Ted Haggard and The Importance of Accountability

Chuck Missler
from the November 07, 2006 eNews issue


[Português]

Ted Haggard admitted to "sexual immorality" this week - without going into detail - and has been removed from his position as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and as pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The news of his relationship with a homosexual male has shocked and deeply saddened the evangelical community in America, and - like David with Bathsheba - "hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme (2 Samuel 12:14)."

Haggard wrote a letter to his congregation, apologizing for his actions and accepting all responsibility for what he had done. He said,

…There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it all of my adult life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I’ve sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me. Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn’t want to hurt or disappoint them.

The public person I was wasn’t a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe.

He did not make excuses. He did not say, "Oh, my behavior wasn't so bad." He recognized the depth of his sin and failure, and willingly agreed to step down from his positions of leadership.

Aside from his apology, however, Haggard said something in his letter that every church leader in the country, and indeed every Christian, should take note of. He said, "when I stopped communicating about my problems." In other words, when he stopped being honest, when he stopped making sure he stayed accountable to somebody, that's when he lost the fight and slid into the pit.

James 5:16 says, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

Ted Haggard was a major Christian leader in America, a public figure, and a spokesperson for the evangelical community. Not only did his position require great responsibility, it also required great protection. The Enemy of our souls knows how to exploit our weaknesses to his advantage, and we as Christians, and especially Christian leaders, must have people praying for and with us constantly in order to defeat the efforts of that Enemy.

Every single one of us has an area of vulnerability through which we can easily be tempted to sin. We may struggle with anger, or laziness, lust, or pride. We all have our Achilles heel, our thorn in the flesh that keeps us humble and aware of our need to totally depend on Christ. But, if we do not communicate with one another about the areas where we struggle the hardest, then we won't get the prayer and assistance we need.

Christian leaders are not more holy and immune to temptation than the common Christian man or woman in the pew. This is a reminder that all of us need to pray for our pastors on a regular basis, and for any Christian leader in our lives. We need to keep careful watch of ourselves and make sure that we have trusted, mature Christian brothers or sisters (men should meet with men, women with women) with whom we regularly gather to share our struggles with temptation and the areas in which we need prayer. We need to pray with our spouses on a regular basis, and remain transparent. As the body of Christ, we must take care of one another - we need each other (1 Cor 12:12-27).

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:1-2

Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; Hebrews 12:12-15a
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Hebrews 3:13

The news of Ted Haggard's sin grieves the Christian community, but it also serves as an important reminder; Christ alone is holy, and only he gave us a perfect example. Christianity depends on faith in Jesus Christ, not in evangelical leaders. Christ is the solid rock on which we stand, and we can have confidence in Him alone.

K-House

Comentário sobre a Batalha pela Bíblia

Manoel José de Miranda Filho*

Muito interessante esta questão da Batalha pela Bíblia, irmão.

Mas, como sempre, quero tecer um comentário. Jesus passou pelos problemas, ou por cima deles como querem os liberais que acreditemos? Vou usar a maiêutica de Sócrates e pedir
que eles me provem que Jesus não andou por sobre as águas.

As muitas ciências hoje tentam provar que Deus não existe, que Jesus é apenas um mito ou alguém que veio para a sua terra como um profeta como osoutros profetas vieram e que o processo da criação é meramente religioso.

Sobre a existência de Deus, as mais lisonjeiras teorias dos homens em relação ao que a razão humana se "orgulha" de ter conseguido provar é que estes assuntos não passam de meras hipóteses e conjecturas. Em período algum da história humana há exemplo de filósofo, cientista ou seja lá o que for, que manifestasse a pretensão de ter adquirido a idéia primitiva da existência de Deus por meio de investigação pura e simplesmente racional. Ou seja, em todos os casos em que se trata de raciocínio destinado a demonstrar a existência de Deus, não é possível chegar ao conhecimento do fato como verdade original e sim simplesmente se consegue fortalecer e confirmar verdade já conhecida e admitida. Se pudéssemos admitir que o homem estivesse colocado em situação tão absolutamente privada da luz da Revelação que ficasse sem a idéia de Deus, seria difícil admitir que ele tivesse capacidade, por si só, através do raciocínio, de chegar à conclusão da existência do que lhe era totalmente desconhecido (você é filósofo e sabe do que estou falando, até melhor do que eu). Nestas condições ele andaria apalpando-se no meio das mais densas trevas, (lembra sobre a caverna e a luz que se achou dentro dela? As densas trevas são essa caverna e a luz que outrora se achou por dentro dela é JESUS CRISTO, luz do mundo), sem adiantar nem sequer um passo na aquisição do conhecimento da existência ou da natureza do Criador, conservando-se nesta ignorância até que tombasse morto como as bestas (as feras selvagens) que perecem. Entretanto, é evidente, à vista do que afirmam as Escrituras, que rodeados como nos encontramos pela luz da Revelação em todo o seu esplendor, ou mesmo, como em geral acontece com as nações pagãs, apenas auxiliadas pelo vislumbre da TRADIÇÃO, podemos ver nas obras da natureza através das nossas "faculdades racionais", no mundo que nos rodeia, numerosas provas que demonstram a existência de Deus.

Sobre o processo de criação, vamos por partes. A Antropologia nos ensina que o homem foi criado através de uma sublime "intervenção milagrosa" na natureza, refutando a sabedoria e glória divina da criação. Têm-se que o homem foi criado de uma derivação de seres orgânicos ou de alguns tipos primitivos e, graças ao desenvolvimento e aperfeiçoamento de plantas e animais tornou-se o homem. Até hoje esta evolução de Darwin não foi comprovada, pois na ciência o que vale é quando se comprova através de dados verídicos.

A ciência já admite hoje que o homem pode ter vindo do barro ou da terra devido a quantidade de minérios que existem dentro do corpo humano, fósforo, ferro, cálcio e etc., com isso, a ciência diz que o homem pode ter aparecido no mundo repentinamente, não por evolução de seres inferiores, mas repentinamente. Os crânios dos homens primitivos mostram claramente que estes tinham a mesma organização cerebral que o homem possui hoje e podemos portanto supor que tinham a mesma natureza intelectual e moral.

A Geologia harmoniza-se com a Bíblia da forma como o homem entrou no mundo. Em ambos os
relatos (geologia e Bíblia), o homem é visto como geologicamente moderno e as ossadas encontradas até hoje mostram acerca de uma identidade e origem comum de todos os homens. A capacidade cerebral dos mais antigos homens testificam que eram os senhores da criação e pouco aliados de animais, o que nos lembra as passagens de gênesis sobre o homem dominar a terra. Visto que existimos e não somos a causa primária da nossa existência, visto que a natureza existe através de mim e em mim, eu existo, mas não em mim, mas em Deus, que não existe em ninguém e somente Nele mesmo, sendo este SER a causa primária de todas as coisas (você é fera nisso: Existencialismo).

Visto também que a teoria da evolução pressupõe um germe criado e que este germe pressupõe um criador e visto ser impossível que a matéria originasse o movimento, posso concluir que a causa primária do movimento criador deve ser uma mente independente e acima da matéria, que a nossa existência é obra desta mente independente e que como seria coisa impossível que essa mente agisse sem que primeiramente existisse, logo vemos a existência de Deus demonstrada como causa primária de nossa própria existência. Desculpe se estou lhe perturbando a paciência dizendo essas coisas que você já sabe.

Sobre nosso querido e amado Jesus (na sua natureza humana), primeiramente os gnósticos diziam que a divindade entrou em Jesus logo após o batismo efetuado por João Batista, que era baseada num princípio da filosofia dos antigos gregos de que "a matéria está inseparavelmente relacionada com o mal". Esta teoria levou Marcião no início do século II a reformar ensinos dos gnósticos, sustentando que Cristo em lugar de nascido de mulher, desceu com aparência de um corpo humano a Cafarnaum, para anunciar aos homens a existência do princípio do bem, até desconhecido. Os marcionistas diziam que o corpo de Jesus não era real, não passando de um fantasma ou sombra e que Jesus o usava para conversar com os homens.

As diferentes formas de gnosticismo não negavam as afirmações às escrituras da humanidade
de Cristo, mas afirmavam que elas só existiam de forma aparente, por isso chamados docetas ou fantasistas. Mais tarde Eutíquio caiu num erro semelhante, ensinando que a humanidade de Cristo foi absolvida na divindade e que seu corpo não tinha existência real. Enquanto esse povo negava a existência real do corpo de Cristo, a heresia apolinária rejeitou a existência de uma alma humana em nosso Salvador. Na sua natureza divina, três teorias distintas foram adotadas.

Socino ensinava que o Salvador começou a sua existência ao nascer de Maria, se bem que "possuído" de santidade e excelências extraordinárias. Ário ensinava que ele era o primeiro e o mais exaltado dentre os seres que Deus criou em qualquer tempo, mas que apesar disso, foi
"criado". Os trinitários, ao contrário, ensinam que ele possui duas naturezas distintas: A humana, nascida por Maria e crucificada no madeiro, e a divina, unida com a humana (visão mórmon hoje). Então, esses ataques ao nosso Senhor e Salvador são antigos. Sua natureza humana (Gal 4:4; Hb 2:14-17; Lc 2:52; Mt 4:2; Jo 19:28; Jo 11:35) e sua natureza divina
(Jo 1:1-3,10,11; Cl 1:15-17; Cl 1:17; 2Tm 4:1; Is 40:3) e outras mais.

