The purpose of this blog is to provide insights from the Christian perspective. It exists to present the elementary teachings of the Glorious Gospel through conducting apologetics and by providing biblical exegesis. The Scriptures declare, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16)
-Early this Wednesday morning, a man named Micheal Tate Reed decided to crash his vehicle into a newly constructed, privately funded Arkansas statue of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the recently erected biblical monument has been shattered into separate pieces. Micheal has been apprehended on preliminary charges of ruining property, criminal trespass, and first-degree criminal mischief. It is very probable that the same person was responsible for crashing into a Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma Capitol back in the year 2014.
For Further Details And Additional Commentary, See:
Most people are familiar with Almighty God's covenantal promise to never flood the world, which was proclaimed back in the days of Noah after the Genesis flood. This worldwide flood was used as a means of executing judgment for mankind's transgressions against Him. Afterwards, He used a rainbow as a covenant symbol to make the promise to never cast judgement on the world in the same manner again (Genesis 6:5-8; 8:20-22; 12:9-17). Sadly, however, the LGBT community has developed a new method for mocking God's wonderful promise to mankind through the innovation of a flag that displays only six of the seven colors of the rainbow.
Having its origin in the State of California by artist Gilbert Baker, this flag was designed by the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the transsexuals to represent their own diverse values through the Gay Pride Movement, which has now been popularized throughout the globe.
What is striking about this flag is that its colors mock that of God's covenantal promise, the rainbow, to mankind to never again flood the whole earth. While God's rainbow has seven different colors, the LGBT flag only has six colors of the rainbow. It is missing the color indigo. Not only does the symbolism of the flag contain six out the seven different colors of the rainbow, but it is also important to recognize that the number six is the spiritual number for the devil and that seven is God's spiritual number. From a religious perspective, the LGBT movement can clearly be seen as mockery of the Divine Creator.
Notice that the entire logical foundation of the Gay Pride Movement has been built entirely on pride and self-promotion through wild parades, festivals, and imagery on public business signs or logos. Furthermore, radical members of the LGBT community have literally fought to silence all forms of opposition, regardless of whether objections are established on medical or moral grounds. In fact, the LGBT community is readily getting the attention that it wants because so many people are too afraid to be called haters or bigots. In short, most people of our society are focused on "not offending" other people, rather than providing detailed research refuting liberal propaganda.
The LGBT notion of pride is contrary to the entire theme of the Bible regarding pride. For instance, the Scriptures tell us that God opposes the arrogant (James 4:5). In other words, He abhors pride (Proverbs 8:13). Not only does the LGBT community display much arrogance, but it is also important to know that the Bible condemns the concept of homosexuality. While it is true that God promised to never cast judgment on the people of this world by flooding this entire planet, He never stated that He would never judge us again. In fact, we have been told that we shall have to render an account for all of our past deeds to Him (Romans 14:12). God's rainbow was meant to serve as a symbol of remembrance, not as a means of pride. Thus all faithful Christians have been called to speak out against the LGBT flag.
-"Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. No creature is concealed from him, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account." (Hebrews 4:12-13)
Commentary On Hebrews 4:12-13:
-In short, this beautifully vivid passage of Scripture testifies to the infinite power of God. It is saying that the words of God will not return to Him void. Thus, they are described in Hebrews 4:12-13 as being sharper than any double-edged sword. They penetrate to the innermost part of the human being, the soul. They slash directly through every physical component of the human body to discern the heart of man. In other words, God knows every thought and intention of our hearts that are concealed from the visible sight of other people. His words pierce directly through the natural realm into the supernatural realm. Every good or evil incentive that is currently hidden within the chamber of the human conscience is visible to God. Nothing can be hidden from Him. He knows everything. He is all powerful. He is present everywhere. We will eventually have to give account to God for all of our deeds. So we need to be cautious of our thoughts and actions daily to ensure that they remain in accordance to His divine will.
-"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:5)
Commentary On 2 Timothy 3:5:
-The entire context of this chapter is about the admonition to remain in apostolic tradition and the coming of false teachers. In this particular verse, the Apostle Paul was instructing his fellow-laborer Timothy to avoid people who have a godly appearance, yet stand in contradiction to the teachings and precepts of the gospel. In other words, Paul was exhorting him to separate himself from professing Christians who do not have the character of or stand in accordance to the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ. People who are either opposed to the growth of God's church or have a neutral standing regarding holiness are those who deny the transforming power of the Holy Spirit to change the lives of repentant sinners into sainthood. This biblical principle of examination is certainly applicable to members of the Christian church in modern times, for there exists false versions of the one true gospel as brought about by false teachers and people are lukewarm. We must continually remain conscious of people who only possess a superficial level of godliness because they are a source of spiritual deception to all the people that they encounter.
