Glenn Beck’s Anachronistic “Origin” of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Beck giving commencement speech at Liberty University 2010 Graduation, for which he ironically received an honorary degree!
A politcally liberal website posted a video of a clip from Glenn Beck’s radio show from last week.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005270013
He tries unsuccessfully to explain the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
His scenario is that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine had the church write the Apostles’ Creed and make the first bound edition of the Bible. Anyone who disagrees with this is a heretic, so off with your head! Then some folks took the Bible books that were left out of the Bible and put them in clay pots and hid them in the back of some caves to hide them from Constantine. This, says Glenn Beck, is the reason there were scrolls found in the Qumran caves.
Wow! This is powerful ignorance.
This is one reason I don’t watch Glenn Beck’s tv show on FOXNews, or listen to his radio show. He’s an amateur. I recall seeing him a few months ago interviewed on a Barbara Walters special, in which he said that the things on which he informs his viewers, he reports as he learns it! In other words, he has no credentials to be the jack-of-all-trades expert on all things political (or in this case, historical or religious). Like a high school student throwing together a report at the last minute, he throws together a lot of factoids and concepts that seem to match, with little or no real substantive knowledge of the greater context of the matter at hand. In short, although Glenn Beck has been successful at capturing the imagination of a lot of frustrated Americans in the wake of the election of Barak Obama, and been a leader and promoter of the Tea Party Movement, please, please, please check the facts he gives on any topic. You never know when he might launch off into another knuckle-headed foray like this again.
Rush Limbaugh is another conservative talk show host who blows my mind when he dabbles in religious topicality. Politically, he’s well-informed. His commentary is also highly motivating when it comes to living the life of American, self-sufficient, rugged individualism. But when it comes to religion, Rush is a blind guide. Looks like he’s not alone.
For some reliable reading on the Dead Sea Scrolls, see this. Not to mention the slightly more reliable (than Beck, that is!) Wikipedia article on the scrolls.
For reliable reading on the Council of Nicea, see this from a Roman Catholic source, and this quick summary from a Protestant source.
For reliable reading on the Nag Hammadi Library (for which Beck was apparently confusing the Dead Sea Scrolls, according to the modern liberal mythology about the gnostic gospels and the Council of Nicea), see this.
The Rationalism of the “Biblicist”
The April 25, 2010 episode of The Heidelcast, a weekly podcast by Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, and writer of the Heidelblog, contains a discussion between Dr. Clark and Martin Downes, author of Risking the Truth, about how “biblicism” is fundamentally rationalistic, and so undermines the sole authority of Scripture, which it intends to uphold. What follows is a transcript of this short segment of their interview.
Clark: What happens when a fellow comes with his Bible open, as Faustus Socinus did (an anti-Trinitarian heretic)? He had his Bible open, and his uncle Laelius Socinus, managed to convince Heinrich Bullinger that he was basically orthodox. And so, both of these fellows said, “Listen, we believe the Bible, but we just don’t think that you’re getting it right. We’re more biblical than you. In fact, we want to get rid of all of this systematic theology and these confessions, and we just wanna follow the Bible.” What’s wrong with that approach, which scholars have called “Biblicism”?
Downes: The real problem is that, although it claims to be, upholding Sola Scriptura and the sole authority of Scripture, actually what’s really going on beneath that claim is a subtle form of rationalism.
Something that Jehovah’s Witnesses are always saying to people is, “Did you know the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible?” As if to say, “Ah, crums! It’s not there. Well, perhaps the idea isn’t really there.” Perhaps somebody invented that and imposed it upon the text.
I think what we find is that Biblicism demands that truth be stated in a certain way, and will not accept that we believe things, because of the express statements of Scripture, but also what “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section VI).
But it is very subtle, and I think that’s why it does take more people in. It’s an appeal to a standard of authority that we want to hold to whole-heartedly, but actually beneath that appeal, I think is a form of rationalism.