É por isso que eu te falei sobre a maiêutica, não tenho medo de forma nenhuma de ser levado por eles, pois tanto na vida prática (empirismo), como na ciência (lógica, matemática) como na Palavra do Senhor (a nossa querida Bíblia), temos grandes argumentos para crermos que o Senhor existe e que podemos refutar qualquer coisa que seja contra DEUS e NOSSO QUERIDO REDENTOR SENHOR JESUS CRISTO. Quem tem que me provar o contrário são eles. E vai ser
muito difícil!!!!!!!!!

Fica com Deus meu irmão. Espero não ter tomado o teu tempo.

*Manoel José de Miranda Filho é estudante de teologia na FAEPI (Faculdade Evangélica do Piauí), em Teresina, Brasil.

Bibliografia pesquisada:

• Manual Prático de Teologia (Eduardo Joiner)
• Introdução à Teologia Sistemática (J. Millard Erickson)
  
• Teologia Sistemática (Louis Berkhof)
  
• História da Igreja Cristã (Jesse Lyman Hurlbut)
• História da Teologia Cristã (Roger Olson)
  

E alguns grifos existentes no texto, pertencem a mim (Miranda) também.

Chance and Intelligent Design (Part 4)

James A. Choury
WorldVenture missionary to North Brazil

[Leia este artigo em português]

One common misconception regarding probability is that enough time makes even highly improbable events almost certain. This misconception may be a result of confusing two different types of circumstances. These circumstances are known as independent and dependent events. To illustrate this difference we can use coins and cards since this makes possible fairly simple mathematical calculations.

Two events are independent when the result of one has absolutely no effect on the other. Tossing one coin twice or tossing two coins at the same time are independent events. Drawing one card from a deck and replacing and shuffling the deck and then drawing the second card are two independent events. The odds remain unchanged when dealing with independent events. For example, the odds of tossing a head on any given toss of a coin are 50%. If I have tossed the coin three times and never have gotten a head the odds on the fourth toss of getting a head are still just 50%. This is a simple example of how our natural tendency is to think that the odds get better when, in fact, they do not.

However, drawing one card from a deck and not replacing it definitely affects the odds on the next draw of a card. The deck has been modified! This is an example of dependent events.

The odds of drawing a spade from a deck of cards on the first draw are 13/52 or .25000 or 25%. If the first card was not a spade, and the card is not replaced, the odds of drawing a spade on the second draw are 13/51 or .25490 or 25.4%. Note that the odds improved. After drawing 8 cards and never getting a spade and not replacing the cards the odds of getting a spade on the ninth draw would be 13/44 or .29545 or 29.5%. If no spade is drawn in 39 draws and the cards were not replaced then the odds of drawing a spade just before the 40th draw would be 13/13 or 1.000 or 100% because at that point there would only be spades in the deck and drawing a spade would be a certainty.

In discussions concerning the origins of the universe and of life, we can begin talking of independent events where the odds remain the same with each new “trial” (i.e. they never improve) and slip into treating the independent events as though they were dependent. From there it is easy to conclude that the desired event must eventually occur because the odds continually improve until becoming a certainty.

One example might be the thought that life originated when lightning struck a pool with slime in it. (Seldom is the question of where the slime came from addressed). Lightning strikes the pool. The odds of life being formed in this way are highly unlikely and in this case nothing happens. (By the way, it is much more probable that any “incipient” life be extinguished in this way than produced). But some time later another pool of slime is struck by lightning. Again nothing happens but sometime later another pool of slime is struck by lightning, etc. Clearly these are independent events and the odds never improve. Yet we are tempted to think that given billions of years it has got to happen eventually. Given enough time it becomes a certainty. Actually the probability never gets any better. (Perhaps it would improve the odds if lightning were to strike the same pool of slime many times but that only brings in more highly unlikely events).

When discussing issues dealing with probability we must remember that if the events are independent the odds do not improve with time.

Here is a less controversial example to illustrate the point. Let’s imagine a large tray with 50 coins in it. The odds of all the coins being “heads” by chance are 1/250 or 8.88 to the negative 16th power. There is only one way all the coins can come up heads. There are 1,125,899,907,000,000 ways for the coins to come up not all heads. If the tray were “bumped” every second allowing the coins to fly into the air and land again in the tray they would never “by chance” come up all heads because the odds never improve. The odds at each trail would still be 8.88 to the negative 16th power against it. It is ever more probable that at least one coin will be “rebellious” to our wishes and insist on coming up tails.

In discussions of the origin of the universe and of life we are often encouraged to think that given enough time it would have to happen simply by chance. Understanding the difference between independent and dependent events helps us see the error of this way of thinking. The point is the odds never get any better no matter how much time is allowed.

In this brief, four part, study of logic and probability we have seen that the debate concerning the origin of life and of the universe quite naturally and of necessity falls into two camps, i.e., chance or intelligent design. The Law of the Excluded Middle forces the debate into those two, mutually exclusive, options. We have also seen though our rapid lesson on probability that joint, complex, interrelated and highly improbable events are extremely unlikely so as to border on the impossible. These logical and mathematical realities should lead the unbiased inquirer to conclude that the universe and life itself came into being by means of intelligent design.

Why then do so many cling so tenaciously to the “by chance” explanation of the origin of the universe and of life? One reason may be the Law of the Excluded Middle combined with rejection of the concept of a designer. Remember, if it wasn’t by chance then it must have been by “not chance”. But “not chance” is equivalent to saying design and that means intelligent design. One must either accept intelligent design or insist that everything that exists and life itself happened by chance. Those with a philosophical commitment which excludes design are left with chance as the only logical choice available to them. The problem lies in that often this philosophical presupposition is believed to be science and is proclaimed as science. The actual scientific evidence and logic lie on the side of intelligent design.

Sou Um Fundamentalista?

Dave Hunt

[Saiba mais sobre esse assunto]

"Você é um fundamentalista!" A acusação me foi dirigida quando ainda era um calouro da universidade, recém-saído do serviço militar, em 1947. Da maneira como ela foi feita, com tamanho desprezo, nenhuma explicação foi necessária para compreender que ser rotulado de "fundamentalista" era um dos mais terríveis insultos no orgulhoso mundo acadêmico. Respondi algo como: "Se ser fundamentalista significa aderir aos sólidos fundamentos da matemática, da contabilidade, da química ou de qualquer outra ciência, então aceito alegremente o título. E já que a Bíblia é literalmente a Palavra de Deus e é inerrante (sem erros), a única escolha inteligente é aceitá-la e permanecer fiel aos seus fundamentos". Essa resposta apenas aumentou a frustração e a ira dos que debatiam acaloradamente comigo já por duas horas.

A ocasião foi o primeiro encontro da "Hora dos Críticos", uma novidade que havia sido criada recentemente por alunos e professores da universidade para ridicularizar e desacreditar a Bíblia. Entre os espectadores havia um bom número de crentes que eu conhecia do grupo cristão do campus, mas nenhum deles disse uma palavra sequer. Fiquei sozinho naquele auditório, sendo alvejado com argumentos de todos os lados, todos favoráveis à evolução e ao ateísmo. Sendo um ingênuo jovem de 21 anos, fiquei chocado com a animosidade tão abertamente demonstrada contra a Bíblia e contra o Deus da Bíblia.

Naquele ponto da minha vida, mal ouvira falar de Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor da Primeira Igreja Presbiteriana de Nova Iorque, uma pessoa-chave no liberalismo/modernismo americano. Tampouco fazia idéia da crescente rejeição da infalibilidade da Bíblia entre muitas pessoas que se chamavam cristãos. O nome de J. Gresham Machen era-me completamente desconhecido. Portanto, nada sabia acerca da batalha perdida que ele sustentara no Seminário de Princeton, na década de 1920, contra as heresias que levaram aquela escola a tornar-se completamente liberal e que alcançaram a maioria das igrejas presbiterianas.

Cristianismo com "roupagem" moderna

Os servos mais eficientes de Satanás são mestres em ambigüidades. Fosdick reivindicava honrar a doutrina, mas ao mesmo tempo advertia sobre o "perigo de dar ênfase demais à doutrina..." Ele afirmou que "nada realmente importa na religião, a não ser aquelas coisas que fomentam o bem individual e público... e o progresso social."1 Fosdick foi reconhecido naquele tempo pela maioria dos cristãos verdadeiros como o incrédulo que realmente era. Mas, Norman Vincent Peale, não menos herege que Fosdick, conseguiu achar aceitação virtualmente em toda parte, bem como seu famoso discípulo Robert Schuller.