- "But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:16-20)
Parallel From The Gospel According To Mark:
- "Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mark 16:14-18)
Parallel From The Gospel According To Luke:
- "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:45-49)
Parallel From The Gospel According To John:
- "So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:19-23)
As Ambassadors For Our Lord Jesus Christ, He Has Appointed Us (His church) To:
1.) Preach the gospel to all nations. 2.) Proclaim the salvation of believers/condemnation of the unbelieving and unrepentant. 3.) Make converts and exhort them to remain in apostolic doctrine. 4.) Get baptized/baptize converts. 5.) Teach people how to worship God/obey His commandments/rebuke heresy. 6.) Do good in the name of Jesus Christ/demonstrate the reality of our faith. 7.) Remember that Jesus Christ will ALWAYS be with His church.
-"The church is not in the business of entertaining young people, but calling them to discipleship in Christ and separation from the world and holiness of living. It is true that what you win them with you win them to. If a church use worldly means to win young people, those thus won will be worldly. If a church has an organized youth group, it must be very careful about the selection of those who lead the youth. Young people don’t need a “good times Charlie.” They don’t merely need another buddy who will pal around with them in fun and games. They get plenty of that. What they desperately need, and what the church is required by God to give them, are godly, spiritually mature people who will love them and show them the path of God’s perfect will, who will call them to reject the vain, “cool” ways of this present wicked world, who will challenge them to be pure, to pull down the worldly idols from their hearts, to give themselves wholly to the service of Jesus Christ while there is still time, to yield to Christ’s command to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." (David W. Cloud, Contemporary Christian Music Under the Spotlight, p. 201)
In today's society, much debate and perplexity has been emerging over some of the most basic questions of life. Unfortunately, many people have found themselves unable to answer questions with obvious answers such as their gender identity. While the Book of Genesis presents us with the very simplistic blueprint of gender identity as being either male or female, educators, psychiatrists, and politicians who uphold the secular worldview believe that it is morally impermissible for parents to be labeling their children as being boys or girls. In other words, they are suggesting that things are not as they appear to our eyes. Thus the people who constitute the worldly portion of our society maintain that our children should have the right to choose their own personal gender identities, even if a male chooses to identify himself as being a female. But on what grounds can the idea of altering biological identity be justified? What form of evidence can be provided to open up the possibility of there even being more than two genders?
The proposition that we can individually change our own gender identity or create new branches of gender identities is absolutely preposterous. Back in the day, most people viewed transgenderism as being intrinsically evil. But now the belief that we can explore a multitude of different gender options has spread like wildfire. Why did there ever need to be such a drastic change in moral views? If something is true, then it is true for all people at all times. And it is true that transgenderism is wrong. Truth cannot be self-contradictory. Otherwise, it would be self-refuting. The fact that the secular world now accepts transgenderism as being morally acceptable is very telling. It demonstrates that alleged professionals possess foggy judgment. People seriously lack discernment. The overall deterioration in our moral foundation plainly reveals the consequences of a nation willfully departing from the presence of God.
What people need to recognize is that gender is a biological reality that is determined by our DNA. The same elementary scientific principle regarding the determination of gender is equally applicable to our race and hair color. The truth of the matter is that we cannot alter our gender, any more than we can choose to have different skin or hair colors. Furthermore, we know that only two different gender possibilities exist because only two different pairs of genitalia exist. There are only XX (female) and XY (male) genes. God has given us these bodily designs for the sake of human procreation. It follows from the premises of this argument that our gender identities cannot be based on mere emotions or preferences. If people can violate basic scientific laws by altering their gender, then what is stopping them from becoming a different animal species? How can a human being cease to be human? The only thing that medical procedures can do is change the outer appearance of people.
Our current daily usage of the available words in our languages does not allow for the possibility of more than two different gender identities! This shows us that transsexualism has always been contrary to the simple, natural understanding of gender identification. To accept transgenderism as being morally acceptable is to reject the voice of human reason.
In all cases, truth must be affirmed. This obviously encompasses the natural gender identity of our children. In other words, males need to be taught male customs and females need to be taught female customs. Additionally, parents need to teach their children the difference between right and wrong (Proverbs 22:6). Otherwise, our world will eventually end up being in a hopeless state of anarchy. But ever since our government has denied the existence of objective moral absolutes along with removing the Bible from our public school systems, this has been happening gradually. Although any amount of conditioning through physical, psychological, or sexual abuse may cause a person to experience confusion regarding his or her gender identity, such struggles can be overcome through plenty of encouragement, discipline, and psychological training. We can assume, imagine, or have a desire to be a different gender, but having such mental inclinations does not change our internal genetic makeup, any more than saying, imagining, or wanting to be a giraffe actually makes us one.
