Question: “Why should I read the Old Testament?”

Answer: The Bible is a progressive revelation. If you skip the first half of any good book and try to finish it; you will have a hard time understanding the characters, the plot, and the ending. In the same way, the New Testament is only completely understood when it is seen as being built upon the foundation of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament. If we only had the New Testament, we would come to the gospels and not know why the Jews were looking for a Messiah (a Savior King). Without the Old Testament, we would not understand why this Messiah was coming (see Isaiah 53); we would not have been able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah through the many detailed prophecies that were given concerning Him (e.g., His birth place (Micah 5:2); His manner of death (Psalm 22, especially vv. 1,7-8, 14-18; Psalm 69:21, etc.), His resurrection (Psalm 16:10), and many more details of His ministry (Isaiah 52:13.; 9:2, etc.).

Without the Old Testament, we would not understand the Jewish customs that are mentioned in passing in the New Testament. We would not understand the perversions the Pharisees had made to God’s law as they added their traditions to it. We would not understand why Jesus was so upset as He cleansed the temple courtyard. We would not understand that we can make use of the same wisdom that Christ used in His many replies to His adversaries (both human and demonic).

Without the Old Testament we would miss out on numerous detailed prophecies that could only have come true if the Bible is God’s word, not man’s (see the major and minor prophets) (e.g., Daniel 7 and following chapters). These prophecies give specific details about the rise and fall of nations, how they will fall, if they will rise again, which powers would be next to emerge, who the major players would be (Cyrus, Alexander the Great, etc.), and what would happen to their kingdoms when those players died. These detailed prophecies are so accurate that skeptics charge they had to have been written after the fact.

The Old Testament also contains numerous lessons for us through the lives of its many fallible characters. By observing their lives we can be encouraged to trust God no matter what (Daniel 3), and to not compromise in the little things (Daniel 1) so that we will be faithful later in the big things (Daniel 6). We can learn that it is best to confess sin early and sincerely instead of blame-shifting (1 Samuel 15). We can learn not to play with sin, because it will find us out and its bite is deadly (See Judges 13-16). We can learn that we need to trust (and obey) God if we expect to experience His promised-land living in this life and His paradise in the next (Numbers 13). We learn that if we contemplate sin, we are only setting ourselves up for committing it (Genesis 3; Joshua 6-7). We learn that our sin has consequences not only for ourselves but for our loved ones around us and conversely that our good behavior has rewards not only for us but for those who are around us as well (Genesis 3; Exodus 20:5-6).

The Old Testament also contains vast quantities of wisdom that the New Testament does not share. Many of these are contained in the Psalms and Proverbs. These bits of wisdom reveal how I can be wiser than my teachers, what various sins will lead to (it helps us to see the hook that the bait is hiding), and what accomplishments in this world hold for us (nothing!). How can I recognize whether I am a fool (moral fool, that is)? How can I inadvertently turn people off without trying? How can I open doors to lasting success? How can I find meaning in life? Again, there is so much there that is just waiting to be found by one who truly wants to learn.

Without the Old Testament, we would not have a basis for standing against the error of the politically correct perversions of our society in which evolution is seen to be the creator of all of the species over millions of years (instead of them being the result of special creation by God in a literal six days). We would buy the lie that marriages and the family unit are an evolving structure that should continue to change as society changes, instead of being seen as a design by God for the purpose of raising up godly children and for the protection of those who would otherwise be used and abused (most often women and children).

Without the Old Testament, we would not understand the promises God will yet fulfill to the Jewish nation. As a result, we would not properly see that the Tribulation period is a seven-year period in which He will specifically be working with the Jewish nation who rejected His first coming but who will receive Him at His second coming. We would not understand how Christ’s future 1,000-year reign fits in with His promises to the Jews, nor how the Gentiles will fit in. Nor would we see how the end of the Bible ties up the loose ends that were unraveled in the beginning of the Bible, how God will restore the paradise He originally created this world to be, and how we will enjoy close companionship with Him on a personal basis as in the Garden of Eden.

In summary, the Old Testament is a mirror that allows us to see ourselves in the lives of Old Testament characters and helps us learn vicariously from their lives. It sheds so much light on who God is and the wonders He has made and the salvation He has wrought. It shares so much comfort to those in persecution or trouble (see Psalms especially). It reveals through repeatedly fulfilled prophecy why the Bible is unique among holy books—it alone is able to demonstrate that it is what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God. It reveals volumes about Christ in page after page of its writings. It contains so much wisdom that goes beyond what is alluded to or quoted in the New Testament. In short, if you have not yet ventured in depth into its pages, you are missing much that God has available for you. As you read it, there will be much you do not understand right away, but there will be much you will understand and learn from. And as you continue to study it, asking God to teach you further, your mining will pay off in brighter treasures still.

