Question #1:
Hi Dr. Luginbill
I hope you and yours are doing well! I am now a very proud grandma of 3!
I am just beside myself with pleasure and joy!
My question is I thought that I read in your site that an idol cannot
flee from a fire
My friend is Muslim and he likes to compare scriptures to his suras in
the Quran.
We both challenge each other with questions and references. My hope is
one day that he will see Yeshua. I know it is not me that makes it
happen but our Lord.
Thank you so much for all your hard work and dedication to this site. It
has helped me in so many ways to understand our Lord God and understand
myself.
Please do have a wonderful holiday season and may our Lord Yeshua keep
you safe!!!
In Christ
Response #1:
Good to hear from you, my friend!
I don't remember every saying or writing anything like this. However, it
is a very common trope in scripture to denigrate idols for their
inability to do ANYTHING (see, hear, speak, smell, etc.), so that falls
right in line with the idea in the subject line. Some of the major
passages to consider: Psalm 115:4-8; 135:15-18; Isaiah 40:18-20; 41:7;
41:22-24; 42:17; 44:9-20; 46:6-7; 48:5; Jer.2:27-28; Hab.2:18-19;
Zech.10:2. There are plenty of others (just look up "idol / idols" in a
concordance like Blue Letter Bible:
at the link).
Congratulations on your expanding grandmother-hood! And thanks so much
for your good and encouraging words.
I do keep you in my daily prayers.
Wishing you and yours a truly blessed Christmas as well!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
[omitted]
Response #2:
As far as what you wrote, I don't have a problem with it. You were
clearly trying to subtly warn this person of the dangers of antisemitism.
As you've read many places at Ichthys, Israel is the apple of God's eye,
and anyone who gets involved in abusing the Jewish people is asking for
big trouble (see
the link). That doesn't mean, of course, that we don't understand
that many are not saved, nor does it mean that we have to support in an
open and public way the present state of Israel and everything it does.
It's a "sticky wicket" as the Brits say, which brings me to the next
point.
Personally, I never engage in social media (apart from occasionally
posting things that have to do with my job and a rare contact with a
friend or two who are otherwise unreachable). Engaging with strangers on
the internet in any sort of apologetics can be a very dangerous game for
many reasons. I'm certainly not called to that sort of apologetics. All
other things being equal, I would advise against it, but it's a matter
of personal application. I can tell you that it has the potential of
upsetting you (you already seem a bit upset) and taking over an
inordinate amount of your attention and energy. If that's part of a
ministry that the Lord has led you to, well and good. Otherwise, it's a
heavy price to pay for little to no good result.
Thanks for your prayers, my friend.
Wishing you and yours a very merry Christmas!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
[omitted]
Response #3:
Thanks for the free tract. One thing though. I must confess that I was
very surprised by this missile. Not being up on R.C. dogma, I suppose I
had assumed that the Bible today had the same authority it did in the
days of Augustine et al. I admit to being more than a little shocked to
find out that this is apparently not the case. Does Mr. Peters speak for
you all? Clearly, if one takes the Bible "out of the mix", then we don't
have much to discuss on these issues. It becomes sort of like arguing
with Mormons ("where are the tablets?" "taken back to heaven" "so how do
we know Smith translated them correctly" "trust the Church").
Certainly, in your case and in theirs, it is an impenetrable argument.
If one does in fact trust in the infallibility of the human organization
and human leaders, the discussion is over, because the truth is what
they say it is (at any given moment).
True enough, we all are relying upon the work and authority of others in
some respect, but even as individual lay Christians (and how much more
as those who present themselves to other Christians as men of authority)
it seems to me that we should take all pains to make sure that what we
say is correct. Everyone, after all, will be judged on the basis of what
they said and did and thought, and if their acts were wrong-headed
because they were blindly following the blind, not for that reason will
they be acquitted of their wrong-headedness. All I mean to say, really,
is that we are all responsible, and that it is a very dangerous thing to
shift that responsibility entirely onto other human beings without at
least following the example of the Bereans who even checked out the
teachings of the greatest apostle by consulting their scriptures (Acts
17:11), and come in for praise for so doing (cf. Matt.21:42).
I don't think that this is a controversy to be won through
argumentation. This is a matter of the heart, of the conscience. I
commend your desire to serve God with your life, and allow as how that
may well be possible in the course you have chosen. Certainly, given my
own background and beliefs, I do have serious reservations about your
organization (attitude toward scripture is clearly a big one), but have
always tried to be optimistic that our God who can work through any
human group is doing so in many unexpected places. It is not for me to
judge the heart and the work of others, but it is for all of us to give
careful consideration to the particular course of our own lives, and
association is a very big part of that.
Thanks for your genuine concern - please know that it is reciprocated.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #4:
[omitted]
Response #4:
Thanks for your recent letter and pamphlet. We are close to being done
here at UofL for another year (which means another summer of research
for me).
As to our continuing discussion about the respective roles of the Bible
and the Church, it seems to be very much a "chicken and egg" situation.
That is to say, from a purely secular point of view, it can be difficult
to argue with complete persuasiveness for either side. Neither of us,
however, has a secular viewpoint. We know that the chicken came first -
because the Bible tells us so. And in like manner, it is the Word of God
that precedes the calling out of His Church.
And that, it seems to me, is the crux of this entire discussion. Every
principle that we as Christians affirm, every principle which the Church
Fathers affirmed, is and was based upon scripture (if not immediately,
ultimately). I suppose this is why I find your position so fascinating.
From my reading of the early fathers (like Jerome), I don't believe that
one would get in a million years an idea that the scripture was not as
important as Church tradition, for it is always to the scripture that
they go for support of their positions. Your quote from Jerome a real
pannum purpureum as Horace would say doesn't really give Rome
authority over the Bible. In the first place, Jerome is speaking about
the entrance into the Christian faith, and I certainly would agree that
the influence of other believers [i.e., the capital "c" Church] is (or
should be) a powerful argument to unbelievers to accept the authority of
scripture. I personally believe that scripture is so powerful, so unlike
any other literature (being the mind of God not of man), that given any
close and true consideration it really does carry its own weight and
more alive and powerful, it convicts on its own any and all who are
truly seeking Him. But regardless of Jerome's slip here, he still, by
the logic of the statement, gives complete authority to the Bible
explaining, I would venture, why its translation and interpretation was
so important to him, occupying the better part of his life. For we may
be sure that "the authority of the catholic Church" did move him to
accept the truth of the Gospel, so that he did believe it (i.e., the
truth of scripture as put forth in scripture). Nor does he say that the
authority of the catholic Church is to be considered on an equal par
with the Bible once the job of evangelism has been concluded, once, that
is to say, he did come to believe.
It is also important to note that what Jerome meant by the catholic
Church [note the lower case "c"] is not what we mean today by the
Catholic church. In Jerome's day, there were Christians, and an
organization, which, though already becoming dangerously top-heavy (and
contrary to scripture extending authority beyond the level of local
congregations) was nonetheless very decentralized. So that Jerome could
move doctrinally between Rome and Jerusalem without any trouble.
Nowadays, there are a number of separate organizations which preclude
this (not even taking protestants into account!). In Jerome's day, it
really was a "catholic" Church, with no appreciable difference at
least not officially between believers and the loose conglomeration of
sees wherein the church visible was then organized. Seventeen centuries
later, the situation is not comparable. It seems clear to me that, were
he writing today, Jerome would have phrased this quite differently.
