Is Jesus Really Coming Again?

As I write this we are within hours of the time set by radio preacher Harold Camping for the end of the world. If you are reading this blog, it means Camping was wrong. Again. Mr. Camping, now 89 years old and the founder of Family Radio, headquartered in Oakland, California, previously predicted that Jesus was coming back in 1994. That glaring “oops!” has not deterred his faithful. Whether his current followers have short memories or have not bothered to check Mr. Camping’s bona fides is unclear. Those who bought into his 1994 false prophecy but now are certain that this time Camping got it right should remember the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Camping and his followers have, indeed, been shamefully fooled.

To be fair to Camping and his followers, he is by no means the only date-setter who has lead people astray. Since the early-19^th century we have seen the likes of Joseph Smith, William Miller and Charles Taze Russell (and later his organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses”).

Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the end times would begin promptly.

Miller was a New England farmer who, like Harold Camping, had no formal training in biblical studies. His study of Bible prophecy resulted in his discovery that the Scriptures tell us exactly when Jesus will return (notwithstanding Jesus stating in Matthew 24:36 that “No man knows the day or the hour, not even the angels”). According to Miller’s calculations Jesus was coming back some time between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844, eventually fixing the date at April 23, 1843. Many of his followers sold or gave away their possessions, assuming they would not be needed. When April 23 came and went, Miller re-calculated and concluded Jesus would return on April 23, 1844. After that date came and went most of his followers scattered, but some of them banded together to form what became the Seventh Day Adventist denomination.

Charles Taze Russell set the following dates for the return of Jesus: 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914. His Watchtower organization set 1918, 1925, 1941, 1975, and 1984 as the dates that Jesus would return. One has to wonder how many false prophecies an organization must make for it to be considered a “non-prophet” organization.

There are many, many others who share the dubious distinction of thinking they figured out when Jesus was returning and presumptuously publicized the date. Televangelist Pat Robertson, in May 1980, informed his "700 Club" television show audience that he knew when the world would end, saying "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world." Perhaps we missed that one, Pat.

Edgar Whisenant sold thousands of copies of his book, “88 Reasons Why Jesus is Coming Back in 1988.” Whisenant was so confident his calculations were correct that it is reported he said, "If there were a king in this country and I could gamble with my life, I would stake my life on Rosh Hashana 88."  His confidence apparently affected others as well because Paul and Jan Crouch of the Trinity Broadcast Network swallowed it whole. Instead of airing their nightly Praise the Lord television talk show, the Crouches ran videotapes of prerecorded shows dealing with the rapture. For non-Christians who might be watching, the revised programming included specific instructions on what to do in case Christian family members or friends disappeared and the world was thrust into the tribulation. When nothing happened by the end of September 13, Whisenant revised his prediction, suggesting the rapture would come at 10:55 a.m on September 15. When that failed, he revised it to October 3. After that he admitted he made a "miscalculation" of one year and insisted the rapture would occur in 1989. He even wrote another book to "prove" it.

Self-proclaimed “prophet” Ronald Weinland wrote a book in 2006 entitled "2008: God's Final Witness." In his book Weinland states that hundreds of millions of people will die, and by the end of 2006, "there will be a maximum time of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time of all human history. By the fall of 2008, the United States will have collapsed as a world power, and no longer exist as an independent nation." As the book notes, "Ronald Weinland places his reputation on the line as the end-time prophet of God." Did Weinland, a former follower of cult leader Herbert W. Armstrong, gracefully fade away when his prophecies did not come true? As the late John Wayne often said, “Not hardly.” Weinland currently has a website where he backpedals, re-writes his own prophetic history, and otherwise dishonestly deals with his previous false prophecies, now claiming that 2012 is the year Jesus is coming back (Weinland, perhaps more delusional than Harold Camping, claims that he and his wife are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation chapter 11 who will be slain then will rise from the dead).

Is it Reasonable to Believe Jesus is Coming Again?

With all the utter-nonsense that has resulted from people trying to figure out what Jesus Himself said “no one knows,” (i.e., the date of His return), can a thinking person still reasonably believe that Jesus of Nazareth is coming again to Earth? Yes. How can an intelligent person believe in such an event? Because we have reliable documents, written by eyewitnesses, where Jesus Himself tells his followers, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again, and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:2-3). And since the evidence is compelling based upon His miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and especially His resurrection from the dead, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (and God the Son), then it would be foolish not to believe Him when He said He would come again to Earth.

Unfortunately, too many have misinterpreted Scripture, stretched the Bible to say something it does not say, and made unsupported assertions about prophetic passages that resulted in the lame-brained date setting previously discussed. From David Koresh (born Vernon Howell, who lead most of his Branch Davidian followers, including more than a dozen children, to a fiery death at their compound in Waco, Texas in 1993) to Ronald Weinland, people who typically lack formal biblical training have a tendency to “discover,” for example, what the seven seals of Revelation really mean (in Koresh’s case, he claimed to be the Lamb of God who could open the seals), asserting they have some special insight that no one else has. Biblically naïve and gullible people too often accept, without question, the interpretations and pronouncements of these self-proclaimed “prophets.” In most cases it leads to disillusioned followers, as in the case of William Miller or Ronald Weinland. In some cases it leads to a violent death, as in the case of Jim Jones or David Koresh.