O modernista toma as últimas idéias do mundo secular e enganosamente as veste com linguagem cristã. Ninguém tem feito isso com maior perfeição do que os atuais psicólogos cristãos, que de algum modo tomam teorias anticristãs de inimigos declarados do Evangelho e as "integram" à teologia. Peale foi o primeiro a fazer isso. Em 1937, ele fundou uma clínica "cristã" de psiquiatria em sua igreja. A clínica tornou-se modelo para numerosas outras semelhantes, as quais têm gerado fortunas para seus fundadores.

Machen foi exato ao demonstrar que a intimidação pela ciência e o desejo de obter aceitação e respeito na comunidade acadêmica têm resultado em comprometimentos, que na prática descaracterizam o Evangelho. Essa ânsia tem influenciado cada vez mais os seminários e faculdades cristãs. Machen acusou os liberais de "tentar remover do cristianismo todas as coisas que não possam ser aceitas pela ciência."2

Muitos dos evangélicos de hoje em dia parecem pensar que os cientistas sabem mais sobre o Universo do que o próprio Criador. Será que a Bíblia é frágil devido à ignorância de Deus? O resultado é um comprometimento fatal para a verdadeira fé. Temos observado isso na aceitação da evolução teísta por parte da revista "Christianity Today" (Cristianismo Hoje), dos "Promise Keepers" (Guardadores de Promessas) e de muitos seminários e universidades cristãs, mesmo que ela contradiga plenamente a Bíblia e subverta o Evangelho. O mesmo comprometimento ocorre quando se questiona a narrativa bíblica do dilúvio.

Billy Graham, que há décadas abandonou sua posição fundamentalista, recentemente disse não estar certo se o dilúvio de Noé foi realmente de âmbito mundial. O New Bible Commentary da InterVarsity também afirma: "A narrativa (bíblica) não relata diretamente um dilúvio universal..." A Bíblia, ao contrário, não deixa espaço para tais devaneios: "...tudo o que há na terra perecerá" (Gn 6.17). "...e da superfície da terra exterminarei todos os seres que fiz" (Gn 7.4). "...e os montes foram cobertos. Pereceu toda carne..., ficou somente Noé, e os que com ele estavam na arca" (Gn 7.20-23). As instruções de Deus para Noé, de que trouxesse um par de cada espécie para a arca, só têm sentido se o dilúvio atingiu o mundo inteiro. Deus prometeu não voltar a destruir a terra por água novamente (Gn 9.11), todavia têm havido muitas enchentes regionais desde aquele tempo. A destruição futura do mundo, conforme profetizada por Pedro, seria apenas um incêndio localizado, se o dilúvio com que é comparado foi limitado (2 Pe 3.6-7). Finalmente, Jesus compara Seu futuro julgamento da humanidade ao dilúvio (Mt 24.38-41).

Um cristianismo sem inerrância

Temos que crer na Bíblia inteira. Isto é fundamentalismo bíblico. Se Gênesis não é exato em cada detalhe, em qual parte da Bíblia poderemos confiar, então? Se a Bíblia está errada quanto à origem do homem e seu pecado, como poderemos confiar no que ela diz sobre a sua redenção e seu destino eterno? Na verdade a Bíblia está absolutamente certa em tudo que declara.

Se as últimas descobertas da ciência concordam ou não com a Bíblia, isso não deve inquietar ao fundamentalista. Como confiamos em Deus, não somos intimidados pelos homens. Só um tolo trocaria a Palavra infalível de Deus pelas opiniões mutáveis e falíveis dos homens. Os cientistas cometem erros e muitas vezes são condicionados por preconceitos. No seu livro Great Feuds in Science, o historiador Hal Hellman documenta que até os maiores cientistas têm sido "influenciados por orgulho, ambição, cobiça, inveja e até por evidente impulso de estar certo".3

Tragicamente, diminui gradativamente o número de cristãos que ainda defendem a inerrância bíblica e a sua suficiência, como Harold Lindsell documenta em The Battle for the Bible. O Seminário Teológico Fuller é um exemplo citado por ele. Podemos dizer com certeza que para as multidões envolvidas no atual movimento evangélico a inerrância raramente se constitui num problema, pois tais pessoas se apóiam em experiências e emoções mais que em doutrina. Para muitos atualmente, o amor por Jesus é um maravilhoso sentimento, divorciado completamente da verdade que Jesus afirma ser. No livro The Bible in the Balance, Lindsell confessa que "a palavra 'evangélico' tem se tornado tão desonrada que perdeu sua utilidade... Talvez seja melhor adotar a palavra 'fundamentalista', mesmo com todos os ataques depreciativos que tem sofrido por parte dos seus críticos".

Motivos de rejeição do fundamentalismo

O fundamentalismo tem sido estigmatizado por duas razões: (1) alguns cristãos fundamentalistas são fanáticos e afastam-se de outros cristãos de uma forma insensata e anti-bíblica; e (2) por causa do exemplo do fundamentalismo muçulmano, que apregoa que todos precisam adotar as mesmas roupas e costumes que Maomé adotou no século VII. Consagrados que são ao alvo islâmico de conquistar o mundo pela força, esses muçulmanos fundamentalistas são responsáveis por muitos dos atuais atos de terrorismo. Por conseqüência, também os cristãos fundamentalistas, cuja lei maior é o amor, são freqüentemente retratados com estas mesmas cores de fanatismo.

Um cristianismo de popularidade

Todos que desejam confiar e obedecer à Palavra de Cristo e que querem ser Seus verdadeiros discípulos (Jo 8.31-32), precisam estar prontos a permanecer sozinhos, como Daniel e seus amigos. Com medo de serem diferentes, muitos cristãos seguem a multidão. Famintos pelos louvores deste mundo, eles amam "mais a glória dos homens, do que a glória de Deus" (Jo 12.43). C.H. Spurgeon ficou virtualmente sozinho, abandonado mesmo pelos seus ex-alunos e amigos, quando foi censurado pela União Batista Britânica, por sua indisposição em tolerar a apostasia dentro daquele grupo. A. W. Tozer declarou, pouco antes de morrer: "por causa do que tenho pregado não sou bem recebido em quase nenhuma igreja na América do Norte." Que acusação contra aqueles pastores e igrejas!

Cristo advertiu: "Ai de vós, quando todos vos louvarem! porque assim procederam seus pais com os falsos profetas" (Lc 6.26). Ele afirmou que a verdadeira fé em Deus é impossível quando nós aceitamos "glória uns dos outros", e, contudo, não procuramos "a glória que vem do Deus único" (Jo 5.44). John Ashbrook escreve que o "novo evangelicalismo está determinado a impressionar o mundo com seu intelectualismo. Ele tem estado a buscar o respeito da comunidade acadêmica. Determinou ganhar glória nas fontes do ensino secular."4 Carl Henry observou que "em conseqüência da crescente atitude de tolerância... a fé cristã foi embalada de forma a facilitar sua comercialização."5

O único inimigo do liberalismo é a firme adesão do fundamentalismo à autoridade e suficiência das Escrituras. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones lamenta o fato de que muitos evangélicos mudaram de "pregar" para "compartilhar" a Palavra de Deus, o que sutilmente transfere a autoridade da Palavra de Deus para a experiência e opinião humanas.6 Tal comprometimento, além de não ajudar o incrédulo a enxergar a luz; ainda o deixa mais cego. Essa tolerância estimula a resistência dos homens em se submeterem à autoridade de Deus. O liberalismo, inevitavelmente, endurece cada vez mais contra a verdade. Podemos ver isso atualmente em todo o mundo.

A tolerância quanto ao homossexualismo

A aceitação de homossexuais, em nome da tolerância e do liberalismo, tem produzido uma intolerância cada vez maior contra qualquer outro ponto de vista. O mundo inteiro, que por milhares de anos considerou o homossexualismo como antinatural e vergonhoso, agora está sendo forçado a abandonar tal convicção. Os homossexuais, que reivindicavam tolerância, têm se mostrado totalmente intolerantes na medida em que conquistam poder. Eles atacam com malícia, verbal e fisicamente, qualquer pessoa que queira manter uma opinião independente. O mundo tem sido coagido a garantir privilégios especiais aos homossexuais, apesar do estilo de vida "gay" ser cheio de práticas nocivas, levando à proliferação de doenças que ameaçam a sociedade em geral e reduzem pela metade a expectativa de vida das pessoas. A incurável AIDS, embora se propague em proporções epidêmicas, afetando inocentes e sendo fatal para todos que a contraem, é tratada com um sigilo perigoso e um status privilegiado, devido à sua penetração entre os homossexuais.

A tolerância quanto ao evolucionismo

Vemos a mesma intolerância nos evolucionistas que acusam os criacionistas de pensamento bitolado. A ciência deve promover a liberdade de investigar e aceitar os fatos. Mas, em nome da ciência, a teoria da evolução é ensinada às crianças nas escolas públicas como fato, enquanto as evidências contra ela são omitidas e a alternativa bíblica e racional da criação de Deus não é admitida nem considerada.