Jerome also, by the way, was the first to go strongly on the record to
use the Hebrew canon as the basis for the Bible excluding from any
serious consideration thereby the Apocrypha (which is not in Hebrew,
after all). It is true that under pressure from friends he did
grudgingly translate the Apocrypha, but not before penning his famous
comment to Paula that looking for anything of value in the Apocrypha was
like "looking for gold nuggets in the mud". Had he seen what abuses it
would be used to authorize a thousand years hence, one wonders if his
comments would have been so kind.
I find your analysis much more thoughtful (and useful) than that
contained in the pamphlet you sent me (although I do thank you for it!).
The idea that because Jesus didn't give us the New Testament, it is
without value, is really a non-starter. We wouldn't know about Jesus
without the New Testament (clearly therefore God's intended tool of
evangelism). It was quickly written (done by 68 A.D.); quickly compiled;
quickly distributed. And it was prized like nothing else in the early
Church, rapidly being translated into all manner of languages (there are
innumerable Old Latin versions long before Jerome). There exist
potsherds with the gospel of John numbered consecutively which survive
from the late first century so precious was this prize! No work of
classical literature is so well documented from antiquity. Christians
knew what the Bible was the councils of the Church merely confirmed
what God had already accomplished. Indeed, the very invention of books
(the codex form) is attributed to these early, Bible believing, Bible
loving Christians, who invented the form for quick reference and to be
able to have the entire book in one device (instead of innumerable
scrolls).
Moreover, there was a Bible even before Jesus' birth, namely, the Old
Testament canon. As someone who has devoted his life to the study of
scripture, I am constantly struck by the fact that one can always find
in Jesus' words the exact sentiment, variously expressed, in the Old
Testament and in the New Testament epistles. So that the message from
God contained in His book is consistent throughout we only need care
to interpret it aright. This is what the Church Fathers strove mightily
to do (even when they didn't agree, an occurrence more common than is
often thought: cf. Abelard's Sic et Non). This is exactly what,
as you mention, Protestants are also trying to do. I don't believe,
however, that you are at all correct in assuming that we claim we are
right because our interpretation is inspired (that is not a position I
have ever heard espoused in evangelical circles some cult leaders
might say this, but no one who wants to be taken seriously). No, we are
trying to get to the bottom of things in truth. And those who are
practicing proper hermeneutics always give their references, allowing
their listeners to go to the
scriptures to ascertain the correctness of what they have said.
I would also take issue with your belief that "the R.C. church has
always believed the same things". Clearly there have been many, many
controversies, many councils, and many changes of position and
interpretation (I hope Vatican II rings a bell). Only by construing
"what we believe" in a way so general as to be meaningless can that be
true. Only if you say that "what we believe is whatever Rome says at the
moment" can that be true. And I assume, from your particular approach,
that you are not entirely without grievance in that regard. That is the
problem with relying upon "human authority"; for while every human
organization has human authority, as you point out, I disagree
completely that this is the basis for Christian belief. It shouldn't be.
The Bible should be. God provides human teachers, but God also provides
the Spirit of discernment to allow His people to separate the wheat from
the chaff.
Every human being is responsible to God for what they believe and what
they do. Every unbeliever will give an account to God before
condemnation of why they failed to respond to the gift of Christ. And
every Christian will have to answer for everything they believed and
did. We are very definitely responsible for what we choose to believe,
for whom we choose to follow. There is absolutely no exoneration for
having followed the wrong path. We are responsible for "testing the
spirits" and determining whether, on balance, a leader or organization
is in the right and truly of God (a very difficult thing to do if one
rejects prima facie the primary authority of scripture, giving the
leader/group/tradition a trump over God's truth in all cases). But I
believe that in the conscience of every Christian, through the ministry
of the Spirit, God "will show you this too" if it be a case of following
the wrong path, for all those, that is, who truly desire to follow the
correct one (Phil.3:15).
I think that perhaps your most interesting (and trenchant) comment is
the one you make about Catholics having a duty not to follow teaching of
"the present hierarchy" if they contradict the "constant teachings" of
the fathers. In his Institutes, this is precisely Calvin's
argument, and he completes hundreds of pages explaining how the church
of his day had indeed gone astray from these "constant teachings of the
fathers" (the work is over 50% quotations), forcing him and others to
take another path, just as you suggest would be necessary.
To my mind then, this battle has already been fought and decided half a
millennium ago. Those who are happy with rote and tradition and not
particularly interested in having a deep relationship with God are
perhaps best to put the Bible aside. But my heart breaks to think of
those who possibly do want to know Him and the power of His resurrection
more intimately spiritually floundering out of a misplaced sense of
organizational loyalty. I do not speak here entirely of the R.C. church
all organizations die spiritually eventually (it certainly is/has
happened to the Presbyterian CUSA, the one with which I have the most
familiarity). But in all these things one has to trust God, that He
knows who are truly His, and knows how to bring us all along, as far as
we are willing and as fast as we are willing to go.
I really must apologize for my brusque style. When one feels things
deeply, it is very difficult to suppress all emotion. I appreciate your
prayers. Know that you are in mine as well. Please believe me when I say
that your organizational affiliations are of no particular moment to me
rather your salvation and spiritual growth. I trust you would say the
same of me. With God, nothing is impossible. I believe and will continue
to believe that everyone who truly devotes himself to God, will be led
of God, and I believe and will continue to believe that it is through
the power of His Spirit and through the guidance of His written Word
that we are led to the Living Word, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Jerome read the Bible, I dare say, and would be appalled to think there
was anything amiss in that. Read the Bible and give in to it as the
Spirit gives you guidance. This is the only way closer to Him.
Yours in humility in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #5:
[omitted]
Response #5:
Greetings - glad to hear they are keeping you so busy! I've been in
quite a busy-mode of late as well. I just bought/moved into a small
house and it has been quite a chore getting things up and running again.
Not sure how long ago your letter came, but it has been a while since I
managed to clean out my mail box at school (in fact, the secretaries had
carted a load of stuff down to my office and plopped it down on my chair
to make more room in my box!).
As to the substance of your letter, I do believe that we are now getting
down to cases and that the differences between our outlooks and
essential points of view are beginning to become clear a truly good
thing for all concerned I think.
You correctly state my positions in that the Bible is the only valid
basis for our beliefs and that the early fathers generally took that
same approach (not that they were perfect they're writings were not
inspired). But it is not my position that scripture is the basis for
Church organization in fact, nor even that it can be in theory. In this
I think you will find me differing from most Protestants. In my reading
of scripture, there is most definitely no proscriptive organizational
form we are under grace and freedom, not under the law. It is one of
the fundamental problems of the Church (the original organization cum
Roman Catholicism in company with the Orthodox faith, but also the
Achilles' heel of the reformers) that so many have tried to mimic the
institutions of Israel (not to mention their rituals). In contrast, the
apostles, as can be seen from the letters of Peter, John and Paul, and
from Acts, had no preconceived notion of what the Church should look
like organizationally (otherwise we would have had an organizationally
"catholic" Church from the start instead of waiting some seven
centuries). Scripture, in fact, mandates a unity of love, but the only
organizational unity to be found there is on the local level. The
construction of multi-church organizations (while important for
historical reasons the early Church had to survive persecution by
Rome; the reformers had to do the same) is neither indicated by nor
authorized in the Bible, and, given that even the apostles whose
authority was beyond that of any human being living today tread very
carefully on this issue, it is a mistake, biblically speaking, to
support any super-church organization. The damage this one mistake has
done to the faith and spirituality of the Body of Christ throughout the
ages more than off-sets, in my opinion, any good it may have done and
this applies equally to protestant and other groups [see now
BB 6B: Ecclesiology at the link].