Clark: Doesn’t it also put the autonomous, individual Bible interpreter in charge of Scripture? And this is something of which Protestants are often accused, but it’s not really true. If someone pays attention to the history of Protestant theology, and the history of the Reformation, one would know right away that there was a huge difference between the Anabaptists, who were radicals and individualists and the Socinians, who were radicals and individualists…between them, and, the confessional Protestant Reformers, who actually worked within a churchly (ecclesiastical) context.
Downes: I remember once after an evening service, I chatted to a man at the door, and . . . I happened to mention what we are discussing—this particular issue—He said, “I’m not interested. That’s just a man made document.” But he wanted me to be interested in what he was saying, and his insights into the Scriptures.
So I said to him, “Look, why would I want to put aside a document that has churchly sanction, that represents the reflection from Scripture, and the thinking, not of an individual, but actually of the whole body of divines. And so, really what his claim was, “I’m not interested in what they think. I’m just interested in what I think. I just want you to believe what I’m saying. I struggle to find humility in that approach.
Clark: Not only is it arrogant, it’s essentially an Enlightenment-inspired, modernist approach to truth and error. At the end of the day, it’s not really God’s Word as understood and confessed by a body of believers, which is norming things, I’m norming things by my, private personal interpretation of Scripture. And so, at the end of the day, I, really, am the measure. I say I’m following the Bible, but I know better what the Bible says than anyone. And, unfortunately, I think, and maybe you’ll agree or not, I don’t know, that there’s a pretty radical misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. What’s the real difference between Sola Scriptura as understood originally, and Biblicism?
Downes: I think it goes back to what you were saying about individualism. That it’s not seeing Christian belief in the context of the church, and the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and maybe some of that is a fear of the Catholic element, with a large C and an R before it—maybe some of the squeamishness has to do with that—but I think fundamentally it is that individualistic mindset that it’s just me and my Bible. Well, it’s a big book. What does it teach? We ought to, if we are wise, consider very carefully two thousand years of Christian belief, in terms of the great creeds and the Reformed confessions.
My “Perfect Church” (With Apologies to My Current Church)
I know the old saying, “If you find the perfect church, it’ll stop being perfect because you’re there,” or something like that. Well, I’ve been around the block a few too many times to think that there is such a thing as a church full of perfectly consistent Christians who always forgive each other, are loving, generous and caring, while at the same time utterly devoted to offering the purest, most biblically ordered and sincere worship of God. I may be a bit naive about some things, but when it comes to church, I’m . . . well, not so naive. But that doesn’t keep me from getting enthusiastic about church from time to time.
Perhaps a little closer to what I have in mind is the way people talk about “your own hell.” You know, some conceptualize hell by making it an infinite and eternal punishment of enduring whatever any given individual finds the most unpleasant or distasteful. Like hell for some people is lying on a bed of nails for eternity, for others it’s having to watch Family Matters reruns (I never did like that show), and still others may dread an eternity of reading poorly written blog posts, or something. But you get the idea. This is more analogous to what I have in mind when I say that this past Sunday, I visited what I consider to be “my perfect church.” It had just about everything I could ever ask for in a church (with very few exceptions).
In the world of debating the Reformed notion of the “Regulative Principle of Worship,” the matters that come under discussion are usually categorized in two ways: elements of worship (mandatory things the Bible requires:preaching, prayer, sacraments, etc.), and circumstances of worship (optional things utilized for practical reasons: choice of musical instruments, sound systems, carpet color, etc.). I think I’ll try to categorize the elements and circumstances of my own personal concept of the perfect church, which I discovered in Overland Park, Kansas at Redeemer Presbyterian Church.
- Preaching that explicitly centers all exposition and application on the good news of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, with a minimum of autobiography, corny jokes, illustrations and sundry other rabbit trails.
