Multiculturalism And Moral Relativism

"Once the ideas and insights of an individual or group are disseminated, anyone can employ them. No one culture owns its accomplishments; they belong to everyone. When the knowledge is out there, we can all access it. There is no inexorable link to race or ethnic origin.

For example, even though primarily Western scholars have developed modern physics, it is not inherently Western. If a primitive thinks he can jump off a thousand-foot precipice and fly because the totem told him he can, he will die. His death is not caused by Eurocentric science but by his ignorance of the nature of reality Western scientists articulate.

Having said all of this, we must emphasize that if significant accomplishments have been ignored, we should redress the injustice-not because of the race or ethnicity of the thinker but because of the importance of the ideas.

George Reisman, an economist at Pepperdine University, has made similar observations. He argues that the trends toward "multicultural education" and "diversity" as well as critiques of "Eurocentric" or "Western" values are misguided and ill-informed.

For one thing, these trends imply that all cultures have contributed to human progress and knowledge equally. Reisman argues that this is false, since Western values-whether scientific, philosophical, economic, or moral-have proved to be vastly superior. These societies that have embraced Western values, whether geographically in the Far East or in the West, reveal this.

In addition, Western civilization is open to everyone, since it constitutes a body of knowledge and values that is not linked inexorably to any race, nationality, or region of the globe. For these reasons, Reisman contends that multiculturalism is a new form of racism because it reduces matter of the intellect to a matter of racial or ethnic membership."

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, p. 94-95

What About People Who Have Never Heard Of Jesus Christ Or The Gospel?

• Discussion:

          -Whether or not people who never had an opportunity to hear and believe on the gospel for salvation are exempt from the judgment of God is more of an emotional than rational question. It concerns the eternal destiny of every individual. Everyone has to face the reality of death, and an afterlife. How this question is answered shapes the way that we preach the gospel to people of different religions. It requires that we heed the clear teaching of Scripture, which is that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

          God has inscribed His moral laws into our hearts (Romans 2:15). He has manifested Himself plainly through creation (Romans 1:18-20). He is not far from any one of us (Acts 17:26-27). The inability to hear the gospel is not the problem. Our lack of knowledge is not what condemns us. The real issue is that our sins against God have merited eternal condemnation.

          Even though men like Cornelius feared God prior to receiving the message of the gospel, Scripture still records the Lord directing him to the Apostle Peter so that he could receive the good news of salvation. In addition, God takes into account one's ability to understand His commandments in judgment (John 15:22; Romans 2:12-13). Every person who has a rational mind is responsible for his own decisions and has only himself to blame for his fate.

          If every unbeliever is automatically saved just because of a lack of knowledge regarding the person of Christ and His atonement, then the gospel that we preach would be needless. The concept of evangelism would be rendered nonsensical. We should be making the greatest effort possible to ensure that everybody gets a chance to hear the gospel. We should be grateful that God has provided even one way for us to be reconciled with Him (John 14:6; Hebrews 4:14-16).

          Evangelism is not just about saving souls from condemnation, but also about helping individuals understand their true identity in Christ. By sharing the gospel with others, we invite them to experience the fullness of life that God intended for them, fostering a deeper connection with their Creator and with one another. This perspective emphasizes the holistic nature of salvation, encompassing both eternal destiny and present-day transformation.

Debunking Catholic Apologist Steve Ray On James 2 And Justification By Faith Alone

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a few arguments made by Steve Ray at Catholic Answers on the issue of James 2 and how it concerns the doctrine of justification by faith alone. His post addresses many issues, but the emphasis here is solely about the nature of faith and the necessity of good works. Following are quotations from the author along with a critique of each claim:

          "This passage does not sit well with Ankerberg's interpretation. He says that it is always faith that is proven by works, whereas the apostle James seems to say it is the person."

          On the contrary, the context of James 2 indeed contrasts two different kinds of faith. It centers on a profession that results in good works and another that is dead. One man says that he believes in God, while another actually does what He commands. A man himself is "justified" by works in the sense of being vindicated or proven righteous.

          "We must take care with this theory, or we'll end up scratching a few verses out of Genesis. Was it men who were testing Abraham's faith? The book of Genesis says God, not men, who was testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Ankerberg writes that James is referring to justification before men, because God can already see the heart (37)."

          God can test our faith to produce obedience. Even though God already knows whether our faith is genuine, Abraham was tested so that future generations could see for themselves that he is worthy of being considered the father of our faith. This incident serves to illustrate his unwavering trust in God. A faith that saves is one that obeys God. A saving faith is very much alive and active. A faith that is not evidenced by good works is dead. The context of James 2 discusses the inherent features of a saving faith.