On the issue of the canon, we couldn't be in starker disagreement. I
would put it this way: God is the one who decides what is His Word, not
human beings [see now BB 7: Bibliology at the
link]. With apologies, I cannot help but noticing how your position
always steers back to human beings (sanctified though they may be) while
mine always points back to God. Perhaps that is something you should
think about. There have been, in the history of the world, many human
organizations which have given their members a sense of belonging and a
feeling of spirituality without, however, being truly devoted to God.
There is only one way to Him: the faith in and
the following of His Son who died for us. Anything which builds on this
is in His will; anything which detracts from this is at best pointless,
at worst contrary to His will.
Yes, God has decided the canon. The more one reads the Bible, the more
it becomes clear under the power and enlightening ministry of His Spirit
that this book is truly like no other. Whether it be the book of
Philemon or Numbers or any other book that may initially be the cause of
questions. If we knock, He answers.
From a logical point of view, from a philosophical point of view, much
of what you say may hold water. I cannot be the judge, being a poor
logician and a poorer philosopher. But I do know this. Just as God
revealed Himself to you, made known to you His existence, so He makes
known the power and the reality and the validity of His truth. That
truth, in its most concentrated and detailed form, is found in the Holy
scriptures and nowhere else. Any writings which even approach the power
and spirituality of the Bible only do so because they contain truths
which originate from there. These things I know experientially, as do
all who have trusted Him and walked this path. I can't prove it, but it
would probably be a mistake to try. For I know that all who seek Him
find Him. So that all who really and truly want to know Him will
eventually be brought to the end of themselves and the end of all
humanly devised means and will find themselves in prayer and diligent
study of the scripture, directly by themselves and indirectly
through the work of others, empowered, encouraged and led forward by His
Spirit. Truth is a razor which cuts sharply. No position, belief, idea
which is un-biblical will survive diligent investigation of the
scriptures, provided the heart and the motivations of the investigator
are true. It has always been so. The Bible is the touch-stone which
proves or disproves the worth of all the "thoughts and intents" of our
hearts. God made it so. No human council or organization, Catholic or
Protestant, Jewish or gentile, could ever hope to duplicate this role,
and all that have tried have accomplished the opposite instead: i.e.,
insulated their adherents from the searing, humbling, brilliantly
blinding truth.
No organization codified the Bible. Just as the Jewish council of Jamnia
in truth only "ratified" what was the Old Testament canon, the most that
any Church council could do was to recognize the fact of what God had
inspired. All one has to do is to read any part of the Apocrypha the
closest thing to scripture that uninspired human writers have ever
produced and the impassable gulf between them is obvious to anyone,
even secularly speaking, let alone when guided by the Spirit. "The
Bible", to paraphrase L.S. Chafer, "is not a book that human beings
could write if they would, nor would write if they could". These words
bear reflection. For not only is the power of God, the grace of God and
the wisdom of God so emphatically demonstrable in the scriptures that
anyone who is seeking Him in truth is overwhelmed by the wonder of them,
but these are also not in any way writings which the mind of man would
conceive (compare them to any world literature you will). And it is
beyond the capability of human ego to attribute such things to another,
to find such fault with oneself, or to seek these goals of grace and
truth. If all this is not entirely true at first reading, the more
scripture is read, the more undeniable these facts become.
No special inspiration is necessary to see that the Bible is truly
special. It has the power to bring the unbeliever to God, the wayward
believer back to Him, and the searching believer closer to Him, guided
by the Spirit who inspired/directed these writings in the first place.
The entire canon predates the centralized church by many centuries, and
if that centralized church had never come into existence, we would still
have the scriptures as they are.
These things may seem hard for some to believe. But we are followers of
God through Jesus Christ. He is God, not subject to any of the
restraints that secular man is so preoccupied with. Many of the
unbelievers I speak with have precisely these same kind of questions and
issues with scripture they are understandable. They are only truly
solved, however, by trusting Him. We trusted in the Word, Jesus Christ,
to be saved a step of pure faith by God's grace. Why should it seem so
strange that to grow in Him the only way forward on the path is the same
way we entered it? Only through His Words can we grow closer to Him
(Phil.3:16; Col.2:6).
It is by this rule, by this canon, that I have set myself to proceed,
and I have never regretted the decision. Luther was a famous and, to my
mind, a good and courageous man but he was a man, and was wrong about
James (if he had read it more carefully, more often, perhaps the power
of this inspired book would have come through to him). We all have kinks
that we need to work out, even a Luther (or a Peter). But God is
perfect, and His Word is perfect. The early Church was also composed of
human beings. The visible organization of the Church a creation of
human beings, and a non-inspired one at that is not the basis of our
faith (or at least it should never be). Rather, it is the Holy
scriptures to which we look, which have been inspired by God the Holy
Spirit, and which speak exactly the message of God (whereas the
interpretations of human beings through their organizations can only
approximate this in a small way at best, and more often, in my view, mix
it up or get it wrong).
So for the inspiration of scripture I offer these three witnesses: 1)
the power of scripture itself read it and re-read it; 2) the ministry
of the Spirit yield to His guidance and He will bring you to answer
all of your questions through scripture; 3) your own conscience for if
it is really God whom you seek, He will lead you in the path, He will
speak to your heart, and you will know what is right.
How do you know for sure? You have to be convinced in your heart. Only
God can do this for you. He is the only authority. He has given His Son
so that you can be part of Him, given His Spirit so that you can be
guided by Him, given His Word, so that you can truly grow in Him. All
this has to come by faith. In a hundred years with a thousand books, it
is beyond my power to convince you (or anyone). But I know that He can
give you what you seek, true fellowship with Him and with Jesus. He can
give you the truth.
Please believe me when I say that I am not looking to "count coup" over
you as the Sioux say or over anyone else. I learned long ago that the
spark which leads to salvation and the spark which leads to growth and
true service for Him has to come from within. It has to come from the
right motivation. God is all powerful He has it within His capabilities to
"make" everyone of us do and think and say exactly as He will. But He
has chosen instead to allow us all a measure of freedom to choose for
Him or not. Such are the worshipers God seeks those to worship Him
and His Son "in Spirit and in truth" (Jn.4:23-24). Wherever your path
leads you, however you are led to serve Him, may that spark of desire
for truth be in you, and may you allow Him to direct you in the best
way, whatever that way may be. I tell you from the bottom of my heart
one thing I know to be absolutely valid and true if you seek Him, you
will find Him; if you knock, He will open to you; if you call upon Him,
He will answer you, and He will show you all your heart.
Yours in the love of Jesus Christ,
Bob Luginbill
Question #6:
[omitted]
Response #6:
I appreciate your reply, no matter what the lag time (I've been known to
lag myself without even having a trip to France as an excuse!).
I cannot say that I am in agreement with your characterization/synopsis
of our respective positions. Probably just best to "laundry-list" my
quibbles:
1. The Church in scripture = those who believe in Christ: The Church
with a capital "c" is the Body of Christ. It consists of all who ever
have (from Adam and Eve) to all who ever will (to the end of the
Millennium) turn to God through Christ. It is not an earthly
organization, neither Protestant, nor R.C., nor Orthodox, nor Nestorian,
nor Coptic, etc. etc. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as the sole
basis of their salvation, and who follow Him faithfully to the end,
constitute this true Church.
2. Pure and simple faith in Christ alone is the basis of salvation (not
"membership"): Joining / participating in a Protestant church doesn't in
and of itself bring one any closer to God or to Jesus than joining any
other organization (R.C., whatever). Scripture is clear in ever instance
in which the issue is mentioned that faith in Jesus Christ is the basis
of "membership" in God's Church (Jn.14:6; Acts 16:31; Rom.5:1;
Eph.2:8-9; etc.). Nowhere in scripture is there any indication that
somehow "membership" in an earthly organization has anything to do with
anything (especially one which didn't yet exist, as in your
organization).