Recommended Resource: Name Your Link

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

While at a soccer game this summer I was reminded of why there is so little peace in our world.

Parents from the two opposing teams almost came to blows and bloodshed while watching from the bleachers. This wasn’t a game with the World Cup at stake. These were five-year-olds on the field.

Cooler heads ultimately prevailed, but only after copious amounts of pushing and shoving, after the air had been singed blue with profanity, and the threat of involving law enforcement was made.

It made me wonder what these five-year-old witnesses had to say after the game as the juice boxes and orange slices were passed out.

The Hebrew word for anger literally means to “blow out your nostrils” or to “smoke.” That’s apropos, for we all know what it is like to get that fire burning and boiling on the inside, only to have it explode out the chimney of our mouths, minds, and fists. Truly, few things have the incendiary power of anger let off the leash.

How much pain has anger caused each of us by fueling words that can never be recalled, actions that can never be undone, and memories that can never be erased?

How many divorces, wars, irreconcilable differences, failed business partnerships, murders, errant texts and emails, and soccer field assaults have been the result of primal, fully vented rage?

We know the painful answer to these questions, but we may not have considered the answer to this question: Why does anger seem to get the best of us?

I have three young men in my home with lots of testosterone coursing through their veins. Somebody is jack-slapping mad most every day, and I often ask, “Why are you so angry?”

My children never give me a straight answer to that question. Oh, I get an answer; it usually involves finger-pointing with artery-and-eye-bulging blame toward another person. Yet, other people are not the source of our personal anger. They play a role, certainly, but the source of anger is usually internal, not external.

Now, is there such a thing as justifiable anger? Yes. Is there anger that is right and just? Absolutely.

But genuine “righteous indignation” is a rarity. The anger that most often consumes us is the anger of offense. We feel insulted, disrespected, or that our rights have somehow been dishonored.

Our rage is rather self-centered, the result of others not doing what we want or expect them to do.

I have a hunch that most of our anger stems from a lack of maturity. See, we move from childhood to adolescence and adulthood when we realize the world does not revolve around us.

It’s no wonder the teenage years are full of such rage and angst. In addition to puberty, galloping hormones, changing bodies and changing family relationships, there is this social coming of age that informs us we are not the center of the universe.

Some of us have had our growth stunted at precisely this stage. We are stuck in an adolescent state of immaturity and perpetual offense. This is as equally true of soccer moms and little league dads as it is of war-makers and politicians.

We want everything and everybody to orbit around our shining sun, to do and behave as we demand. Frankly, this is a formula for frustration, for it demands of others and the world what cannot be given.

So how do we calm the burning fire within us? Well, we can control everything and everybody around us, forcing them to comply with our will (Let me know how that works out for you), or we can grow up.

Francois de Fenelon said it simply: “The moment you stop wanting everything your way, you will be mature. Until then, your life will be full of trouble and agitation.”

We don’t have to live with this kind of anger. We can let go of our pride and self-centeredness, and release our grip on our always defended rights. We can learn to let go, and thus, learn to grow up.

Ronnie McBrayer is the author of “Leaving Religion, Following Jesus.” He writes and speaks about life, faith, and Christ-centered spirituality. Visit his website at www.ronniemcbrayer.net.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Question: “What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings?”

Answer:Is there such a thing as ghosts? The answer to this question depends on what precisely is meant by the term ghosts. If the term means spirit beings, the answer is a qualified yes. If the term means spirits of people who have died, the answer is no. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and haunt the living.

Hebrews 9:27 declares, Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. That is what happens to a persons soul-spirit after deathjudgment. The result of this judgment is heaven for the believer (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23) and hell for the unbeliever (Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:22-24). There is no in-between. There is no possibility of remaining on earth in spirit form as a ghost. If there are such things as ghosts, according to the Bible, they absolutely cannot be the disembodied spirits of deceased human beings.

The Bible teaches very clearly that there are indeed spirit beings who can connect with and appear in our physical world. The Bible identifies these beings as angels and demons. Angels are spirit beings who are faithful in serving God. Angels are righteous, good, and holy. Demons are fallen angels, angels who rebelled against God. Demons are evil, deceptive, and destructive. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as angels of light and as servants of righteousness. Appearing as a ghost and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess.

The closest biblical example of a haunting is found in Mark 5:1-20. A legion of demons possessed a man and used the man to haunt a graveyard. There were no ghosts involved. It was a case of a normal person being controlled by demons to terrorize the people of that area. Demons only seek to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10). They will do anything within their power to deceive people, to lead people away from God. This is very likely the explanation of ghostly activity today. Whether it is called a ghost, a ghoul, or a poltergeist, if there is genuine evil spiritual activity occurring, it is the work of demons.