Biblical Test of a Prophet

According to the Bible, in order to qualify as a prophet of God, the prophet must be 100% accurate. Deuteronomy 18:20, 22 says, “But the prophet who speaks presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die…When a prophet speaks in the name of the lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD had not spoken…” Mr. Camping, et al., should be grateful that today we do not employ this sanction against false prophets.

Is the Church Contributing to Those Who Mock the Belief in the Return of Jesus?

A common reaction to the doomsday false prophets is scoffing. Even professing Christians who sat through prophecy seminar after prophecy seminar, or heard sermon after sermon about the return of Jesus, are susceptible to getting “burned out” on prophecy to the point where they don’t want to hear about it any more. Is it possible that the “mockers” Peter speaks of in I Peter 3:3ff include people who came out of evangelical churches that spent an inordinate amount of time speculating about the return of Jesus? When a pastor or teacher sets a date or otherwise makes a prediction that does not materialize, a question of credibility emerges. Falso uno, falso omnibus.

A Scriptural Basis for a Literal Return of Jesus to Earth

What, then, is my Scriptural basis for believing Jesus is coming back? First, as previously mentioned, Jesus said He would come again (John 14:3). Even though Jesus often spoke in parables and mashals (short parables with a moral lesson), His reference to His coming again was not an allegory. It was a clear promise. The Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ return as the “blessed hope” of Christians (Titus 2:13, “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”).  Paul ends his first letter to the church at Corinth with an Aramaic word (“Maranatha”) that means, “The Lord is Coming” (a prayer for His soon return) (I Corinthians 16:22).

Evangelical Bible scholars overwhelmingly see Christ’s return to Earth as a prophecy that will be literally fulfilled at some point. These scholars generally point out that those Bible prophecies that have already been fulfilled were fulfilled literally (e.g., Micah 5:2 is understood as a Messianic prophecy that predicts Bethlehem will be the birthplace of the Messiah, an understanding King Herod’s chief priests and scribes shared according to Matthew 2:4-5). Thus, to be consistent, there is no reason to believe the words of Jesus in John 14:3 and elsewhere mean anything other than He will return to Earth bodily.

The Times and Seasons

Even though no one knows the day or hour of Jesus’ return (Matthew 24:36) the Scripture provides certain signs to enable us to understand the times and seasons in which we live (e.g., Ezekiel chapters 37-39 reference the return of the Jews to the Promised Land; I Thessalonians 5:1 says the Corinthians should be aware of the times and epochs in which they live; I Thessalonians 5:4 indicates that the return of Jesus should not overtake Christians like a thief because we are not in darkness.

Is Christ’s Return One Event or Two?

The historic view of the church is that Jesus will come back to Earth and will establish a kingdom on Earth for 1,000 years (historic premillenialism). Others do not believe in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on Earth (amillennialism), while some interpret the Scriptures to say Jesus will come back at the end of the 1,000 years (post millennialism).

The most common view among evangelicals today is premillenialism (i.e., there will be a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus on Earth). There is a split among Bible-believing Christians as to whether Jesus’ return to Earth is one event or two. Perhaps the most common view among premillenialists is that Jesus will first come back for His church, and will meet them in the sky, after which there will be a seven-year period of tribulation, including the final 3 ½ years of Great Tribulation in which the judgments mentioned in Revelation chapters 6-18 will take place. Then at the end of the seven-year tribulation period Jesus returns bodily to Earth to reign for 1,000 years.

What is the evidence for the view that Jesus will return for His church seven years before He returns bodily to Earth to set up His kingdom? The following chart helps to contrast His pre-tribulation return for His church (commonly referred to as the “rapture,” which means the sudden removal or “translation” of believers from Earth to heaven) with his visible second coming.

Rapture                             Second Coming

Meet Lord in air                He returns to Mount of Olives

Living saints translated     No translation of church

He returns to heaven         He remains on earth

Earth not judged               Earth/sin judged

Imminent event                 Follows signs

Verses that are commonly used to support the pre-tribulation rapture include I Thessalonians 5:9, “God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation;” I Thessalonians 1:10 “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath;” and Revelation 3:10 “I will keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world…”

Conclusion

Regardless of the date-setters and false prophets that bring contempt to the legitimate study of Bible prophecy, there are compelling reasons to believe that Jesus is coming again. Given the rebirth of Israel in 1948, there are reasons to conclude that His return could be soon. Whether one believes in a pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation rapture, or a post-tribulation return of Jesus to Earth, the important fact is the Jesus is coming again. To quote the lyrics of the song “Outlaw” by the late singer/songwriter Larry Norman,

Some say He was the Son of God, a man above all men.