Before making a few closing statements, we should take some time to note the negative psychological effects of the transsexual ideology that is being promoted by the principalities of this world. In 2016, the Obama Administration passed laws ordering the public school systems to allow members of the opposite sexes to share restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Since then, other public places such as grocery stores, parks, and universities have adopted the idea of using "transgender" bathrooms. Can anybody not see the inherent moral flaws of this worldview? First of all, any pervert can claim to be any random gender. Secondly, our right to privacy has been violated. And thirdly, the innocence of our children is at an elevated risk of being corrupted. Not only should these great moral concerns be a paramount factor of consideration in these matters pertaining to discernment, but it is also evil to brainwash our young children into believing that they can choose to be a different gender only to be enslaved to a lifetime exposure to carcinogenic, toxic hormones. Neither is it morally permissible to mutilate healthy functioning parts of the body.
God created mankind in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). He also called His creations "good" (Genesis 1:31). To claim that we need a gender change is to claim that God did a poor job in creating the universe. Shame on those liberal "Christians" and "intellectuals" who promote the pseudo-scientific abomination of transgenderism! As Romans 1:22 says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
-If any of the following information regarding the Roman Catholic persecution of a group of Evangelical Christians in Mexico was a hoax, then the Catholics would have definitely been the first people to point us to the facts. But I have searched the internet in vain for information to the contrary of what is posted in the videos below, though they appear to be rather truthful and well-documented.
How absurd of a scenario do we have presented before our eyes: Christians persecuting other Christians? There is obviously a major logical dilemma here!
There are consequences for sin, as the Apostle Paul affirmed, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." (Galatians 6:7-9):
1.) Separation from God (Isaiah 59:1-2).
2.) Hardened heart (Romans 1).
3.) Eternal condemnation in hell (Romans 6:23).
4.) Loss of peace, harmony, and happiness.
5.) Guilt, sorrow, and mental health problems.
6.) Loss of relationships (1 Corinthians 3:3).
-The Islamic religion was established during the seventh century by an Arabian merchant named Muhammad. This man claimed that the angel Gabriel repeatedly visited him for the purpose of giving him divine revelation from God. Hence, Muhammad recorded the words of Allah, the Arabic name for God which is occupied by the Muslims, into the sacred religious text known to us as the Koran. He spread this new found ideological system through brutal conquest, torture, and execution. But the purpose of this article is to provide a basic listing of significant doctrinal contradictions between the religions of Christianity and Islam.
Contrasting Fundamental Christian and Muslim Doctrines:
-While both religions profess monotheism, Islam denies the biblical concept of the Trinity, which teaches that one God exists in three separate, divine Persons (Matthew 28:19-20; John 10:30 Ephesians 4:4-6).
-While Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, is co-eternal with the Father, the Son of God, was crucified, and resurrected from the grave (1 Timothy 3:16; John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24; John 2:19-20; 20:26-28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8), the religion of Islam flatly denies all of these essential Christian doctrines. Furthermore, Islam teaches that Jesus was only a good moral teacher who was subordinate to the prophet Muhammad.
-While Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity who testifies in favor of Jesus Christ (John 14:26), Islam teaches that He is the angel Gabriel. Also, the Muslim religion calls Muhammad the "helper".
-The Koran teaches that man is saved entirely on the basis of good works (For example, the mandatory completion of the Five Pillars--1. profession of Islamic faith, 2. daily prayer, 3.) almsgiving, 4. fasting during the month of Ramadan, and 5. pilgrimage to Mecca), denies original sin, and claims that we cannot have any assurance of eternal life after death. In fact, Muhammad himself was not even sure whether Allah would allow him enter heaven after death! On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace through our faith in Him alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16), affirms that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners (Romans 3:23; 5:12), and that we can have great assurance of eternal salvation (John 5:24; 1 John 5:13).
-Islam teaches that God can contradict Himself, whereas Christianity teaches that God can only do what is good and what is right (NOT a limitation, but rather is a degree of absolute perfection).
-In Christianity, heaven is for all people who were saved by the grace of God. It is complete, eternal unity with the divine Creator. However, to Muslims the place of paradise is a place of infinite debauchery, that is, where all worldly desires ranging from sexual pleasure to alcoholic consumption can be fulfilled.
