes or comments it receives, we are falling into the sin of pride. There are times when one can fall victim to this and not realize it. It is easy to become puffed up because of achieving approval from multiple friends via social networking. Let’s be reminded that God doesn’t want a prideful child: “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 26:12).

·      Strife: Argumentation can easily result from certain posts on a social networking site. Oftentimes it is not even one who is proclaiming the glorious gospel and someone outside of Christ who begin to argue, but, rather, two Christians. King James only advocates and the ones who favor modern translations scold one another. Those who have different views on election/predestination do the same. The list could go on and on with angry argumentations. Whether it is over something within the Scriptures, or a popular controversy that is going on within the country (ex: Gun Laws), Christians can easily fall into the sin of strife. We must continue to seek the LORD, humble our hearts, and to listen to His voice. Instead of arguing or always wanting to be right, it is sometimes better to keep our mouths closed. As the Scripture says, “Even a fool, when he keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is considered prudent” (Proverbs 17:28). We need to be careful about how we present issues because it can cause a great deal of unneeded strife. 

·      Gossip: The infamous backbiting! There are so many times folks will vent over their social networking profile(s) about a friend, family member, or even someone they don’t even know. Famous music artists are known for trash talking another artist in their newest single and we call it out as absolutely wrong. However, individuals are often guilty of doing the same thing by broadcasting issues about an individual over their social networking site. For the Body of Christ, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a wolf in sheep’s clothing that is seeking to rip apart the church. However, it is another thing altogether to broadcast over social networking an issue that you have with another person.  Even liking it, or leaving a comment that references gossip, makes one just as guilty as the one who posted it. Stop talking about people and pray for them.

·      Lust: Pornography is running rampant on the Internet. I remember being exposed to online pornography at the age of 10. It’s a very serious thing, especially for men (although many women have issues with it as well). A person can stumble across pornographic profiles and pages on Facebook with ease. However, pornography isn’t the only issue. A greater issue that many would think would be harmless is simply checking out someone’s profile. So many times I’ve stumbled across women’s profiles where they have uploaded pictures that are very provocative. Naturally, men and women are attractive to opposite sex. However, in the world of social networking, we can find ourselves “checking out” the opposite sex in a sexual, impure way.

Social networking can be a way of hooking up with an old boyfriend/girlfriend or someone you may not even know. Currently, I know an individual who is fighting for his marriage because his significant other likes to have the opposite sex around them. The person that his spouse was seeing was someone they had on their Facebook friends list. Even if it is not your motive, others may seem to fall for you because their marriage may be failing and you happen to be the one who listens and encourages them on a consistent basis. Be careful! Marriages are being ripped a part because of what is meant to be a “friendly” social networking to reconnect with friends and family.

 Some passages we should keep in mind about sexual impurity:

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt. 5:28)

“Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18)

“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (1 Pet. 2:11).

·      Time waster: How true this is for so many folks! You get online to update a status and decide to scroll through your homepage for a few minutes. A few minutes turn into 45 minutes, and 45 minutes into an hour. I am guilty of such activity! As a Bible student, I have lost precious time of studying for exams and writing research papers because I was looking through updates and others’ profiles. There are so many hours we will not get back from our lives that we could have been in the Word, praying, washing dishes, straightening up the house, or outside the house sharing the Gospel with our neighbor. Social networking can be a great time consumer if one does not limit and balance their time. In many cases, it becomes an addiction

In regards to wasting time, the Apostle Paul reminds us the following, “Therefore, be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:15-16). The former four sins demonstrate what happens when we are not making the most of our time on social networking. Our time should be balanced accordingly. If not, we can potentially cause serious damage to ourselves and to our family.
  
·      Idolatry: Spending more time worrying about how many likes and comments you receive than you spend in the Word is a reality of idolatry in your life. If your objective is to check new posts before being in the Word, that is indicative that Facebook, or whatever social networking site you enjoy, has become your god. Anything that is given more attention than God is an idol. When social networking becomes a priority in your life, you have certainly built yourself an idol that must be taken down. 


Conclusion

As shown, there are both pros and cons of social networking. Personally, I believe social networking can be a very fruitful tool for the Body of Christ, and for God’s Kingdom. However, I fell victim to the various sins listed. Taking a brief break from social networking proved to me the real issues that lie behind Internet activity. Be aware of such dangers and examine your heart to make certain you have not fallen victim to these. Be a light in the midst of darkness while posting online. God is glorified through any means of communicating His message.