A situação na Rússia

Numa recente viagem a Rússia, um dos principais responsáveis pelo sistema educacional nos disse o seguinte: "Por setenta anos vimos os frutos da imposição dogmática de apenas uma opinião aos alunos. Estamos cheios disso e ansiosos para considerar as alternativas". O colapso do comunismo deixou um vácuo moral que a Rússia está tentando preencher com os ensinos da Bíblia. Paradoxalmente, as escolas da Rússia agora acolhem os mesmos ensinos morais e da criação que estão banidos das escolas americanas! Não podemos saber quanto tempo isso vai durar. A Igreja Ortodoxa Russa, intolerante e firmemente contrária ao Evangelho, está procurando retomar o monopólio da religião - e alguns evangélicos americanos estão cooperando com esse sistema anticristão. Oremos pela Rússia.

O "cristianismo" foi introduzido em 988 d.C. no país que mais tarde se tornou a Rússia, pelo príncipe Vladimir. Antes ele havia considerado o islamismo, já que suas vinte esposas não causavam problema para aquela "fé". Mas como o islamismo proíbe o álcool, ele acabou abraçando o "cristianismo" da Igreja Ortodoxa, onde o álcool corria livremente (muitos monges e sacerdotes bebem intensamente) e onde a opulência dos rituais tem um apelo misterioso. Ele decretou uma esposa como "oficial", mantendo as outras dezenove como concubinas, enquanto usava o álcool livremente. Foi assim que a Rússia "converteu-se" ao "cristianismo". Em 1988, o milésimo aniversário desse evento foi celebrado com pompa e ritual. Billy Graham esteve presente para trazer suas congratulações. Na ocasião, ele disse: "Sinto-me profundamente honrado em congratular-me com vocês nesta histórica e alegre ocasião em que se comemora o milésimo aniversário do batismo da Rússia, proporcionado pelo batismo do príncipe Vladimir, de Kiev..."7

A Igreja Ortodoxa, assim como o catolicismo romano, é inimiga jurada do Evangelho. Ela tem mantido o povo russo na escravidão e na superstição, ensinando-o a buscar nela a salvação, beijando seus ícones, pagando por orações e sacramentos. Embora rejeite o purgatório do catolicismo, ensina que, através de nossas orações, as almas podem ser resgatadas do inferno para o céu.

Visitamos, nas proximidades de Moscou, o centro da Igreja Ortodoxa, com seu seminário e muitas igrejas. Monges com quem falei explicaram que a morte de Cristo possibilitou a nossa entrada no céu, desde que fôssemos batizados, participássemos dos sacramentos e "vivêssemos o Evangelho". Para eles, a porta que Cristo abriu está no cume duma alta escada que precisamos subir pelos nossos próprios esforços, obedecendo à Igreja e auxiliados por ela.

Fui um dos preletores numa conferência em Moscou que atraiu pastores e membros de igrejas de toda a Rússia. Havia uma indisfarçável expectativa de que a Palavra de Deus fosse ensinada. Eu expus abertamente os ensinos e práticas não-bíblicas da Igreja Ortodoxa Russa que (como a Igreja Católica no Ocidente) perseguiu e assassinou multidões de verdadeiros cristãos. A Igreja Ortodoxa, que estabeleceu parceria tanto com os czares como com os comunistas que os sucederam, pressionou o presidente Yeltsin a favor da nova lei que suprime a liberdade religiosa (essa lei está sendo atualmente implementada em pequenas cidades fora de Moscou). Centenas de fitas de vídeo e de áudio de nossa conferência estão sendo distribuídas por toda a Rússia. Oremos para que dêem frutos!

Fundamentalismo é não negociar o inegociável

Como avisamos aos irmãos e irmãs da Rússia, o verdadeiro "crer no Senhor Jesus Cristo" para a salvação tem que ser uma profunda convicção e não apenas uma mera preferência. E esta corajosa convicção certamente será seguida de grande oposição e terrível violência da parte de Satanás e da carne. Lembrando que a eternidade nos espera em breve, jamais devemos trocar o eterno "muito bem, servo bom" de Deus pela aprovação dos homens nesta vida tão curta. A plenitude de vida, tanto agora como por toda a eternidade, tanto para nós mesmos como para as pessoas a quem temos a oportunidade e a responsabilidade de influenciar, depende desta verdade inegociável.

(TBC 8/98 - publicado anteriormente em português no Jornal Fundamentalista - União Bíblica Fundamentalista - Cx. Postal 567 - 60001-970 FORTALEZA CE 0 ++ (85) 214-1412)

CENTRO APOLOGÉTICO CRISTÃO DE PESQUISAS


© Copyright CACP 2003

Pr. João Flávio & Presb. Paulo Cristiano

Did Jesus Really Perform Miracles?

Daniel Morais and Michael Gleghorn

[Leia este artigo em português]

What Do Modern Historians Think?
“I can believe Jesus was a great person, a great teacher. But I can’t believe He performed miracles.” Ever hear comments like this? Maybe you’ve wondered this yourself. Did Jesus really perform miracles?

Marcus Borg, a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar{1}, has stated, “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.”{2} Commenting on Jesus’ ability to heal the blind, deaf, and others, A. M. Hunter writes, “For these miracles the historical evidence is excellent.”{3}
Critical historians once believed that the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible were purely the product of legendary embellishment. Such exaggerations about Jesus’ life and deeds developed from oral traditions which became more and more fantastic with time until they were finally recorded in the New Testament. We all know how tall tales develop. One person tells a story. Then another tells much the same story, but exaggerates it a bit. Over time the story becomes so fantastic that it barely resembles the original. This is what many scholars once believed happened to Jesus’ life, as it’s recorded in the Gospels. Is this true? And do most New Testament historians believe this today?

The answer is no. In light of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels, few scholars today would attempt to explain these events as purely the result of legend or myth. In fact, most New Testament scholars now believe that Jesus did in fact perform healings and exorcisms.{4} Even many liberal scholars would say that Jesus drew large crowds of people primarily because of his ability to heal and “exorcise demons.”{5} But because many of these liberal scholars don’t believe in spiritual beings, they also don’t believe that these healings should be attributed to the direct intervention of God in the world. Instead, they believe that Jesus’ miracles and healings have a purely natural explanation. Many of them think that Jesus only healed psychosomatic maladies.{6} The term psychosomatic means mind-body, so psychosomatic maladies are mind-body problems. The mind can have a powerful impact on the health of the body. Under extreme distress people can become blind, deaf or even suffer paralysis. Since psychosomatic problems typically go away on their own, many liberal scholars think that faith in Jesus’ ability to heal might help to heal some people suffering from these conditions. But is there good reason to believe that Jesus could cure real sicknesses?

Could These Miracles Be Legendary?

Often, historians who tried to explain away stories of Jesus’ miracles as purely the result of legendary developments believed that the “real” Jesus was little more than a good man and a wise teacher. The major problem with this theory is that legends take time to develop. Multiple generations would be needed for the true oral tradition regarding Jesus’ life to be replaced by an exaggerated, fictitious version. For example, many historians believe that Alexander the Great’s biography stayed fairly accurate for about five hundred years. Legendary details didn’t begin to develop until the following five hundred years.{7} A gross misrepresentation of Jesus’ life occurring one or two generations after his death is highly unlikely. Jesus was a very public figure. When He entered a town, He drew large crowds of people. Jesus is represented as a miracle worker at every level of the New Testament tradition. This includes not only the four Gospels, but also the hypothetical sayings source, called Q, which may have been written just a few years after Jesus’ death. Many eyewitnesses of Christ would still have been alive at the time these documents were composed. These eyewitnesses were the source of the oral tradition regarding Jesus’ life, and in light of his very public ministry, a strong oral tradition would be present in Israel for many years after his death.

If Jesus had never actually performed any miracles, then the Gospel writers would have faced a nearly impossible task in getting anyone to believe that He had. It would be like trying to change John F. Kennedy from a great president into an amazing miracle worker. Such a task would be virtually impossible since many of us have seen JFK on TV, read about him in the papers, or even seen him in person. Because he was a public figure, oral tradition about his life is very strong even today. Anyone trying to introduce this false idea would never be taken seriously.

During the second half of the first century, Christians faced intense persecution and even death. These people obviously took the disciples’ teaching about Jesus’ life seriously. They were willing to die for it. This only makes sense if the disciples and the authors of the Gospels represented Jesus’ life accurately. You can’t easily pass off made-up stories about public figures when eyewitnesses are still alive who remember them. Oral tradition tends to remain fairly accurate for many generations after their deaths.{8}

In light of this, it’s hard to deny that Jesus did in fact work wonders.

Conversion from Legend to Conversion Disorder

It might be surprising to hear that Jesus is believed by most New Testament historians to have been a successful healer and exorcist.{9} Since His miracles are the most conspicuous aspect of his ministry, the miracle tradition found in the Gospels could not be easily explained had their authors started with a Jesus who was simply a wise teacher. Prophets and teachers of the law were not traditionally made into miracle workers; there are almost no examples of this in the literature available to us.{10} It’s especially unlikely that Jesus would be made into a miracle worker since many Jews didn’t expect that the Messiah would perform miracles. The Gospel writers would not have felt the need to make this up were it not actually the case.{11}

Of course, most liberal scholars today don’t believe Jesus could heal any real illnesses. But such conclusions are reached, not because of any evidence, but because of prior prejudices against the supernatural. Secular historians deny that Jesus cured any real, organic illnesses or performed any nature miracles such as walking on water.{12} They believe He could only heal conversion disorders or the symptoms associated with real illnesses.{13} Conversion disorder is a rare condition that afflicts approximately fourteen to twenty-two of every 100,000 people.{14}

Conversion disorders are psychosomatic problems in which intense emotional trauma results in blindness, paralysis, deafness, and other baffling impairments.