          "Another problem with the Fundamentalist interpretation is that there were no men around to be "vindicated" before-this test was strictly between God and Abraham."

          Sure there was. Isaac himself got to witness the greatness of his father Abraham's faith. This incident was also penned down in Scripture by Moses. As a result, multitudes of readers in later centuries could see the greatness of Abraham's faith. He trusted in God to the point at which he would even give up his dearly beloved son. Abraham obeyed God even when things did not make sense to him.

          "James thinks Abraham was not justified in Genesis 15 or 17, but much later in Genesis 22, when he offered up Isaac. He states, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21, KJV). And then James is bold enough to say, "So you see, a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)."

          The problem here is that the context of James 2 is not about how one is made right with God, but rather how one lives out his faith before others. The Apostle Paul addresses the matter of justification by faith more than any other biblical writer. 

           According to Hebrews 11:8, Abraham was justified in Genesis 12. Genesis 15:6 is simply the proclamation of Abraham's salvation as a result of his faith and a promise to future generations that they would be saved by the same means.

          "James elaborates what faith is, and its crucial element of obedience (works), as does John in his first epistle. The Catholic vs. Protestant argument, the faith vs. faith and obedience debate, has nothing to do with the discussion Paul was having with the Jewish Christians in Rome and Galatia."

           Scripture contains principles that are applicable to all people, at all places, and at all times. Obviously, the Apostle Paul was unfamiliar with Catholic verses Protestant issues on the nature of salvation. However, he still knew the basic contents of this controversy because he had to address in writing the Judaizers who promoted a faith plus works gospel.

Does Psalm 106:30-31 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologists and others sometimes cite the text of Psalm 106:30-31 as evidence of works being a necessary condition in addition to faith for justification before God. It is claimed that Phinehas was given the same kind of righteousness that Abraham had on the basis of a good work. Consider this excerpt from Steve Ray as an example of how this argument has been made:

         "...centering on Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Catholics agree with this Scripture, but the same words ("it was reckoned to him as righteousness") are applied to another person in the Old Testament besides Abraham, and the "justification" was there attributed to actions and zealousness, not faith alone. The phrase used in Psalm 106:31 is the same (in both the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint) as is used in Genesis 15:6. In Psalm 106:30, 31 we read, "Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore" (KJV). Evangelicals say his faith justified him, like his father Abraham-but the Psalmist must not have understood the faith alone doctrine, for he attributes the imputation of righteousness to Phinehas' zealousness." 

          The background of this event is recorded in Numbers 25. Jewish men were committing fornication with the women of Moab. Therefore, God was provoked to wrath. He cast a plague over Israel. Then, Phinehas took a spear and drove it through a couple in the act of fornication. He obtained mercy from God, terminated the plague, and was regarded as a righteous man due to his desire for righteousness. His deed would be blessed and remembered from generation to generation. The reality of his faith was demonstrated before other men. This is a testimonial of faithfulness, not justification before God. Consider for a moment how a few translations of greater dynamic equivalence render this passage:

          "Phinehas did what was right, and it will be remembered from now on." (Psalm 106:31, New Century Version)

          "This brought him a reward, an eternal gift." (Psalm 106:31, New English Translation)

          "for this he is the example of uprightness, from age to age for ever." (Psalm 106:31, New Jerusalem Bible)

          What has been brought out here are the more practical aspects of the righteousness that Phinehas exhibited. At the very heart of the matter lies a deep concern for maintaining the purity of the worship of God and of His people. Phinehas boldly took action during a time of peril. He is now known forever in the Jewish annuls as a man of impeccable integrity. Following is an excerpt from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Psalm 106:31:

           "31. counted … righteousness—"a just and rewardable action." for—or, "unto," to the procuring of righteousness, as in Ro 4:2; 10:4. Here it was a particular act, not faith, nor its object Christ; and what was procured was not justifying righteousness, or what was to be rewarded with eternal life; for no one act of man's can be taken for complete obedience. But it was that which God approved and rewarded with a perpetual priesthood to him and his descendants (Nu 25:13; 1 Ch 6:4, etc.)."