-Recently, lay Roman Catholic apologist De Maria respondedto an objector who argued against the Roman Catholic view of how man gets saved by God from eternal condemnation (i.e. justification). Following are his remarks in quotation form, with all of my replies being in pink. Alright, shall we begin this critique of Catholic apologetics?:
"But who is the judge of true faith, you or God?"
>>No doubt, God is the ultimate judge of the validity of our faith (2 Corinthians 5:10). However, there is a tremendous difference between merely recognizing genuine faith in God and arrogating ourselves to a position of judging ourselves as being worthy of inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Christ specifically said that we shall know people by people by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). We can certainly apply that principle of discernment to ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5). And yes, we can have great assurance of our eternal salvation (John 5:24; 1 John 5:11-13).
>>We Protestants proclaim the gospel of salvation by faith apart from the merit of all works because that is EXACTLY what Scripture affirms. What part of "not by works of righteousness" do Roman Catholics not understand (Romans 4:2-8; Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:8-9; Titus 3:5-7)? Furthermore, it is vital to recognize that the Apostle Paul repeatedly mentioned the concept of meritorious works in the context of boasting throughout his epistles to the New Testament churches. He rightly did so because the works-salvation mindset provokes man's prideful nature.
"Salvation is granted to them who OBEY Christ (Hebrews 5:9)"
>>Obedience to the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ comes as a RESULT of salvation.
"Much less is one saved by faith ALONE (James 2:24)."
>>The context of James 2:24 is not about justification, but rather is about how we demonstrate the reality of our faith by our good deeds. Good works are simply the EVIDENCE of a saving faith in God (James 2:18), NOT the cause of salvation. The word "justified" in this particular context best means VINDICATED or PROVEN, and is used in the same manner elsewhere in Scripture.
"But, for the most part, they (Protestants) deny the Catholic Teaching and call it blasphemous."
>>Well, that's because Roman Catholic doctrine IS blasphemous.
"First, faith, if it is accompanied by the fruits it produces, is not alone..."
>>Remember, works are the product of salvation by faith, not the cause. The moment that the repentant man gets saved by faith is the moment that Jesus Christ begins to transform him into a holier person. Converted individuals are "a new creation in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17). We are created in Him for the purpose of good works (Ephesians 2:10). In short, works come as a result of faith, which is the moment of salvation. THAT is how good works accompany faith.
"Second, true faith produces good works and salvation follows (James 2:14)."
>>Never does Scripture teach, "Works follow faith AND THEN salvation follows." The Bible teaches that the performance of good works occurs as a RESULT of salvation, not the cause. It almost seems as if De Maria has his "theological underwear" placed on backwards! Furthermore, the New American Bible, an official translation approved by the Church of Rome, emphatically translates the question posed in James 2:14 as, "Can THAT faith save him?" This is rather supportive of the "faith alone" position, for the addition of the implied "that" lends support to the interpretation that the inspired writer James was combating the error of using Paul's teaching on justification as an excuse for participation in sin or being negligent of Christian duties. Again, it is clear that James does not argue against salvation by faith alone, but rather argues against a salvation that is devoid of good works. "Scripture tells you what else is needed. Baptism (Mark 16:16). And after, Confession (Heb 13:17) and throughout your life, good works (Matt 25:31-46). Do you take one verse and discard the rest of the Gospel?" >>Is De Maria actually serious in interpreting the Scripture passages that he just cited above in the manner that he just did? >>In Mark 16:16, Jesus only condemned the unbelieving. In fact, He did not even say that baptism was necessary for salvation in the Mark verse. >>Hebrews 13:17 simply talks about submission to godly, biblically appointed leaders of the church, not confession to a priest! This verse is not even talking about the confession of sin. >>Concerning Matthew 25:31-46, the context is all about faithfulness to the will of God, not justification. The works mentioned in the text from the Gospel According to Matthew offer descriptions for various states of the human heart, not prescribed as criteria for salvation. As with all biblical scenarios of the final judgment, God looks at people's works because they are the evidence of what is in their hearts by faith. >>Salvation as presented by the biblical gospel is NOT works-based (John 20:30-31). >>While De Maria claims that salvation is determined on the basis of faith AND works, Scripture teaches that mankind can only be saved on the basis of faith OR by works (Romans 11:6). But Scripture teaches that we are saved by FAITH, apart from the merit of all works. Sorry De Maria, but you can't have it both ways!