Many liberal scholars today would say that Jesus drew large crowds of people primarily because of his ability to heal. But if Jesus could only cure conversion disorders, then it’s unlikely He would have drawn such large crowds. As a practicing optometrist, I’ve seen thousands of patients with real vision loss due either to refractive problems or pathology. But only one of them could be diagnosed with blindness due to conversion disorder. Conversion disorders are rare. In order for Jesus to draw large crowds of people He would have had to be a successful healer. But if He could only heal conversion disorders, thousands of sick people would have had to be present for him to heal just one person. But how could He draw such large crowds if He could only heal one person in 10,000? Sick people would have often needed to travel many miles to see Jesus. Such limited ability to heal could hardly have motivated thousands of people to walk many miles to see Jesus, especially if they were sick and feeble. If Jesus was drawing large crowds, He must have been able to heal more than simply conversion disorders.

Did Jesus Raise the Dead?

“Did Jesus ever raise the dead? Is there any evidence to back this up?” Many secular historians, though agreeing that Jesus was a successful healer and exorcist, don’t believe that He could perform nature miracles. Due to prior prejudices against the supernatural, these historians don’t believe it’s possible for anyone to raise the dead, walk on water, or heal true organic diseases. These historians believe Jesus’ healings were primarily psychological in nature.{15} Is there any evidence that Jesus had the power to work actual miracles such as raising the dead?
Yes. It almost seems that the more fantastic the miracle, the more evidence is available to support it. In fact, the most incredible miracle recorded in the Gospels is actually the one which has the greatest evidential support. This miracle is Jesus’ resurrection.{16} Is there any reason to believe that Jesus may have raised others from the dead as well?/

There is compelling evidence to believe that He did. In John 11 there’s the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.{17} A careful reading of this text reveals many details that would be easy for anyone in the first century to confirm or deny. John records that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha. He also says that this miracle took place in Bethany where Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived, and that Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem. John’s gospel is believed to have been written in AD 90, just sixty years after the events it records. It's possible that a few people who witnessed this event, or at least had heard of it, would still be alive to confirm it. If someone wanted to check this out, it would be easy to do. John says this took place in Bethany, and then He tells us the town’s approximate location. All someone would have to do to check this out would be to go to Bethany and ask someone if Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, had ever been raised from the dead. Villages were generally small in those days and people knew each other’s business. Almost anyone in that town could easily confirm or deny whether they had ever heard of such an event. If John just made this story up, he probably wouldn’t have included so much information that could be easily checked out by others to see if he was lying. Instead, he probably would have written a vague story about Jesus going to some unnamed town where He raised some unnamed person from the dead. This way no one could confirm or deny the event. John put these details in to show that he wasn’t lying. He wanted people to investigate his story. He wanted people to go to Bethany, ask around, and see for themselves what really happened there.

What Did Jesus’ Enemies Say?

“Sure, Jesus’ followers believed He could work miracles. But what about his enemies, what did they say?” If Jesus never worked any miracles, we would expect ancient, hostile Jewish literature to state this fact. But does such literature deny Jesus’ ability to work miracles? There are several unsympathetic references to Jesus in ancient Jewish and pagan literature as early as the second century AD. But none of the ancient Jewish sources deny Jesus’ ability to perform miracles.{18} Instead, they try to explain these powers away by referring to him as a sorcerer.{19} If the historical Jesus were merely a wise teacher who only later, through legendary embellishments, came to be regarded as a miracle worker, there should have been a prominent Jewish oral tradition affirming this fact. This tradition would likely have survived among the Jews for hundreds of years in order to counter the claims of Christians who might use Jesus’ miraculous powers as evidence of his divine status. But there’s no evidence that any such Jewish tradition portrayed Jesus as merely a wise teacher. Many of these Jewish accounts are thought to have arisen from a separate oral tradition apart from that held by Christians, and yet both traditions agree on this point.{20} If it were known that Jesus had no special powers, these accounts would surely point that out rather than reluctantly affirm it. The Jews would likely have been uncomfortable with Jesus having miraculous powers since this could be used as evidence by his followers to support his self-proclaimed status as the unique Son of God (a position most Jews firmly denied). This is why Jesus’ enemies tried to explain his powers away as sorcery.

Not only do these accounts affirm Jesus’ supernatural abilities, they also seem to support the ability of his followers to heal in his name. In the Talmud, there’s a story of a rabbi who is bitten by a venomous snake and calls on a Christian named Jacob to heal him. Unfortunately, before Jacob can get there, the rabbi dies.{21} Apparently, the rabbi believed this Christian could heal him. Not only did Jews seem to recognize the ability of Christians to heal in Christ’s name, but pagans did as well. The name of Christ has been found in many ancient pagan spells.{22} If even many non-Christians recognized that there was power to heal in Christ’s name, there must have been some reason for it.

So, a powerful case can be made for the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. Christians needn’t view these miracles as merely symbolic stories intended to teach lessons. These miracles have a solid foundation in history and should be regarded as historical fact.

Notes

1. Gary R. Habermas, "Did Jesus Perform Miracles?," in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, by eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 124.
2. Marcus J. Borg, Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and The Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 61.
3. A.M. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 63.
4. Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 124.
5. See Borg, Jesus, A New Vision, 60.
6. Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 125.
7. Craig L. Blomberg, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 33.
8. Grant R Jeffrey, The Signature of God (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998) 102, 103.
9. Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 124, 125.
10. Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (Berkeley: Seastone, 1998), 21.
11. Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus, The Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 247.
12. Ibid.
13. Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 125.
14. See the National Organization for Rare Diseases' official Web site at www.rarediseases.org/nord/search/rdbdetail_fullreport_pf (5/04/2006).
15. Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 125.
16. William Lane Craig, "The Empty Tomb of Jesus," in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History, by eds. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 247-261 and Gary R. Habermas, "The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus," Ibid., 261-275.
17. John. 11:1-44.
18. See Alan Humm, "Toledoth Yeshu," at ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html (2/17/1997).
19. Ibid.
20. Twelftree, Jesus, The Miracle Worker, 255.
21. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 63.
22. Ibid., 83.

© 2006 Probe Ministries

Christian Discernment

Kerby Anderson

[Leia este artigo em português]

Introduction

Turn on a television or open a newspaper. You are immediately presented with a myriad of ethical issues. Daily we are confronted with ethical choices and moral complexity. Society is awash in controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, cloning, race, drug abuse, homosexuality, gambling, pornography, and capital punishment. Life may have been simpler in a previous age, but now the rise of technology and the fall of ethical consensus have brought us to a society full of moral dilemmas.

Never has society needed biblical perspectives more to evaluate contemporary moral issues. And yet Christians seem less equipped to address these topics from a biblical perspective. The Barna Research Group conducted a national survey of adults and concluded that only four percent of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making. The survey also discovered that nine percent of born again Christians have such a perspective on life.{1}
It is worth noting that what George Barna defines as a biblical worldview would be considered by most people to be basic Christian doctrine. It doesn’t even include aspects of a biblical perspective on social and political issues.

Of even greater concern is the fact that most Christians do not base their beliefs on an absolute moral foundation. Biblical ethics rests on the belief in absolute truth. Yet surveys show that a minority of born again adults (forty-four percent) and an even smaller proportion of born again teenagers (nine percent) are certain of the existence of absolute moral truth.{2} By a three-to-one margin adults say truth is always relative to the person and their situation. This perspective is even more lopsided among teenagers who overwhelmingly believe moral truth depends on the circumstances.{3}

Social scientists as well as pollsters have been warning that American society is becoming more and more dominated by moral anarchy. Writing in the early 1990s, James Patterson and Peter Kim said in The Day America Told the Truth that there was no moral authority in America. “We choose which laws of God we believe in. There is absolutely no moral consensus in this country as there was in the 1950s, when all our institutions commanded more respect.”{4} Essentially we live in a world of moral anarchy.

So how do we begin to apply a Christian worldview to the complex social and political issues of the day? And how do we avoid falling for the latest fad or cultural trend that blows in the wind? The following are some key principles to apply and some dangerous pitfalls to avoid.
Biblical Principles

A key biblical principle that applies to the area of bioethics is the sanctity of human life. Such verses as Psalm 139:13-16 show that God’s care and concern extend to the womb. Other verses such as Jeremiah 1:5, Judges 13:7-8, Psalm 51:5 and Exodus 21:22–25 give additional perspective and framework to this principle. These principles can be applied to issues ranging from abortion to stem cell research to infanticide.

A related biblical principle involves the equality of human beings. The Bible teaches that God has made “of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). The Bible also teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to have feelings of superiority (Philippians 2). Believers are told not to make class distinctions between various people (James 2). Paul teaches the spiritual equality of all people in Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). These principles apply to racial relations and our view of government.