- Weekly communion
- Long-winded prayers full of Scripture
- The predominance of classical, historic hymnody (I can tolerate a dose of contemporary music, as long as it’s done tastefully)
Circumstances (Icing on the Cake!)–
- Big, beautiful church architecture and a really cool pulpit (not a glorified music stand)
- Pipe organ accompaniment of at least the primary psalms and hymns sung by the congregation (okay, there were no pipes–just giant speakers, but the organ had the sound!)
- A book table full of Reformed literature
- A pastor who runs a Reformed blog
- Members who demonstrably care about me
Anyway, that gives you a pretty good idea of what gets me all giddy and makes me start speaking in terms of “the perfect church.” These were all to greater and lesser degrees present at Redeemer Presbyterian. I was even impressed by the hospitality of the couple in the pew in front of us with whom we “passed the peace” (my first time for that practice, but I’d heard of it from an Episcopal friend before). When they learned that we were from out of town to visit our daughter who attends UMKC, they gave us their name, phone number and address with an invitation to crash with them whenever we return to Kansas City.
Then there was the pastor and the preaching. First of all, when I was searching online for a church to visit last Sunday morning, I noticed on Redeemer’s webpage that their pastor is the man who runs the blog called “Reepicheep,” which I’d seen a few times before in the blogrolls of other blogs, but had yet to begin regularly following. Well that’s changed. When I shook his hand at the door on my way out, I told him I’d add him to my blogroll (see sidebar). As for the preaching, a thorough exposition and application of Philippians 2:9-11 on God’s and man’s response to the supreme humility of Christ sealed the deal (listen here). It was obvious by it’s predominance that the gospel is a priority for the preaching ministry of this church. If I lived in Kansas (or Kansas City, this would be the church for me). But I don’t, so it isn’t. But this is the heart of what I consider to be my “perfect” church.
P.S.–I would’ve taken more pictures like the tourist I was, but I was embarrassing my wife. 🙂
Jack Chick Earns the Respect of the Underground Comics Industry
I should probably save this for another time when I’ve got more time to write all that I have to say about Jack Chick and his world famous “Chick tracts,” (see his site, Chick Publications) but I can’t wait to at least show you the trailer for a documentary about Jack Chick and his comic books and comic book-style tracts. As it relates to me, Jack Chick is one of the instrumental causes of my dropping out of Bible College. I didn’t do my homework because I was too busy devouring his comics purchased from a nearby Christian bookstore.
Anyway, the following trailer features mostly the ways Chick’s views are poked fun of in the film, but if you ever get a chance to watch the documentary itself, as I did on the Documentary Channel a few days ago, you would see how much the filmmakers and even some of the non-Christian interviewees have for his comics as works of art. They say his work is even featured in galleries across the country and I think they said it even has a presence at comic book conventions and other such forums in which such material is auctioned. Jack Chick is collectible. All you fundies out there better hold onto at least a few copies of his tracts in case you need to cash them in once the economy completely collapses!
The picture to the right was found on the site of Catholic lay apologist Jimmy Akin’s website. He found it on the church website of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church whose pastor (right) has a testimony similar to that of the “Bad Bob” featured in the Chick tract of the same name held by the author (aka, Jack Chick himself, left). If you want to read about this picture and the hand-drawn portrait of Jack Chick at the Catholic apologist’s website, click here, here, and here. They make for fascinating reading, and serve as a little background info to some things I may share in a future post when I’ve got more time.
Below is the trailer to God’s Cartoonist: The Comic Crusade of Jack T. Chick.
Oh yeah, there are a few bios you will want to read on Jack Chick and his associates at Wikipedia in conjunction with this video:
Classic Video Of Dr. Michael Horton on The Agony of Deceit
The following line-up of videos features a series of classic interviews with a very young Dr. Michael Scott Horton promoting a now out-of-print book he edited on the Word of Faith movement (the so-called “prosperity preachers” or “faith healers”) called The Agony of Deceit. Please take the time to listen to the things Dr. Horton has to say in describing the content of his research and that of several other sound and prominent scholars, ministers and otherwise expert witnesses regarding the spiritual devastation that the blasphemous heresies of the Word of Faith movement has brought to unsuspecting souls around the world.