-"There is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." (Romans 8:1)
Commentary On Romans 8:1
-To be in Jesus Christ means to be born again. To be born again means to be born spiritually. To be born spiritually means to have a genuine conversion of heart. To experience a genuine conversion of heart means to develop a mental conviction that leads us to act in accordance to what is right. To possess a mental conviction that Jesus is Lord means to let Him transform our lives for the better. To act in accordance to what is right means to stand in accordance to God's divine will. To stand in accordance to God's will means to do what is good and what is right. The people who give themselves to God and place their sinful lusts aside for the sake of others are the ones who walk after the spirit. These people are the ones who do not experience condemnation because they have placed their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. They have truly accepted Him as their Lord and their Savior. On the other hand, the people who walk after the flesh are the ones who will end up suffering eternal condemnation in the flames of hell because they are not faithful to or trusting in God's will. The god of the carnal people is their own bellies.
-Back in the month of April this year, a lay Roman Catholic apologist who goes by the name of De Maria wrote an article responding to a fellow Protestant's objections to the Real Presence doctrine titled "Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God". In his article, he addressed the claim that, "There is no Biblical basis for two separate killings of two different lives (of the lamb and of Jesus) being one sacrifice."Hence, the purpose of this article is to deliver a brief response to his arguments defending the Roman Catholic Mass.
1.) First, De Maria asserts that God commanding Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice on Mt. Moriah is biblical evidence for the alleged prefiguration of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the New Testament. While we can readily see the typology in these passages of the Book of Genesis in relation to the sacrificial work of our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. carrying wood up on a hill; the exact location of the sacrifice; God providing a lamb for an offering; etc.), we still see no evidence for the Catholic Mass. For the most part, it can be said that God was simply testing Abraham's faithfulness to His will. But the passages of Genesis 22 only provide biblical support for the concept of vicarious atonement, since God provided Abraham a lamb to be offered as a holy sacrifice in the place of his own son. If Genesis 22 was meant to serve as a biblical prefiguration of the Roman Catholic Eucharist, then we should see Isaac being offered repeatedly on an alter (in the same manner as Jesus Christ is supposedly sacrificed on alters in Catholic Churches). But we never see this happening in the Bible. Indeed, Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who's blood was shed on the cross ONCE FOR ALL to redeem mankind from sin.
2.) Concerning De Maria's comments on the Passover in Exodus 12, we do see the literal sacrifices of sheep. But I don't really see what this Catholic apologist is trying to prove when he refers to these blood of the covenant passages, for all sacrifices that were performed in the Old Testament pointed directly to the one perfect, final sacrifice accomplished by Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Hebrews 10:1). Although we can see many clear examples of typology in Exodus 12 (i.e. the bones of the lamb [symbolizes Christ] not being broken), we have no reason to interpret these passages as being supportive of transubstantiation because they do not say anything about a mysterious transformation in the consecrated elements of the Mass into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Although the event at Calvary was a one time event, its effects are permanent. The ministerial priesthood of the Old Testament has been replaced by the New Testament universal priesthood of believers under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:24-28; 1 Peter 2:5-9). "Where there is forgiveness of these, thereis no longer offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:18).
3.) One of the underlying problems with De Maria's use of Old to New Testament typology in defense of the Catholic Eucharist is the NATURE of the sacrifices. While the sacrifices performed by Roman Catholic priests during the worship ceremonies are "unbloody", all biblical sacrifices were bloody. This is very problematic for De Maria's position because Scripture tells us that without the shedding of blood we cannot have any forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). Not only does Scripture fail to equate two different sacrifices as being one sacrifice, but we also are never informed about any sort of transition from "bloody" to "unbloody" sacrifices. Thus De Maria has been forced to read utterly foreign ideas into passages of Scripture in order to substantiate any of his points.
4.) A lot could be said about De Maria's misuse of John 6:51 as a proof-text for transubstantiation, but this paper was meant to only be a short response to the issues in De Maria's article. The surrounding context of John 6 is about coming to Christ and believing on Him for salvation (i.e. John 6:35; 40). THAT is the meaning of consuming His flesh and blood, nothing more. Jesus said of His words, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63). Not only would Jesus Christ never violate the Law's restriction on drinking blood (i.e. Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:23), but cannibalism is a sure sign of spiritual apostasy (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Ezekiel 5:10). If Jesus literally meant to eat His literal body and drink His blood in order to obtain eternal life, then His disciples would have done so on the spot! The simple truth of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is totally unbiblical, as well as it is illogical.