A third principle is a biblical perspective on marriage. Marriage is God’s plan and provides intimate companionship for life (Genesis 2:18). Marriage provides a context for the procreation and nurture of children (Ephesians 6:1-2). And finally, marriage provides a godly outlet for sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:2). These principles can be applied to such diverse issues as artificial reproduction (which often introduces a third party into the pregnancy) and cohabitation (living together).

Another biblical principle involves sexual ethics. The Bible teaches that sex is to be within the bounds of marriage, as a man and the woman become one flesh (Ephesians 5:31). Paul teaches that we should “avoid sexual immorality” and learn to control our own body in a way that is “holy and honorable” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). He admonishes us to flee sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). These principles apply to such issues as premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality.

A final principle concerns government and our obedience to civil authority. Government is ordained by God (Rom.13:1-7). We are to render service and obedience to the government (Matt. 22:21) and submit to civil authority (1 Pet. 2:13-17). Even though we are to obey government, there may be certain times when we might be forced to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). These principles apply to issues such as war, civil disobedience, politics, and government.

Biblical Discernment

So how do we sort out what is true and what is false? This is a difficult proposition in a world awash in data. It underscores the need for Christians to develop discernment. This is a word that appears fairly often in the Bible (1 Samuel 25:32-33; 1 Kings 3:10-11; 4:29; Psalm 119:66; Proverbs 2:3; Daniel 2:14; Philippians 1:9 [NASB]). And with so many facts, claims, and opinions being tossed about, we all need to be able to sort through what is true and what is false.
Colossians 2:8 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” We need to develop discernment so that we are not taken captive by false ideas. Here are some things to watch for:

1. Equivocation — the use of vague terms. Someone can start off using language we think we understand and then veer off into a new meaning. Most of us are well aware of the fact that religious cults are often guilty of this. A cult member might say that he believes in salvation by grace. But what he really means is that you have to join his cult and work your way toward salvation. Make people define the vague terms they use.

This tactic is used frequently in bioethics. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research often will not acknowledge the distinction between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Those trying to legalize cloning will refer to it as “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” Unless you have a scientific background, you will not know that it is essentially the same thing.
2. Card stacking — the selective use of evidence. Don’t jump on the latest bandwagon and intellectual fad without checking the evidence. Many advocates are guilty of listing all the points in their favor while ignoring the serious points against it.

The major biology textbooks used in high school and college never provide students with evidence against evolution. Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, shows that the examples that are used in most textbooks are either wrong or misleading.{5} Some of the examples are known frauds (such as the Haeckel embryos) and continue to show up in textbooks decades after they were shown to be fraudulent.

Another example would be the Y2K fears. Anyone who was concerned about the potential catastrophe in 2000 need only read any of the technical computer journals in the 1990s to see that no computer expert was predicting what the Y2K fear mongers were predicting at the time.

3. Appeal to authority — relying on authority to the exclusion of logic and evidence. Just because an expert says it, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. We live in a culture that worships experts, but not all experts are right. Hiram’s Law says: “If you consult enough experts, you can confirm any opinion.”

Those who argue that global warming is caused by human activity often say that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” But an Internet search of critics of the theories behind global warming will show that there are many scientists with credentials in climatology or meteorology who have questions about the theory. It is not accurate to say that the debate is over when the debate still seems to be taking place.

4. Ad hominem — Latin for “against the man.” People using this tactic attack the person instead of dealing with the validity of their argument. Often the soundness of an argument is inversely proportional to the amount of ad hominem rhetoric. If there is evidence for the position, proponents usually argue the merits of the position. When evidence is lacking, they attack the critics.

Christians who want public libraries to filter pornography from minors are accused of censorship. Citizens who want to define marriage as between one man and one woman are called bigots. Scientists who criticize evolution are subjected to withering attacks on their character and scientific credentials. Scientists who question global warming are compared to holocaust deniers.

5. Straw man argument — making your opponent’s argument seem so ridiculous that it is easy to attack and knock down. Liberal commentators say that evangelical Christians want to implement a religious theocracy in America. That’s not true. But the hyperbole works to marginalize Christian activists who believe they have a responsibility to speak to social and political issues within society.

Those who stand for moral principles in the area of bioethics often see this tactic used against them. They hear from proponents of physician assisted suicide that pro-life advocates don’t care about the suffering of the terminally ill. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research level the same charge by saying that pro-life people don’t care that these new medical technologies could alleviate the suffering of many with intractable diseases. Nothing could be further from the truth.

6. Sidestepping — dodging the issue by changing the subject. Politicians do this in press conferences by not answering the question asked by the reporter, but instead answering a question they wish someone had asked. Professors sometimes do that when a student points out an inconsistency or a leap in logic.

Ask a proponent of abortion whether the fetus is human and you are likely to see this tactic in action. He or she might start talking about a woman’s right to choose or the right of women to control their own bodies. Perhaps you will hear a discourse on the need to tolerate various viewpoints in a pluralistic society. But you probably won’t get a straight answer to an important question.

7. Red herring — going off on a tangent (from the practice of luring hunting dogs off the trail with the scent of a herring fish). Proponents of embryonic stem cell research rarely will talk about the morality of destroying human embryos. Instead they will go off on a tangent and talk about the various diseases that could be treated and the thousands of people who could be helped with the research.

Be on the alert when someone in a debate changes the subject. They may want to argue their points on more familiar ground, or they may know they cannot win their argument on the relevant issue at hand.

In conclusion, we have discussed some of the key biblical principles we should apply to our consideration and debate about social and political issues. We have talked about the sanctity of human life and the equality of human beings. We have discussed a biblical perspective on marriage and on sexual ethics. And we have also talked about a biblical perspective on government and civil authority.

We have also spent some time talking about the importance of developing biblical discernment and looked at many of the logical fallacies that are frequently used in arguing against a biblical perspective on many of the social and political issues of our day.

Every day, it seems, we are confronted with ethical choices and moral complexity. As Christians it is important to consider these biblical principles and consistently apply them to these issues. It is also important that we develop discernment and learn to recognize these tactics. We are called to develop discernment as we tear down false arguments raised up against the knowledge of God. By doing this we will learn to take every thought captive to the obedience to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

Notes

1. "A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life," The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 1 Dec. 2003.
2. "The Year's Most Intriguing Findings, From Barna Research Studies," The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 12 Dec. 2000.
3. "Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings," The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 12 Feb. 2002.
4. James Patterson and Peter Kim, The Day America Told the Truth (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991).
5. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2000).

© 2006 Probe Ministries

________________________________________

About the Author

Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, Moral Dilemmas, and Christian Ethics in Plain Language. He also served as general editor for the Kregel Publications books Marriage, Family and Sexuality and Technology, Spirituality, & Social Trends. He is a nationally syndicated columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post. He is the host of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently serves as host on "Point of View" (USA Radio Network).

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.org
www.probe.org

Truth, Lies, and the BBC

Chuck Missler
from the October 24, 2006 eNews issue

[Leia este artigo em português]

"There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it." - Comment made by a senior BBC executive

Executives at the British Broadcasting Corporation have finally been forced to admit what most of us have known for years - that the BBC's coverage of religious and political issues is inherently biased. A memo leaked to the media has revealed the details of a recent "impartiality" summit attended by senior figures at the BBC. Executives admitted that the BBC is responsible for promoting left-wing ideals and an anti-Christian sentiment.

The BBC is not impartial or neutral. According to news reports, "Most executives admitted that the corporation's representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and anti-Americanism." BBC executives also admitted that they would be willing to broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away, but they would not do so for the Koran. This is due to the "fear of offending the British Muslim community."

The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world. It is also publicly funded - nearly 80 percent of the BBC's funding comes from television license fees. In the UK, the cost of a TV license is £131.50 per household per year (that is approximately $240.00 in US funds). That money goes directly to the BBC, enabling it to provide public service broadcasting that (according to its website) is "independent, impartial and honest."

Impartial and Honest?

The BBC often broadcasts a distorted view of the war against terrorism. The BBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks on London is a good (although not the only) example. In the hours and days after their initial publication, the BBC removed the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" from several articles on its website, opting instead for more politically correct terminology.

Perhaps the BBC's most conspicuous shortcoming has been its biased reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2002, the BBC aired a now-infamous profile of Yasser Arafat which called him a "hero" and "an icon" and concluded that the corrupt Palestinian leader was "the stuff of legends." Israel has often complained about the BBC's often one-sided reporting. For a period of seven months in 2003, Israeli officials boycotted BBC news programs, declining interviews and excluding BBC reporters from briefings. The boycott was ended after the BBC appointed a panel to oversee its Middle East coverage and to ensure it would be unbiased. However in recent months there have been calls for the government to reinstitute the boycott, in large part due to the BBC's coverage of the recent war in Lebanon.

In April 2006 a report was released on the impartiality of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian. The report was commissioned by the BBC board of governors and, not surprisingly, it concluded that there "was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias." However the period of time analyzed went from August 2005, the time of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, to January 2006, when Ariel Sharon had his stroke. During this period of time circumstances dictated that Israel should receive more sympathetic coverage. Moreover, the report excluded both the BBC World Service and the international TV channel BBC World.