Another important work that the host promotes is A Different Gospel: Biblical and Historical Insights into the Word of Faith Movement, by former ORU adjunct professor D.R. McConnell, which identifies Kenneth “Dad” Hagin (so-called “Father of the Faith Movement”) as nothing more than the plagiarizing popularizer of the teaching of New Thought practitioner E.W. Kenyon (this article summarizes McConnell’s case).
These interviews were filmed perhaps around 1992. You can sense the excitment the host of this apparently low-budget Austin, Texas-based Christian cable program experienced to have the opportunity to host Dr. Horton as he relates to viewers like you and me “the agony of deceit.” I know this is old news, but so few believers have had the opportunity to give a hearing to material such as this exposing the depth of the heresy involved in the otherwise cartoonish movement that enters everyone’s homes through television, my desire is to do my small and feeble part in continuing to promote the truth, considering how disproportionately well-known are the propagandists of the positive-confession/prosperity gospel. How true it is that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
The Agony of the Health and Wealth Gospel, Part 1: Historical Roots of this False Religion
Part 2: Touch Not The Lord’s Anointed Gods
Part 3: Miracles For Money
Part 4: The Cult of the Tele-Evangelists
Part 5: Negative Positive Confession
“For All The Saints”
And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them” (Revelation 14:13)
Since January 10th, at my local non-Reformed Southern Baptist church, I’ve been teaching on Sunday evenings a class summarizing church history from the days of the apostles through the Reformation. To assist my presentation, I selected a PowerPoint presentation by Rose Publishing called “Christian History Made Easy,” by Dr. Timothy Paul Jones (see also Dr. Jones’ own site) of the Calvinistic Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
My preparation for this survey of church history has enhanced my understanding of, and appreciation for first and second century life in the pagan Roman Empire. Although the Pax Romana largely enabled most to live in relative peace as long as they pluralistically accepted and paid homage to the Roman pantheon, such an existence forced the Christian church to practice its faith underground. The moral implications of following Christ also made Christians a nuisance to Roman society because of their biblically-based respect for women, children and even slaves. Although persecution was not an everyday occurence for Christians in pagan Rome, there were occaisional periods during which persecution would break out. This is the source of the infamous act of throwing Christians to the lions in the Coliseum, where many Christian martyrs were made.
This morning, one of my Facebook friends, Henry Christoph, Jr. directed my attention to a Lutheran YouTube page which apparently commits many classic hymns to video paired with either still art or live action selections to illustrate the spiritual truths featured in each hymn. One such video dovetailes nicely with my current focus on ancient church history. Below, you can view the video of the hymn “For All the Saints,” a processional hymn featured in Anglican and Lutheran observance of All Saints Day and other similar occaisions on the church calendar.
Part of the scriptural basis of this hymn is the text I featured at the beginning of this post. This text, as applied in “For All The Saints” highlights one of the practical applications of the otherwise mysterious book of Revelation: a message of comfort and hope for Christians who are suffering persecution even in the present day. Many dispensational premillennialists view these as applying only to future martyrs, and so at times shy away from preaching from the book of Revelation because their eschatology causes them to miss how the book of Revelation applies to Christians today. Christian martyrdom is a daily fact of life for more believers around the world today than at any time in church history. Is there no valid word from the Lord in the book of Revelation to strengthen the faith and resolve of these suffering believers?
I’ll provide the text of the hymn first, and below you will find the YouTube video. May the Lord grant to each of us the courage to so let our lights shine as it so effectively did in the earliest centuries of church history, and may he continue to be praised for the gift of religious liberty in his common grace. Let us not take it for granted, nor allow it to enable us to forego the taking up of our crosses.
William Walsham How, 1864, 1875
SINE NOMINE 10.10.10.al.