-How can Muslims claim that the Bible has been corrupted when their own holy book admits to the divine inspiration of the Torah (Sura 2:87), the Psalms (Sura 4:163), and the gospel (Sura 3:3; 5:46)? According to the Koran, the words of Allah cannot be perverted (Sura 6:34; 6:115; 10:64). It follows that the Muslim claim that the Christian Bible has been lost and corrupted is false. Ironically, the Koran never even makes such a claim. But how can we embrace two sources of allegedly divine revelation that repeatedly contradict each other? If Muslims are going to be consistent with their own argument, then they will have to call Allah a liar.
While the theistic
worldview operates on the fundamental assumption that God exists, the atheistic
mindset displays direct contrariety in the sense that it interprets daily
experiences as being separated from the existence of a supreme deity. Atheism
maintains that mankind through the lens of the scientific laboratory alone is
the final standard of authority for decision making in every aspect of life.
But one of the very fascinating, yet vitriolic, charges advanced by prominent
atheistic scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitches is that
religion is a mind virus.
In other words, these
people have argued that theism is a completely unnatural, destructive meme,
which is a biological term for non-genetic trait sharing, that perverts our
ability to formulate accurate perceptions in life. According to the logic of
the anti-theist argument, this mental “virus” strives to invade the minds of
healthy, rational secular individuals through brainwashing or indoctrination.
This worldview depicts religion as being a mental illness that has originated
from vindictive causes. Therefore, participating in religion or teaching
children religious concepts is viewed by atheists as being absolutely perilous
to the continued survival of society. In summary, the religion virus argument
maintains that the proliferation of religious beliefs must be separated, if not
terminated, from all spheres of human interaction, which encompasses but is not
limited to education, economics, science, and politics.
There are a number of
different reasons for the atheistic animosity against the promotion of
religious ideals in the world, which are beyond the scope of this paper. While
some people want to use science as the means of discovering all the answers to
the questions of life to the exclusion of considering belief in God as a
plausible answer to problems, others simply do not want their views on moral
issues to be condemned or governed by a superior, divine authority. But much
more apparent and serious causes for the negative approaches to incorporating
religion into daily facets of life have developed.
People have either
abandoned Christianity altogether or have utterly misunderstood the true
character of the gospel because of hypocrisy among professing Christian leaders
who are supposed to be acting in a godly manner, harsh treatment by fellow
Christians, and by the creation of religions that promote barbaric ways of
life. These factors certainly should warrant the concern of Christian churches,
but the claim that religion is a virus does indeed have several internal
logical inconsistencies and available angles of refutation.
The underlying problem
with the religion virus argument is that it completely distorts the true nature
of Christianity, for this religion does not enforce ways that are contrary to
the ways of freedom, love, beauty, kindness, hope, peace, and righteousness.
These moral principles form the basis of the gospel message. In reality, the
Judeo-Christian worldview is the only tenable way of life because it is the
only religion that promotes true goodness. This can be said of no other
perspective of life. The real problem with atheists is that their hearts have
been hardened against God's will. Though individual members of professing
Christian denominations may be acting in a corrupt manner, this fact by no
means refutes the validity of the Christian religion. Afflicted individuals
simply need to dig deeper into God's revelation to mankind for answers to the
difficulties presented in life.
Philosophies such as
Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism favored moral relativism and nihilism, yet
provoked major horrors in the history of mankind. These were entirely secular
worldviews. Is it not ironic how secular people make the claim that religion is
the cause of all evil?
Belief systems are
evidences of people upholding particular sets of ideas. They may tend to be
exclusive in nature. It is normal for parents to share their own worldview with
their children. It is also normal of belief systems to encourage practices to
enhance faithfulness to that particular system of faith, which can include the
continual introduction of ideas unique to that particular faith, having
assemblies, or eating together with other members of that same belief-system.
Furthermore, most belief-systems do encourage the promotion of a particular set
of ideas. Sincere members of a particular belief-system evangelize outsiders
about the teachings of their particular belief system because they believe
that their worldview is correct, not because of an invasive pathogen that
unwillfully perverts a normal thinking pattern. Otherwise, atheism also
qualifies to be a "virus of the mind" because it shares the same
common characteristics of religions in the sense of remaining faithful and
strives to propagate its own unique sets of ideas. But religions consist of
rituals, customs, and practices that are deliberately chosen, not influenced by
an invasive pathogen that unwillfully perverts a normal thinking pattern.