That He came to be a servant, and set us free from sin.

And that’s who I believe He was, cause that’s who I believe

And I think we should get ready, cause its time for us to leave.

Why do I believe that Jesus is coming back? Because He said so, and that’s who I believe. Even so “Come Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).

Des Moines Register Article, appearing August 7, 2010

WILL THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE DECISION AFFECT IOWA?

The marriage debate is not going away any time soon. In light of Wednesday’s ruling striking down California’s marriage amendment, the debate will likely intensify. The California decision has implications for Iowa, including efforts to put the issue of the definition of marriage to a vote. My wife and I divide our time between California and Iowa, and have experienced the ups and downs of voting on the definition of marriage, only to have our vote negated by judges, or, in the most recent case, one judge. Here in Iowa there is a slightly different dilemma, but the ultimate question for Iowa, California and the rest of the country is the same: Who decides the definition of marriage—the people, or judges?

Before discussing the effect the California ruling on Iowa, a little background.  In the year 2000 California, which has “direct democracy,” bypassed its legislature and passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This was two years after Iowa’s legislature passed a similar law. In May 2008 the statute was overturned by the California Supreme Court In a 4-3 vote. In order to put the issue above the reach of the State Supreme Court, the voters of California put on the November 2008 ballot a proposed amendment to California’s Constitution defining marriage as between one man and woman. That initiative, Proposition 8, was passed by voters. It was challenged in state court, but was upheld 6-1 (ironically, the lone dissent cited the Iowa case of Varnum v. Brien, the 2009 Iowa case that struck down Iowa’s marriage law).

The opponents of Proposition 8 then challenged it in federal court, claiming under the U.S. Constitution same-sex marriage was a fundamental right, which would trump California’s Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker, a 66-year-old single man living in San Francisco, who the San Francisco Chronicle reported was gay. After a 13-day trial in the spring, Judge Walker handed down his 138 page opinion on Wednesday, striking down Proposition 8, finding a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to gay marriage. One man’s opinion trumped the votes of seven million who voted for Proposition 8.

The California decision will be appealed, and will likely be the one that makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a ruling there will ultimately determine whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Affirming California’s right to define marriage would also affirm the rights of the 29 other states that have thus far amended their constitutions to define marriage traditionally. What about Iowa? In Iowa there is no “direct democracy,” so Iowans must rely on the legislature to get the ball rolling by passing a resolution, twice, before the people can vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage. The majority in Iowa’s legislature continue to hold the voters hostage by refusing to pass the required resolution before Iowans can vote. In California a federal judge negated the will of the people on the marriage issue. In Iowa, the legislature has disenfranchised the people. Iowans who believe in democracy should continue to press their legislators to allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage, or vote new people into office who truly represent the will of the people.

While the marriage debate continues, we can and should all live together peacefully as Americans and Iowans, regardless of our views on marriage. But the courts have forced a massive disruption of our social order by elevating behavior that the most Americans consider immoral to the level of procreative marriage. If the moral basis for laws is eliminated, which is an implication from Wednesday’s California ruling, all legitimate arguments against polygamy, incest and prostitution are removed. President Obama’s appointee to the U.S. Human Rights Commission,  Chai Feldblum, argues that our government has a duty to promote gay sex as “morally good.” If Iowans want the law to reflect that homosexually is morally good, and have their children taught this in public schools, then do nothing. If Iowans want a say in how marriage and should be defined, then demand that state representatives give Iowans the right to vote.

Why is Building a New Mosque so Controversial?

"Ground Zero" is a term for the place in lower Manhattan, New York City, where some 3,000 people died during the events on September 11, 2001. When the twin towers of the World Trade Center were struck by hijacked jets, leading to the eventual collapse of the buildings, America watched in horror. It took some just a few minutes to realize what others still have trouble comprehending--The United States of America was attacked, and we were at war. Only the war was not a conventional war, with uniformed combatants, rules of engagement, and Geneva Convention protocol. Non-combatants were no longer safe, because the enemy, radical Islam, saw all Americans as the enemy of the religion of Muhammed.

America's costliest war, in terms of casualties, was not World War I or World War II. It was the in-fighting called the Civil War that resulted in greatest number of dead soldiers. The Civil War was about keeping a nation united as much as it was about ending slavery. After one of the more horrific battles, near the farming community of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, President Lincoln was invited to make a few brief comments about the battle of Gettysburg, and the sacrifice of those who died on the field of battle. President Lincoln said, in part:

"... we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground....It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

President Lincoln saw the Civil War as the opportunity for a new beginning for America, where the people are free, and the people rule. He made it clear that the sacrifices of many, especially those who gave their lives on battlefields like Gettysburg, should not be forgotten. Keeping America free and united meant the soldiers did not die in vain.

The nearly 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11, including people working their jobs in the World Trade Center, New York City firemen, NYPD officers, and passengers in airplanes, did not know they were considered enemies, targeted for death. They did not see themselves as soldiers, or combatants of any type. Yet they were put in the cross-hairs of the most concerted effort to bring war to American soil since the War of 1812.

The "War on Terror" started before 9/11, but the attack on the twin towers brought home to 300 million Americans that the War was no longer "over there," but everywhere, including "here." The focal point of this new awareness was lower Manhattan, Ground Zero.

Similar to what President Lincoln said about the battlefield at Gettysburg, we cannot consecrate or hallow the ground where the World Trade Center once stood, but we can, and should, make sure that those who died did not die in vain. They died enjoying the very freedom that has set America apart as the "city on the hill." Their deaths provided an opportunity for America to count the costs, and recall that there were certain things worth living for and dying for, including freedom.

Of course individuals or religious groups have the right to build a building on their own property, subject to reasonable zoning restrictions. There are federal laws that prevent local governments from zoning out churches, synagogues, yes, and even mosques. The issue with the proposed $100 million Gound Zero mosque is not whether it is Constitutionally permissible for Muslims to build a mosque so close to the site of the attack on the World Trade Center. The issue is whether Muslims should build the mosque. The answer is clealy, "No!"

Why should Muslims not build a mosque on their own property in lower Manhattan? Because it would be a slap in the face of the victims of 9/11, and their families, to have what some perceive as a Muslim "trophy of conquest" just two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people died as a result of Islamic jihad. It would be a symbol of Muslims gloating (similar to the televised outbursts of glee from Muslims around world when the twin towers fell) to place a Muslim monument so close to the scene of the worst carnage on American soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It would be a visual claim to the greatness of Islam in an area where Muslims should hide their heads in shame due to the actions of fellow-Muslim terrorists.

In 1988 I lead a protest rally in which 25,000 people took to the streets to protest a film, The Last Temptation of Christ, that portrayed Jesus in an unfavorable, if not blasphemous, light. When we marched down Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood on that Thursday afternoon, August 11, 1988, we were not telling the producers of the film that they could not make and show the film. We appealed to their presumed decency and desire to be good neighbors to the millions of Christians who were offended by a film that denigrated Jesus. We asked MCA/Universal to show sensitivity to the sincerely-held religious beliefs of those who embrace Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Despite the appeals, MCA/Universal went ahead with the release of the film, and wrapped themselves in the flag and the First Amendment to insulate themselves from criticism. The old adage, "He who frames the question controls the debate" rang true. MCA/Universal tried to frame the issue as whether they had the right to make and show the film. Just like the Ground Zero mosque, the issue of whether they had the right to do something offensive was a red herring. The issue was should the film be shown. With the mosque, the issue is should it be built.

If the mosque is built, it would show not only how tone deaf the Muslims are who are in charge of the intended project, but it would provide justification for those that claim the mosque is intended to be a symbol of conquest, that lower Manhattan has become dar al Islam ("house of Islam"). In Islamic thought, there are only two kinds of territory--dar al Islam or dar al-Harb ("house of war"). Those countries that have not become part of Islam's conquests are considered to be at war until Islam subjugates the land. There is no third option. Jihad continues until all land is under Muslim sovereignty.

If there is such a thing as "moderate Muslims," (which many people who study Islam say, without trying to be flippant, is an oxymoron), they could show their good will and sensitivity by foregoing building the controversial mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. They could demonstrate that Muslims can and do assimilate into American culture, and that they intend to be good neighbors. But they won't. Why? Because it is not the nature of Allah or his followers to be benevolent or merciful. It is not consistent with the Qur'an to acquiesce to dhimmis ("non-Muslims living under intended Muslim rule"). With respect to non-Muslims, the Qur'an only gives three options on how Muslims are to deal with infidels: convert, subjugate, or execute. There is no fourth option.

Those who favor building the mosque, including New York Mayor Bloomberg, and those who fail to speak out againt the utter insensitivity of building it so close to Ground Zero, including President Obama, have, at best, a skewed idea of what it means to "do the right thing." MCA/Universal, when given the chance to do the right thing, cared more about what the Hollywood elite would think if they were perceived to have caved in to the demands of Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon to not release The Last Temptation of Christ. Millions of religiously-sensitive Americans be damned. The Ground Zero mosque builders, who are obviously aware of the controversy that has erupted, care more about not being perceived as weak in the face of demands from infidels. The opinion of their fellow Muslims, jihadists and terrorists included, will trump the heartfelt requests from the families and friends of 9/11 victims, themselves victims whose healing memories may be affected again by this latest Islamic insult. No, we cannot force people to be nice. We can only appeal to decency and good will. I will be pleasantly surprised if the Muslims in charge decide to forego building the mosque at the intended Ground Zero location. If they try to build it despite the outcry (and opposition from 70% of Americans, according to one poll), they will confirm our worst suspicions. It may be Islam's last and best chance to earn acceptance in America, the land of the free.

Does Science Lead Us to God?