           The similarity in sentence structure between Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 106:30-31 (i.e. "it was reckoned unto him as righteousness") has no bearing because the context of the latter passage is not concerned with how one gets right with God. It would be out of place for Paul to use this passage because he emphasized faith rather than works in being justified before God. Moreover, the passage in Genesis 15 is not the moment of Abraham's justification, but rather is God's promise of salvation to him and posterity through faith. Genesis 15:6 foretells the foundational message of salvation, which has now been revealed through the gospel. That is what makes it relevant to Paul's argument.

          God certainly procures a righteous status to those who are faithful to Him, but we are not justified by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5). We are saved because God is merciful. He saved us in spite of our unrighteousness (Deuteronomy 9:3-6; Ephesians 2:4-9). The gospel requires that one must believe in order to receive pardon from sin by God, not perform various deeds of merit. This righteous act of Phineas had nothing to do with him earning justification in part by good works. Rather, God considered his conduct to be righteous and assured him that the priesthood would not depart from his line. It is not as though Christ would commend His servants for driving spears into unconverted pagans. Christianity places a greater emphasis on grace and mercy than does Judaism.

The Myth That All Religions Lead To God

          The belief that all religions worship the same God is rooted in the relativistic nature of our culture, which has sadly even influenced many who profess to be Christians. Our culture is saturated with the idea that all belief systems are equally valid. People naturally perceive themselves as already being good. This is the end result of man believing that he is the final arbitrator of truth. Individuality has been emphasized in an extreme way. People who express disagreement with the religions of others may as a result be considered arrogant.

          The idea that all religions lead to God is logically indefensible, since they contradict each other at the most basic tenets. Further, the religions of this world do not even claim to serve one god who presides over humanity. Regardless of what belief system that one espouses, he inevitably makes a truth claim. Everybody else must be wrong. A rejection of opposing views is what follows from faithful adherence to any given worldview. Logical consistency requires that one make an absolute truth claim. Coherence demands a rejection of all opposing claims upon accepting one set of ideas.

          Christianity is unique among the religions of this world in that its message of salvation is one of God's unmerited grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Others teach salvation to be merited in part on the basis of righteous deeds. Christianity is the only religion which posits a realistic view of our sinful nature. The Judeo-Christian worldview is unique in that its God desires to have a personal relationship with man. Truth is very much a real thing. Something can be either true or false. It cannot be both ways in the same way at the same time.

           The gospel is available to all who call upon the name of the Lord. No one deserves to inherit the kingdom of God, since we have sinned against Him. Christianity is an inclusive religion in the sense that the atonement of Jesus Christ is applied to all who believe on Him for salvation. Christianity is exclusive in that it presents Him as being the only way to being reconciled with God. It is exclusive in the same sense as every other religion, namely, by making truth claims.

          If Christianity is true, then it follows that every other existing belief system is false. If the religions of this world are right, then it follows that Christianity is false. It cannot be accepted with the other religions of this world. If Christianity is false, then Christians are the most pitiable of all people (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). They have no real hope. If there are multiple ways to salvation, then the gospel itself becomes redundant. Thus, we see that this pluralistic thinking is actually a threat to the Christian faith. No compromise or negotiation is permissible on this matter.

Abandoning Our First Love

"In considering the apostasy, we have seen its root in the loss of the first love, whereby a separation was made between the Lord and the Church,— the Head and the body, — and He was hindered in the exercise of His headship. Through the same loss of love, the Holy Ghost, sent by the Son, was unable to fulfill His mission. After a time the expectation of the Lord's speedy return passed away, and also the hope of it; and the Church made it her work to bring all the world under subjection to Christ before His return.

Thus the history of the Church has not been that of a community of one heart and mind, carrying out the will of its Head under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and steadily growing in love, holiness, wisdom, and power; but of a community divided against itself, forgetful of God's purpose, filled with ambition to rule in this world, and covetous of its pleasures and honours. The Holy Ghost has not been able to do His full work in the Church, and therefore her witness to the world has been partial and feeble. The Head, though nominally honoured, has passed more and more from the thought of the Church as her living and ruling Lord, and from the knowledge of men as the King of kings.

We have seen in the movements and tendencies of the present time the preparation for the final fulfillment of the Scripture predictions. Modern pantheistic philosophy is leavening the public mind with its denials of a personal God, of man's moral freedom, and of immortality. Modern science, particularly in its evolutionary phase, is denying a Creator and a creation, and can find in the Universe no Divine purpose, only an endless evolution, in which man appears for a moment as a shining bubble, then disappears for ever. The Bible is put aside by many as a book outgrown, with its doctrine of sin and its legendary miracles and history. Much of modern literature is imbued with the pantheistic spirit, or is critical and skeptical, and, when not positively irreligious is indifferent to religion."

