Heidi Baker, drunk in the Spirit?

Anyone who has reads my blog regularly could probably guess that I'm a cessationist. While I don't agree with the continuation of charismatic gifts (tongues, prophecy, etc), neither do I usually condemn too harshly people who feel they have these gifts. I believe many people who “speak in tongues,” for example, are likely simply overwhelmed emotionally and are acting out in the same way they've seen others act. It may not be genuine but it may still be sincere. However, there are other people who, I believe, are being deceitful.

I've seen many videos like this but here is another one I've come across recently. It features Heidi Baker acting, “drunk in the Spirit.” The whole notion of acting drunk is rooted from a verse in Acts 2. At Pentecost, when the apostles were gathered together in a room, the Holy Spirit came upon them like a flame of fire and they began speaking in tongues. The apostles were all Galilean but the people gathered there, from many different nations, could understand the apostles in their native language. They were amazed and perplexed by this sign but v. 13 tells us that some mocked them saying, “They are full of sweet wine (aka, “drunk”).” Some people in the charismatic movement understand this verse to mean the apostles must have appeared to be drunk while the Holy Spirit moved them.

I couldn't find a link to the original footage; this one has been edited down to about 20 minutes. Even though it's been edited, there are long segments of uninterrupted footage that are enough to convince me the edited video is likely a fair representation of the whole. As always, I invite you to watch the video for yourself. I would hate to be accused of mischaracterizing Ms. Baker's action. As you watch it, keep an eye out for the following tell-tale signs that make me think she's pretending the whole time.

First, Ms. Baker seems to have trouble standing. Sometimes, she's kneeling with her head against the lectern. Another time, she's lying prostrate on the floor with her hands beside her. Through all of this, though, she never seems to have any trouble keeping the microphone to her mouth. Isn't that interesting? I will admit, there have been a few times in my youth when I drank too much. I remember one time in particular that I couldn't seem to hold my glass upright. It seemed that if I just stood, holding the glass without paying attention, I would let the glass tilt and spill some drink. I wasn't even “falling down” drunk like Ms. Baker seems to be. If I couldn't keep from spilling my drink, I find it incredible she constantly remembered – and was able – to keep the microphone to her mouth.

I noticed too, at the end of the video, you can see the drummer has slipped into position behind her as she starts the invitation. What am I supposed to conclude from that? Does he have the gift of knowing exactly when someone's “anointing” will end? More likely, it was nearing the allotted time Ms. Baker was given to speak and he knew she was about to start wrapping it up. That's further evidence it was an act.

From a theological perspective, there were a few other things that concerned me. Acts 2 says the apostles, were speaking of the mighty deeds of God (v. 11). Ms. Baker spent the majority of her time speaking about herself. As if her actions weren't obvious enough, she would constantly say things like (paraphrasing), Look how “toasted” I am, You must think I'm weird, Why would the church allow someone like me speak? Imagine that someone is speaking in tongues, but keeps stopping to say, “Listen, I'm speaking in tongues!” That's how I see Ms. Baker's performance.

Finally, there is the matter of the “tongues” Ms. Baker continuously spoke. At Pentecost, when the apostles spoke in tongues, everyone gathered there understood what was being said. They heard the words in their own language – even their own dialect. Some of the words Ms. Baker spoke were gibberish. I certainly didn't understand them. Her performance didn't resemble at all the scene described in the Bible.

In the 1970s, Foster Brooks played a lovable drunk. He was funny. Ms. Baker? Not so much. I've heard she has done a lot of missionary work in Mozambique. I know that she and her husband started Iris Global ministries. But do I just ignore foolish displays like this because of the good work she's done? Folks like this claim they are being moved by the Spirit but when you can see they're not, it makes their claims blasphemy. They're taking the Lord's name in vain which is no small thing. I can't just sit by, watching behavior like this, and not say something.

I'm sadden most by the people who sit in services like this and laugh along. I'm reminded of 2 Timothy 4:3, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” These people seem less interested in learning the word of God and more interested in being entertained. Ms. Baker was eager to oblige them. I implore people to be more Berean (Acts 17:11). Study your Bibles.  We should be anxious to hear the word whenever it is preached but we need to compare what is preached to the Scriptures to see if it is true!

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 4 – Limited Atonement

The third point in Calvin's acronym is Limited Atonement. According to this belief, Christ's death on the cross was only to redeem those who God had already chosen to be saved. The forgiveness found in Jesus' blood is not available to the un-elect. In other words, Christ's atonement for sins is limited to only the elect. Of the five points, I believe this is definitely the weakest but it's not entirely without merit. First, there are some Bible verses cited in defense of this position.

Matthew 1:21, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

On its face, this verse could be understood to say, “He will save only His people from their sins.” This same sentiment is found in Acts.

Acts 20:28, Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Again, it seems like Christ's blood was shed to purchase only His church.