3. Neither Rome nor any other place was the seat of the "church" in the
1st Cent: Paul went to Jerusalem on those occasions where there were
"ecclesiastical disputes", but not because he felt there was an official
hierarchy (something he takes pains to point out in the book of
Galatians) rather he did this for the sake of unity (of which there is
unfortunately little these days precisely because people are hung up on
"churches" instead of the Church [all fellow believers everywhere]).
4. Organization is necessary but not authoritative: People organize
themselves into groups, and this is certainly not against scripture, but
scripture does not (anywhere) outline a hierarchical scheme for an
earthly organization. This was true even within Israel to a large degree
in spite of all the strictures of the Law (cf. Jethro's advice to Moses
on how to handle things). That is because the world is imperfect and
situations change. Only the truth of the Word of God is constant, so
that only it can be the unchanging standard of faith and practice. No
single organization could possibly handle every people, culture, place,
time and circumstance (especially when human sinfulness and less than
perfect following of Christ is thrown into the mix), and this is why, in
my opinion, there is no hierarchical guidance given in the Bible beyond
some very general and basic guidelines (which, even so and despite the
great many strictures that many churches do have, are still not being
followed: the R.C. is a case in point).
5. History (esp. in the NT) does not support an original papacy: There's
no evidence for anything like an R.C. unified church before the 5th
century. But I don't look to secular history for authority. Search the
book of Acts and the rest of the NT and see - no mention of Rome as seat
of authority; Peter is not preeminent over Paul; John is the last great
apostle (and operates from Asia Minor).
6. It takes great faith to be a Catholic: I would imagine that the faith
necessary to continue to believe that the R.C. church as the only font
and source of truth must be tremendous indeed. Faith is a wonderful and
necessary thing, but it has to be placed in the correct object. My faith
is in God, in Jesus Christ and that pretty much sums up my position,
other than to say that I only find Him revealed in the Bible (beyond the
wonder of the creation which, while it speaks eloquently of Him, does
not give specifics). In the history of the world, many people have
placed their faith in false objects and religions. It is important to
have faith, but just as important to make sure that the object is
correct.
7. The Bible speaks to its own authority: I thought we had straightened
that one out, but would be happy to re-join on this issue (it's
important). I can understand the philosophical position that rejects the
authority of the Bible per se for a variety of reasons (I reject the
authority of all other religious texts), but please, let's be clear
the Bible argues for its own authority throughout. If one reads the
Bible with an open and inquiring heart, it will, I assure you, lead you
places. Reject it or accept it, but don't mis-represent it.
8. "Sola scriptura" doesn't quite get at my position: I follow Jesus.
The only way to do that well is to listen to Him. He is only speaking
through the Bible and the Spirit (you must be born again "of water [His
Word] and Spirit [the Holy Spirit]"). Therefore it is impossible to
please Him and follow Him without the Bible, but the object is know and
love and follow Him and do His will and gain a good report before Him on
that day.
You take great comfort in the unity of your organization, and you seem
quite impressed with the fact that non-Catholics are not unified. This
is looking at the surface of things. On the one hand, it doesn't matter
if true Christians are going at something in a diversity of ways if they
are doing it right, and, on the other hand, it is no accomplishment to
all be doing it the same way if we are doing it wrong. I am not an enemy
of the Catholic Church. Nor am I a defender or supporter of any church
or denomination organized by men only of the actual Church of Jesus
Christ (my own ministry is very much "outside the gate"). To the extent
that someone really finds and follows Jesus Christ within any
organization (even the R.C.), I am deliriously pleased. In my
experience, however, I know for a fact that the further any group moves
away from the truth of scripture, the less likely spiritual growth
becomes, and even salvation may slip away. The main problems I have with
the dogma of your organization (and you are a very effective apologist
for it) are 1) you are shutting yourselves out of the truth of the
kingdom of heaven by refusing to even look objectively at scripture with
open eyes and an inquiring heart; and 2) you are seeking to stop others
from doing so as well (Matt.23:13).
This second point is one that I believe all members of authoritative
organizations of whatever persuasion should keep in the back of their
minds (and this goes for "protestant" groups as well). For it is one
thing to abandon the truth oneself for one's own reasons, whatever they
may be, but quite another to undermine the genuine faith of someone else
who may really be seeking the truth. After all, big organizations (and
there is none bigger than Rome) do look for all the world as if they
know what they are doing and know what they are talking about. Someone
walking into a any big religious building of any "faith" for the first
time might very well come to the conclusion that so many people, so
dedicated to this way of seeking God have to have some idea of what
they're doing. In fact, in the history of the world the opposite has
almost always been the case. Those who follow truth in truth tend to
find themselves, rejected, persecuted, alone, betrayed, exiled,
impoverished just as our Lord and His apostles did, and we have been
called to follow in His footsteps, no matter where they lead.
When we began this correspondence, I think I told you something like
"just keep reading your Bible, and God will lead you where He wants you
to go". I stand by these words. If I thought that you didn't have a true
heart, didn't really want to follow God's will for your life, weren't
really seeking the truth in your own way, then I would let this go. I'm
never going to convince anyone with my words to change their heart. The
only thing that I can do is to try and help point to what's already
there, in your heart.
I know you want to be safe. I also know that the history of the worldly
church outside of Catholicism is a far from reassuring template. But you
can't let the failure of others dictate to you about your commitment to
God, about the way you have been called to follow Jesus (whatever turns
that may take). The true Christian life is usually not safe. We are
called to insecurity, to giving up everything else in our hierarchy of
priorities that exalts itself above God, and that means, from the
world's point of view, risk-taking (Lk.14:26-33). But, in truth, it is
only by embracing the danger of the truth with genuine faith that we can
ever truly be safe (Matt.16:24-27).
If you are comfortable with where you are and what you believe, I won't
keep pestering you about it you have a right, after all. For my part,
I intend to pick up my cross and follow the Lord, wherever He leads,
whatever it costs. I'd like it to be comfortable, but it may well not be
in the plan. I'd like to think that I could sit on my (very modest)
laurels, but that probably is a bad idea as long as I find myself in
this vineyard. I'd like to think that the fact that other people are
loafing or doing it wrong or so sure they are doing it right (when it
seems to me that they are doing it wrong) would be enough to excuse me
from the risks ahead. But I know that there is only one road, and it is
steep, and it is narrow, and there is no turning back if one would enter
by the only true gate.
My continuing prayer for you is that God will make His light to shine
upon and guide you to where He would have you be.
And we have the prophetically inspired Word as something even more certain [than what our eyes saw on that day]. You too would do well to pay the closest attention to this [prophetically inspired Word], just as to a lamp shining in a dark place [cf. Ps.119:105], until the day dawns, and the Morning Star rises [i.e. Christ returns in glory], pondering in your hearts this principle of prime importance: no single verse of prophetically inspired scripture has ever come into being as a result of personal reflection.
- the Apostle Peter (2Pet.1:19-21)
Yours in Him who is the only truth, the Word of God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #7:
[omitted]
Response #7:
Always good to hear from you.
No, I don't mind your enlisting of help, but I do feel that a few points
of clarification are in order now. This discussion has become fairly
involved, and, as is clear from your latest response, we have not only
strayed from my own main concern (your spiritual welfare), but also from
the main issues at hand.
As I recall (you can check your back-mail log on this), most of our
correspondence stems from some tracts you sent re: your organization.