(Samuel Andrews, Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Their Final Conflict, “Summary and Conclusion,” part IV, originally published in 1898)

Stay Away From The One New Man "Bible"

     The One New Man Bible, translated in 2011 by William J. Morford, is a product of both the Hebrew Roots Movement and the New Apostolic Reformation. This translation is essentially an effort to make the New Testament Hebrew. It goes on at length to define the meaning of various Hebrew words, while seemingly ignoring the reality that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. Members of this movement tend to render the name of Jesus in the Hebrew "Yeshua." That is not a name which Christians would ordinarily ascribe to Christ, unless they are Arabic. 

        The underlying problem with the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it poses a direct threat to the gospel by encouraging Christians to observe Mosaic customs. It is claimed by adherents that Jesus Christ did not terminate the Old Covenant, but rather reaffirmed it and expanded upon its message. It is claimed by adherents of the Hebrew Roots Movement that Christianity has apostatized from its original Jewish roots through the incorporation of Greco-Roman philosophy. On the contrary, these claims do not withstand scrutiny when compared to the New Testament itself.

        Consider, for instance, that the Apostle Paul taught uncircumcised people need not seek fleshly circumcision (1 Corinthians 7:17-19; Galatians 5:6; 6:15). Thus, Gentiles should not seek to become Jews. The church of Jesus Christ includes both the Jew and the Gentile (Galatians 3:26-29). Nowhere does Scripture require that Gentiles keep the Law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 2:14). We are not under Law but grace (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:25; 5:16-18). Christ is the end of the Law to all who believe (Romans 10:3-4). 

        The gospel does not depend on works of the Law (Romans 3:27-28; Galatians 2:16-21). We are not sanctified by the works of the Law (Galatians 3:1-6). The very reason that Paul sharply rebuked the churches of Galatia in one of his epistles is that they were reverting back to customs, practices, and traditions instituted in the Old Testament. He even called doing such behavior the preaching of "another gospel" (Galatians 1:8-9). The epistle to the Hebrews was written to encourage Jewish Christians to not revert to the Jewish religious system.

        There is nothing wrong with Christians being in support of Israel for political reasons, but it is a completely different matter for us to seek to be under the Law of Moses. Those who wish to keep the Law must also do so perfectly (Romans 3:20; Galatians 5:1-3; James 2:10-11), which is impossible due to us having a sin nature. The Jerusalem Council was convened to address the Judaizers who claimed that one need be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:1-5; 10-11). The Hebrew Roots Movement is spiritually dangerous because its premises are opposed to the foundational ideas of the gospel. The ideology is emphatically condemned by the New Testament. 

        This whole "new man" business seems to be instigated by charismatics. In fact, it is commended wholeheartedly by them. This source says the following:

        "The NAR specifically call it [i.e. their doctrine of deification] the New One Man but can also mix it with New Breed language, names often ending with ‘Generation’ like the ‘Joshua Generation’ (as Joshua led Israel to victory into the promised land, being led by the presence and power of God to take dominion over the land). However, both the NOLR and NAR cults and it’s leaders use Gideon and his army to further this Man-Child Company, One New Man or New Breed heresies."

        The One New Man Bible is promoted by the false charismatic prophet Sid Roth. He promotes the works of William Morford. It would also be interesting to note that the author of the translation being reviewed in this article believes that the Trinity is heresy. Here are the translator's own words:

        "It is past time to recognize that the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not Scriptural. The Trinity came into Christian thought as former Heathens took over leadership of the Church in the second and third centuries..."

        In view of the presented information, it would certainly be wise for one to steer clear of the One New Man Bible. It is not a product of sound scholarship. If one desires to understand the Jewish background of the New Testament, he is going to have to consult various biblical commentaries and dictionaries.

"Our Reasoning Capacities Are Highly Unreliable"

"But the real surprise is that Oppy apparently rejects the assumption. He says it’s obvious (!) that our reasoning capacities are “highly unreliable” in the domain of philosophy. Yet he makes this claim as part of a philosophical rebuttal of Plantinga and Reppert, in the course of a philosophical case for naturalism, in a philosophical book written by a professional philosopher. If our reasoning capacities are highly unreliable in the domain of philosophy, what on earth does Oppy think he’s doing? This isn’t so much cutting the branch you’re sitting on as felling the tree and grinding the stump.