Finally, some people try to make hay out of the Bible's frequent use of the word, “many.” Consider the following verse, for example:

Matthew 26:28, “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”

The use of the word “many” here could be understood to mean “a large number but not all” - that is, the verse means, “poured out not for all for the forgiveness of sins, just many.” However, the use of the word “many” is ambiguous and can refer to the number instead of the percentage. For example, I could say, “There are many people in the world.” In that case, “many” includes all; I'm saying there are a lot of people. Likewise, a large number of people (i.e. “many”) are saved through Jesus' blood.

In contrast to the idea of limited atonement, we could consider John's words:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

The phrase, “the whole world” seems a lot less ambiguous than the term, “many.” Yet even though the term “whole world” seems to include everyone, we must still be on guard against the false doctrine of universalism. The Bible is clear that not everyone is or will be saved. Revelation 20:15 warns sinners that when the dead are judged by their works, anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

As is always the case, we must reconcile those verses which seem to suggest a limited atonement with the verses that suggest universalism. I believe the solution is rather obvious: Christ died so that He might make salvation available to everyone but only those who repent and accept His forgiveness are saved. In that sense, atonement truly is limited to the elect.

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 3 – Unconditional Election

The next point in Calvinism is Unconditional Election. This is really the meat and potatoes of Calvinism. It's the idea that God has already chosen who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost. The word “elect” in the Bible is always a reference to those who are saved. Unconditional election means that God has ordained the elect to be saved only according to His divine will and is not conditioned upon anything that we have done.

Of the five points, this one probably has the most compelling Scriptural support. There are several passages that can be used to support the idea of election but the following are perhaps the most persuasive:

Ephesians 1:4-5, 11, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself,according to the kind intention of His will..... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

Romans 9:10-16, “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

What I find especially interesting is Paul's letter to the Romans, when he says that God loved Jacob above Esau even “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.” At first hearing, it seems a clear cut example of God simply choosing one person over another. Jacob certainly had not done anything before he was born to earn God's favor so he received God's mercy unconditionally. Yet as clear cut as it might seem, we must still consider these passages in the light of the rest of Scripture. Look at the following passages:

1 Timothy 2:3-4, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

Acts 17:30, The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

If God has already ordained that only some people will be saved and the others lost, how can He simultaneously not want anyone to perish? Perhaps it is because God is omniscient and already knows who will accept Him and who will not. Peter said that he was elect, “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter 1:1-2). It could be that God elects those He knows will believe and makes plans for them even before they are born.

God is not capricious. Because of His love and mercy, He has made salvation available to everyone; but because He is also just and holy, He has laid out a very clear method of redemption. God will have mercy upon whoever believes in His Son – even the most vile sinner.

Acts 20:28: The Blood of God or the Blood of His Son? An Argument of Exceptions

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

I was online the other day, discussing this verse. It's one of special, theological importance. A plain reading of this verse shows that God purchased the church, “with His own blood.” Obviously, it was Jesus who shed His blood on the cross so this verse seems to affirm the divinity of Jesus. That is, Jesus is God.

The person with whom I was discussing this verse took exception to that understanding. He resorted to a “mistranslation” argument. I've had dealings with this individual before and his Greek is not really that good. However, in this case, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the Greek that he was leveraging to bolster his point.

The Greek reads, διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) αἵματος (blood) τοῦ (the) ἰδίου (His own).

The most obvious translation of this verse is the one rendered in most Bibles, “through His own blood.” Another translation, which is a little more awkward in English, is “through the blood which is His own.” But there is still another possibility: “through the blood of His own (Son).”

The latter translation is not the most likely but it is still possible. The question is, which is the intended translation of the three? Since the critic I was conversing with online did not believe Jesus is God, he argued the 3^rd translation, the least likely one, is the correct one. He hooted and cheered that even RKBentley, a conservative Christian, acknowledged that “through the blood of His own” had merit as a possible translation. Of course, he ignored that I said it is the less likely one. As far as he was concerned, it is THE translation because Jesus is not God.

From there, we began discussing some other verses that referred to Jesus as God. Here are a few that I cited – please excuse my frequent use of the word, “clearly,” I was making a point:

In John 20:28, Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

John 1:1c clearly says, “the Word was God.”

Titus 2:13 clearly says, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 clearly says, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

In John 10:11, Jesus clearly said, “I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd” while Psalm 23:1 clearly says, “Jehovah is my shepherd.”

In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist said he was preparing the way for the Lord (who is clearly Jesus) just like Isaiah said. Isaiah 40:3 clearly said the prophet will prepare the way for Jehovah.

Joel 2:32 clearly says that whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. Roman 10:13 clearly says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.

Revelation 1:8, we clearly see that God is the Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 1:17, Jesus clearly says He is the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, we clearly see that the Alpha/Omega and the first/last is the same Person.

In John 5:21, Jesus clearly says He gives life just as the Father gives life.

In John 5:23 Jesus clearly says we should honor Him in the same way we honor the Father

In John 10:30, Jesus clearly said, “I and the Father are one.”

We also have many clear instances of people worshiping Jesus; The man born blind (John 9:38), the magi (Matthew 2:11), the disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33), et al.

So we see time after time where the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God. The response from my critic friend online was to cite William Barclay:

But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.

Note that Barclay said, “almost every occasion.” If the Bible says even once that Jesus is God, then that would clear up the ambiguous verses but never mind that now. What struck me was that the rebuttal I usually hear to seemingly clear references of Jesus' divinity is to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  Each and every time the Bible seems to identify Jesus as God, they say a more obscure translation of the verse is the correct one.

Is that the best they have? Their only response - ever - is to say, “what that really means is....”  We argue rules and they argue exceptions. How odd it would be if God gave us His revelation in code. How are we expected to understand any part of the Bible if the most ordinary meaning of any verse is never the correct one?

Psalm 58:8: Snails Don't Literally Melt but Some Critics are Literally Stupid

I know I shouldn't call anyone stupid but sometimes I can think of no other way to say it. I browse Yahoo! Answers occasionally and recently came across this gem:

Why does the bible say that snails 'melt'? Wouldn't an all knowing God know better than this?

Psalm 58:8 (King James Version)

8As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

It's such a weak criticism that I would normally ignore it as a straw man argument raised by a fringe nut. However, this isn't the first time I've heard this particular criticism so I will amend my opinion and say the criticism is a straw man argument frequently used by lots of nuts.

Do I even need to spend much time rebutting this? I mean, the correct understanding of this passage is fairly obvious. So rather than wasting a lot of words explaining the passage, I'll quickly explain the passage then spend the rest of my time examining the critic.

The Book of Psalms is a collection of poetry. They were originally sung so they could correctly be called songs or hymns. Like any poetry, words are used to paint pictures and sometimes (as in the case of Psalms) convey symbolical – though not necessarily literal - truths. Don't they teach metaphor, analogy, and similar devices in 6^th grade English? The snail (or slug) may shrivel under salt or leave a slimy trail as it moves but it doesn't literally melt. Likewise, in Psalm 1, neither is a blessed man literally a tree and neither is there a literal path of sinners. Is that so hard to understand?

When critics raise points like this, it tells us more about the critic than the Bible. I don't want to paint with an overly broad brush but I can only think of three reasons why arguments like this are ever used:

1) Some critics may be grossly ignorant. Perhaps they aren't familiar with the literary genre of Psalms but the fact that one such critic wrote the question above demonstrates that he is at least literate. Is he not familiar at all with such literary devices? If he heard someone say, “I could eat a horse,” would he believe the speaker literally claimed to be able to eat a horse? Such ignorance goes far beyond a lack of familiarity with the Bible. It borders on lunacy.

When someone raises this objection, we should start with the assumption that he is simply not aware of the heavily poetic language used in Psalms. Once it's pointed out to him, perhaps he'll quit the argument. If he still cannot genuinely identify so obvious a metaphor, perhaps he is more than ignorant. He is a simpleton.

2) Some theophobes may be so contemptuous toward the Bible that they are truly blind to its use of literary devices. It's like conspiracy theorists who see a government plot in every headline. When people read the Bible with such a jaundiced eye, they see every word in an ill light. They might understand the use of things like simile, hyperbole, and personification when it occurs in ordinary language, but when it comes to the Bible, they suddenly cannot distinguish between a poetic expression and a statement of literal fact.

By the way, this same phenomenon occurs among theistic evolutionists. They have no trouble interpreting passages that say Jesus rose on the third day (Acts 10:40). However, when they read Exodus 20:11, they suddenly cannot understand what the Bible means by six days.

3) If Bible skeptics insist they understand the use of literary devices yet still pursue this point as if it had substance, then we can only assume they are deliberately lying so they might prey on the ignorance of others. Indeed, what other option is left? If they are truly bright enough to understand the ordinary use of language, and it has been pointed out to them that this is a poetic expression, then there is no other reason to repeat the falsehood except an evil motive.

In conclusion, I again repeat that I don't ordinarily call people stupid. It's not a very nice term. Still, why would any intelligent person use such stupid argument? Perhaps I could temper it by calling him “challenged” or some other polite term. It's either that or call him a liar.

He Didn't Say It – But I Will

Now that he's topping the polls as the current frontrunner in the Republican primaries, Rick Santorum has become the new target of the liberal media. Over the last couple of days, much hay has been made over Santorum's comment that Obama's agenda was driven by “some phoney ideal – some phoney theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible – a different theology but no less a theology.” The alternative media (MSNBC, NBC, CBS, etc) has seized upon that as an attack on Obama's religious views and are crying foul.

You can watch the full context of the remarks here. It's easy for people with limited command of the vocabulary to pounce upon the word “theology” and see it as a discussion about Christian religion but from the full context, it's rather obvious to rational people that the “theology” he intended is that of radical environmentalism. Santorum even spelled that out for those media reporters who confronted him about it. He further clarified that he does not question Obama's Christian faith but, even now, the bias-driven reporters on the left continue to misrepresent him.

The ironic thing in all this is that there really is a big question about Obama's faith. Let's face it, here's a man who has been the President of the United States for more than three years. He's in the public's eye daily. There is a camera on him nearly every moment of the day that he steps foot out of the door. Everywhere he goes, everything he says, everything he does is reported in excruciating detail. Yet after all this time, he's still not able to convincingly persuade people that he's not a Muslim! Isn't that odd?