March 26, 2010

The Bible starts out, “In the beginning, God….” (Genesis 1:1) The Bible assumes there is a God, and states in a few places that “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” (e.g., Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1). The Apostle Paul states that God’s “invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature can be seen, being understood through what has been made….” (Romans 1:20) The Psalmist echoed this truth in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens are telling the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”

Today we have experienced an increase in popular writers who not only disbelieve in God, but either admittedly or by inference hate God. These writers generally employ arguments against the existence of God that are not philosophically sophisticated, and have been soundly addressed (and, dare I say, refuted) by theists over the past 200 years. Nonetheless, with the resurgence of atheism, and attempts by American atheists to rid the public square of any recognition of God (e.g., taking God out of the “Pledge of Allegiance,” removing “In God We Trust” from our coins, removing postings of the Ten Commandments from public buildings), it is time for a review of why atheism fails, and why Darwinian evolution fails as an explanation for the existence of life.

The threshold question is, “where did the universe come from?” Either it is uncaused (i.e., it created itself) or it was caused. Atheists have a difficult time trying to explain how energy, time and space came from nothing. Further, there is nothing within the natural universe that tells us why it is here (and why we are here). A believer in God (“theist”) holds that the universe came into existence (i.e., was caused) by a God who transcends the universe (i.e., He is not a part of it). Does the evidence support atheism or theism? Let’s look at the facts from science.

First, the complexity of the universe. The universe has at least 50 constants (e.g., the force of gravity, the charge of an electron, mass of a proton) that if they were different by one-billionth of a percent there would be no life in the universe. Calling the universe “fine-tuned” is quite an understatement. Evidence of the grand design of the universe is acknowledged by leading scientists, some of whom have made the logical step of concluding there must be a Designer:

1. Cambridge scientist Steven Hawking estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion had been smaller by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 it would have re-collapsed into a fireball.(1) A stroke of luck, or an intelligent design by a Designer?

2. Physicist Brandon Carter determined that the odds against the original condition of the universe being suitable for later star formation (without which planets, such as Earth, could not exist) is 1 followed by a thousand billion billion zeros (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros).(2) Coincidence perhaps?

3. Physicist and Astrobiologist P.C.W. Davies concluded that a change in the strength of gravity (or the weak force) by one part in 10 followed by 100 zeroes would have prevented a life-permitting universe.(3) The existence of life is either quite fortuitous or it was planned by a super-intelligence.

4. Sir Frederick Hoyle, late professor of Astronomy at University of Cambridge, said a common sense interpretation of the known facts about the universe suggest “a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics.”(4) Clearly, the evidence points to someone or something outside the universe creating what we now see.

5. Robert Jastrow (head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) called the fine-tuning of the universe “the most powerful evidence for the existence of God every to come out of science.”(5)

Second, the origin of life. Darwin tried to explain life without any need to invoke a Creator. Darwin could never tell us how the first life got here which eventually evolved into trees, fish and Aunt Erma. Has evolution eliminated the need for a God that created our fine-tuned universe in order to support the creation of life? Here is what leading scientists (and not all of them admitted theists) have said about the positive evidence for a Creator of life, and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution:

1. Sir Frederick Hoyle compared the absurdity of believing that life could result from time, chance, and properties in matter with believing that “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”(6)

2. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference….”(7) (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

3. “One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order.”(8) (evolutionist Roger Lewin)

4. “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going.”(9) (Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA)

5. “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much…. ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded…”(10) (David Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois)

6. “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observation to fit with it… To my mind, the theory [of evolution] does not stand up at all.”(11) (H.S. Lipson, British physicist)

As scientist Paul Davies said regarding science, “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws…”

This fact is humorously illustrated in the film “Expelled,” when the film’s producer, Ben Stein, interviewed popular atheist author Richard Dawkins. Stein, asked, “What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or evolution?” Dawkins replied, “It could have come about in the following way—it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved (by probably some kind of Darwinian means), to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology that you might find a signature of some sort of a designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”(12) In other words, Dawkins is open to the possibility of an intelligent design accounting for life on earth, as long as the intelligent designer is not God. What nonsense to suggest that life came from an advanced alien civilization, but not from God. Even if we entertain Dawkins’ theory, it does not solve the question of where life came from, because we then have to ask Dawkins, “where did the advanced aliens come from?” He has no answer for that question.

The good news is that more and more scientists are discovering that the universe had a beginning, and the best explanation for how it began is to posit an eternal, all-powerful intelligence that set the universe in motion. Who could that be? Back to Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God….”
__________
(1) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(2) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(3) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(4) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(5) “William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins (HQ) 2/11.” 1998 Debate. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.
(6) Sir Frederick Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature (November 12, 1981); 105.
(7) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History (April 1977); 14.
(8) Roger Lewin, “A downward slope to greater diversity,” Science (September, 1974); 1239.
(9) Francis Crick, “In the beginning…” Scientific American (February 1991); 125.
(10) Dr. David Raup, “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (January, 1979); 25.
(11) H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin (May 1980); 138.
(12) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. 2008 “Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview.” Online video clip from the movie Expelled. YouTube. Accessed on 24 March 2010.

Inspiration

February 13, 2010

Ready for a little etymology (the study of the origin of words)? The Latin word spiro means “to breathe.” In the English language spiro is transliterated (brought in letter for letter) as “spire.” Adding a prefix to “spire” gives us several meanings: The prefix “con” means “together.” Thus, “conspire” means “to breathe together.” The English prefix “per” means “through.” So “perspire” means “to breathe through” (for men this means “to sweat” but for women it’s “to glisten”). The prefix “ex” means “out.” “Expire” therefore means “breathe out,” meaning “to die” (as in “giving up the spirit”).

With this background, “inspire” means “to breathe in.” When we speak of the “inspiration” of the Scriptures, it is the process of God breathing into the writers of Scripture. The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (II Timothy 3:16). The words translated “inspired by God” is one word in the original Greek text, theopneustos. This word literally means “God-breathed” from the word theos that means “God,” and pneo that means “to breathe.” The verb pneo is the root behind the Greek word pneuma that is translanted “spirit,” including biblical references to the Holy Spirit.

But how exactly did God “breathe” into the writers of Scripture? Often in Scripture we are told what God did (e.g., created the heavens and the earth) but not told how He did it. The apostle Peter tells us “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (I Peter 1:21, NASB). We gather that God not only wanted to communicate His message to humans, but He also wanted those communications recorded so that His followers through the centuries would have His truth available. Thus, Scripture is a depository of God’s truth.

The doctrine of “inspiration” deals with God’s influence upon the writers of Scripture. Within Christendom there are differing views of the extent of God’s influence. A low view of inspiration holds that biblical writers were inspired merely like Shakespeare was inspired, resulting in “inspiring” writings that have survived as cultural classics. This view does not seem to square with the teachings of the Bible. When many of Jesus’ disciples fell away, He asked the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:67-68, NASB). Scripture presents itself as more than an inspiring religious text. It presents itself as being God’s truth, containing the words of everlasting life (“Thy word is truth,” John 17:17).

A higher view of the inspiration of the Bible, consistent with what is found within the pages of Scripture, is that the Bible is fully inspired. In short, all of Scripture, as opposed to mere parts, originated with God. The Latin word for “full” is plenos. Hence, a higher view of Scripture is referred to as “plenary inspiration,” i.e., the entirety of Scripture has its source in God.

A final question regarding God breathing into the writers of Scripture is whether His influence upon the writers extended to the thoughts they communicated through their writings, or even to the very words they chose. This is especially important when considering the words and teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are two schools of thought within those who hold to a high view of Scripture: (1) The Gospels accurately capture the thoughts that Jesus expressed (the “authentic voice”) but not the exact words. (2) The Gospels contain the exact words of Jesus.

What is the support for the view that the Gospels are the “authentic voice” (Latin, ipsissima vox) of Jesus, capturing His thoughts but not necessarily His very words? First, Jesus probably spoke mostly Aramaic, yet the Gospels were written (as far as we know) in Greek. Therefore much of what is recorded in the gospels is already a translation, calling into question whether the exact words of Jesus are important, since precision can be “lost in the translation.” Next, Jesus spent hours teaching, yet most of the teaching passages in the gospels are very short, indicating the Gospel accounts are summaries. Third, where parallel accounts exist (i.e., especially when Matthew, Mark and Luke contain the same account), the Gospel writers often do not agree word-for-word, but rather thought-for-thought. (e.g., Matthew 16:13 compared to Mark 8:27 and Luke 9:18). Finally, New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are not word-for-word. These reasons are the primary arguments that the Gospels contain the gist of Jesus’ teachings, but not the very words themselves.

Critics of the “thought-for-thought” view find weaknesses in the notion that inspiration involves only the accurate portrayal of Jesus’ thoughts, not His very words. It is argued that ipsissima vox opens the door to questioning the place of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Gospel writers to record Jesus’ very words (“He will…bring to your remembrance all that I said to you,” John 14:26). Further, Luke states that he is writing “so that you might know the exact truth” (Luke 1:4, NASB).

Can we know the exact truth without having the exact words of Jesus? In other areas of life it may be alright to deal with things that are “approximately true” (like the old adage, “close enough for government standards”). But when dealing with words spoken by incarnate deity, “approximation” has troublesome implications (e.g., who would want a neurosurgeon to operate in an “approximate” area of our brain, with an instrument that was “approximately” what is used for the operation, with post-operative drugs prescribed that are “approximately” what is essential for our condition? I am reminded of the man who was said to have made $25,000 in the potato business in Maine. On closer inspection, that was “approximately true,” only it wasn’t Maine, it was Texas. And it wasn’t potatoes, it was oil. And he didn’t make it, he lost it. And it wasn’t $25,000, it was $250,000. And it wasn’t him, it was his brother. So much for “approximate” truth).