Ralph Vaughn Williams, 1906
For all the saints who from their labors rest,
Who thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou was their rock, their fortress and their might;
Thou, Lord, their Captain in the well-fought fight;
Thou, in the darkness drear, their one true light.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
O may thy soldiers faithful, true and bold,
Fight as the saints who nobly fought of old,
And win with them the victor’s crown of gold.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
The golden evening brightens in the west;
Soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest;
Sweet is the calm of paradise the blest.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
But lo! There breaks a yet more glorious day;
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of glory passes on his way.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast,
Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
Singing to Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Fundamentally Reformed Radio
Bob Hayton, of the Fundamentally Reformed blog, which is featured in my blogroll, was interviewed yesterday on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio show regarding the theme of his blog, “Reforming Fundamentalism through Reformed theology.” Bod discusses the issues he has with the Independent, Fundamental Baptist movement in general, his experiences within it and as he and his brother were leaving it, and explains the key ingredient that makes Reformed theology such a draw: the gospel of Jesus Christ, not only preached to unbelievers for their justification, but also applied on a consistent basis to believers for their sanctification. The life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one thing that will free a believer, not only from the guilt of sin, not only the ongoing power of sin, as the believer is built up in the message of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, but also from the need for legalistic standards and divisive forms of “separatism.”
Also, ten minutes from the end of the show, you’ll be treated to my call-in question, and Bob’s insightful answer. Click on the link below to listen. Don’t be deterred by the Spanish language programming at the beginning of the podcast–Iron Sharpens Iron will begin directly…
\20100308–“Reforming Fundamentalism Through Reformed Theology\”
A Question of Chicken and Egg from John’s First Epistle
First John 5:1 reads “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.” Most contemporary fundamentalist and evangelical Christians miss the implication of the apostle John’s wording “has been born of God” as it relates to those who believe. Does this text imply that those who believe were first born of God? Does it therefore imply that regeneration precedes faith? Or must we deny this implication based on our preconceived notion that regeneration is not possible until after we make the right decision to choose to believe?
Reformed Baptist apologist, Dr. James White, has posted a short video explaining this passage in the light of the apostle John’s repeated use of the language “everyone who _____ has been born of God.” He explains that all agree that in the case of two other texts from the same epistle, 1 John 2:29 and 4:7, the apostle’s clear implication is that the action of the believer is the result, and therefore logically follows, the fact of his having been born of God. In these two passages, the actions are “practicing righteousness” (2:29), and “loving” (4:7). In other words, it’s easy to accept the idea that “everyone who practices righteousness has been born of God” at face value, and it is easy to agree that everyone who loves God and his neighbor is one who has been born of God. No one’s tradition teaches the contrary. However, when it comes to the exact same grammatical structure in the first verse of chapter five, we are told by many that we must not make the same inference that being born of God is the prerequisite of saving faith. Dr. White attempts to make the case that this is no more than reading one’s tradition into the text, rather than basing one’s interpretation of the verse on what the text demonstrably means. I agree with him. Watch the following video, and see if you, too, can agree with the apostle John that “everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.”
Discovery of Biblical Manuscripts Goes On
The Yahoo! News site is featuring an article on the recent reunion of two portions of an ancient Hebrew scroll containing “The Song of the Sea,” otherwise known as Exodus 15:9-10. You can read all about it here. If you’re curious about what sorts of New Testament manuscript discoveries are ongoing, read this post and/or check out the website for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
The “Vile Pollution” of the Worship of God
Need I point out that the following does not only apply to the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church?