Now, certainly I'm not trying to brag but I will use myself as an example. Anyone who has known me for any length of time beyond a casual meeting knows that I'm a Christian. It's simple things that give it away. He will hear me talking about my faith, he will see me reading the Bible, he will see me going to church, maybe he will even read my blog! It would be impossible for anyone, after 3 years, to suspect me of being a Muslim. That's they way it should be. Acts 1:8 says, “ye shall be witnesses unto me.”

What do we know about our President's faith? I know that he never bothered to join a church after moving to Washington. I know that over the prior decade or more that he claimed to have attended “Reverend” Wright's church, he says he never once heard any of the “reverend's” incendiary remarks making it unlikely he truly attended. I know that he's radically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-many other things that seem contrary to Christian values. I know that on at least two occasions, he misquoted the Declaration of Independence by saying, “We are endowed.... with certain unalienable rights” - omitting the words “by our Creator” even though they are in Declaration and were on his teleprompter! I know that in his last thanksgiving proclamation, he gave thanks to Alaskan Natives, American Indians, and US veterans before mentioning giving thanks to God. Oh, and I know that he's a bald-faced liar.

Jesus said that we can judge people by their fruits (Matthew 7:16,20). There's nothing about the President's life that convinces me he's a Christian. His blatant lack of fruit belies any occasional reference to God or the Bible. So let me be clear: I do not believe the President Obama is a Christian. Senator Santorum may not say that – but I will.

Matthew 16:18: The Gates of Hell

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

When Jesus uttered these words to Peter, it is the only recorded example where He used the term, “the gates of hell.” What exactly did He mean when He said, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? Over the years I’ve heard various interpretations and there are at least three that warrant serious consideration.

The Minions of Hell:

In Biblical times, the gates of a city represented the seat of power. Most large cities then were walled and whenever visitors and traders would enter a city, they had to enter through the gates. Merchants and notable men of the city would wait there to greet them. An example of this appears in Genesis 19:1:

“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;”

Another example is from Esther where Mordecai was often seen sitting at the gate with the king’s servants (Esther 2:19, Esther 2:21, Esther 3:2, et al).

In this light, the “gates of hell” could mean the powerful forces of hell (the Devil and his demons). They will not prevail against Christ’s church.

The Dominion of Hell:

As mentioned before large cities in the Bible were walled. The obvious purpose of this was defense. Whenever an enemy army attacked the city, they would try to breach the gate. Strong walls and a strong gate would thwart the efforts of the attackers and the city would be safe.

The Devil is the ruler of this world (John 14:30). He seeks to protect his domain and his gates are designed to hold off the true King. The gates of hell are his defense. But even the strongest gates cannot prevail against the power of Christ’s church.

Hades:

The Greek word used for Hell in Matthew is ᾅδης (hadēs). This is not the place of judgment or eternal torment but the place of rest for the dead until the resurrection. Other passages describe this as the Bosom of Abraham (Luke 16:22). It’s the same word used in Acts 2:31:

“He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

Gates are often used to keep things out; but they are sometimes used to keep things in. The gates of hell that admit the dead, also keep them in. When Christ died, His soul descended to hell (hadēs). However, these gates were not able to keep Jesus in. The gates of hell could not prevail against the Risen Savior and neither will they prevail against His church!

Whatever the meaning of the term, the promise of Christ is clear. The gates of hell, whenever they stand before us, either to keep us out or keep us in, they will not prevail. Amen!

Does Racism Shape Evolutionary Theory?

I've heard many Christians attack evolution with claims of racism. For example, many people have made much hay over the title of Darwin's book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ” While there is always room in any subject for a discussion of the moral implications of a particular view, we need to be careful when playing the race card. If evolution is true, then it's true regardless of any racial tendencies the theory might carry. Besides, racism far preceded Darwin. The simple fact that some people have tried used evolution as a scientific justification for their bigotry doesn't disqualify the theory from consideration. This is the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” Evolution is wrong but it's not wrong because it's a “racist” theory.

Having said that, though, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that much of our understanding of hominid evolution is wrong because racial attitudes have shaped our interpretation of the evidence. I'll explain how in a moment but let me start with a disclaimer: I do not believe the distinction of races among humans is biblically sound. The Bible says that God has made all nations of one blood (Acts 17:26). Those features that we use to identify a person's race is an invented concept. It's true that certain groups of people tend to possess certain combinations of traits but to identify someone as a different “race” based on their skin color makes about as much sense as segregating people based on their eye color.

Now, on to my point. I'm not a scientist; I'm often reminded of this by my evolutionary friends – many of whom are not scientists either by the way. Yet even though I'm not a scientist, I can still see the differences between a Neanderthal skull and a Homo sapien skull. Neanderthals possessed, among other things, heavy brow ridges, elongated jaws, and a sloping forehead. Homo sapiens have a distinctly dome-shaped skull and flat faces.

When evolutionists recreate the appearance of Neanderthals, they tend to view their facial characteristics as being “primitive.” The result is a brutish-looking caveman. Besides the thick brow ridge, Neanderthals have also been portrayed with thick lips, wide noses, and even dark skin. Let me ask you, what is necessarily “primitive” about these features? Some groups of people alive today possess these sames traits.