If the hypothesis that
religion is a cruel, unnatural control mechanism that can only be brought about
through acts of indoctrination is correct, then we should anticipate finding
few adulthood conversions from atheism to Christianity. On the contrary, the
test for religion being a mental virus has soundly refuted the proposed idea
that religion is a mental virus because the presupposed conclusion is flatly
contradicted by presented data. Atheism has continually been abandoned by
several thousand people as a result of people being convinced by the principles
taught within Christianity (or by other world religions). In fact, religious
people are generally happier than secular individuals.
portrayal of religion as being a virus is constructed on entirely
pseudo-scientific premises. It has no rational or philosophical grounds to rely
on, but rather is a form of emotional rhetoric. The religion virus argument is
nothing more than an attempt to provide justification for rejecting God and His
moral precepts. Such objections to the theistic worldview form as a result of a
hatred of God and a poor understanding of the gospel. Consequently, Christians
need to: 1.) Know the contents of their faith, 2.) Provide reasons for why they
believe what they believe, 3.) Reveal true love for all people, and 4.) Examine
personal conduct. The best thing that we can do for those who willfully disobey
the commandments of God is to pray that His Holy Spirit softens the hearts of
those who have hardened their hearts against Him. Though atheists have a valid
point regarding the potential harm of man-made religions, there still exists a radical contrast between true and false religion.
Since when does biology tell us that more than two genders exist? Who got to decide that people can choose their official gender identity? There are only two opposite genital parts! Does it not follow that there are ONLY TWO genders!? If not, then why?
Following are some questions for atheists to answer:
1.) What is the first cause of everything? 2.) Why did the universe come into being? What is our purpose in life? 3.) Why do human beings possess consciousness? How can intelligent life exist? 4.) From whence do we get our morals and values? How can we know for certain that anything is right? 5.) How do you know that your worldview is correct? What if heaven and hell are real?
-How to worship God according to His divine will is a tremendously important question that any truly studious, born-again Christian should ever ask and ponder. This is especially true when we live in a world that is drunk on the bottle of sin. God is the only Life Jacket that will prevent us from sinking and drowning in this world of sin and delusion. How to worship God according to His will is a paramount matter of spiritual discernment. The vehicle of our eternal destiny travels on the fuel of our decisions that we execute in this life. Which road will you take: the broad or the narrow way (Matthew 7:13-14)?
How Do we Serve The Lord?:
-We first must be converted to Christianity before we can be united with the spiritual family of God and eat at the table of salvation. We must have faith before we can love, know, and serve the God of the Bible. It is from salvation that we experience the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. We then get baptized to display our commitment and dedication to being fools for Christ's sake. We must pick up our crosses and obey Him.
+Prayer: our spiritual channel to direct communication with God.
+Praise: appreciation and celebration for what God has done for us.
+Devotional study of the Scriptures and logical principles to understand God's will.
+Teaching and preaching Christianity.
+ Upholding all of the essential doctrines of the Christian religion
+Doing good deeds for others/displaying good Christian character
+Weekly worship services which consists of:
^ Free will offerings (1 Corinthians 16:1-2)
^ Communion Supper (Acts 20:7)
^A sermon and Scripture study
^Offering up of prayers and bowing before God (1 Corinthians 14:15-16)
^ Hymns or songs of praise (Ephesians 5:19-20; Colossians 3:16)
The Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans has a short, yet comprehensive way of explaining the salvation of mankind from eternal condemnation in the flames of hell:
-"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) -"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) -"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) -"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9) -"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1)
1.) Because mankind has sinned against God, we have all fallen short of His moral standards which demand spotless obedience (Romans 3:23). Thus, we are all deserving of His wrath and eternal condemnation in the literal flames of hell. That is known as the problem of sin. 2.) However, God sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world to offer Himself as a sin offering on our behalf (i.e. to pay our infinite debt of sin) out of His unfathomable love for us (John 3:16). That is known as the remedy to our problem of sin, which is defined scripturally as transgressing the commandments of God. It involves man placing himself in the position of Creator. Additionally, it is of utmost importance to recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only path to eternal life in heaven (John 14:6). 3.) Jesus Christ is the only spiritual antidote for our spiritual infirmities because the damning consequences of sin (i.e. eternal condemnation) can only be resolved by a perfect blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22). An infinite debt requires a perfect substitute (Hebrews 7:25; 10:10-14). He lived a perfectly sinless life in our place and made the final propitiatory sacrifice on our behalf (Hebrews 10; 1 Peter 3:18). We become children of God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:12; Galatians 3:26). We must have our sins forgiven and removed in order to enter His kingdom. 4.) We need to accept what the Lord has done for us through our faith in His work. We need to accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. For salvation, we believe on the grace of God and thankfully acknowledge what He has done for us (Romans 10:9-13). We are saved by faith, apart from the merit of any and all works (Romans 4:2-8). We need to be "born again" (John 3:3-7), which means allowing God to conform us to His image through the washing of Christ's blood and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. A genuine faith in Christ by definition produces good works (or at least a desire to perform) as a result. We must be converted. If we do not humbly beg from the heart that the Lord reveals to us His mercy, then we are certainly spiritually bankrupt and destined to be cast into eternal condemnation. The simple message of the gospel is that one is saved by believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). 5.) If one does get saved, then he or she needs to bear much fruit (not to get saved, but because one is saved; this is known as santification):
-We need to get baptized in water to make a public sign of discipleship.