“Having observed that the Word of God is the test which discriminates between his true worship and that which is false and vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption. For men pay no regard to what God has commanded, or to what he approves, in order that they may serve him in a becoming manner, but assume to themselves a licence of devising modes of worship, and afterwards obtruding them upon him as a substitute for obedience. If in what I say I seem to exaggerate, let an examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose that they worship God. I dare scarcely except a tenth part as not the random offspring of their own brain. What more would we? God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his Word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking off this yoke, we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a worship, the work of human rashness, how much soever it may delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colours; and Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom (Colossians 2:23); but as God values obedience more than all sacrifices (1 Samuel 15:22), it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship, that it is not sanctioned by the command of God.” (emphasis added)
John Calvin, in his tract, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” (cited from page 132 of Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet; Volume 1: Tracts, Part 1)
The Risk of Setting “Heart” Ahead of “Head”
The following is a third generation post. I have nothing to add, but wish I had the credentials to actually write about such topics on my own without directing you elsewhere. But truth and quality sometimes dictate that I not attempt to take matters into my own hands.
The topic at hand is one that is utterly compatible with the theme of my blog: the sometimes false dichotomy between the head and the heart in matters related to Christian faith and life, and the havoc such dichotomies can wreak on the life of the church itself. Believe it or not, even in spiritual matters, some things are better left to the professionals.
Sean Michael Lucas, Presbyterian pastor in Hattiesberg, Mississippi, and former Church History professor at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, has commented on an article written for the Nine Marks Ministries website, by Greg Wills, another Church History professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Hence the three generations. The topic is how our current generation of the American evangelical church is in danger of degenerating into a new liberalism.
Wills gives us the narrative and diagnosis, and Lucas shows us how Wills’ proposals exemplify the risks of pitting the heart against the head. Some of it can be admittedly heady reading (especially regarding some of Lucas’ appeals to philosophy), but, as you read keep in mind that Merriam-Webster has a helpful website, as well as Wikipedia. These are usually all I ever need to keep up with what the experts with all the complicated terminology are trying to tell me, and I recommend their services to you. You will not regret the effort. But don’t worry, the gist is plain as day, even if you don’t want to tangle with the details.
I suppose it would be best to send you first to Lucas’ blog, to allow him to introduce you to the topic the same way I was. His post is called, “A New Liberalism?” and it links you to Wills’ article, “What Lessons Can We Learn From the History of Liberalism?”
Read and heed!
Hear Horton on Harried Haiti
In times like these, Biblical Christianity doesn’t only have to answer the biblical inquiry, “Why do bad things happen to good (bad or indifferent)
people?” but also have to be able to explain why American Evangelicals with TV cameras persist in adding insult to injury to the suffering as they explain why God is judging them. Talk about taking religious liberty for granted…
Dr. Horton corrects Pat Robertson’s insensitive remarks about the Haitians’ alleged historic “pact with the devil” with the words of Jesus in his post, “Judgment, Fate or Providence in Haiti?” It’s a must read and it’s a must “Share.” If you’ve got an account on a social networking site, click the Share This link below Horton’s post and give the truth a fighting chance of catching up with the lie that’s doubtless bewitching and bemusing innocent bystanders around the world.
Will “Something Good Happen To” the Word of Faith Movement?
So, the news announces that yesterday the pioneering faith-healer and televangelist and prosperity-gospel preacher, Oral Roberts, dies at the age of 91. I’m still kicking myself that as soon as I read Al Mohler’s interesting blogpost on Roberts yesterday, I should have set my DVR to record TBN’s Praise the Lord program, to catch whatever eulogizing and retrospectives were going on during the day of the announcement of his death. In my childhood, my father watched Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart (and Garner Ted Armstrong) rather than go to church and risk exposure to hypocrites at church (I suppose heretics on TV are less risky than the immature orthodox). Yet, being raised to respect Christ (which he tries to do in his own little ways), he does read his Bible and keep an eye on some Christian television.
Anyway, here’s hoping that with the passing of a pioneer like Oral Roberts (here’s his Wiki entry, if you’re interested), that something good will happen to the movement as a whole with a younger generation at the helm. I know that apart from the gracious intervention of God, this is a pipe dream, but, hey, look how the Worldwide Church of God turned out. There is precedent! But as the apostle James writes, “you do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:2).