Consider these photos of American-Indian, Wolf Robe. Note the heavy brow and sloping forehead. Was this noble Chief a brute? Was he a savage? Was he even one iota less evolved than white Europeans? Excuse me for saying this but I think it's offensive that certain “racial” characteristics have been labeled as primitive. A thick brow and sloping forehead are more ape like? Are you kidding me?  

What's especially sad is that some Christians have actually believed certain groups like American-Indians or Australian Aborigines are not descended from Adam and so do not need the gospel. Still others have believed that dark skin is the “mark of Cain” (Genesis 4:15). How many people have died without hearing the gospel simply because some Christians were racists?

It's fair to say that racial features are merely different combinations of traits that God encoded into the DNA of Adam and Eve. Certain combinations might be more common among certain groups, but there is nothing significant about them. It is a gross misunderstanding when scientists use normal variations among people groups as clues to identify which groups are closer to the apes. I would even say it's racist!

A Bible Study in Discernment

Recently, my Sunday School class has been studying the book of Job. Much of the book details the conversations Job had with his three friends who had come to “comfort” him but actually spend more time accusing him. As you read through the conversations, though, in many places we find that the friends weren't too far off from sound doctrine. In many cases, their only error was attributing Job's tragedy to some unconfessed sin of Job. Much of what they said was correct but a little bit was garbage.

As we live our lives day to day, there is no shortage of opinions we hear about God and the Bible. Some of what we hear is correct but some of it is garbage. As Christians, it is our responsibility to identify what is right and what is wrong. The Bible refers to this as “discernment.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."

For some people, discernment is a spiritual gift. When discussing gifts of the Spirit, Paul said, “to some [are given] the discerning of spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10). For others, it must be learned. Job says that wisdom and understanding comes with age (Job 12:12). Even so, I believe there are six steps we can follow to help us gain discernment.

TRUST THE BIBLE

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

We don't have to be geniuses or scholars. Psalms tells us that with the Bible, even the simple become wise. If we base our thinking on the Bible, we can never be very wrong on any subject.

STUDY THE BIBLE

Even if you sincerely trust the Bible, what good does it do if you don't know what the Bible says? What if someone said, “I believe the Bible when it says, 'The Lord helps those that help themselves'”? Do you say, “Amen!”? Nothing resembling that verse appears in the Bible but you can't know that if you don't study the Bible.

I worked in a bank for many years. Before the Federal Reserve issued any new currency, we would get detailed descriptions of what the new bills would look like. The best way to spot a fake bill is to know what the real bill looks like. Likewise, we can easily spot false doctrine if we know what correct doctrine is.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Let's look at this passage in reverse: This passage says we need to study to show ourselves approved. So what does it mean if we don't study? Obviously it must mean we aren't approved. Furthermore, if we don't study, we should be ashamed. Finally, if we don't study, we will not be able rightly divide the word of truth.

SEEK THE ADVICE OF OTHERS

Most people have heard the expression, “Two heads are better than one.” This is based on a sound, biblical doctrine.

Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)

There are abundant resources available today that Christians can turn to to find answers to tough questions. Also, a Christian can seek the advice of godly men or women.

BE SKEPTICAL

Though we should seek the advice of others, we must never mistake their opinions for Scriptures. In your study Bible, the notes written in the margin are not part of the text. You need to compare whatever advice you receive to the Scriptures to make sure it is sound.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

Paul is normally someone whose opinion I would trust. Yet the Bereans were even skeptical of him. As he preached the gospel, they compared his words to the Scriptures to confirm what he was saying was true. We should do the same.

BE OPEN MINDED

There's a difference between being skeptical and refusing to believe. Sometimes, we are wrong in something we believe and we need to be available to the truth. The Bible uses the term “stiff-necked” to describe certain, stubborn people who won't listen to the truth.

But they hearkened not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, and might not receive instruction. (Jeremiah 17:23)

BE PRAYERFUL

Finally, we should always remember to seek understanding from God.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)

Defending the Resurrection: Where is the Body?

In Matthew 12:38-40, the Pharisees had asked Jesus for a sign to prove His words were from God. Jesus responded that the only sign they would receive would be His resurrection. He said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Indeed, Jesus' entire ministry and every promise He made is contingent upon His resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then every promise He ever made would be dead with Him. 1 Corinthians 15:14 puts it this way, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

The Pharisees understood how powerful the sign of the resurrection would be. They perhaps understood better than the disciples. After Jesus' death, they said to Pilate, “Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.” They knew that if the people believed Christ rose from the dead, they would believe Jesus' words all the more.

Because the resurrection is such powerful evidence for the divinity of Christ, opponents of Christianity aggressively attempt to deny and discredit it. There are a few standard approaches that unbelievers take to rebut the event of the resurrection. The absent body of Jesus is a silent witness against all of their claims.

THE RESURRECTION MYTH:

Today, perhaps the most common way people deny the resurrection is to say it is only a myth. The first century Church did not believe Jesus rose from the dead but only believed He was a great teacher. As their adoration for Jesus grew, their recounting of His teachings became exaggerated. Eventually, the claim became that He rose from the dead.