-We need to confess:
*Christ before other men *preach the gospel
*confess our faults to others (James 5:16) -Obey the commandments of Christ
-Dedicate time to worship -Dedicate time study the Word of God
-Roman Catholics tend to portray classical Protestantism as being totally lost and full of internal contradictions because of scriptural misinterpretation. They then propose their own church hierarchy as being the ultimate "solution" to all of the allegedly obscure passages of the Bible. Catholics commonly ask questions that follow similar lines to, "How do you know that your interpretations of Scripture are correct?" They believe that professing Christians who rely on the Scriptures alone for the establishment of doctrine are in a hopeless state of confusion because they do not submit to an infallible interpreter of Scripture. But the church does NOT need an infallible hierarchy to preside over it because God gave us the Scriptures. Additionally, the same standards that are raised by opponents of Sola Scriptura can also be applied equally to them.
1.) How do adherents to the Church of Rome know that the Pope is infallible in matters pertaining to faith and morals? How do Roman Catholics know with certainty that they have correctly selected the rightful interpreter of the Scriptures?
-Catholics believe that we need an infallible interpreter to settle every doctrinal dispute.
-Just as the Protestant makes a private judgment of Scripture, Romanists also use private judgment to reach the verdict that the Pope is infallible. They also must fallibly interpret every word of Church teaching, whether they retrieve their information from Papal Encyclicals, Ecumenical council documents, the catechism, hearing their priests during the Mass, or by any other means. Roman Catholics do and must possess individualized, subjective interpretations of Roman Catholicism. Converts to Roman Catholicism must also use their own fallible reasoning skills to personally reach the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. Thus we see that Catholics are pitting a completely hypocritical double-standard against Protestant churches because both sides of the debate must use "private judgment". In the end, Catholics are really in no better of a position than we Fundamentalists are. In fact, Catholics disagree on many of the official teachings of their own church. Those Roamin' Catholics have been roaming around in vain in search of doctrinal security under the umbrella of the Magisterium!
2.) If we do not have the right to engage in private interpretation of Scripture because we are not infallible, then how can we know with certainty which oral tradition is correct among the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the Watchtower churches, for all three sects teach that they alone can interpret Scripture, to the exclusion of the individual?
3.) The Roman Catholic Church has never given an interpretation of every passage in the Bible. In fact, it has done so only on a handful of occasions to serve its own purpose. What is even more interesting is that while the Church of Rome guarantees certainty behind the infallibility of its official decrees, it never promises that the theological reasoning used to support a decree is accurate itself. Consider the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached."
4.) Let's ask a few questions regarding the authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church. If an infallible institution is necessary to obtain the correct meaning of every Scripture passage, then on what basis do we know which church (out of the many out there making identical claims) is the infallible church? How do Roman Catholics know with absolute certainty that they have correctly picked Christ's church (the only thing available for Catholics is on the basis of their own fallible private judgment)?
5.) It is very interesting to see how both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have made IDENTICAL claims to infallible authority, yet they both disagree on who's church originated first. Furthermore, it can safely be said that the Church Fathers never considered themselves to be the standard of truth!
6.) Alright, it is time to provide an answer to how we can know that our interpretations of Scripture are correct for the sake of fairness. Quite simply, we know on the basis of our own reasoning. It cannot get any simpler than this, for infinite regression is impossible! But to suggest that we need infallible certainty behind the meaning of Scripture is not only totally unnecessary, but achieving absolute certainty is also highly illogical and impossible for us to obtain. Infallibility is God's domain. We are limited by bodily design to comprehend the realm of infinity. The best degree of certainty that we can possess behind the meaning of anything in life is sufficient certainty. We can know whether something is true or false beyond a shadow of a doubt.
When will those Roamin' Catholics find out that we can only find shelter under the Rock of Ages, who is God? They're roaming in all the wrong places to find salvation! May God help them to see the truth of the gospel through the power of His divine grace.