The more extended view of inspiration holds that the Gospels contain the “authentic words” of Jesus (Latin, ipsissima verba), a view commonly called “verbal inspiration” (“word for word”). Hence, divine involvement in the inspiration process extends beyond the thoughts of the Gospels to the very words chosen by the Gospel writers.

Evidence for verbal inspiration (ipsissima verba) includes Jesus basing His argument on the very tense of a verb in Matthew 22:29-33. After the Sadducees posed a hypothetical question to Jesus, thinking they had stumped Him on the issue of the afterlife, Jesus made reference to God in telling Moses that He is (not “was”) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). His point was that at the time God spoke to Moses the patriarchs were long dead physically, yet God told Moses, “I am the God” of the patriarchs, indicating they were still alive, living in the afterlife. Jesus concludes, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” If Jesus did not have confidence that Exodus 3:6 was an accurate record of what God told Moses, right down to the tense of the verb (“I am” versus “I was”), He could not have made the argument. Therefore, a fortiori, Jesus’ words to the Sadducees had to be recorded precisely as spoken (ipsissima verba) for His argument to make sense, and to make sense as to why the multitude “were astonished at His teaching” (Matthew 22:33, NASB).

I would encourage those who have followed this journey into the subject of inspiration to not lose sight of the clear biblical teaching that God Himself is involved in breathing the words into the writers of Scripture (II Timothy 3:15, I Peter 1:21). Further, the Holy Spirit of God superintended the writers (John 14:26) so that the final product we called the “Bible” is, indeed, precisely what God desired to be available as the sole basis of faith and practice for His followers. As Paul the apostle wrote, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words” (I Corinthians 2:13, NASB). Remember what Peter wrote: “The grass withers, the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord abides forever. And this is the word which was preached to you” (I Peter 1:24, NASB).

Passing the Mantle

September 8, 2009

This summer I was privileged to teach the Sunday morning Bible class at Faith Bible Church in Panora, Iowa. I taught on the Gospel of John.

As I considered John’s gospel, there is both amazement and envy in reading the words of a man whom Jesus chose to be one of His 12 disciples, and even one of His inner three. It is amazing to consider what it would be like for a 1st Century fisherman to be summoned by the Messiah. However, I am envious that John was able to sit at Jesus’ feet for some three years, hearing things we will never know this side of eternity. (John admits that Jesus said and did many things that he did not write down in his gospel, because there was not room for recording everything–see John 20:30, 21: 25; plus, the purpose of John writing was so the reader would believe in Jesus–see John 20:31.)

John was in a unique position, being present with Jesus. He wrote his gospel so that we might read for ourselves about the words and deeds of Jesus. But John did not merely write his gospel account in isolation. Many of John’s activities are recorded in the book of Acts, where he is seen evangelizing his fellow-countrymen. He is recognized by St. Paul as one of the pillars of the early church. See Galatians 2:9. Beyond what is recorded in Scripture, we know from early church history that John himself discipled certain men, among whom were Polycarp and Papius.

Polycarp, born around A.D. 69, became a bishop in Smyrna, which is modern Izmir, Turkey. One of his pupils was Irenaeus, who reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus, including the Apostle John. Polycarp is among the earliest believers whose writings have survived (he wrote an Epistle to the Philippians).

Irenaeus, writing toward the middle of the 2nd Century (about A.D. 150) names Papius as a “hearer of John” and a “companion of Polycarp.” Presuming that this “John” is John the Evangelist, the disciple who wrote the 4th Gospel, then Papius also was discipled by a direct disciple of Jesus. Papius wrote a five-volume work on “Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord.” These volumes are lost, and are only known through fragments cited by later writers.

Jesus passed the mantle on to His disciples, mentoring and teaching them in order to prepare them for their commission (Matthew 28:19, “disciple all nations”). His disciples, like John, discipled the next generation of Christian leaders, including Polycarp and Papius. Polycarp, in turn, mentored Irenaeus, and so on down the line.

We, today, are called upon not only to believe, but also to serve. Part of that service is mentoring others, especially the next generation of Christian leaders. There is a wealth of precedent, based on the command of Jesus (Matthew 28:19), that our primary purpose on earth is to teach (“disciple”) people from every nation, passing to the next generation the mantle of leadership. John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, all the way to us, today. Someone (perhaps many) discipled you, and continue to disciple you. We thank God for those who have influenced our faith. Are there believers who thank God because we discipled them? There is a question that helps us soberly pause to consider whether we are, indeed, fulfilling our calling and purpose on this earth. Now is the time to consider if there is someone, or perhaps many, whom we are called to mentor and disciple. We are the ones not only entrusted with leadership, but also entrusted with finding faithful believers who need to be groomed as tomorrow’s leaders.

Are you working on passing the mantle?

Sotomayor and Identity Politics

July 17, 2009

In early July 2009 I responded to an editorial perspective in the Des Moines Register newspaper in which the deputy editorial page editor argued for having more women in the federal judiciary. The editorial was written in anticipation of the Senate confirmation proceedings for Judge Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme court (due to the retirement of liberal Justice David Souter).

I wrote a lengthy essay in response to the editorial, which I expected would be edited down. To my delight the Des Moines Register editorial page editor contacted me and wanted to print my entire essay, which they did on Sunday, July 12. It is the longest of my opinion pieces to be published. Read the entire article below.

Here in Iowa the most listened-to talk radio station is WHO, AM 1140 in Des Moines. Their morning host, Jan Michaelson, is so popular that Rush Limbaugh’s show, which is on live at the same time as Michaelson’s, is taped and replayed an hour later so that Michaelson’s show can be heard live. On July 15 Jan Michaelson had me in studio for an hour and a half talking about Sotomayor, the confirmation proceedings, and a host of other issues. We have had wonderful feedback from the radio interview and from my opinion piece in the Des Moines Register. Since one of our goals at Rolling Stone Ministries is to get people to think biblically, the opportunities these past few days in Iowa have truly helped us meet that goal.

Des Moines Register July 12, 2009 Article: 

Sotomayor and Identity Politics 

Can’t blame Deputy Editorial Page Editor Linda Lantor Fandel for wanting more women in the judiciary. After all, she’s a woman, women make up more than half of the U.S. population, and the federal judiciary is only comprised of around 27% women. Further, Iowa has but one woman on the state Supreme Court. Given these statistical facts, Ms. Fandel is outraged, and argues that “this should change.” 

But has Ms. Fandel’s statistical observation made a case for more women in the judicial branch? Using her apparent reasoning (i.e., that the percentage of women in the judiciary should reflect the percentage of women in the general population) either she or Editorial Page Editor Carol Hunter should step aside, since women are obviously over-represented as editors of the editorial page of the Register (two out of two). 

Let us further scrutinize gender and racial disparities. Iowa’s United States Senators are both men. Over-representation. Both of California’s U.S. Senators are women. Over-representation. Two of the nine United States Supreme Court Justices are Jewish. Over-representation compared to the general population, which is less than 2% Jewish. In California it is estimated that one out of every eleven people is an illegal immigrant. Thus, for statistical symmetry, California’s judiciary should be comprised of 9% illegal immigrants. 

Everyone is part of a gender group and a racial group. Should we demand racial and gender parity only in appointed offices? What about elected office? How about private enterprise? The possibilities for quotas and “affirmative action” are endless. 

In reality, alternating “boy, girl” may work on the playground, but when it comes to judicial appointments (or elected offices, or editorial page editors) we need the best and brightest. Unfortunately, identity politics, where one vigorously supports a person based on ethnicity or gender, has clouded our collective thinking. Bill Clinton’s “I want a cabinet that looks like America” was a feel-good attempt to appear inclusive. However, the results were abysmal (think “Janet Reno”). 

Identity politics usually is a subterfuge for advancing ideology. For example, after the death of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the U.S. Supreme Court, there were cries for him to be replaced by another black. When Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H.W. Bush to replace Justice Marshall, opposition was strong, because Clarence Thomas wasn’t the “right kind” of black. Similarly, an articulate African-American female (a “twofer”), Janice Rogers Brown, was an associate Justice on the California Supreme Court prior to her nomination by George W. Bush to the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia. Her confirmation was stalled, though she was eventually confirmed on a 56-43 vote of the Senate. Why the delay and the close vote? As it turns out, she is a conservative—just not the “right kind” of black female. As a “white European male” I have much more in common with the views and values of Justice Janice Rogers Brown than of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whom Sonia Sotomayor is set to replace. This helps illustrate how skewed identity politics is, and how it serves as a backdoor way to promote ideology, not parity or symmetry. 

As to Sonia Sotomayor, a threshold question that may seem impolitic is whether she would be a U.S. Supreme Court nominee if she were not Hispanic and female. Probably not. Her membership in a sexist (“exclusively female”) organization, her racially-tinged comment about a “wise Latina,” and her track record for reversals (the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed more than 60% of the opinions she wrote or joined) shows that she is a politically correct choice for this administration—not the best and brightest. However, the fact that she’s the “right kind of female” and the “right kind of Hispanic” will undoubtedly lead to an easy confirmation from a Senate where Democrats enjoy a super majority. 

The facts militate to the conclusion that Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment has more to do with political correctness and jockeying to please special interest groups that it does nominating the most qualified person for the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps we are stuck with identity politics that solely focuses on shouting, like the Buffalo Springfield in the song For What It’s Worth, “hooray for our side.” In a perfect world “our side” would not be women, men, black, white, Asian or Hispanic, but American. Until we reach the color-blind (and gender-blind) society, America will continue to be Balkanized into the tribalism we’ve allowed but never admitted. It’s past time that we truly reached across the aisle of race, gender and politics and put America first, regardless of the consequences. If doing so we might restore our collective confidence in a government that was designed to be of the people, by the people and for the people.