And I appreciate very much your interest and concern in my spiritual
welfare. Know that I have a similar concern for you which is likewise
genuine and from the heart something I have tried to make clear in all
these "epistles". Otherwise, I would be quite content to let sleeping
dogs lie, as they say, and I'm relatively sure that you feel the same
way. Therefore I'm not sure what purpose we may be serving by carrying
out our "legal briefs" to the third and forth places of support, as if
the argument will turn on subpoint III.a.iv.2.
I do appreciate your in-depth response to the points I put forth in my
last message, but they were in response to your prior message which
indicated to me a misunderstanding of my own position. I understand
full-well the responses you have given, feel for all the world that they
do not undermine the points I gave (I stand firmly by all eight points),
and accept that you are not in any way responsive to them. That is
certainly permissible, predictable, and understandable.
For we are coming at this from two diametrically opposed positions. You
see your organization as heavenly; I see it as earthly. You see the
Bible as a support to what your organization teaches; I see it as
contradicting much of that teaching. You see faith in Christ as
important within the context and dogma of the organization to which you
belong; I see faith in Christ as primary, superior to all organization
and complete in itself. You hold to the traditions of your organization
and claim that the Bible authorizes them; I hold to the teachings of the
Bible against any organization (and see it contradicting most, including
yours).
I could go on, but you get the idea. Perhaps I have not put these things
in terms which you would
wholeheartedly accept, but you could easily compose a similar list. I
certainly pose no threat to your organization, one of the largest and
most powerful on earth, I, a man alone, "outside the gate", a pariah
even in Evangelical circles. Nor have I any wish in any way to change or
affect the dogmas of your church. My concern, my entire concern from day
one, has been for you, for your salvation and spiritual growth in Jesus
Christ. And I have merely suggested that such a course of action
necessarily entails drawing closer to Him through His Word.
Clearly, you feel that you have found another way to God and are very
comfortable with it. I remain hopeful, if doubtful, that perhaps within
your organization and its teachings there is enough of the truth to
accomplish this journey, that salvation and true spiritual growth are
not impossible within the R.C. Church. It should be noted, however, that
we are all responsible to God for our choices. It is not for me to
judge. Our Lord Christ will judge "on that day" each according to his
actions and according to the thoughts and intents of his heart.
If I believed that your organization was the sole way or even the best
way to God's truth, to the
fulfillment of His mandates, to knowing Christ and following Him,
believe me when I say that I would not in any way allow my past to
hinder my participation (the pattern of my life is one of following
truth despite risks, despite costs). No doubt you feel that your church
is "the one way", and that is certainly your choice to make.
But for me, the only way to the Word of God is through the Word of God.
So even so, in my opinion, you could do worse things than reading your
Bible every day. That's all I'm saying.
Yours in Him who is our life and the only truth - our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #8:
[omitted]
Response #8:
Thanks for the letter. Don't worry about my salvation I have a deep
and abiding faith in my Lord Jesus Christ, and that's what ultimately
counts (cf. Jn.3:16; Acts 16:31; Rom.3:22 Eph.2:8-9; etc., etc.).
Re: the Eucharist, I have always wondered how anyone could read John
6:25-60 and understand the body and the blood as literal rather than as
symbols of faith (so that bread and wine = symbols now) of course that
is just what our Lord's unbelieving countrymen did and it caused them to
stumble (and this "doctrine" has of course been the source of many
controversies through the millennia).
I think it's great that you read and study your Bible. Greek and Hebrew,
Latin, English it's always good to read and drink deeply from the
Word.
I'm not entirely clear what your purpose for doing this is at seminary
though (is your seminary unique I do understand it's not completely
conventional). What I mean is, if every interpretation has been
predetermined by canon law, etc., that would seem to diminish the point
of the exercise. I guess what I am getting at (subtext) is that the very
fact that you/your group feels it is important to interact with the
Bible means that the Bible is important in its own right for you
personally (a fact that would seem to beg the question of whether or not
you might actually get something out of it for yourself).
What was that about the "fathers" though? In my experience (as a
historian as well as a theologian) the "fathers" are all over the map on
every topic in the Bible. Abelard even wrote a book, "Sic et Non",
pointing this out, showing that on every possible theological question
there were fathers to place on both sides of it. Also, the majority of
the "fathers" are much closer to reformed theology than you might think
(a point painstakingly made by J.Calvin in his "Institutes" one
of the main intellectual pillars of the reformation).
So we are back to this problem that you can't get around, namely, that
of inconsistency among biblical exegetes. My problem with your position
is that you seem not to recognize that this has always been an issue
from the earliest days of the Church (even before the Apostolic, Greek
and Latin fathers what about the council at Jerusalem?) that is, men
of God coming up with different solutions and interpretations (you've
heard about the Councils of the Church, I presume, and cannot fail to
appreciate the political dimensions of their decisions). Further, canon
law is still developing which must mean that it is not a perfect
status quo. And to top it all off, your organization's position is that
those who are not of that organization cannot be saved, a very radical
position in the history of Christendom (not shared by any other
Christian group, to my knowledge, and certainly not supportable from an
academic reading of the scriptures).
So I guess my problem with your problem is that I don't see how you have
solved it by being belonging to your church. I can understand and accept
a hundred, a thousand reasons why a person might want to be Catholic and
be fine with them (even if I don't find them personally persuasive). But
the position that R.C. doctrine is and has always been some perfect,
flawless and mutually accepted unchangeable whole (and thereby avoids
the problem of "people coming up with different points of view") does
violence to history and to the facts. The R.C. Church has always
interpreted scripture to fit its situation, and there have always been
voices of disagreement in that church. You would have to restrict this
model to a very, very small set of doctrines for it to even have the
appearance of truth (and even then it would not withstand deep probing).
You seem to want the Catholic Church (or at least its belief system) to
be a smooth monolith, but in actuality it is a farrago, a potpourri, a
kaleidoscopic organic accretion of disparate elements hurtling through
time like a meteor, gaining and losing pieces as it collides with
obstacles. Maybe the core is essentially the same, but even the core
is striated and fissile to a large degree. This is a very common thing
with religions. What makes (true) Christianity unique is that it has a
divinely inspired book that is a reliable witness to the truth of God.
No person, no group can understand the whole Bible perfectly, so that we
all have a partially imperfect take. But we can strive to get closer to
the truth of God day by day - and should. And, believe me, it does
matter whether our imperfection level is 20% or 80%. And I, for one,
refuse to accept a 20% solution just because my 53.1% does not match
this other guy's 53.2%. I would rather choose to strive to help both him
and me get to 54% (and more).
UK has gone "hog wild" for oral Latin. I read an interesting article
about the Italian gentleman (name escapes me) who pioneered this. At the
end of the article, he had to correct the impression of the interviewer
by saying that really, the reason he got into spoken Latin was because
it helped him understand Tacitus and other classic writers better. That
is my beef with oral Latin. quid agis? doesn't really get you much
closer to reading and understanding ablative absolutes. You could speak
Latin all day long on a certain level, and still not be able to read
Cicero. Not that spoken Latin is a total waste. If my 101 class met for
15 hours a week, we would surely do a lot more spoken Latin. But at
three hours a week, if we concentrated on spoken (I have tried it) we
wouldn't have enough time to get them up to speed reading texts. I'm not
sure how they swing it at UK. I know that in Greek they have gone to
taking two years to get through the first year book (terrible idea in my
view). If we had undergraduates for seven years, this might work at UofL,
but, as it is, I think we're going to stick with what's worked for the
last few millennia.