What about instances in which ghosts act in positive ways? What about psychics who claim to summon the deceased and gain true and useful information from them? Again, it is crucial to remember that the goal of demons is to deceive. If the result is that people trust in a psychic instead of God, a demon will be more than willing to reveal true information. Even good and true information, if from a source with evil motives, can be used to mislead, corrupt, and destroy.

Interest in the paranormal is becoming increasingly common. There are individuals and businesses that claim to be ghost-hunters, who for a price will rid your home of ghosts. Psychics, sances, tarot cards, and mediums are increasingly considered normal. Human beings are innately aware of the spiritual world. Sadly, instead of seeking the truth about the spirit world by communing with God and studying His Word, many people allow themselves to be led astray by the spirit world. The demons surely laugh at the spiritual mass-deception that exists in the world today.

Recommended Resource:
The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena by Ron Rhodes.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Answer:
Simply put, Postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, Postmodernisms viewpoint is exemplified in the statement that may be true for you, but not for me. While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of taste and opinion with truth.

The term Postmodernism literally means after Modernism and is used to philosophically describe the current era which came after the age of Modernism. Postmodernism is a reaction (or perhaps more appropriately, a disillusioned response) to Modernisms failed promise of using human reason alone to better mankind and make the world a better place. Because one of Modernisms beliefs was that absolutes did indeed exist, Postmodernism seeks to correct things by first eliminating absolute truth and making everything (including the empirical sciences and religion) relative to an individuals beliefs and desires.

The dangers of Postmodernism can be viewed as a downward spiral that begin with the rejection of absolute truth, which then leads to a loss of distinctions in matters of religion and faith, and finally culminates in a philosophy of religious pluralism that says no faith or religion is objectively true and therefore no one can claim his or her religion is true and another is false.

Dangers of Postmodernism – #1 Relative Truth

Postmodernisms stance of relative truth is the outworking of many generations of philosophical thought. From Augustine to the Reformation, the intellectual aspects of Western civilization and the concept of truth were dominated by theologians. But, beginning with the Renaissance periods of the 14th 17th centuries, thinkers began to elevate humankind to the center of reality. If one were to look at human periods of history like a family tree, the Renaissance would be Modernisms grandmother and the Enlightenment would be its mother. Renee Descartes I think, therefore I am personified the beginning of this era. God was not the center of truth any longer man now was.

The Enlightenment was in a way the complete imposition of the scientific model of rationality upon all aspects of truth and claimed that only scientific data could be objectively understood, defined, and defended. Truth as it pertained to religion was left out and discarded. The philosopher who straddled this epochs and Modernisms contribution to relative truth was the Prussian Immanuel Kant and his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which appeared in 1781. Among other things, Kant argued that true knowledge about God was impossible so he created a divide of knowledge between facts and faith. According to Kant, Facts have nothing to do with religion. The end result was that spiritual matters were assigned to be matters of the heart and just opinion, and only the empirical sciences were allowed to speak of truth. And while Modernism believed in absolutes at least in the area of science, Gods special revelation (the Bible) was evicted from the realm of truth and certainty.

From Modernism came Postmodernism and, whereas Kant marked the philosophical transition from the Enlightenment to Modernism, Frederick Nietzsche may symbolize the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. As the patron saint of postmodernist philosophy, Nietzsche held to perspectivism, which says that all knowledge (including science) is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many other philosophers have built upon Nietzsches work (e.g. Foucault, Rorty, and Lyotard) and have shared his rejection of God and religion in general. They also rejected any hint of absolute truth, or as Lyotard put it, a rejection of a metanarrative (a truth that transcends all peoples and cultures).

This philosophical march through history against objective truth has resulted in Postmodernism having a complete aversion to any claim to absolutes, with such a mindset naturally painting a huge bulls-eye on something that declares to be inerrant truth, such as the Bible.

Dangers of Postmodernism – #2 Loss of Discernment

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas said, It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions. What Aquinas meant is that truth is dependent upon the ability to discern the capability to distinguish this from that in the realm of knowledge. However, if objective and absolute truth does not exist, then everything becomes a matter of personal interpretation. To the postmodern individual, the author of a book does not possess the correct interpretation of their work; it is the reader who actually determines what the book really means a process called deconstruction. And given that there are multiple readers (vs. one author), there are naturally multiple interpretations, with the end result being no universally valid interpretation.

Such a chaotic situation makes it impossible to make meaningful or lasting distinctions between interpretations because there is no standard or benchmark that can be used. This especially applies to matters of faith and religion because the philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modernism had already deposed religion to the compartment of opinion. Such being the case, it naturally follows that attempting to make proper and meaningful distinctions in the area of religion (ones that dare suggest that one belief is right and another invalid) carries no more weight than one person arguing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. In such situations, it becomes impossible to objectively adjudicate between competing truth claims.