Despite these factors, the report still found that there were "identifiable shortcomings" in the BBC's reporting. Furthermore, it concluded that the BBC "does not consistently give a full and fair account of the conflict. In some ways the picture is incomplete and, in that sense, misleading." Yet the average viewer is unlikely to notice, unless of course they have done their homework and are familiar with the various geopolitical aspects of the conflict. According to the report, "The evidence shows that most viewers and listeners, at least within the UK, regard the BBC as unbiased. But they say they do not understand the conflict and, perhaps for that reason, do not see it as important or interesting. Given how little history or context is routinely offered, it is easy to understand their bewilderment..."

What Are They Hiding?

Several other reports have been assembled in past years on the subject of the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However the BBC has refused to release the findings of those reports to the public. Last year a request was made under Britain's Freedom of Information Act to release the findings of those reports, but the BBC denied the request. A lawsuit was then filed against the BBC. It argued that since the BBC is publicly funded, taxpayers have the right to know if the BBC is being fair in its reporting. The courts have since ruled that the BBC should make the report available to the public, but the BBC has yet to comply and has decided to appeal the decision at Britain's High Court.

Discerning the Truth

As we are faced with an ever-increasing barrage information it is important to keep in mind that the media has its own agenda and takes pride in its ability to shape public opinion rather than to inform it. So what can we do about it? How do we find the truth?

Always keep in mind the underlying principle found in Acts 17:11. Don't believe everything you hear, do your own homework. Read and listen carefully, seeking to differentiate facts from opinions. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased source of information. Therefore it is important to pay attention to details, check facts, and rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment.

Chance and Intelligent Design 3

By James A. Choury, serving with WorldVenture in North Brazil

[leia este artigo em Português]

To answer the query concerning the probability of the universe and life coming into being by chance we need to understand how probability is defined and calculated.

Probability: The number of possible ways of attaining a result divided by the total number of possible outcomes. Probability is always a fraction between 0 and 1.

Examples: The chances of getting a head on any toss of a coin is ½ because there is only one way of getting a head and there are two possible outcomes of tossing a single coin; heads or tails. Therefore the probability is ½ or .50 or 50%.
The chances of rolling a die and getting a one is 1/6 because there is only one way to get a one on top and there are six different ways a die can land. So the probability is 1/6 or .16666666…. or 16.66 %.
The chance of getting a four in rolling two dice is 3/36 because you can get a 1-3 or a 3-1 or a 2-2 and the total number of possible outcomes is 36. So the probability is 3/36 or 1/12 or .0833333…. or 8.33333%.

We should notice that a greater number of possible outcomes results in a smaller probability of any one of them occurring. Any outcome of tossing a single coin (only two possible outcomes) has a greater probability than any possible outcome of tossing a die (six possible outcomes). We also note that tossing two dice creates many more possible outcomes (36) and hence the probability of any particular outcome is considerably reduced. In Mathematics, this last phenomenon is termed “joint occurrence”. Joint occurrence calculations give us the probability of event A and event B both occurring by chance.

We say two or more events are independent when the outcome of any particular one has nothing to do with the outcome of the others. Tossing one coin twice or tossing two coins at the same time are examples of independent events. To calculate the probability of joint, independent events we simply multiply the probability of one by the probability of the other or others. Since probability is always a fraction between 0 and 1 we always come up with smaller and smaller probabilities as the number of joint events increases (unless we are dealing with certainties). That means that getting all heads when tossing 5 coins is much less likely than getting all heads when only tossing one coin (3.125% as opposed to 50%).

What does this have to do with evidence of God’s existence? Let’s look at some examples:

Example #1. You walk into a room. There is a table in the room and among the normal clutter there are five coins on the table. All the coins are heads up. What do you conclude? The odds of five coins being all heads up on the table is 1/32. By chance there is only one way all the coins could end up all heads. There are 31 ways that they can end up not all heads up. (They must be either all heads up or not all heads up by the law of the excluded middle). What would a reasonable, unbiased, rational person conclude when finding himself in a room with a table with five coins on it all heads up? It is possible that it just happened by chance but it is much more probable and reasonable that someone was arranging things that way. It is 31 times more probable that someone was arranging things. Suppose there are fifteen coins on the table all heads up? In that case the odds of all fifteen coins being heads up is 1/32,768. There is still only one way you can get all heads. There are 32,767 ways of getting “not all heads”. From this example we see that the odds of fall drastically as the number of joint occurrences increases.

Example #2. Four students go out of town for the college football game knowing that on Monday they have a math exam. None of them prepare for the test and do not show for the exam. On Tuesday they all come wanting to take the test saying that they went to the game, had a flat tire, and didn’t get back in time to take the test on Monday. The professor agrees to give them the test immediately and has each student sit in one of the far corners of the room. He announces that there will be only one question on the test. Each student receives a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. The professor writes the following question on the board: “Which tire?” What are the odds that, without prior planning or collusion, they will all give the same answer? There are four ways they can all agree out of 256 possible outcomes. What if the number of students had been eight going to the game in a van? In that case the odds of all eight students agreeing which tire blew out, without planning or collusion would be 4 out of 65,536 or .00006103515625.

The odds drop off very quickly when we are looking at “joint occurrences”. Joint occurrences are cases where all four students must agree, for example. These examples use very simple circumstances (heads or tails, four students and four tires on the car, etc.) The real world is much more complex. When talking of the origins of the universe or of life it is universally acknowledged that many highly unlikely circumstances would have had to have occurred jointly for the universe and life to have come into being by chance. This joint occurrence makes the odds astronomical against such a thing happening. The probability of life and the universe coming into existence by chance is not easy to calculate but it is generally agreed that the odds are extremely small.* If it was not by chance then it must have been designed or arranged.

Observation: Some believe that even highly unlikely events will eventually take place given enough time. Is this true? For more on this see the study entitled “Chance and Intelligent Design Part 4 dealing with the difference between independent and dependent events and probability.

* Richard Dawkins, staunch evolutionist and popular writer calculates that the odds of the DNA code developing twice by chance is one in a million, million, million, million, million. A River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins, p. 12.

Exercises:

Explain why the probability of joint occurrences drops off as the number of possible outcomes increases.

Come up with an example of your own showing the unlikelihood of joint occurrences.

If the probability of the DNA code developing independently twice is one in 1030, what would be the odds for it developing just once? Would you consider this a good probability?

What Is Light?

by Lambert Dolphin

Human vision is utterly amazing in its ability to receive and process a wealth of information concerning levels of light intensity, colors, motion, and stereoscopic depth of field. However, as wonderful as our eyesight is, we are able to see only electromagnetic waves between 400 and 700 nanometers (4 to 7 x 10-9 m) in wavelength.

Young Isaac Newton in 1666 used a prism to break visible white light into the rainbow colors of the spectrum, giving impetus to the development of what is now the vast science of optics. Discovery of the wave nature of light soon led to the realization that our universe is permeated with electromagnetic waves ranging in wavelength over at least 16 orders of magnitude - from ultra low-frequency radio waves, which are tens of kilometers in wavelength, to cosmic rays with wave crests and troughs only a millionth of a millionth (10-12 ) meter apart.

Just in our century, science has quickly extended the range of the eye for explorative purposes. Many different kinds of electronic sensing instruments now tell us vastly more about the cosmos than our eyes alone can tell us directly.

Light from the sun arrives at the top of the earth's atmosphere at a power level of about one kilowatt per square meter. It is this heat and light from a modest star (surface temperature only 5500 degrees C), that all life processes on earth are ultimately driven. Without the sun's constant energy input, our planet would quickly radiate away its latent heat and freeze us and everything else very solid in short order.

Heat and light from the sun are obvious, but we are unaware of cosmic rays penetrating our bodies at the rate of perhaps 10 per second. Nor do we realize that radio and television signals from a hundred stations fill our living rooms. Many of these "rays" pass through our bodies unimpeded. Light waves, radio waves, heat signals, X-rays, and the like, are electromagnetic (EM) radiation - all forms of which can transmit energy and carry useful information even across vast reaches of "empty" space. The signal speed of EM waves ranges upwards to a maximum value which is the current speed of light, ~3 x 108 meters/sec.

In this century has also come the realization that we can equally well describe light and other EM radiation as if it were corpuscular in nature. EM radiation is a result of moving electrical charges (currents), and all forms of EM radiation can be described mathematically as consisting of streaming photons. Each photon constituting a "particle" of light has an energy equal to Planck's constant times the speed of light divided by the wavelength. (Photons are very small, yet the human eye is sufficiently sensitive that we can sometimes detect even a single light photon with dark-adapted eyes).

Whether one uses a wave model or a particle model for light is largely a matter of convenience for the physicist. The concept of "wave-particle duality" is well established by experimental evidence and the excellent models of Quantum Mechanics.

Gravitational forces seem to us to be powerful, because it is gravity which holds us to the earth's surface and makes us work hard to lift and move things. But the force of gravity is actually some 42 orders of magnitude weaker (10-42) than the electrical forces which generate light waves and radio waves!

Because of this huge difference in energy levels, we actually know little about gravity. For instance, many scientists have tacitly assumed that gravity signals, and the force of gravity between masses, are communicated ("mediated") back and forth by streams of photons traveling at the velocity of light - some have assumed that gravity will be explained as arising from some type of EM wave. But as we saw in the March issue of Personal UPDATE, it is now more probable that gravitational forces are communicated by particles called gravitons, which are very much smaller than photons.1

Furthermore, the speed of gravitons is apparently some ten orders of magnitude higher than the current speed of light. This raises the possibility of space travel throughout the entire known universe in very reasonable time periods. From energy considerations (in the universe considered as a whole entity) it now appears that the speed of light initially had the same high value as gravity still has, but the speed of light has decreased whereas the speed of gravity has not. [Ed. note: Many competent scientists disagree with the theory that the speed of light has decreased.]

A great frontier lies before us now in better understanding gravity. For example, we cannot as yet be certain whether the hypothesized gravity waves are transverse in nature (as are EM waves), or compressional (like sound waves).

Suffice it to say that energy and information can be transmitted across the universe by means others than ordinary photons. That is, energy and information transmission in the physical world is probably not always electromagnetic in nature.

(And this is not taking into account how prayer and spiritual forces travel between God, men and the angels - about which we know next to nothing.)

On the First Day of creation week, having brought into existence space, time and matter, the second creative act of God was (I believe) the creation of light. Light was spoken into existence by the Second Person of the godhead, Jesus, the Logos or Word of God:
And God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light.

I like to think of this second event in God's work of creating everything as the making of a vast energy source. The Lord then incorporated potential and kinetic energy reservoirs in many forms into His universe as He constructed things during the six days of creation. These energy endowments would allow the universe to function indefinitely with built-in power supplies. (Before The Fall I think this energy supply also included means of replenishment of reserves to make up for dissipation and losses).

The statement "Let there be light" may mean (in my opinion) "Let there be energy of all wavelengths and in all forms." I believe it was from these four working substances created on Day One-(1) space, (2) time, (3) matter and (4) energy-that God constructed (and filled) the universe we live in.2In His work as Creator, the Son of God was the "master craftsman" of Proverbs 8.

The activity of creation week involved many separate actions by all the Persons of the godhead, as can be seen by the numerous action verbs in Chapter One which refer to God.
Many good people will probably not agree with my own interpretation of the opening verses of Genesis - so I won't be dogmatic about the model I have just suggested. Dozens of books and hundreds of scholarly theological papers have disputed exactly how to interpret these opening verses of Holy Writ and I don't claim to have the final word by any means. The important point is that light, as we know it and understand it in the physical world, was created by God on the First Day of creation.

The Bible says that "God is Light" and this is not the same as saying "Light is God." If we claimed that the Light shining forth on Day One of creation week was simply God Himself we would have major problems - because God is a Spirit and He does not directly emit protons or waves! Such a hypothesis as saying that the Light of Day One came from God Himself puts us on the fast road to pantheism, which we must refute. The God of the Bible is separate from, and transcends, His creation.

Because God is Light, a more profound problem appears when we consider other passages in the Bible which speak figuratively of light, and of spiritual light. Writing to Timothy, Paul the Apostle tells that God, "alone has immortality, [and that He] dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see." (1 Tim 6:16). Moses, who enjoyed a very intimate relationship with God, on one occasion asked God that He might see Him as he was:
And Moses said, "Please, show me Your glory."

Then God said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

But God said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." And the LORD said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen." (Exodus 33:18-23)

The whole point about God's being Light is that the splendor and radiance of His immediate presence is so intense it must be veiled in clouds of thick darkness. Otherwise mere mortals would be burned to a crisp if they came into the unveiled presence of His effulgent power.
Spiritual realities are more permanent and more substantial than the shadows they cast into our physical world. Jesus is likened to the rising Day Star and called by Malachi the "Sun of Righteousness" - symbols which suggest to us that His true splendor is greater than that of any star or any known source of light and power in our physical world.

Revelation describes the face of Jesus as shining like the sun in full strength (Rev 1:16).
Light is a common symbol in the Bible for truth as opposed to ignorance and error. "Enlightenment" means true understanding and comprehension in the inner man. It was Jesus who declared, to the consternation of his enemies, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12).

So in some way there is a connection in Scripture between spiritual light and life itself! The New Testament furthermore insists that the man Christ Jesus is the exact visible expression of God the invisible. It is by knowing Jesus that we who once were "sons of darkness" become "sons of light." Unlike Moses we are invited to look full into the face of Jesus:

...we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, all this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Cor 3:18)

God, were His Light unveiled, would fill and flood the entire universe with His presence to such a degree that there could be no ordinary night time anywhere. Therefore the spiritual world where He dwells, surrounding us on all sides, a world in which the material creation is embedded, is not only more solid than our world, it is also brighter - it is full of light in fact. Living as we do at present in a world still relatively dark, we await the coming of the Dawn.

Sources:
S.R. Filonovich, The Greatest Speed, 1983, Mir Publishers, 2 Pervy Rizhsky Pereulok, 1-110 GSP, Moscow, 129820. A good discussion of the physics of light at an elementary level.
Sobil, Michael L., Light, 1987, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bova, Ben, The Beauty of Light, 1988, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

This article was originally published in the
May 1998 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. Gravitons are probably on the order of a Planck length in size, L* = (hG/c3)0.5 = 1.6 x 10-33 cm. In current thinking on the nature of the vacuum, space has a granular structure and is composed of particles emerging from and vanishing back into the background sea of Zero Point Energy. The "Planck density" of these particles is at the present time about 4 x 1093 gms per cubic centimeter, incredibly greater than known particle densities encountered in the atomic nucleus which do not exceed 1014 g/cm3 , or water which is only 1 g/cm3 . As we noted in an earlier article, the Planck density would have been smaller still in the early history of the universe assuming a decreasing velocity of light over time. A good discussion of these issues is given by Gerardus D. Bouw on his web pages, www.baldwinw.edu/~gbouw/g/index.html. I recommend his discussion on the plenum aether whether or not one agrees with Dr. Bouw's views on Geocentricity.

2. I have tried to clarify the events of creation week in my current thinking in my article "The Uniqueness of Creation Week," available on my web pages. I reserve the right to learn and grow and change my views!

The Fall Feasts: Succoth

Chuck Missler
from the October 03, 2006 eNews issue

[Leia este artigo em Português]

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD... Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 23:34, 42-43

The Feast of Tabernacles, or Succoth, begins on the 15th of Tishri and lasts for eight days. This year Succoth will begin on October 7th. The word Succoth (also spelled Sukkot) means "booths", and refers to the temporary dwellings which are built and inhabited during the festival. This feast commemorates the 40 years that the nation of Israel wandered in the desert before entering the Promised Land. The Feast of Tabernacles or the Feast of Booths, as it is sometimes called, is a joyous holiday and a time of feasting.

It is fascinating to visit Israel at this time and observe them build their temporary "booths" in the traditional way, leaving deliberate gaps in the branches to view the stars at night, and for the wind to blow through during the day. This is intended to remind them of the wilderness wanderings.

At the end of the eight days, they leave their temporary dwellings to return to their permanent homes. (This is one of the reasons some suspect that this feast, rather than the Feast of Trumpets, is suggestive of the Rapture of the Church.) This day, traditionally, is the day that Solomon dedicated the first Temple.

This feast also involved a daily processional to the Pool of Siloam to fetch water for the Temple. This ceremonial procession is the setting for the events of John 7, where Jesus offers them "living water." This procession involved four types of branches: the willow, the myrtle, the palm, and a citrus (Leviticus 23:40). The willow has no smell and no fruit. The myrtle has smell, but no fruit. The palm has no smell, but bears fruit. The citrus has both smell and bears fruit. This sounds reminiscent of the four soils of the first "kingdom parable" of Matthew 13, doesn't it? The prophetic implications of this climactic feast are many. Most scholars associate it with the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom in Israel. To learn more about the Jewish about this subject, listen to our briefing package titled The Feasts of Israel.

The Torah - the five books of Moses - describes seven feasts on the Hebrew calendar. Three feasts are in the spring, in the month of Nisan: Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the Feast of First Fruits. Most Bible scholars believe that the first three feasts are prophetic of the Lord's First Coming. Then fifty days later there is the Feast of Weeks, Shavout, also known as Pentecost. The feast of Pentecost is predictive of the Church. Pentecost is notably the only feast in which leavened bread is ordained. There are three remaining feasts in the fall, in the month of Tishri: the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The fall feasts are prophetic of the Lord's Second Coming.

If you take the time to study the feasts of Israel I think you will be amazed by numerous prophetic parallels you'll uncover. At times the tasks and rituals described in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Leviticus, may seem laborious or even inapplicable to Christians today. However it is important to remember that every number, every place name, every detail, every jot and tittle found in scripture is there for our learning, our discovery, and our amazement. Truly, our God is an awesome God!

[Editor's Note: This is the final installment of a three part series on the fall feasts of Israel.]