...Still, Oppy’s right about one thing: if our cognitive faculties are the product of undirected naturalistic evolution — which is to say, if evolutionary naturalism is true — then it’s highly unlikely that those faculties are reliable when it comes to philosophical matters. That’s a big problem for philosophical naturalists like Oppy."

Professor James Anderson, Adventures in Branch-Cutting

Is The Sinner's Prayer Biblical?

          There is a fairly recent development in church history that has pervaded mainstream methods of evangelism known as the sinner's prayer. It is a recited gospel invitation meant to convict unbelievers of sin and to assure new converts of having been delivered by God from their sins. We frequently hear zealous pastors during their sermons calling people in their audiences to repeat after them a formulaic prayer with the intention of ensuring the salvation of listeners.

          The first and foremost problem with the notion of a sinner's prayer is that nowhere does Scripture assure people of salvation on the basis that they recited a prayer. It nowhere guarantees salvation to people who recite a specific sequence of words. For example, nowhere do we see the apostles in the Book of Acts assuring people of salvation just because they recited a formula of prayer. There is more to conversion in that it involves the human heart and the Spirit of God.

          Justification in the sight of God is not obtained by ritualistic means, but by faith. If reciting the sinner's prayer is a biblically sound practice, then why did the Apostle Paul fail to mention that concept in his basic presentation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)? We cannot immediately assure people who have recited a prayer of salvation because we cannot look at their hearts. We do not know whether others have truly surrendered themselves to God.

          Furthermore, the sinner's prayer has given many unsaved individuals a false assurance of salvation. It has given people a false sense of security in regards to their true standing with the Lord. That is the most spiritually dangerous state to be trapped in. At best, the sinner's prayer contains elements of truth mixed with error. The worst aspect of this all is that people end up spending eternity in hell because of their self-deception.

           This is not to communicate the idea that every individual who has recited a sinner's prayer is a false convert. Rather, we ought to cease implementing that method in witnessing to other people because it is both unbiblical and deceptive. In fact, it was not until the nineteenth century when a lawyer named Charles Finney invented the sinner's prayer. The concept has been drastically popularized by evangelists such as Billy Graham.

           It is certainly biblical to guide somebody in prayer and repentance. It is certainly biblical for a sinner to ask God for His forgiveness. The confession of sin is very much a biblical concept. We can also have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13). However, assuring a person of having a righteous standing before God on the basis of repeating a prayer is misguided. We are saved by the atonement of Jesus Christ. We receive Him by faith (John 1:12-13).

The Spurious Origin Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

        The Roman Catholic dogma that Mary remained a virgin throughout her lifetime was most likely a consequence of the early church adopting low views regarding human sexuality and marriage. The rise of asceticism, monasticism, and already existing Gnostic beliefs played a foundational role in the development of Mary's perpetual virginity. Many early Christians embraced positions on the issue of marriage verses virginity that many today would readily consider to be strange and irrational. After centuries of disputes involving christology, the Second Council of Constantinople officially declared the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ to be "ever virgin."

        The church father Jerome argued that marriage was inferior to virginity and celibacy. He stated, "Marriage replenishes the earth, virginity fills Paradise" (Against Jovinianus, Book I). Augustine believed that marital relations could be accompanied by ungodly lusts, but he did not condemn marital relations as inherently sinful. Basil the Great acknowledged that many in his time believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, although he personally rejected this teaching. Moreover, there was a small Arabian sect known as the Collyridians, which appointed women as priests to offer sacrifices of bread to Mary, whom they worshiped and believed to be a perpetual virgin. Athanasius and John of Damascus focused on ascetic practices without specifically denigrating marriage.

        It is worth considering this excerpt from the late-second to mid-third century scholar Origen on the underlying source material for this dogma:

        “And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end.” (Commentary on Matthew, 17, emphasis added)

        The idea of Mary remaining a virgin for her entire life is based on non-inspired sources, not the biblical text itself. Therefore, one has to read this teaching into the New Testament in order to make it fit, even though it does not. The basis for it is totally unreliable. Note how the Roman Catholic Catechism defends the perpetual virginity of Mary:

        "Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression." (# 500)

        Thus, we see that Roman Catholic officials have resorted to apocryphal literature in order to substantiate their claims. The beliefs Origen himself encountered have been kept alive to this very day. The perpetual virginity of Mary is another one of those uninspired traditions that grew up around the New Testament. With this approach to validating doctrine, one may as well justify non-Christian teaching by citing extra-biblical sources such as the Quran or Jewish Kabbalah.