Dangers of Postmodernism – #3 Pluralism

If absolute truth does not exist, and if there is no way to make meaningful, right/wrong distinctions between different faiths and religions, then the natural conclusion is that all beliefs must be given equal weight and considered valid. The proper term for this practical outworking in Postmodernism is philosophical pluralism. With pluralism, no religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true and the other competing faiths false, or even relatively inferior. For those who espouse a philosophical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. D. A. Carson underscores conservative evangelicals concerns about what they see as the dangerous element of pluralism when he says, In my most somber moods I sometimes wonder if the ugly face of what I refer to as philosophical pluralism is the most dangerous threat to the gospel since the rise of the Gnostic heresy in the second century.

These progressive dangers of Postmodernism relative truth, a loss of discernment, and philosophical pluralism represent real and imposing threats to Christianity because they collectively relegate Gods Word to something that has no real authority over mankind and no ability to show itself as true in a world of competing religious voices. What is Christianitys response to these challenges?

Response to the Dangers of Postmodernism

It should first be stated that Christianity claims to be absolutely true, claims that meaningful distinctions in matters of right/wrong (as well as spiritual truth and falsehood) exist, and claims to be correct in its claims about God with any contrary claims from competing religions being incorrect. Such a stance provokes cries of arrogance and intolerance from Postmodernism. However, truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations and philosophies of Postmodernism quickly crumble and reveal Christianitys claims to be both plausible and compelling.

First, Christianity claims that absolute truth exists. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He was sent and born to do one thing: to testify to the truth (John 18:37). Postmodernism says that no truth should be affirmed, yet its position is one that is self-defeating it affirms at least one absolute truth: that no truth should be affirmed. This means that Postmodernism does believe in absolute truth, and such a fact is exemplified by its philosophers who write books stating things they expect their readers to embrace and believe as truth. Putting it simply, one professor has said, When someone says there is no such thing as truth, they are asking you not to believe them. So dont.

Second, Christianity claims that meaningful distinctions exist between the Christian faith and all other beliefs. However, it should be understood that those claiming that meaningful distinctions do not exist between religions are actually making a distinction. They are attempting to showcase a difference in what they believe to be true and the Christians truth claims. Postmodernist authors expect their readers to come to the right conclusions about what they have written and will correct those who interpret their work differently than they have intended. Again, their position and philosophy proves itself to be self-defeating because they eagerly make distinctions between what they believe to be correct and what they see as being false.

Finally, Christianity claims to be universally true in what it says regarding mans lostness before God, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of fallen mankind, and the separation between God and anyone who chooses not to accept what God says about sin and the need for repentance. When Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill, he said, Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). Pauls declaration was not a this is true for me, but may not be true for you statement, but rather an exclusive and universal command (i.e. a metanarrative) from God to everyone. Any postmodernist who says this is false is committing an error against his own pluralistic philosophy that says no faith or religion is incorrect because, once again, he violates his own mandate of saying every religion is equally true.

In the same way that it is not arrogant for a math teacher to insist that 2+2=4 or for a locksmith to insist that only one key will fit a locked door, it is not arrogant for the Christian to stand against Postmodernist thinking and insist that Christianity is true and anything opposed to it is false. Absolute truth does exist, consequences do exist for being wrong, and while pluralism may be desirable in matters of food preferences, it is not so in matters of truth. The Christian is to present Gods truth in love and simply ask any postmodernist who is angered by the exclusive claims of Christianity, So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Galatians 4:16).

Recommended Resource:
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland/a>.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Two years ago, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine forced State Police Chaplains to deny Christ or resign from their jobs.  As a result six chaplains resigned, and two others– Rex Carter and Mike Honaker, decided to turn in their badges.

Now current Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is getting flak because he overturned Kaine’s decision, and has allowed state Police Chaplains to publicly pray, “in Jesus name.”

This has upset the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who felt the ban should have been embraced rather than rejected.

They accused McDonnell of giving in to conservatives and Christians, and cited the First Amendment in defense of the ban.

Ken Blackwell, columnist of WORLDmag noted that Thomas Jefferson authored Virginia’s Statue for Religious Freedom.

As president, Jefferson invited a Baptist lay preacher to give a sermon to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was attended by Secretary of State James Madison—co-author of the First Amendment.

The restoration of the right to pray “in Jesus name” came as a result of a two-year campaign led by Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who led rallies, sent up to 15,000 petitions, and faxed voters guides to over 23,000 Virginia pastors in the name of free speech.

This mobilized the pastors and shifted the election polls, previously at 47-44 percent, to 59-41 percent in favor of McDonnell.

The church goers and conservatives shifted their support on the basis of this issue.

With McDonnell fulfilling his campaign pledge, the six chaplains who had lost their jobs and Rex Carter and Mike Honaker will be invited back to their jobs.

Be Sociable, Share!

•