I always appreciate your spirit and your concern. Hope you will take
this letter in that same spirit of love and concern.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
[omitted]
Response #9:
At least we are on agreement about one thing. This particular discussion
seems to have reached its natural conclusion. Apart from what you may
think, my interest has always been in your welfare, not in the
refutation of Catholic tenets. We do seem to be talking past each other,
but I feel that I am right in saying that this is not exclusively from
my side. You are an apt defender of your position, but the truth of God
is not determined by debate, and, from my point of view, it is just such
"debate" in which you seem to have put your trust, i.e., the corporate
teachings of Roman Catholicism arranged forensically.
But if I were asked what I believe, my answer would be "the Word of
God", not the writings or seen through the writings of any individual or
institution, no matter how renowned. And if I were asked what I love and
whom I serve and to whom I owe my allegiance, my answer would be "God",
not to or in addition to any individual or institution that has a
purported relationship with Him. And if I were asked wherein I trusted
for salvation, my answer would be "in Jesus Christ alone", not in or in
conjunction with any other individual or any institution.
You, of course, feel you have it both ways in all three of the above,
and feel that I really have neither because I don't have both. I, on the
other hand, am equally concerned for you, because, in my view, by
compromising on the truth so fundamentally, true faith finds itself in
mortal danger. That was the reason why, if memory serves, I had
originally responded to one of your enthusiastic letters by encouraging
you to read scripture, to listen to the Word of God, convinced, as I am
and always will be, that God ever leads those who are truly searching
for Him to the truth. Your response is what occasioned our "debate", and
I was happy to engage only because I thought I had perceived in this
initial response a certain defensiveness, that is to say, a heart full
of unsettled issues calling out for help. This perception led me to
believe that such a discussion might help you to sort things out.
Clearly, I misread the situation, and for that I apologize. You have
more than proved your devotion and commitment to your cause, and, as I
say, are an able defender of it.
Thanks for your prayers and concerns. Please know that they are warmly
reciprocated.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #10:
[omitted]
Response #10:
To put things in terms of my last e-mail (as far as objectivity and
subjectivity are concerned), I prefer to remain convinced that basing
what I believe directly on scripture is about as objective as faith can
get (it certainly hasn't led to atheism in my experience Jesus is my
life). On the other hand, I see basing faith upon the interpretive lens
of some group, any group, may be just as "objective" but not necessarily
right. From your point of view (again in terms of my previous e-mail), I
well understand that without the tradition to which you adhere you feel
my attempts to understand scripture are futile (whereas I have pretty
much the opposite point of view). But it does seem to me more plausible
even prima facie that God would be more likely to inspire His apostles
and prophets and endow them with greater authority than He would the
very diverse tradition that followed and interpreted them over the next
2,000 years.
I am very pleased that we can remain friends in spite of our
antithetical views. We both have each other's welfare at heart, and
that's not a bad thing.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Dear Professor,
I wanted to ask you for prayer about the character of my future
ministry. I've got a very long way to go, but translation of your
resources is an idea that has been on my mind recently again. I wouldn't
do them myself, but I would verify their faithfulness and I wonder if
it's a step that should be taken.
I also wanted to ask if you know any good Bible resources for children?
My want to start teaching their children; they are believers and would
welcome the idea of using Bible-related materials, but I don't know if
such exist, and if so, what is their value, as some truths are hard to
simplify.
With constant prayer for you,
Response #11:
Good to hear from you, my friend. [omitted] I'm still trying to get over
the cold/flu and recovery has been complicated by the high ragweed
pollen count here (almost lost my voice in class a couple of times this
week). I hope we get a frost soon, but none in sight just yet.
I have been praying for you for guidance on ministry for a long time,
and I am happy to hear that you are making progress in your
consideration of the issue. The Lord always opens the right doors at the
right time; we just have to be in a position spiritually both to
recognize and respond to what He does. I rejoice to hear of your
continued progress in the Word that is a source of great encouragement
to me.
As to material for children's Bible studies, I would enthusiastically
recommend my friend Curtis Omo's Bible Academy on YouTube (see
the link). About half of what he has posted so far is "CS" material
(which is his abbreviation for "Children's studies"). Not only is he a
highly prepared pastor-teacher, but he also has five children and
home-schools them, so he knows a thing or two about their spiritual
needs.
Thanks as always for your prayers! You are in mine day by day.
Your friend in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Hello Bob. What would you say if I told you I am pretty close to connecting the mark placed on Cain and the end-time mark of the anti-christ, not with belief but with provable TRUTH. Evil people living among us today have the same mark and they have so many Christians fooled and deceived that the so-called Christians choose those evil people as church leaders and help elect them to public office in our governments. Bible scripture does say that strong delusion will be poured out on people at the end-time, it is already happening. So-called Christians have followed false beliefs so long don't seem to be able to recognize truth even when it is on the end of their nose. I don't think a lot of people are going to learn very much provable TRUTH from your writings which are more like a big thick textbook, full of a lot of nice to know stuff, some College Professor would submit to a publisher so it could be overpriced to students. Most people I know don't even take the time to learn what is in the Bible let alone read long drawn-out beliefs from others. People want their religion like they want fast food, quick, cheap, and fattening. Salvation may seem to come easy because it is a free gift from God, but only if you are one of His chosen people, hereafter rewards must be earned by good works so a lot of so-called Christians will most likely come up very short when it comes to hereafter rewards for good works. Having false beliefs and following false teachers gets no reward points. Most so-called Christians seem to be too comfortable with the false teaching that they will get to live in Heaven just because they are believers but Bible TRUTH does not teach that, just false teachers teach such lies and deceptions, the evil ones, leaders in churches where God's people allow them to be leaders because God's people do not know the TRUTH of how to TEST to know who the evil people really serve as their master, Satan. I am sure glad I served with better soldiers as a Green Beret than most of the so-called Christians I have found in most churches, otherwise I probably would not have survived to be writing this.
Response #12:
Thank you for your observations. While I agree with some of what you
say, please note:
1) All of the studies at Ichthys.com
are free I don't charge anyone anything for them.
2) This ministry encourages individual Bible reading on a daily basis as
absolutely essential both for growth and for protection against what is
false (see the link: Read your Bible: Protection
against Cults).
3) I'm the first to admit that these studies are not easy to get
through. But I like to think the information they contain is more than
"nice to know". To me, everything the Bible actually teaches is
important. In my observation and experience, it is often the case that
some point of scripture truth learned long ago which may have seemed odd
at the time will very often play an essential role in understanding
another truth later on. Simple put, the Bible and truth and the Lord
Jesus do not have a sliver of daylight between them. Short of a direct
conversation with the Lord, we are blessed to be able to glean all the
truth we need to know and God wants us to know from scripture. That is
the basis of this ministry. Like mining for gold, some nuggets are right
on the surface, but for others one has to go to greater depths. I am
dedicated to finding out everything the Bible has to say in terms of
truth, and in making it available to anyone who is interested.
I think you are quite right that most churches and most Christians do
have a "fast food" approach to Bible teaching (on those rare occasions
when they are interested in it at all!). But my life is predicated upon
doing this job for the Lord the right way no matter what anyone else may
think. That is why it is on the internet and not in a brick-and-mortar
structure or available only through those "high-priced books" you
reference. These materials are as good as I can make them and they are
free for all who want them. It is not always easy to digest them, I
agree, but that doesn't necessarily make them worthless. In my
observation and experience it is exactly the opposite, namely, anything
that is too easy is likely to be of little worth, while things that are
more difficult to attain generally have the greater value.
4) If I didn't believe the information in these materials was true,
i.e., "the truth", I wouldn't post it. I go to some pretty great lengths
to show "how I get these things", that is, where in scripture these
things are taught, with translations, parallel citations, and a full
accounting of my argumentation. Further, I always stand ready to answer
questions about anything and everything I teach. Scripture contains the
truth, and, ideally, all of us who interested in the truth, the full
truth of everything God wants us to know, should be making common cause
to circle in on it. In this struggle I am seeking to do my part
according to the gifts, ministry, and opportunities I have been blessed
to receive.
5) I too lament the fact that so many of our fellow Christians are
disinterested in meaningful production for the true Church of Jesus
Christ, but in the scriptural view it is clear that meaningful
production must follow spiritual growth. So as long as believers find
learning God's truths from consistent and diligent Bible study to be too
onerous, there is little chance of them maximizing their production.
In any case, it might be of interest to you that
part 4 of the Coming Tribulation series
covers Revelation chapter 13 and the "mark of the beast" (at
the link).
Yours in Him in whom are all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom
(Col.2:3), our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hello Bob. If you have trouble dealing with TRUTH we can end our email contact at any time? I have no interest in beliefs, I am a TRUTH researcher because false beliefs are destroying our world and TRUTH is our last hope. Beliefs are worth about ten cents per dozen, TRUTH is priceless. Belief does not make anything TRUTH. Following false beliefs have led to far more worldly problems than following TRUTH ever will. All religions are belief, faith, and hope centered, that helps to explain the TRUTH of why so many different religions were started by people. Belief in any religion, scriptures, or holy books, have never produced proof of the TRUTH it takes to KNOW God. God did not start religions, people did, if God had ever started any religion it would be based on knowable TRUTH and there would be no doubt about it being the only right religion. It never ceases to amaze me how so many intelligent, highly educated people can be so easily fooled into following false beliefs and false leaders. Christian Bible scriptures tell that God made the simple things to confound the wise, certainly seems to be evidence of TRUTH since it happens so often. The worst enemies of man-made religions is the pretend-to-be believers who choose belief over TRUTH. That is part of why it will be so easy for an end-time antichrist to eventually do away with all religions in order to become the exclusive object of worship. Man-made religions have become mostly something for lazy believers who are afraid to seek, know, and follow TRUTH. Just because theories are long drawn out attempts to convince people to believe in them does not make them better than simple TRUTH. The total of what Jesus Christ said in the Bible would only take a few pages compared to the millions of pages other people have written trying to say so much less. I think you could accomplish far more for God with your life if you would teach more simple TRUTH than the massive confusion of your long drawn out written beliefs which very few people will read or even understand? Maybe you were bored with your life, had a lot of extra time or something, which could have been better used to seek, learn, know, and follow provable TRUTH which God's people are going to need a lot more of in order to survive the soon coming tribulation times, unless you happen to be one of the deceived people who believe the false teaching that Christians will be raptured away to miss all of what they helped to cause? Reap what we sow is justice, not escape it and leave the mess for other people. You being a former Marine, should have toughened you up enough to be able handle a little more simple TRUTH. Following Jesus Christ (TRUTH) all the way leads to persecution and crucifixion on a cross, only the toughest can handle it.
Response #13:
Given your resume and your approach, you ought to be able to handle a
tough question or two yourself. So here goes:
1) What is your source of truth (e.g., the Bible, personal conversations
with God, observation of the natural world, etc.)?
2) How do you extract this truth (i.e., what is your essential research
methodology)?
3) On what basis do you distinguish between what other people say is
true and what you maintain is "TRUTH" (i.e., what standard do you employ
to test and validate what is true and what is merely "false belief")?
Without knowing where you stand on these fundamental issues, we are apt
to waste a lot of time in this dialogue. For example, you brought up the
issue of the rapture and seem to assume that I may support that theory.
On the contrary, I have written fairly extensively de-bunking the
pre-millennial rapture (see the link: Peter#27:
"Three False Doctrines that Threaten Faith"). My basis for this, my
"source of truth" is scripture; this truth was extracted through
diligent study and careful translation and interpretation of the
pertinent verses; this truth was vetted in the context of other
scriptural teachings and systematic theology generally. All of this is
then put out in detail in the above study in a way which may not be easy
to access (cf. Prov.1:7), but which leaves the reader in no doubt as to
where and how and why I came to the conclusion that this lack of a
pre-millennial rapture is "true". In this way, the reader can judge for
him or herself whether what I have taught is really true by comparing it
to scripture (the word of truth).
So there you have my essential answers to the same questions I am asking
you. I look forward to your response.
In Him who is the only truth, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hello Bob. So-called Christians are just some of the many human SOUL beings created by God, who never advanced from baby food beliefs to hard TRUTH food it takes to grow to know God. Based on the TRUTH not taught by Christianity, it is just another one of the too many belief, faith, and hope, religions in a decaying world. God is the source of all TRUTH through Jesus Christ who can be proven to be a divine being by demonstration of TRUTH fact if you know the TRUTH of how to do the TEST. Everything created by God is controlled through TRUTH, no scientific research, test or finding will ever be able to prove otherwise. Everything was created by God, God is the exclusive source of all things created from nothing of which no created being or thing can do from nothing nor can anything created turn anything into nothing. My research method for finding TRUTH is not much different from scientific research which produces known facts. If a ball is thrown into the air and falls back to the ground, it will always do so if all the same conditions are duplicated. If something is known TRUTH it can be proven by repeated demonstration of the known facts. God has not yet revealed all TRUTH to His people, to do so would be somewhat like giving a loaded gun to a child to play with. Humans have done quite a job of helping to destroy the world with what TRUTH is already available to them. There is no sanity in giving atomic bomb TRUTH to children who are still living on baby food beliefs. The Christian Bible says, Jesus Christ is TRUTH so why do so many so-called Christians follow false beliefs over knowable TRUTH? The Christian Bible has an abundance of TRUTH in it but very few so-called Christians are taught Bible TRUTH. That is a TRUTH real Christians should be very concerned about, who is the master of their false teachers, that is knowable TRUTH, especially if it is Satan's people who teaches them. If someone tells me something is TRUTH and they don't have provable knowledge of the source then they are just giving me their belief. If someone dresses up in a red Santa Claus suit and tells me they are Santa Claus it doesn't prove that Santa Claus is a real being. Belief is not known TRUTH, if it were it would not need to be called belief, there is a big difference between religion beliefs based on belief, faith, and hope, than knowable TRUTH, something religious fanatics have not been able to accept. Satan has a very hard time of accepting TRUTH so he uses his free-will to attempt denial of TRUTH in what he teaches his followers. TRUTH controls everything created, always has and always will, free-will beings are only allowed to believe otherwise until God ends their pretense game and training program.
Response #14:
Perhaps if we focused on some specifics where we have some common ground
we would be able to clarify for me this point of yours re: "beliefs vs.
known truth". Since we both apparently reject the false teaching of the
pre-millennial rapture, this would seem as good a place as any to begin.
The only place I know of where the Millennium, the Tribulation, the
Second Advent, and the Resurrection of the Church are authoritatively
discussed is the Bible, so that the only place I know of where one might
get any information about a "rapture", pro or con, pre or post, is from
the Bible. Is this your source of truth re: the rapture? You do state
that "The Christian Bible has an abundance of TRUTH in it". But it was
my impression (and is my firm belief) that the Bible (why do you call it
the "Christian Bible"?) IS the Word of Truth (2Tim.2:15), and that there
is NO other source of truth apart from the truth one can derive from
observation of the natural world (cf. Rom.1:18-20;
see the link).
Now while I would certainly agree that there is much one can discern
about God, His goodness, His providence, and His awesome nature from
considering His creation, I cannot see how one would ever learn about
the Millennium, the Tribulation, the Second Advent, or the Resurrection
of the Church (so as to come to the truth of pro or con on the "rapture)
by studying nature. This is where your "ball-in-the-air" analogy deserts
me. We have to get our detailed and substantive truth from somewhere. I
get mine from the Bible. Absent a personal conversation with God, I
don't know where else it would come from. You have an opinion about "the
rapture" and its related doctrines. Where did you get your information?
You say "God has not yet revealed all TRUTH to His people" but it is
unclear to me what you mean by this. If you are saying that we will know
much more in resurrection than we know now, well and good. Of course
that is true. But if you are telling me that you have some special
source of extra-biblical revelation, that is certainly pertinent to this
discussion. You seem to be troubled by "belief " that is not provable.
But the entire Christian faith is "not provable" in secular, humanistic,
scientific terms. I would certainly agree with you that just because I
believe something does not make it true. However, it is equally the case
that just because I believe something does not make it un-true. Truth
and belief are two separate things. But in the true Christian faith,
these two are indeed inextricably linked. We can only really know and
understand the truth by faith through the power of the Spirit (link),
and it is precisely because the most important of God's truths are not
provable that salvation and spiritual growth are a matter of grace
cooperating with faith:
It is faith [in the Living and written Word], moreover, that substantiates what we hope for. [Faith] provides proof of things unseen.
Hebrews 11:1
[Let us] not [be] having [any] regard for what can be seen, but [instead] for what cannot be seen. For the things which can be seen are ephemeral. But the things which cannot be seen are eternal.
2nd Corinthians 4:18
For we are walking [our Christian walk] through faith [in the Living and written Word], not through appearance.
2nd Corinthians 5:7
If we could "prove it", then we would know it without really needing to
believe it. You don't need to read very much of the Bible to come to the
conclusion that the "training program" you reference is predicated in no
small measure upon God's testing of our willingness to trust Him, to
believe in what He says even when our eyes and ears tell us different.
Unlike the unbelieving world, we who have put our faith in Jesus Christ
DO believe the truth. That being the case, the life test for those of us
who have already put our faith in Jesus is whether or not we will now
believe what the Bible actually teaches. And, that being the case, the
issue after salvation is therefore just what does the Bible teach?
Learning what it teaches, believing it, and applying it to our life is
what spiritual growth is all about (and it is to this cause that this
ministry is dedicated). Without spiritual growth, sanctification and
production (the defense and offense of the Christian walk respectively)
are very difficult if not impossible to attain.
The statement I find most troubling in your last e-mail is the
following: "Based on the TRUTH not taught by Christianity, it is just
another one of the too many belief, faith, and hope, religions in a
decaying world." I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood, but
with these words you seem to me to be distancing yourself from
Christianity entirely. If you are not a professing Christian, that
certainly changes the entire ground on which this conversation needs to
take place.
In Him who is the only way to eternal life, our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ.
Bob L.
Question #15:
Morning Bob,
Found your site this morning and have a wealth of pages to digest.
Specifically looking at the seal of the Holy Spirit and plan to spend
time slowly going through your detailed analysis.
[omitted]
Response #15:
Good to make your acquaintance.
As to your specific question(s), I do admit to being at a bit of a loss
(I was never very good at reading between the lines). Nevertheless, I
will have a go.
I have never been a great believer in pastoral counseling, so that if
you have experienced problems with that, well, I am not terribly
surprised. Psychological counseling is a profession, and while I
understand that there is a Christian branch of this and also know people
who have been helped by it, my view is that in many if not most cases
the Word of God is more than sufficient coupled with the ministry of the
Spirit and the encouragement that the Body is supposed to provide
mutually to itself for any troubles a Christian may encounter.
Of course, that would presuppose that 1) the believer is advancing
spiritually and not getting into spiritual trouble instead; and 2) that
the believer in question is part of a fellowship where the Bible is
actually being taught in an orthodox way as the top priority of
assembly, and 3) that the other members of the fellowship are mostly
advancing and/or very spiritually advanced as they should be, and are
also functioning according to their actual spiritual gifts so as to be
able to encourage those who are in need of help and support. In truth,
it is very rare to find such a place or a situation. Christian
counselors, therefore, are in many ways a symptom of the dysfunction in
the church-visible if churches were doing their jobs, most such
counseling would be mostly unnecessary.
As to sealing, scripture says that we are all sealed with the Spirit
"unto the day of redemption" (Eph.4:30; cf. 2Cor.1:22; 5:5; Eph.1:14),
that is, kept safe by the Spirit for the day of our resurrection. There
are no qualifications in these passages. Every believer has the Spirit
as a pledge guaranteeing salvation (Rom.8:9), and the only way that seal
can be broken or that pledge taken away is if the believer in question
apostatizes, that is, abandons entirely his or her faith in Jesus Christ
(please see the link:
Apostasy and the Sin unto Death).
There are no prophets in the Church today (see the link:
Are there Prophets in
the Church Today?), so that if anyone is "examined" by a person
making such a claim, the "diagnosis" would be even more suspect than in
the case of a would-be counselor.
Apologies in advance if I have misread your question(s) or parts
thereof. Please do feel free to write me back about any of this.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob Luginbill
Question #16:
[omitted]
Response #16:
If I am understanding your question correctly, you are asking about the
protection that all believers have in Jesus Christ, and in my view that
is absolute. God removed a large measure of this protection from Job,
but certainly not only preserved his life in so doing but also always
had it planned to restore him to a better situation than before in every
way after accomplishing His WILL.
So it is with us: as long as we are in Jesus, we have nothing to fear.
If anything untoward happens to us, it is either 1) a case of sharing
the sufferings of Christ (link),
or 2) a case of God's divine discipline chastising us as His own
children in order to turn us around (link).
In extreme cases of rebellion, believers are occasionally handed over
for the "sin unto death" (link),
but that is, as I say, in extreme cases where a believers refuses to let
go of faith (so as to apostatize) and at the same time refuses to let go
of some outrageous sinful behavior (refusing to repent). The biblical
example of this is in 1st Corinthians chapter five, the man who had
relations with his stepmother.
Absent aberrations like the above, we all have to have faith that even
in hard times of testing, God is for us and is working all things out
together for our good (Rom.8:28). That is the promise we have as those
who love Him and who have committed our lives to Jesus Christ. It is a
common misconception in the contemporary church-visible that "good
Christians" will always be materially prospered and will never suffer
any serious trouble. In fact, it is actually those who are really good
Christians who are growing, advancing, and ministering spiritually who
are the most likely to come in for satanic attack and the most likely
to be pruned by our Lord in order to bear more fruit.
I know of many groups where instead of leading and encouraging the
congregation through teaching the Word of God in a deep, systematic, and
orthodox way, one finds instead very terrible substitutes designed to
keep people coming back and giving money. This almost always involves
unbiblical manipulation. The only legitimate interference in the
personal life of a church member that a pastor or elder or "prophet" or
any other church official is allowed to have, biblically speaking, is on
those rare occasions when the member or attendee is visibly "acting up"
in the assembly, or is involved in some sort of obvious gross sinful
conduct and is making an issue of it in and to church (rather than
keeping it to him/herself). The "medicine" for the first is temporary
ejection; the "medicine" for the latter is permanent ejection.
Mandatory counseling or prying or telling a person what they are to do
or having members run their decisions by someone else are awful,
terrible, unbiblical, evil practices which have no part in the true Body
of Christ instead of spiritual growth they destroy free will. And,
certainly, no pastor or deacon or elder or "prophet" has any such power
today as the apostles did have to "hand over" someone to Satan or to
remove their divine hedge or to break the Spirit's seal or any other
such nonsense. You will certainly not find anything of the sort in the
scriptures.
I have plenty on the website about all the above, but I will wait for
your response to "fine tune" where best to direct you.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.