This certainly cannot be true. We unfortunately do not have the original autographs of the New Testament authors but the oldest copies we have already include accounts of the resurrection. In his work, The Antiquity of the Jews, 1st century historian, Josephus wrote:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

So all accounts we have from the earliest sources, all attest to the fact that even the 1st century Church already believed Jesus rose from the dead. To rebut this, critics will argue that the accounts of the resurrection were added to the text in later dates. How convenient for them. Can they please produce the earlier texts that lacked the resurrection accounts? They cannot; they merely assert the resurrection was added later without having any evidence for such.

But regardless of the early written evidence for the resurrection of Jesus let me ask this: If the resurrection of Jesus is a myth, where is the body?

THE SWOON THEORY

Some people have argued that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. Rather, He merely fainted or swooned and He was mistaken for being dead. Later, in the cool air of the tomb, He was revived and came out. When His disciples saw Him, they believed He rose from the dead.

This story is hardly credible. It fails to address many critical details given in the text of the gospels. Remember that before the crucifixion, Jesus was beaten and scourged (Matthew 26:67-68, Matthew 27:26). Witnesses to the crucifixion confirm that He died on the cross (Mark 15:39, John 19:30,35). After He died on the cross, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus to confirm He was dead (John 19:34) - modern doctors believe that the description in John indicates the soldier pierced His heart. Finally, a Roman Centurion, acting on Pilate's orders, examined the body of Jesus to confirm He was dead (Mark 15:44-45). It is simply not possible for someone to be tortured, crucified, stabbed in the heart, be examined by a Roman Centurion, and still not be dead.

Let's assume for a moment the highly impossible idea that Jesus truly didn't die on the cross. The cool air that would have been in the tomb certainly would not have revived Him. People who experience shock or blood loss need to be warmed! Why do you think they put blankets on victims of shock? Yet even assuming He did revive in the tomb, what next? In His condition could He have moved the stone, overcome the Roman guard, walked the few miles into town, and still appear ruddy enough to convince His disciples of some glorious resurrection?

The swoon theory borders on the desperate. Keep in mind too that even if all of these outrageous imaginations were possible, Jesus would have eventually died anyway. So where is the body?

THE DISCIPLES LIED

Rather than saying the resurrection is a myth, some people say the disciples lied about seeing Jesus alive. This theory defies common sense. Certainly there are some false preachers today who proclaim the gospel only to gain personal wealth. However, in the case of the disciples, they suffered persecution and even death for their preaching. After Jesus' arrest, Peter, out of fear, denied even knowing Him. Later, when directly threatened to stop preaching in the name of Jesus, Peter and John both answered, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:17-20). What could have turned Peter from a coward who denied knowing Jesus into a champion who proclaims Him in the face of persecution? This is not likely if Peter secretly knew the resurrection was a lie! Tradition tells us that all of the apostles except John were martyred for their preaching. Even John was tortured and exiled for his faith. Are there 12 men anywhere who would give up their lives for something they knew to be a lie? Would not even one of them recant to save his own life?

Remember also what they preached: that Jesus was the Way, Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Would 12 liars with nothing to gain give up their lives to promote the idea that a dead man had been raised and the He was the embodiment of truth?

The Pharisees would have loved to silence any false rumors about the resurrection of Jesus. They could have easily done so by directing people to His tomb. Alas they couldn't. Where was the body?

THE DISCIPLES WERE DELUDED

Knowing that no one would give his life for something he knew to be a lie, some argue that the disciples might have been this zealous if they simply believed Jesus were alive even if He weren't. The disciples so desperately expected the resurrection that they actually imagined seeing Him. This idea contradicts Scripture, though, because we know that the disciples did not expect Jesus to be resurrected. In fact, when they were first told of the resurrection, they refused to believe, thinking the women were telling “idle tales” (Luke 24:10-11). We have too the famous scene of doubting Thomas (John 20:25).

When the disciples did see the risen Savior, it was not a fleeting glimpse. They touched Him. They walked, talked, and ate with Him. He appeared to them on different occasions. 1 Corinthians 15:4-6 even says that He was seen after His resurrection by more than 500 people at once. These events are not possible if the disciples had only imagined seeing Jesus.

Finally, if the disciples had only imagined seeing Jesus alive, that means He was really still dead in the tomb. OK, so where was the body?

ALL OTHER TALES

From the moment of Christ's resurrection, people have sought to deny it (Matthew 28:12-14). Unbelievers will always attempt to discredit the historicity of the resurrection. No argument, though, no matter how imaginative, will ever adequately address the evidence given in the gospels. What about the testimony of the first century historian? What about the earliest manuscripts? What about the bold preaching of the apostles? What else can explain all these things except that they are true?

And no lie will explain the empty tomb. This Easter, if you should hear one of these myths or some variation on them, ask the critic, “So where is the body?”

The Thirty Pieces of Silver and the Field of Blood

In my last post, I dealt with the controversy surrounding the death of Judas. Besides the question of how did Judas die, another criticism often raised is what did Judas do with the money he received for betraying Jesus?

Matthew 27:5 says, “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.”

Acts 1:18 says, “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.”

So which is it? Did he return the money or did he buy a field with it? People who raise this objection must not have thought about it for very long. If you think about it for more than a moment, it's really not hard to see how both verses can be true. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

I work in a bank and a customer offers me $100 to perform a questionable transaction for him (perhaps he's trying to launder money). I take the money and perform the transaction. That night, I take my wife to a nice dinner with the $100. However, after a few days, I feel guilty for having done it and so I take $100 from my savings account and go to my customer saying, “I shouldn't have done that transaction. Here's your money back. Don't ask me to do it again.”

Now, what did I do with the money: did I take my wife to dinner or did I return it? I did both, of course. The same then could be said for Judas. He must certainly have bought a field with the money but later, when guilt overtook him, he returned 30 pieces of silver to the priests.

The controversy doesn't end there, though. There is also the additional question of who bought the Field of Blood? In Matthew 27:6-8, the priests did not want the money Judas returned so they decided to buy a field in which to bury strangers. The field became known as the Field of Blood. Acts 1:19 says that the field Judas had bought and died in was called the Field of Blood.

Who then, bought the Field of Blood? There are a couple of plausible explanations. One very simple possibility is that there were 2 fields referred to as “the Field of Blood.” This is not unusual; just about any large city you visit today will have a dangerous section of road called by the locals, “Dead Man's Curve.” Even in the same city different residents might identify different locations as “Dead Man's Curve.”

Of course, there did not necessarily have to be two different fields since there are plausible theories where it could have been same field. We know that Judas bought a field in which he died and the field was later called the Field of Blood. When the Pharisees were looking for something appropriate to do with the “blood money,” they might have decided to buy the same field from Judas' family. Or perhaps Judas had only contracted to buy the field and died before paying for it; the Pharisees then paid the owner for the field with the money Judas returned.

Along those same lines there is still another possibility. It is the concept that since the Pharisees used the reward returned by Judas, he was still considered the man who purchased the field. Many times people will use an agent to make a large purchase yet it is still the one who paid the money – not the agent – who is considered the buyer. But I'm not familiar enough with ancient, Jewish legal practices to know if this is a likely explanation. I've heard it suggested before and I offer it only for consideration.

We can see that reconciling these other details in Matthew and Acts is far easier than addressing the actual death of Judas. Yet in spite of the simplicity in rebutting this “contradiction,” critics continue to raise these minor points. Therefore, we must be ready to answer them.

Further reading: How Did Judas Die?

How Did Judas Die?

In the weeks leading up to Easter, I intend to post a series of articles discussing various events and controversies surrounding the holiday. One issue often raised by critics of the Bible is the question, “How did Judas die?” We know that after the arrest of Jesus, Judas, in a fit of remorse, killed himself. This fact is mentioned in Matthew 27:5 and again in Acts 1:18 but therein lies a problem since these verses seem to contradict each other. Matthew says simply that he, “went and hanged himself ” while Luke records Peter saying, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

Perhaps one reason this criticism is so enduring is because, unlike so many other criticisms, this one is not so easily rebutted. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is a valid criticism of the Bible; the fact of the matter is that the two passages are so scare in details that it's not obvious how to reconcile them. Actually, multiple solutions exists and we're just not sure which might be the correct solution.

First, it must be remembered that different people will describe the same event differently. Consider this analogy: police are called to a crime scene and find a dead man. They ask witnesses what happened. One witness says the victim was killed in a fight with another man. A second witness says the victim fell and hit his head. Using only these details, it seems like the witnesses have contradicted each other. However, the simple solution could be that two men were fighting when one fell, struck his head, and died. If we had more details, the two passages might be that simple to reconcile. Alas we only have these two, short descriptions. There are at least 3 ways these events might be reconciled:

A SPIRITUAL FALL

I recently came across an intriguing possibility that Peter (Luke 1) was not describing the physical death of Judas but was merely describing his spiritual fall. This would be a fall in the same sense the Adam “fell” and died. Regarding the reference to “bowels,” there are multiple passages (especially in the KJV) were the “bowels” are a reference to mercy or compassion (Colossians 3:12, Philemon 1:7, 1John 3:17). So according to this theory, Judas may have died physically but he also “fell” spiritually and his bowels bursting is a reference to his act of betrayal.

I am still skeptical of this as a possible solution but it could have merit. I've already mentioned that different people might describe the same event differently so Peter may have been speaking of his spiritual fall. Consider also that Peter is introducing the need to replace Judas among the apostles. We have no reason to believe the act of replacing the apostles was continued after subsequent deaths of the apostles – those apostles who remained faithful unto death. It could be then that Peter is introducing a doctrinal need to replace him, namely that he not only died but that he fell from grace.

So though I remain skeptical about this possible solution, I include it here for the consideration of others.

A GRUESOME HANGING

I've heard various scenarios that attempt to explain how the hanging of Judas might have been especially gruesome and could fit the description in both passages. The first is a rather mundane explanation that the rope Judas used was too long and rather than hanging, he fell to the ground. This is hardly plausible. A fall from a tree might be sufficient to kill a person but it would have to be an especially high tree for the body to break open. This is the least likely explanation that I've heard.

A second possibility that I once considered is that Judas wasn't “hanged” in the ordinary sense of the word but instead impaled himself – perhaps on a spear. The word “hanged” is also used in reference to the death of Jesus (Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39) who we certainly know wasn't hanged by the neck. Besides Jesus, the thieves crucified with him are also described as being “hanged” (Luke 23:39). If a person were impaled through the belly with a spear, it might be described that his bowels were burst open and spilled out. For a while I felt this was an extremely possible explanation but I later learned that the Greek word in Matthew 27:5 (ἀπάγχομαι) quite literally means "to choke." It still may be a possible explanation but I feel it is less likely.

Yet another possibility occurred to me many years ago when I heard a radio news bite of a US state that was trying to hire an executioner. In that state (I believe it was Washington), the proscribed method of execution was still hanging even though no one had been hanged there for many years. In the sound bite it was mentioned how much is actually involved in a hanging. The rope should be the right length for the sentenced man's weight so that his neck will break and he will die quickly. If it is too short, he will die slowly by strangulation. However, if it is too long, the man could be decapitated! Please excuse the gore but if a person were decapitated and his stomach contents were regurgitated out of his esophagus, it might fit the description given by Peter.

POST MORTEM

When Peter spoke before the other apostles, it might have already been understood by all that Judas had already died. So rather than telling everyone that Judas had died (or how he died), Peter might be adding some information about an event that happened post mortem. As mentioned above, a body falling from a tree will not likely “burst open.” However, after death, the skin and tissues begin to decompose. The body also begins to bloat. Answers in Genesis gives this very graphic description:

“Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.”

In conclusion, let me remind my readers that we cannot know which of these possible scenarios might be the correct one. There could be still other explanations I have not discussed or even considered. But just these few possible scenarios clearly demonstrate that the passages in question need not be contradictory.

Further reading: The Thirty Pieces of Silver and the Field of Blood

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

A while back, I wrote a short series on the Five Solas of the Reformation. The first of the Five Solas is “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). In a nutshell, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is God's sole written revelation and it is the final authority on all things relating to doctrine. A visitor to my blog, someone posting under the name, teak421, took exception to my points and left two comments to rebut. I visited his blog and read some of his links and it he seems to advocate two other sources of revelation: apostolic successors and the Church (namely the Catholic Church). As is sometimes my practice, I've decided to use his comments as an opportunity to elaborate out my previous post.

First, let me point out an amusing irony. To teak421's credit, he cited a few verses to bolster his argument but how ironic it is to attempt to use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is not the final authority on doctrine! If the apostles are the final authority on doctrine, then why doesn't he cite them? But let's look at those passages he mentioned:

One verse he cited is Ephesians 2:19-22 which says the house of God is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Of course this passage is true but in what sense was this building accomplished? I believe the answer is obvious: God used the prophets (of the OT) and the apostles (of the NT) to speak His words before there was a written revelation (see my post here). It is a great error to make the apostles more than what they are. Consider what the apostles said about themselves.

In 1 Corinthians 1:12-14, Paul says, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” Paul is clear to point out that his teaching is not ultimately his own but rather is Christ's – it's Christ's crucifixion, His death, His baptism, His resurrection, His everything. It's not about Paul or the apostles; it's about Christ's work and teachings. And only a few verses later (v.19), we see another interesting practice employed by Paul where he cites Scripture to back up what he is saying. Which brings me to Acts 17:11, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Luke commends the noble Bereans for comparing Paul's teaching with Scripture to judge if what he says is true. The clear implication is that Scripture trumps the apostles!

Peter also recognized that no one but Christ had the words of life. He stated such overtly in John 6:68. When Jesus asked the apostles if they too would leave Him, Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” So I ask, who has the words of life – the apostles or Jesus?

But regardless of the role of the apostles, I have blogged before that I do not believe there are any more apostles. God has given us the cannon of Scripture and there is no more revelation. If anyone claims to have revelation from God that contradicts Scripture, he is a false prophet. Scripture is the final authority.

Now, to teak421's second point: the Catholic church. The claim of the Church is that there is an apostolic succession within the Church beginning with Peter as the first pope. I immediately disqualify that claim based on my arguments above. However, there are still the traditions of the Church that are supposed to have begun from the time of the apostles. Do these traditions carry equal weight with the Bible? The answer is a simple no. Jesus Himself rejected such an idea. I refer you to Matthew 15:3-6 where Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

I'm not sure how much more clear this could be. Jesus told the Pharisees that when traditions conflict with the written word of God, the Scriptures win.

In his comments, teak421 said, “Who decides who is right? You? Me? or a guy name Steve?” I would say, “Who, indeed! Me, teak421, the pope, the Catholic Church, or the Bible?” I still say the Bible.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

What is "Presuppositional Apologetics"?

Answers in Genesis has a brief and precise article that wonderfully explains presuppositional apologetics. You can read the original article by clicking here but I have reprinted it below:

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.

The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.