For those who’d like to learn a little about the origin and teachings of the Word of Faith movement, you should read A Different Gospel, Christianity in Crisis: 21st Century, and these Wikipedia articles: “Word of Faith,” and “New Thought.”
For Email Subscribers And A Reminder About One Earthly Enemy

A Muslim home in Jerusalem's Old City, exterior decorated following pilgrimages to Mecca and/or other sites important to Islam.
Here’s an idea. Since I’m no longer linking to my feedburner email subscription service and whenever I get my Google account mess straightened out, I’m going to be closing that account, which will affect those of you who have been receiving email notifications of my posts for the past couple of years. It might be wise if you just go ahead and unsubscribe from that service yourself and then subscribe to my new WordPress subscriber service. I think that would be the simplest route for now.
Also, if any of you are interested in a great interview regarding Islam, you might enjoy checking out this Sunday’s episode of The White Horse Inn, “Christianity Confronts Islam.” Michael Horton interviews former Muslim and converted Christian, Sam Solomon, regarding the nature of Islam. In the light of all the popular reassurances that “Islam is a relgion of peace,” even though we see little popular moderate Muslim resistance to Islamic terrorism, Solomon’s words will be a sober reminder that things aren’t as rosy as the politically correct culture would have us believe. We in the West must not forget what an ever-present threat and danger Islamic terrorism is to us all. Let this interview be your next reminder.






Because the American Church is Losing Its Mind…
According to Jesus, the words of Scripture simply are identical with the word of God. The apostle Paul said that, “the Scriptures are breathed out by God,” and Peter said that, “no prophecy ever came from human initiative, but men spoke from God.” For its first sixteen centuries the Christian church enjoyed unanimous consensus concerning the nature of Scripture. This view came to be known as “verbal-plenary inspiration.” This means that the Bible is breathed out by God not only in its intended meaning but in its very words. In spite of all the other differences the Protestant Reformers and Rome agreed on this essential point. But this consensus was challenged by radical Protestant movements. The Protestant Reformers themselves faced the challenge of the radical Anabaptists who valued a supposedly “inner word” in their hearts, a direct immediate, and private revelation over the external word conveyed through Scripture and preaching. The Reformers called this “enthusiasm” meaning literally, “God withinism.” Like Adam after the fall our natural tendency is to want to bring ultimate authority inside our own hearts and minds under our control, instead of hearing an external word of command and promise from our covenant Lord.
By the time of the Enlightenment a full assault on the reliability, authority, and inspiration of Scripture penetrated theological academies and churches. Sometimes it came in the form of denials of any need for special revelation since general revelation and reason were thought to be sufficient. But in the Romantic era, through liberal theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher, challenges came in the form of making anything and everything a medium of inspired utterance. Every impulse from the inner voice of the pious soul could be regarded as inspired. In Protestant Liberalism, then, we meet the convergence of radical Protestant enthusiasm and rationalistic criticism of God’s miraculous intervention. As a result the Bible came increasingly not as a written treasure of God’s communication to us, but as a record of our attempts to express in words that universal religious experience that is common to everyone. In this perspective inspiration doesn’t come to us from outside of ourselves as a characteristic of the Biblical texts, but from within individuals and communities and their spiritual experience.
Historically Evangelicals were known for defending a high view of Scripture against these challenges. The giants of old Princeton: Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, helped to shape a new generation of conservative Protestants as mainline Protestantism became racked with debates over inspiration. Led by Carl Henry, John Stott, F.F. Bruce, and many other theologians and Biblical scholars, Evangelicalism provided a sustained defense of Scripture with two generations of fruitful successors. But today the old arguments against the classic Christian view of Scripture are being retro-fitted with new lingo and updated arguments. Even within Evangelical circles there is a growing tendency to treat the Bible more as a record of the evolving religious experience of the community rather than as a revelation from heaven through human agents. In this program we will unpack the meaning of Biblical inspiration and take a look at some of the challenges that we face today.
Share this: