You are here: Home

A Conversation with a Theistic Evolutionist About ID

09/04/2011 2 Comments

An excellent resource on ID

This is a recent online exchange I had with a Christian who is a theistic evolutionist. I want to say up front that I do not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the existence and variety of life we observe for scientific and theological reasons. I do not doubt that it has explanatory power on the micro scale as in how organisms adapt and change over time but it is not convincing at all for the variety of species we observe. That being said, in this discussion I did not dispute evolution (I just granted it for the sake of argument) but I responded to the theistic evolutionist’s denial of intelligent design. There is really no coherent reason I can see for a confessing Christian to fight against ID as a theory.

Many of the top scientists in the intelligent design community like Dr. Michael Behe do believe in common ancestry and evolution but they deny that randomness explains the process:

By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.[1]

In fact, Darwinian orthodoxy holds that natural selection and random mutations explain the existence of all life forms. This seems completely at odds with biblical theism. An intelligent design position seems to me to be a bare minimum even if one does hold to theistic evolution.  According to William Dembski a pioneer of ID:

 Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. … What makes intelligent design so controversial is that it purports to find signs of intelligence in biological systems. According to Francisco Ayala, Charles Darwin’s greatest achievement was to show how the organized complexity of organisms could be attained without a designing intelligence. Intelligent design therefore directly challenges Darwinism and other naturalistic approaches to the origin and evolution of life. … As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. [2]

Notice that the principle point is one of intelligent causation as opposed to a random one. This is my bone of contention with the theistic evolutionist. Anyhow, here is the conversation taken verbatim from an apologetics discussion board. TE is the theistic evolutionist ( I preserved his privacy). CDP is me (STR fans, observe how I used my Tactics).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

TE: I am not saying ID is not science because it is religion. I am saying it’s not science because it’s false, in light of the evidence. Since the motivation behind ID is obviously religious, it ought to be taught in the forum, rather than conveying the false message that it is as legitimate as evolution

CDP: Forgive me but I am confused, you do not believe God designed life? So you are an atheist?

TE: I shall leave it to anyone posting to point out where I even implied that I was an atheist.

CDP: Sorry,  I am just trying to get some clarity, are you a deist then?

‎TE: I shall leave it to anyone posting to point out where I even implied that I was a deist. Cris, evolution does not disprove God. It does not force one to be a deist. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists, many of whom are Christians.

CDP: But even theistic evolutionists believe that God designed life. If you deny God designed it then that is deistic evolution by definition.

TE: When did I ever say that God did not design life? When did I ever say that God did not create life?

CDP: Oh so then ID is not false then?

TE: If by ID you mean God CREATED life, then no. If by ID you mean natural selection and random mutation are not sufficient explanations for how complex structures arise once life already exists, then it is false. Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. It is an explanation about what happens once life already exists

CDP: Theistic evolution usually holds that God designed and front loaded that design into life to realize his design.

TE: For example, it’s perfectly consistent to deny abiogenesis and be a proponent of evolution by natural selection and random mutation. I think it is much harder to support abiogenesis.

CDP: I’m talking about design not the origin of life. It seems to me that if you believe that natural selection and random mutation explain all species, complex structures and that God did not plan any of it then you are a deist by definition.

TE: That’s not true. Especially since it’s perfectly possible for God to have created life KNOWING the outcome, as any omniscient being would. Moreover, I believe God used evolution as the mechanism by which certain species arose. Remember, if God exists, natural selection would be the ultimate miracle, right next to the creation event, especially if NS and the Big Bang were God’s mechanisms.And I’d be careful about arguing for an inconsistency between evolution and Christ. A lot of people would lose their faith before they would give up their belief in scientific fact.

CDP: If he knows the outcome that is design and things evolved by design and not by randomness. Inconsistency seems to be your problem; if God planned the outcome then randomness is not in the equation and intelligence is. You want to have it both ways.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

I cannot understand how any theist can be against intelligent design. Intelligent design does not deny the evolutionary process but it objects stridently to the mechanism of randomness. Theistic evolutionists who pander to the naturalist worldview by using arguments like the above are holding contradictory views. Either God intended a certain outcome or it was the result of randomness. Both cannot be true. The only possible escape from the cognitive dissonance would be to embrace a radical form of open theism or process theology in which God is just figuring things out as he goes. But even open theists would argue the creation of man must have been intentional (i.e. by design). Appealing to randomness to explain how complex structures arose seems to me to be deism at best.


[1]Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search For the Limits of Darwinism (NY: Free Press, 2008), 2.

[2]William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 34

Filed Under Intelligent Design Tagged With biologos, Deism, discovery institute, Intelligent Design, Natural Selection, Random Mutations, Theistic Evolution, William Dembski

Glen Beck’s Incoherent Inclusivism

09/02/2011 2 Comments

Glenn Beck: “For as long as man has known God, he has come here to Jerusalem to touch the mantle of the Divine. Three faiths, three paths to God…”

Islam: “O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.” (Surah 4:171)

Judaism:  Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”(Mt 26:65–68)

Peter: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”(Ac 4:12)

Paul: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”(Ro 10:14)

Jesus: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(Jn 14:6)

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.(Mt 7:13–14)

 

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Christianity, Coexist, Glen Beck, Inclusivism, Islam, Judaism, Pluralism

Armageddon OT Background to the Battle for the Cosmic Mountain 4

08/31/2011 9 Comments

Apollyon by Gbrush

THE DIVINE USURPER

There is an interesting parallel involved with the term Armageddon in that the phrase “in Hebrew” only appears in one other instance within the book of Revelation. According to Alan Johnson, “it is better to understand the term [Armageddon] symbolically in the same manner as ‘in Hebrew’ in Rev 9:11 alerts us to the symbolic significance of the name of the angel of the Abyss”[1]  This is the angel of the bottomless pit namely Abbadon in Hebrew or Apollyon in Greek. Thomas Horn reveals:

Abaddon is another name for Apollo (Rev. 9:11), identified historically as the king of demonic “locusts” (Revelation 9:1-11). This means among other things that Apollo is the end-times angel or “King of the Abyss” that opens the bottomless pit, out of which an army of transgenic locusts erupts upon earth. [1a]

According to Kline, the technique of juxtaposing a Greek and Hebrew term is called Hebraisti and was favored by John. It is also used four times in his Gospel, three of which are also place names (Jn. 5:2; 19:13, 17). Because the book of Revelation is full of symbols, word plays, juxtapositions and parallels, it is not too fanciful to postulate that the Holy Spirit was making a prophetic statement between these two Hebraisti.

The “Antipodal to the Abyss” argument offered by Kline further supports the “mount of Assembly” hypothesis.[2] This line of reasoning derives from the fact that both accounts juxtapose polar opposites in the cosmic scheme of things: the Mountain of God on one end and the pit of hell on the other. For example the Isaiah passage contrasts the ambition “I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God…” (v.13) against “But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit” (v.15). Similarly, we find in the book of Revelation’s two Hebraisti: the divine mountain and the bottomless pit. This is a compelling correlation between the two accounts. Kline argues,

In short, then, we find that in Isaiah 14 and the book of Revelation there are matching antonymic pairings of har môcëd and har magedön with the pit of Hades. Within the framework of this parallelism the har môcëd of Isa 14:13 is the equivalent of the har magedön of Rev 16:16 and as such is to be understood as its proper derivation and explanation. Accordingly, har magedön signifies “Mount of Assembly/Gathering” and is a designation for the supernal realm. (Kline, 1996, 208)

The evidence is compelling that the term Armageddon speaks well past the gathering of earthly armies for war and to a deeper supernatural battle for the cosmic mountain of God.

The context of the assembling the armies by demonic spirits (Rev. 16:14) is practically a word play to the “mount of assembly.” Furthermore, the allusion to the taunt song in Isaiah 14:12- 15 creates astonishing parallels. The Hebrew phrase “הילל בן־שׁחר” (Helel Ben-Shachar) in verse 12, meaning “morning star, son of dawn” has been interpreted to be varying entities. Many scholars agree that this is related to Ugaritic mythology concerning Baal and Athtar.[3] While Isaiah could be simply borrowing from local mythology for an illustration, it seems as if the prophet sees through the King of Babylon to the wicked spiritual power behind him. The book of Daniel suggests that earthly kingdoms have cosmic overlords (Dan. 10:13; 20). A paradigm which fits nicely with the Beast of Revelation who is similarly empowered by the great red dragon identified as Satan (Rev. 12:9; 13:2).

In Ugaritic lore this usurper is argued to be Athtar, who was referred to as Venus (morning star), who seeks to displace Ba’al.[4] The ancient Near Eastern context strongly favors this as the original source material. Other scholars relate this passage to an ancient Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon.[5]  Even so, one can imagine that in a cosmic sense all of these myths stem from a common event. There was an angelic rebellion. The New Testament is clear that Angels rebelled (Matt. 25:41; Rev 12:9) and the earth is currently under the power of a usurper (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Jn 5:19). While the King of Babylon could hardly hope to “ascend to heaven above the stars of God” it certainly speaks to his extreme hubris. C.S. Lewis famously said, “it was through pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”[6] Helel Ben-Shachar’s frustrated divine ambition harkens the account of a war in heaven in Revelation 12:7-17 where Satan is thrown to earth suggesting “the man who made the earth tremble…” (Isa. 14:16).

In fact, this taunt song is where the popular name for the devil, Lucifer, is derived from “morning star” as it is rendered in the Latin Vulgate.[7] During the intertestamental period, this account of the angels fall was associated with the morning star was subsequently associated explicitly with the name Satan, as seen the Second Book of Enoch (29:4; 31:4). The Qumran War Scroll describes this activity of Satan and his powers:

But Satan, the Angel of Malevolence, Thou hast created for the Pit; his [rule] is in Darkness and his purpose is to bring about wickedness and iniquity. All the spirits of his company, the Angels of Destruction, walk according to the precepts of Darkness; towards them is their [inclination].[8]

The association of Lucifer to Satan continued with the church fathers because he is represented as being “cast down from heaven” (Rev. 12:7–10; cf. Lk. 10:18).[9] This event likely took place at the cross when Jesus disarmed the powers (Col 2:15). Because Peter ascribes “morning star” to Christ (2 Pet 1:19) and the fact that it is also a title John uses for Jesus (Rev. 22:16), it has been suggested that this, “Lucifer,” could be pointing to the Antichrist’s parody of Jesus.[10] Accordingly, the prefix “Anti” means “instead of” as well as “against.”[11] Paul expounds on this in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5 writing he is the, “man of lawlessness, the son of destruction who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” Of course, that would likely be on Mount Zion, the cosmic mount of assembly, as well.

This is where my research paper for Dr Heiser left it but interestingly, just last week, my friend Peter Goodgame posted a commentary on Isaiah 9-14 where he came to a similar conclusion. Goodgame argues:

The name “Morning Star, Son of the Dawn” is Helel ben Shakar in Hebrew, or “Lucifer, Son of the Morning” in the KJV. If we view this person as the end-times Antichrist rather than Satan then it makes perfect sense. He is taunted by Israel after his final attempt to rule over the nations comes to an end.[12]

Recalling Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue, the King of Babylon is a well-known prophetic type of the Antichrist. Considering that the Isaiah taunt song was originally directed at the King of Babylon, a man, this seems likely. Please follow the footnote to read Peter’s thoughts. Even more, I also have been corresponding with Tom Horn, who wrote me just  week or so ago about the spirit who rises from the Abyss. In his book Apollyon Rising, Horn points out that the Antichrist as a man is indwelt by the spirit Apollyon which rises from the abyss (Rev 9:11). This brings a remarkable conjunction in world mythologies:

In view of these texts, we recall how Zeus—the Greek identity for the father of Apollo—was acknowledged as ‘Satan’ in Rev. 2:12-13. The fallen angel ‘Apollo’ who unlocks the bottomless pit and unleashes the thunderous hoards of Great Tribulation locusts is therefore none other than the son of Satan and the spirit that will inhabit Antichrist.[13]

Indeed, there is a convergence of mythologies and prophecies pointing to the same event. It seems that the Isaiah taunt song is speaking on multiple levels. First, Isaiah directed it overtly to the King of Babylon, on another level it was a polemic against the neighboring Ugaritic pantheon which was also hinting at the primordial fall of the biblical Satan, and even more intriguing it is a prophecy of a demonically possessed man, who as a “morning star” will come in battle against Israel in the last days and then claim to be God on the divine mountain.  That battle is Harmageddon.

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed,

saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.

Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,

“As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”

(Ps 2:1–6)

….to be continued with part 5: The Battle

Get a signed copy of Pandemonium’s Engine here for $10.00

 

[1] Johnson, “Revelation”, 551.

[1a] Thomas Horn, Apollyon Rising 2012: The Lost Symbol Found and the Final Mystery of the Great Seal Revealed (Crane, MS: Defender, 2009), 140.

[2] Kline, “Har Magedon,” 208.

[3] Michael S. Heiser, “The Mythological Provenance of Is. XVIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material.” Vestus Testamentum LI,3,( 2001): 356-357.

[4] Heiser, “The Mythological,” 356-357.

[5] Kaufmann Kohler, “Lucifer,” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=612&letter=L (accessed March 5 20011).

[6] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Harper Collins. 2001), 122.

[7]G. J. Riley. “Devil.” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd extensively rev. ed. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter Willem van der Horst (Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 246.

[8] Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised and extended 4th ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 139.

[9] Tertullian, Contra Marcionem,  11, 17.

[10]M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 177.

[11] L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, “Antichrist” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible , 62.

[12] Peter Goodgame, The Giza Discovery: Pete’s Commentary on Isaiah 9-14, http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/isaiahasshur.htm (accessed 08/31/2011).

[13] Thomas Horn, Apollyon Rising 2012: The Lost Symbol Found and the Final Mystery of the Great Seal Revealed (Crane, MS: Defender, 2009), 142.

Filed Under Bible Exposition, Eschatology Tagged With Antichrist, Apollyon Rising, Armageddon, Day of the Lord, End Times, Eschatology, Jerusalem, Kline, last days, Lucifer, Megiddo, Micheal Heiser, Mount Zion, Peter Goodgame, Revelation, Satan, Thomas Horn, Torrey, War Scroll

The New Apostolic Reformation and the Remarkable Reprise of Müntzer

08/30/2011 Leave a Comment

Thomas Müntzer

The New Apostolic Reformation claims to be “the most radical change in the way of doing church since the Protestant Reformation.”[1]  In fact, I think there is a remarkable truth to be found in that statement by C. Peter Wagner. I have been studying the Protestant Reformation and a remarkable event has come to my attention. This is in the context of the Lutheran reformation but finds an amazing correspondence to the New Apostolic Reformation’s seven mountains dominionism,

“Although Luther himself refused to extend the application of his teachings to the political realm in terms of revolution, there were others who disagreed with him on that point. Foremost among these was Thomas Müntzer, a native of Zwickau, whose early teachings were similar to those of the “prophets” from his village who created such a stir in Wittenberg. Müntzer claimed that what was most important was not the written word of Scripture, but the present revelation of the Spirit. In his case such spiritualist doctrine had political consequences, for he felt that those who had been born again by the Spirit should join in a theocratic community, to bring about the Kingdom of God. ” [2] (emphasis added)

Solomon was right nothing new under the sun because apparently the NAR is recycling Müntzer’s error. First, notice that Müntzer’s group also called themselves “prophets.” Corresponding to Wagner who argues:

Prophets are prominent in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. As we just saw above, apostles are first and prophets are second. Every apostle needs alignment with prophets and every prophet needs apostolic alignment.One of the reasons why both should be active in our churches today is that the Bible says, “Surely God does nothing unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). And also: “Believe in the Lord your God and you shall be established; believe His prophets and you shall prosper” (2 Chronicles 20:20). I want to prosper and I want you to prosper.[3]

First, he uses the Old Testament as his rationale so he must conform to its standard for a prophet, 100% accuracy (Deu 18:22). Second, a big red flag goes up in that the term “apostle” properly means one who witnessed the resurrected Christ. Paul was the last apostle, there are no apostles today.  This supported by a standard academic theological dictionary:

apostle. Derived from the Greek term apostolos, an apostle is basically a “sent one.” From his many followers Christ chose twelve whom he designated as “apostles” (Mt 10:2–4; Mk 3:14; Lk 6:14–16). These twelve, along with the apostle Paul as one “abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8), became foundational in the establishment of the church and functioned as authority figures in the early church.[4]

Paul was “abnormally born” because Christ appeared to him on the Damascus road and commissioned him post ascension. Since Paul was the last apostle, the modern claims are necessarily false. As apostles and prophets, the NAR promote “Kingdom Now” or Dominion Theology just like Müntzer’s “theocratic community, to bring about the Kingdom of God.” The self-appointed apostle C. Peter Wagner has written,

“He [God] expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth.”[5]

“Whatever action is needed” sounds pretty scary. How does Wagner know this is from God? Well as a self-proclaimed modern day Apostle and Prophet, of course he gets it straight from God.  This is remarkably similar to the discussion in my history text, “Müntzer claimed that what was most important was not the written word of Scripture, but the present revelation of the Spirit.” Wagner presents an argument for this sort of revelation as follows:

C. Peter Wagner

Extra-biblical revelation. Some object to the notion that God communicates directly with us, supposing that everything that God wanted to reveal He revealed in the Bible. This cannot be true, however, because there is nothing in the Bible that says it has 66 books. It actually took God a couple of hundred years to reveal to the church which writings should be included in the Bible and which should not. That is extra-biblical revelation. Even so, Catholics and Protestants still disagree on the number. Beyond that, I believe that prayer is two way, we speak to God and expect Him to speak with us. We can hear God’s voice. He also reveals new things to prophets as we have seen. The one major rule governing any new revelation from God is that it cannot contradict what has already been written in the Bible. It may supplement it, however.[6]

One marvels at this level of argumentation coming from a trained theologian. A number of points can be made here. First, while the canon is largely accepted, it was never a unanimous decision. He even acknowledges that this issue is still disputed today. Is God’s voice really that weak? Does he only whisper? No. What we see in the Bible is that when God really speaks to the prophets, it’s not vague. Next, cannon formation was organic and discovered rather than from the brute authority of magisterial councils. In Carson & Moo’s NT introduction a scholar named Barton is cited. Barton used data on the number of times the early church Fathers quoted the various books and there is a clear distinction in frequency of usage between the New Testament books and the non-Canonical works.[7]  In other words, it was pretty self-evident which books were authoritative right from the beginning.  So Wagner’s argument from the canon completely fails.

Is Wagner’s theology revealed directly to him by God?

NAR dominionism is based on a faulty post millennial eschatology. I have addressed it as an eschatological system here. But Wagner says it is revealed by God directly to him as an Apostle. Remember, he teaches that it is the church’s job to subdue the world by “whatever action is needed” to create the kingdom of God.  In sharp contrast, the biblical teaching says things go from bad to worse.  When Jesus was asked what it would be like before his return he said things like:

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.”(Mt 24:9–10)

“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”(Lk 18:8)

The true Apostle’s Peter and Paul taught a consistent doctrine:

“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,(2 Th 2:3)

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,(2 Ti 4:3)

“knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.(2 Pe 3:3)

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,(2 Ti 3:1–2)

In fact, dominionism has more in common with Rev 13:12ff than anything else in the Bible. Jesus defeats the evil world system, Jesus defeats the antichrist, Jesus defeats the devil. Dominion theology usurps Jesus’ job description.

He used the Old Testament as his justification for his prophet status but does he meet its standard (Deu 18:22)? Also recalling C Peter’s Wagner’s own statement, “The one major rule governing any new revelation from God is that it cannot contradict what has already been written in the Bible.” So we must ask, “does Kingdom Now contradict what has been written?” And the answer is clearly yes. Thus, we should not trust any of his claims. He is misguided at best and that is being charitable.

What got me started on all of this was the remarkable correspondence to Thomas Müntzer. Since past performance is a pretty good predictor of future events, it begs the question, “how did it work out for Müntzer?”

Later, when the rebellion was drowned in blood, he [Luther] urged the victorious princes to be merciful. But his words were not heeded, and it is said that more than 100,000 peasants were killed.[8]

The 16th century Kingdom Now prophet, Thomas Müntzer,  was captured in the decisive Battle of Frankenhausen, tortured into recanting his heretical doctrines and beheaded. Indeed, the NAR really is “the most radical change in the way of doing church since the Protestant Reformation.” After all, Edmund Burke is famous for saying, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Müntzer was a such celebrated figure in communism, that he was on a East German 5 mark note.

Get a signed copy of Pandemonium’s Engine here for $10.00

[1] C Peter Wagner, “An Urgent Message From Peter,” hyperlink (accessed 8/27/2011).

[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: Volume Two – The Reformation to the Present Day (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1985), ebook location 111.9 / 943.

[3] C Peter Wagner, “An Urgent Message From Peter,” hyperlink (accessed 8/27/2011).

[4]Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 14.

[5] C Peter Wagner, “An Urgent Message From Peter,” hyperlink (accessed 8/27/2011).

[6] Ibid.

[7]D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 733.

[8] Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: ebook location 112.6 / 943.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Battle of Frankenhausen, C. Peter Wagner, Dominion Theology, Dominionism, Kingdom Now, New Apostolic Reformation, Thomas Müntzer

The Irony of Glen Beck, a Mormon, Speaking for Israel

08/25/2011 15 Comments

I support Israel’s right to their historic homeland. But isn’t it ironic (and shameful) that Glen Beck, a Mormon, is leading the rally when The Book of Mormon has more in common to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion than the New Testament?

“Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must need be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.” (2 Nephi 10:3)

Obviously this is reflective of the racist views of the plagiarist Joseph Smith and was not divinely revealed. It is incompatible with the revelation that God has given us in the Bible. The truth is that every nation is wicked enough to kill their God. Even more, there is only one God and he did not belong exclusively to Israel, though he specifically adopted them so Abraham would be a blessing to all nations. When the Romans adjudicated the crucifixion of Jesus, they were just as guilty of “crucifying their God” as the Jews. In truth, Christ died for the sins of the world, thus all of us made his death necessary. We all crucified Him by our sin.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Antisemitiism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jews, Mormons, Restoring Courage
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »