Below are a few of the countless proofs of the inspiration of the Bible. The Lord knows all about His creation, so the very limited scientific understanding of man was already known by God in eternity past:
There might not be a flood of biblical proportions in the forecast, but Noah’s Ark is coming to Williamstown, Kentucky, this summer.
A full-size version of Noah’s Ark is expected to be completed before Ark Encounter, a Bible-themed park, opens July 7.
Ken Ham had the massive ship built to match the dimensions set out in the Bible. The entire project is expected to cost $100 million.
“The message that we have — it’s making the Bible come alive, really. By building Noah’s Ark, we’re saying, ‘This really happened. This is plausible,'” Ham told “Nightline.”
According to Ham, his ark is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide and 51 feet high. “It gets bigger and bigger. When you get inside, it gets bigger again,” he said.
Ark Encounter is just a few miles from Ham’s Creation Museum, which attracts nearly half a million visitors a year and teaches a young Earth theory of creation. Ham calls his ministry Answers in Genesis.
“We have a lot of people who are not Christians who come here, and they appreciate the way it’s presented. It’s presented very tastefully,” said Ham. “It’s educational.”
Visitors to the Creation Museum can find exhibits like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which is next to one showing dinosaurs playfully eating fruit.
One of Ham’s biggest critics is Bill Nye, an evolutionist who is known as the television personality the Science Guy. He dismissed Ham’s creationist exhibits as biblical propaganda. Nye said dinosaurs died out long before human beings ever came along.
“I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. That is what’s very troubling. Allosauruses and humans did not live at the same time. Teaching the earth is 6,000 years old is completely wrong and inappropriate,” he told “Nightline.”
“When they dig up dinosaur bones, they don’t dig them up with labels on saying, ‘Hi, I’m 70 million years old,’ or whatever it is,” Ham said. “We’re saying that most of those bones they dig up are actually from the flood of Noah’s day, not from millions of years ago.”
Ham rejected mainstream science institutions as evolutionary doctrinaires.
“Museums like the Natural History Museum inWashington, D.C., Smithsonian or Chicago Field Museum, mostly they teach that we supposedly evolved [from] apelike creatures. Why shouldn’t we be able to use the same technology and really challenge people to consider the Bible as the true history of the world?” he said.
Ham’s Noah’s Ark project took advantage of $18 million in tax benefits and tourism incentives.
The state of Kentucky attempted to block the project from receiving public funding, but Ham took his case to court and won. “Christians pay taxes in this world. We live in this world. We’re not second-class citizens. The federal judge rule in our favor,” he said.
“It’s just inappropriate. To me, [it’s] a clear violation of the First Amendment, for crying out loud,” Nye argued.
To work at Ark Encounter, job applicants must sign a statement of faith, professing a Christian belief in the creation story. For instance, they agree that the “great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide in its extent and effect.”
Ham said this is necessary because “we are a Christian organization and we have a Christian message.”
Among the construction workers who have helped build the ark are Amish carpenters who said part of their faith included accepting the Bible as truth. The artists who created the ark’s exhibits are believers too.
“There’s a lot of people that scoff,” Ham said. “We get a lot of attacks by some of the aggressive secularists. Sometimes I feel a bit like Noah.”
Admission to Ark Encounter will be $40 for adults and $28 for children, and Ham said he expects that fascination with Noah and his ark will result in 1 million to 2 million visitors in the first year.
“We really do believe that if we build it, they will come. And they’re going to come,” Ham said.
Reblogged on WordPress.com
These are exciting times of new discoveries in archaeology. Exponentially they are coming in a very rapid rate. Skeptics say: “Show me and I will believe.” God says: “Believe and I will show you.” You must become a believer in order to recognize what God is doing. The unsaved do not understand or comprehend what is happening. 80% of college students fall away from their faith. The Bible warns us not to be deceived by the traditions of the world, that would undermine our faith in Christ. Philosophy (love of wisdom), evolution, and the traditions of man are all out there trying to steal our faith.
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
There is a curse for mocking God and believing man knows everything. God will actually hide the truth from those who think they are so wise and clever. Worldly brilliant people think Christians are crazy because of our faith. University professors marginalize and characterize Christians.
The Temple findings from Solomon’s Temple are the real deal. Bob will have a lot more material next year after more study and investigation is accomplished. In 1986 Bob searched for Noah’s Ark. He still does trips to this locale. Noah’s Ark is not on Mount Ararat in Turkey. Bob does not think that may even be the right mountain. He thinks the mountain may be in Iran or Pakistan. (Genesis 11:1-2 says the first generations after Noah came from the land of Shinar in the east). *** I believe that Noah’s Ark no longer exists. There was a devastated earth without grown trees and even shrubbery when Noah and his family of eight exited the ark. What else could possibly been their source of building homes, outbuildings, barns, pens, implements, fences, etc., etc.? The ark was dismantled and used for their practical needs. Pastor Steve ***
Bob recalled his previous explorations whereby they found the real Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia (Galatians 4:25). They found altars, pillars, the split rock where the water came out, the top was charred black, and the Bible says it is in the ancient land of Midian. Scholars laughed at their exploits when they happened twenty five years ago, but now they are all coming around to believing this is indeed the place of the real Mt. Sinai (Jabal al Lawz).
Another item they searched for was the Ark of the Covenant. Bob took twenty trips to Ethiopia. Bob believes the Ark is in as small chapel in an Ethiopian town. (I spoke with Bob on the telephone about eight-ten years ago, and he believed the same thing then). Bob believes the Ark went to Elephantine Island on the Nile River where it stayed for hundreds of years before it was taken to Ethiopia. There is a strong historical tradition that asserts this theory, whether or not it is true.
Furthermore, Bob did extensive research off of the coast of Malta, searching for the four anchors from Paul’s shipwreck, summarized in Acts 27,28. Bob fed the Biblical data into a thirty million dollar computer, and they researched the area that the computer took them to. The anchors were no longer there because they were already located and retrieved by scuba divers! They have all been located.
Bob Cornuke opened up a question and answer period for any questions on his explorations of Noah’s Ark, Mount Sinai, the Ark of the Covenant, Paul’s Shipwreck, and The Temple.
It was mentioned that many people inside and outside of Christianity all believe that something is soon coming upon the world, centered in Jerusalem (Zechariah 12, 13, 14). Because of this, Bob Cornuke has a tremendous impetus that is open to his exploits in archaeology all around the globe, including many politicians and dignitaries. It was mentioned that recent archaeological findings are giving strong clues to where the tomb of King David is.
Another question was: “Are the Jewish people excited that because the real temple location is not near the Dome Of The Rock, they can therefore build immediately?” The problem here is that the accepted traditional location is so strong by Jewish scholars, rabbis, etc., that credence is not always given to recent discoveries. For further comprehensive information on Bob’s research on the Temple, go to part 5 of this series, and obtain a copy of his recent publication The Temple. It is the most cutting edge archaeological book that I have read in years.
Bob’s main theme throughout his archaeological endeavors is to assert the truth of the Bible. He is viciously attacked because of his firm stance upon the Word of God.
A Christian Manifesto
by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer
This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title.
Christians, in the last 80 years or so, have only been seeing things as bits and pieces which have gradually begun to trouble them and others, instead of understanding that they are the natural outcome of a change from a Christian World View to a Humanistic one; things such as overpermissiveness, pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things.
All of these things and many more are only the results. We may be troubled with the individual thing, but in reality we are missing the whole thing if we do not see each of these things and many more as only symptoms of the deeper problem. And that is the change in our society, a change in our country, a change in the Western world from a Judeo-Christian consensus to a Humanistic one. That is, instead of the final reality that exists being the infinite creator God; instead of that which is the basis of all reality being such a creator God, now largely, all else is seen as only material or energy which has existed forever in some form, shaped into its present complex form only by pure chance.
I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view — that the final reality is an infinite creator God — over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.
The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a “buzz” word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.
So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God.
But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary — merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.
Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country. It’s the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law. They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law.
The world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance, inevitably, (that’s the next word I would bring to you ) mathematically — with mathematical certainty — brings forth all these other results which are in our country and in our society which have led to the breakdown in the country — in society — and which are its present sorrows. So, if you hold this other world view, you must realize that it is inevitable that we will come to the very sorrows of relativity and all these other things that are so represented in our country at this moment of history.
It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.
We must understand something very thoroughly. If society — if the state gives the rights, it can take them away — they’re not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights — this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have — even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.
The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted. You forget that the freedoms which we have in northern Europe after the Reformation (and the United States is an extension of that, as would be Australia or Canada, New Zealand, etc.) are absolutely unique in the world.
Occasionally, some of you who have gone to universities have been taught that these freedoms are rooted in the Greek city-states. That is not the truth. All you have to do is read Plato’s Republic and you understand that the Greek city-states never had any concept of the freedoms that we have. Go back into history. The freedoms which we have (the form / freedom balance of government) are unique in history and they are also unique in the world at this day.
A fairly recent poll of the 150 some countries that now constitute the world shows that only 25 of these countries have any freedoms at all. What we have, and take so poorly for granted, is unique. It was brought forth by a specific world view and that specific world view was the Judeo-Christian world view especially as it was refined in the Reformation, putting the authority indeed at a central point — not in the Church and the state and the Word of God, but rather the Word of God alone. All the benefits which we know — I would repeat — which we have taken so easily and so much for granted, are unique. They have been grounded on the certain world view that there was a Creator there to give inalienable rights. And this other view over here, which has become increasingly dominant, of the material-energy final world view (shaped by pure chance) never would have, could not, has, no basis of values, in order to give such a balance of freedom that we have known so easily and which we unhappily, if we are not careful, take so for granted.
We are now losing those freedoms and we can expect to continue to lose them if this other world view continues to take increased force and power in our county. We can be sure of this. I would say it again — inevitably, mathematically, all of these things will come forth. There is no possible way to heal the relativistic thinking of our own day, if indeed all there is is a universe out there that is silent about any values. None, whatsoever! It is not possible. It is a loss of values and it is a loss of freedom which we may be sure will continually grow.
A good illustration is in the public schools. This view is taught in our public schools exclusively — by law. There is no other view that can be taught. I’ll mention it a bit later, but by law there is no other view that can be taught. By law, in the public schools, the United States of America in 1982, legally there is only one view of reality that can be taught. I’ll mention it a bit later, but there is only one view of reality that can be taught, and that is that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.
It is the same with the television programs. Public television gives us many things that many of us like culturally, but is also completely committed to a propaganda position that the last reality is only material / energy shaped by pure chance. Clark’s Civilization, Brunowski, The Ascent of Man, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos — they all say it. There is only one final view of reality that’s possible and that is that the final reality is material or energy shaped by pure chance.
It is about us on every side, and especially the government and the courts have become the vehicle to force this anti-God view on the total population. It’s exactly where we are.
The abortion ruling is a very clear one. The abortion ruling, of course, is also a natural result of this other world view because with this other world view, human life — your individual life — has no intrinsic value. You are a wart upon the face of an absolutely impersonal universe. Your aspirations have no fulfillment in the “what-isness” of what is. Your aspirations damn you. Many of the young people who come to us understand this very well because their aspirations as Humanists have no fulfillment, if indeed the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.
The universe cannot fulfill anything that you say when you say, “It is beautiful”; “I love”; “It is right”; “It is wrong.” These words are meaningless words against the backdrop of this other world view. So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been a surprise because it boiled up out of, quite naturally, (I would use the word again) mathematically, this other world view. In this case, human life has no distinct value whatsoever, and we find this Supreme Court in one ruling overthrew the abortion laws of all 50 states, and they made this form of killing human life (because that’s what it is) the law. The law declared that this form of killing human life was to be accepted, and for many people, because they had no set ethic, when the Supreme Court said that it was legal, in the intervening years, it has become ethical.
The courts of this country have forced this view and its results on the total population. What we find is that as the courts have done this, without any longer that which the founding fathers comprehended of law (A man like Blackstone, with his Commentaries, understood, and the other lawgivers in this country in the beginning): That there is a law of God which gives foundation. It becomes quite natural then, that they would also cut themselves loose from a strict constructionism concerning the Constitution.
Everything is relative. So as you cut yourself loose from the Law of God, in any concept whatsoever, you also soon are cutting yourself loose from a strict constructionism and each ruling is to be seen as an arbitrary choice by a group of people as to what they may honestly think is for the sociological good of the community, of the country, for the given moment.
Now, along with that is the fact that the courts are increasingly making law and thus we find that the legislatures’ powers are increasingly diminished in relationship to the power of the courts. Now the pro-abortion people have been very wise about this in the last, say, 10 years, and Christians very silly. I wonder sometimes where we’ve been because the pro-abortion people have used the courts for their end rather than the legislatures — because the courts are not subject to the people’s thinking, nor their will, either by election nor by a re-election. Consequently, the courts have been the vehicle used to bring this whole view and to force it on our total population. It has not been largely the legislatures. It has been rather, the courts.
The result is a relativistic value system. A lack of a final meaning to life — that’s first. Why does human life have any value at all, if that is all that reality is? Not only are you going to die individually, but the whole human race is going to die, someday. It may not take the falling of the atom bombs, but someday the world will grow too hot, too cold. That’s what we are told on this other final reality, and someday all you people not only will be individually dead, but the whole conscious life on this world will be dead, and nobody will see the birds fly. And there’s no meaning to life.
As you know, I don’t speak academically, shut off in some scholastic cubicle, as it were. I have lots of young people and older ones come to us from the ends of the earth. And as they come to us, they have gone to the end of this logically and they are not living in a romantic setting. They realize what the situation is. They can’t find any meaning to life. It’s the meaning to the black poetry. It’s the meaning of the black plays. It’s the meaning of all this. It’s the meaning of the words “punk rock.” And I must say, that on the basis of what they are being taught in school, that the final reality is only this material thing, they are not wrong. They’re right! On this other basis there is no meaning to life and not only is there no meaning to life, but there is no value system that is fixed, and we find that the law is based then only on a relativistic basis and that law becomes purely arbitrary.
And this is brought to bear, specifically, and perhaps most clearly, in the public schools (I’ll come to that now) in this country. In the courts of this country, they are saying that it’s absolutely illegal, from the lowest grades up through university, for the public schools of this country to teach any other world view except this world view of final material or energy. Now this is done, no matter what the parents may wish. This is done regardless of what those who pay the taxes for their schools may wish. I’m giving you an illustration, as well as making a point. The way the courts force their view, and this false view of reality on the total population, no matter what the total population wants.
We find that in the January 18 — just recently — Time magazine, there was an article that said there was a poll that pointed out that about 76% of the people in this country thought it would be a good idea to have both creation and evolution taught in the public schools. I don’t know if the poll was accurate, but assuming that the poll was accurate, what does it mean? It means that your public schools are told by the courts that they cannot teach this, even though 76% of the people in the United States want it taught. I’ll give you a word. It’s TYRANNY. There is no other word that fits at such a point.
And at the same time we find the medical profession has radically changed. Dr. Koop, in our seminars for Whatever Happened to the Human Race, often said that (speaking for himself), “When I graduated from medical school, the idea was ‘how can I save this life?’ But for a great number of the medical students now, it’s not, ‘How can I save this life?’, but ‘Should I save this life?'”
Believe me, it’s everywhere. It isn’t just abortion. It’s infanticide. It’s allowing the babies to starve to death after they are born. If they do not come up to some doctor’s concept of a quality of life worth living. I’ll just say in passing — and never forget it – it takes about 15 days, often, for these babies to starve to death. And I’d say something else that we haven’t stressed enough. In abortion itself, there is no abortion method that is not painful to the child — just as painful that month before birth as the baby you see a month after birth in one of these cribs down here that I passed — just as painful.
So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views. The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”
I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession… The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.
The January 11 Newsweek has an article about the baby in the womb. The first 5 or 6 pages are marvelous. If you haven’t seen it, you should see if you can get that issue. It’s January 11 and about the first 5 or 6 pages show conclusively what every biologist has known all along, and that is that human life begins at conception. There is no other time for human life to begin, except at conception. Monkey life begins at conception. Donkey life begins at conception. And human life begins at conception. Biologically, there is no discussion — never should have been — from a scientific viewpoint. I am not speaking of religion now. And this 5 or 6 pages very carefully goes into the fact that human life begins at conception. But you flip the page and there is this big black headline, “But is it a person?” And I’ll read the last sentence, “The problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations, such as the health or even the happiness of the mother.”
We are not just talking about the health of the mother (it’s a propaganda line), or even the happiness of the mother. Listen! Spell that out! It means that the mother, for her own hedonistic happiness — selfish happiness — can take human life by her choice, by law. Do you understand what I have said? By law, on the basis of her individual choice of what makes her happy. She can take what has been declared to be, in the first five pages [of the article], without any question, human life. In other words, they acknowledge that human life is there, but it is an open question as to whether it is not right to kill that human life if it makes the mother happy.
And basically that is no different than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, killing who they killed for what they conceived to be the good of society. There is absolutely no line between the two statements — no absolute line, whatsoever. One follows along: Once that it is acknowledged that it is human life that is involved (and as I said, this issue of Newsweek shows conclusively that it is) the acceptance of death of human life in babies born or unborn, opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it’s purely arbitrary.
It was this view that opened the door to all that followed in Germany prior to Hitler. It’s an interesting fact here that the only Supreme Court in the Western World that has ruled against easy abortion is the West German Court. The reason they did it is because they knew, and it’s clear history, that this view of human life in the medical profession and the legal profession combined, before Hitler came on the scene, is what opened the way for everything that happened in Hitler’s Germany. And so, the German Supreme Court has voted against easy abortion because they know — they know very well where it leads.
I want to say something tonight. Not many of you are black in this audience. I can’t tell if you are Puerto Rican. But if I were in the minority group in this country, tonight, I would be afraid. I’ve had big gorgeous blacks stand up in our seminars and ask, “Sir, do you think there is a racial twist to all this?” And I have to say, “Right on! You’ve hit it right on the head!” Once this door is opened, there is something to be afraid of. Christians should be deeply concerned, and I cannot understand why the liberal lawyer of the Civil Liberties Union is not scared to death by this open door towards human life. Everyone ought to be frightened who knows anything about history — anything about the history of law, anything about the history of medicine. This is a terrifying door that is open.
Abortion itself would be worth spending much of our lifetimes to fight against, because it is the killing of human life, but it’s only a symptom of the total. What we are facing is Humanism: Man, the measure of all things — viewing final reality being only material or energy shaped by chance — therefore, human life having no intrinsic value — therefore, the keeping of any individual life or any groups of human life, being purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.
The flood doors are wide open. I fear both they, and too often the Christians, do not have just relativistic values (because, unhappily, Christians can live with relativistic values) but, I fear, that often such people as the liberal lawyers of the Civil Liberties Union and Christians, are just plain stupid in regard to the lessons of history. Nobody who knows his history could fail to be shaken at the corner we have turned in our culture. Remember why: because of the shift in the concept of the basic reality!
Now, we cannot be at all surprised when the liberal theologians support these things, because liberal theology is only Humanism using theological terms, and that’s all it ever was, all the way back into Germany right after the Enlightenment. So when they come down on the side of easy abortion and infanticide, as some of these liberal denominations as well as theologians are doing, we shouldn’t be surprised. It follows as night after day.
I have a question to ask you, and that is: Where have the Bible-believing Christians been in the last 40 years? All of this that I am talking about has only come in the last 80 years (I’m 70… I just had my birthday, so just 10 years older than I am). None of this was true in the United States. None of it! And the climax has all come within the last 40 years, which falls within the intelligent scope of many of you sitting in this room. Where have the Bible-believing Christians been? We shouldn’t be surprised the liberal theologians have been no help — but where have we been as we have changed to this other consensus and all the horrors and stupidity of the present moment has come down on out culture? We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. Not, first of all , because of the Humanist conspiracy — I believe that there are those who conspire, but that is not the reason this country is almost lost. This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians, in the last 40 years, who have said that they know that the final reality is this infinite-personal God who is the Creator and all the rest, have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!
Christians of this country have simply been silent. Much of the Evangelical leadership has not raised a voice. As a matter of fact, it was almost like sticking pins into the Evangelical constituency in most places to get them interested in the issue of human life while Dr. Koop and Franky and I worked on Whatever Happened to the Human Race, a vast, vast silence.
I wonder what God has to say to us? All these freedoms we have. All the secondary blessings we’ve had out of the preaching of the Gospel and we have let it slip through our fingers in the lifetime of most of you here. Not a hundred years ago — it has been in our lifetime in the last 40 years that these things have happened.
It’s not only the Christian leaders. Where have the Christian lawyers been? Why haven’t they been challenging this change in the view of what the First Amendment means, which I’ll deal with in a second. Where have the Christian doctors been — speaking out against the rise of the abortion clinics and all the other things? Where have the Christian businessmen been — to put their lives and their work on the line concerning these things which they would say as Christians are central to them? Where have the Christian educators been — as we have lost our educational system? Where have we been? Where have each of you been? What’s happened in the last 40 years?
This country was founded on a Christian base with all its freedom for everybody. Let me stress that. This country was founded on a Christian base with all its freedom for everybody, not just Christians, but all its freedom for everyone. And now, this is being largely lost. We live not ten years from now, but tonight, in a Humanistic culture and we are rapidly moving at express train speed into a totally Humanistic culture. We’re close to it. We are in a Humanistic culture, as I point out in the public schools and these other things, but we are moving toward a TOTALLY Humanistic culture and moving very quickly.
I would repeat at this place about our public schools because it’s worth saying. Most people don’t realize something. Communism, you know, is not basically an economic theory. It’s materialistic communism, which means that at the very heart of the Marx, Engels, Lenin kind of communism (because you have to put all three together to really understand) is the materialistic concept of the final reality. That is the base for all that occurs in the communist countries.
I am wearing a Solidarity pin — in case you wonder what this is on my lapel. We had two young men from L’Abri take in an 8 ton truck of food into Poland — very bad weather — they almost were killed on the roads. They got in just three days before the crackdown. We, of L’Abri, have taken care of small numbers of each successive wave of Europeans who have been persecuted in the communist nations, the Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, now the Poles. A dear wonderful Christian schoolteacher that we love very much (she’s a wonderful, wonderful Christian young woman, brilliant as brilliant, and she studied at L’Abri for a long time and she was one of the contact points for the destination of the food) — thought that the crackdown might come. So she sent me out this Solidarity pin. This wasn’t made in Newark! This came from Poland. I have a hope. I hope I can wear it until I can hand it back to her and she can wear it again in Poland. That’s my hope! But all the oppression you have ever heard of in Mao’s China, Stalin’s day, Poland, Czechoslovakia — any place that you can name it — Afghanistan — all the oppression is the automatic, the mechanical certainty, that comes from having this other world view of the final reality only being material or energy shaped by pure chance. That’s where it comes from.
And what about our schools? I think I should stress again! By law, you are no more allowed to teach religious values and religious views in our public schools than you are in the schools of Russia tonight. We don’t teach Marxism over here in most of our schools, but as far as all religious teaching (except the religion of Humanism, which is a different kind of a thing) it is just as banned by law from our schools, and our schools are just as secular as the schools in Soviet Russia — just exactly! Not ten years from now. Tonight!
Congress opens with prayer. Why? Because Congress always is opened with prayer. Back there, the founding fathers didn’t consider the 13 provincial congresses that sent representatives to form our country in Philadelphia really open until there was prayer. The Congress in Washington, where Edith and I have just been, speaking to various men in political areas and circles — that Congress is not open until there is prayer. It’s illegal, in many places, for youngsters to merely meet and pray on the geographical location of the public schools. I would repeat, we are not only immoral, we’re stupid. I mean that. I don’t know which is the worst: being immoral or stupid on such an issue. We are not only immoral, we are stupid for the place we have allowed ourselves to come to without noticing.
I would now repeat again the word I used before. There is no other word we can use for our present situation that I have just been describing, except the word TYRANNY! TYRANNY! That’s what we face! We face a world view which never would have given us our freedoms. It has been forced upon us by the courts and the government — the men holding this other world view, whether we want it or not, even though it’s destroying the very freedoms which give the freedoms for the excesses and for the things which are wrong.
We, who are Christians, and others who love liberty, should be acting in our day as the founding fathers acted in their day. Those who founded this country believed that they were facing tyranny. All you have to do is read their writings. That’s why the war was fought. That’s why this country was founded. They believed that God never, never, never wanted people to be under tyrannical governments. They did it not as a pragmatic or economic thing, though that was involved too, I guess, but for principle. They were against tyranny, and if the founding fathers stood against tyranny, we ought to recognize, in this year 1982, if they were back here and one of them was standing right here, he would say the same thing — what you are facing is tyranny. The very kind of tyranny we fought, he would say, in order that we might escape.
And we face a very hidden censorship. Every once in a while, as soon as we begin to talk about the need of re-entering Christian values into the discussion, someone shouts “Khomeni.” Someone says that what you are after is theocracy. Absolutely not! We must make absolutely plain, we are not in favor of theocracy, in name or in fact. But, having said that, nevertheless, we must realize that we already face a hidden censorship — a hidden censorship in which it is impossible to get the other world view presented in something like public television. It’s absolutely impossible.
I could give you a couple of examples. I’ll give you one because it’s so close to me. And that is, that after we made Whatever Happened to the Human Race, Franky made an 80 minute cutting for TV of the first 3 episodes (and people who know television say that it’s one of the best television films they have ever seen technically, so that’s not a problem). Their representative presented it to a director of public television, and as soon as she heard (It happened to be a woman. I’m sure that’s incidental.) that it was against abortion, she said, “We can’t show that. We only shoe things that give both sides.” And, at exactly the same time, they were showing that abominable Hard Choices, which is just straight propaganda for abortion. As I point out, the study guide that went with it (as I quote it in Christian Manifesto [the book] with a long quote) was even worse. It was saying that the only possible view of reality was this material thing — this material reality. They spelled it out in that study guide more clearly than I have tonight as to what the issue is. They said, “that’s it!” What do you call that? That’s hidden censorship.
Dr. Koop, one of the great surgeons of the world, when he was nominated as Surgeon General, much of the press (printed) great swelling things against him — a lot of them not true, a lot of them twisted. Certainly though, lots of space was made for trying to not get his nomination accepted. When it was accepted though, I looked like mad in some of the papers, and in most of them what I found was about one inch on the third page that said that Dr. Koop had been accepted. What do you call that? Just one thing: hidden censorship.
You must realize that this other view is totally intolerant. It is totally intolerant. I do not think we are going to get another opportunity if we do not take it now in this country. I would repeat, we are a long way down the road. I do not think we are going to get another opportunity. If the Christians, specifically, but others also, who love liberty, do not do something about it now, I don’t believe your grandchildren are going to get a chance. In the present so-called conservative swing in the last election, we have an opportunity, but we must remember this, and I would really brand this into your thinking: A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It’s the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration. And therefore, at the present moment, what we must insist on, to people in our government who represent us, is that we do not just end with words. We must see, at the present opportunity, if it continues, a real change. We mustn’t allow it to just drift off into mere words.
Now I want to say something with great force, right here. What I have been talking about, whether you know it or not, is true spirituality. This is true spirituality. Spirituality, after you are a Christian and have accepted Christ as your Savior, means that Christ is the Lord of ALL your life — not just your religious life, and if you make a dichotomy in these things, you are denying your Lord His proper place. I don’t care how many butterflies you have in your stomach, you are poor spiritually. True spirituality means that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of all of life, and except for the things that He has specifically told us in the Bible are sinful and we’ve set them aside — all of life is spiritual and all of life is equally spiritual. That includes (as our forefathers did) standing for these things of freedom and standing for these things of human life and all these other matters that are so crucial, if indeed, this living God does exist as we know that He does exist.
We have forgotten our heritage. A lot of the evangelical complex like to talk about the old revivals and they tell us we ought to have another revival. We nee another revival — you and I need revival. We need another revival in our hearts. But they have forgotten something. Most of the Christians have forgotten and most of the pastors have forgotten something. That is the factor that every single revival that has ever been a real revival, whether it was the great awakening before the American Revolution; whether it was the great revivals of Scandinavia; whether it was Wesley and Whitefield; wherever you have found a great revival, it’s always had three parts. First, it has called for the individual to accept Christ as Savior, and thankfully, in all of these that I have named, thousands have been saved. Then, it has called upon the Christians to bow their hearts to God and really let the Holy Spirit have His place in fullness in their life. But there has always been, in every revival, a third element. It has always brought SOCIAL CHANGE!
Cambridge historians who aren’t Christians would tell you that if it wasn’t for the Wesley revival and the social change that Wesley’s revival had brought, England would have had its own form of the French Revolution. It was Wesley saying people must be treated correctly and dealing down into the social needs of the day that made it possible for England to have its bloodless revolution in contrast to France’s bloody revolution.
The Wall Street Journal, not too long ago, and I quote it again in A Christian Manifesto, pointed out that it was the Great Awakening, that great revival prior to the founding of the United States, that opened the way and prepared for the founding of the United States. Every one of the great revivals had tremendous social implications. What I am saying is, that I am afraid that we have forgotten our heritage, and we must go on even when the cost is high.
I think the Church has failed to meet its obligation in these last 40 years for two specific reasons. The first is this false, truncated view of spirituality that doesn’t see true spirituality touching all of life. The other thing is that too many Christians, whether they are doctors, lawyers, pastors, evangelists — whatever they are — too many of them are afraid to really speak out because they did not want to rock the boat for their own project. I am convinced that these two reasons, both of which are a tragedy and really horrible for the Christian, are an explanation of why we have walked the road we have walked in the last 40 years.
We must understand, it’s going to cost you to take a stand on these things. There are doctors who are going to get kicked out of hospitals because they refuse to perform abortions; there are nurses that see a little sign on a crib that says, “Do not feed,” and they feed and they are fired. There’s a cost, but I’d ask you, what is loyalty to Christ worth to you? How much do you believe this is true? Why are you a Christian? Are you a Christian for some lesser reason, or are you a Christian because you know that this is the truth of reality? And then, how much do you love the Lord Jesus Christ? How much are you willing to pay the price for loyalty to the Lord Jesus?
We must absolutely set out to smash the lie of the new and novel concept of the separation of religion from the state which most people now hold and which Christians have just bought a bill of goods. This is new and this is novel. It has no relationship to the meaning of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was that the state would never interfere with religion. THAT’S ALL THE MEANING THERE WAS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Just read Madison and the Spectator Papers if you don’t think so. That’s all it was!
Now we have turned it over and we have put it on its head and what we must do is absolutely insist that we return to what the First Amendment meant in the first place — not that religion can’t have an influence into society and into the state — not that. But we must insist that there’s a freedom that the First Amendment really gave. Now with this we must emphasize, and I said it, but let me say it again, we do not want a theocracy! I personally am opposed to a theocracy. On this side of the New Testament I do not believe there is a place for a theocracy ’till Jesus the King comes back. But that’s a very different thing while saying clearly we are not in favor of a theocracy in name or in fact, from where we are now, where all religious influence is shut out of the processes of the state and the public schools. We are only asking for one thing. We are asking for the freedom that the First Amendment guaranteed. That’s what we should be standing for.All we ask for is what the founding fathers of this country stood and fought and died for, and at the same time, very crucial in all this is standing absolutely for a high view of human life against the snowballing low view of human life of which I have been talking. This thing has been presented under the hypocritical name of choice. What does choice equal? Choice, as I have already shown, means the right to kill for your own selfish desires. To kill human life! That’s what the choice is that we’re being presented with on this other basis.
Now, I come toward the close, and that is that we must recognize something from the Scriptures, and that’s why I had that Scripture read that I had read tonight. When the government negates the law of God, it abrogates its authority. God has given certain offices to restrain chaos in this fallen world, but it does not mean that these offices are autonomous, and when a government commands that which is contrary to the Law of God, it abrogates its authority.
Throughout the whole history of the Christian Church, (and again I wish people knew their history. In A Christian Manifesto I stress what happened in the Reformation in reference to all this) at a certain point, it is not only the privilege but it is the duty of the Christian to disobey the government. Now that’s what the founding fathers did when they founded this country. That’s what the early Church did. That’s what Peter said. You heard it from the Scripture: “Should we obey man?… rather than God?” That’s what the early Christians did.
Occasionally — no, often, people say to me, “But the early Church didn’t practice civil disobedience.” Didn’t they? You don’t know your history again. When those Christians that we all talk about so much allowed themselves to be thrown into the arena, when they did that, from their view it was a religious thing. They would not worship anything except the living God. But you must recognize from the side of the Roman state, there was nothing religious about it at all — it was purely civil. The Roman Empire had disintegrated until the only unity it had was its worship of Caesar. You could be an atheist; you could worship the Zoroastrian religion… You could do anything. They didn’t care. It was a civil matter, and when those Christians stood up there and refused to worship Caesar, from the side of the state, they were rebels. They were in civil disobedience and they were thrown to the beasts. They were involved in civil disobedience, as much as your brothers and sisters in the Soviet Union are. When the Soviet Union says that, by law, they cannot tell their children, even in their home about Jesus Christ, they must disobey and they get sent off to the mental ward or to Siberia. It’s exactly the same kind of civil disobedience that’s represented in a very real way by the thing I am wearing on my lapel tonight.
Every appropriate legal and political governmental means must be used. “The final bottom line”– I have invented this term in A Christian Manifesto. I hope the Christians across this country and across the world will really understand what the Bible truly teaches: The final bottom line! The early Christians, every one of the reformers (and again, I’ll say in A Christian Manifesto I go through country after country and show that there was not a single place with the possible exception of England, where the Reformation was successful, where there wasn’t civil disobedience and disobedience to the state), the people of the Reformation, the founding fathers of this country, faced and acted in the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, what government has been made GOD.
Caesar, under some name, thinking of the early Church, has been put upon the final throne. The Bible’s answer is NO! Caesar is not to be put in the place of God and we as Christians, in the name of the Lordship of Christ, and all of life, must so think and act on the appropriate level. It should always be on the appropriate level. We have lots of room to move yet with our court cases, with the people we elect — all the things that we can do in this country. If, unhappily, we come to that place, the appropriate level must also include a disobedience to the state.
If you are not doing that, you haven’t thought it through. Jesus is not really on the throne. God is not central. You have made a false god central. Christ must be the final Lord and not society and not Caesar.
May I repeat the final sentence again? CHRIST MUST BE THE FINAL LORD AND NOT CAESAR AND NOT SOCIETY.
May we pray together?
Our heavenly Father, we come together, and we have no illusions that these things are serious, but have no illusions, either, that they were serious to the early Church when they watched their loved ones dragged off and thrown to their death when all they had to do was say that they worshipped Caesar.
We have no illusions that it was easy for Peter to stand and say that he would obey God rather than the Sanhedrin. We have no illusion that for our Reformation forefathers who won the liberties that we have, not only in the church but in state, that it was easy for them in those hard and difficult days.
And, our heavenly Father, we would ask tonight that you will forgive the Christians of the United States. May we be repentant for the silence of the last forty years, when we have denied what we say we believe by our silence.
We ask Thee, that you will stir the Church of the Lord Jesus, across this country, across northern Europe, across other places. Give us that which, our heavenly Father, Wesley really understood, and Finney, the evangelist that most people know in this country and Whitefield and many of the others. A call for the individual to accept Christ as Savior and come under the shed blood of Christ and pass from death to life. A call for those of us who are Christians, oh God, to bow our hearts more completely and not let other things get in the way — to let the Holy Spirit have His place under the teaching of Scripture and within the circle of the teaching of Scripture, and then, Heavenly Father, to realize that everything belongs to the Lord Jesus. That He died not only to take our souls to heaven — but that our bodies will be raised one day from the dead.
The one day, as Peter said, just right after His ascension, “He’s going to heaven until He comes back to restore all things.” That His death there on Calvary’s cross is for us individually, but it’s not egotistically individualistic. Our individual salvation will one day be a portion of the restoration of all things. It is our calling until He comes back again that happy day, to do all we can — while it won’t be perfect as when He comes back — to see substantial healing in every area that He will then perfectly heal, and that Wesley did understand. Finney understood. Men like Blanchard, who founded Wheaton College, understood that if there is a true preaching of the Gospel, it carries with it then an action out into the social life around us into the world. That the Church is to preach the Gospel, but it is also to live the Good News — that there are answers to these horrendous questions, and that we might see a turning back from the absolute tragedy and tyranny which we face in our Western culture and in this country tonight. Help us! Forgive us! Use us!
And Father, as we just think of the number of people sitting here from so many backgrounds and different churches and different levels of life: If only these things were carried out into something in the power of the Holy Spirit… into the totality of life, as salt and light… that we might make a change and save this country from utter tragedy. Help Thou us, so we ask, and we ask it in no lesser name than the Lord Jesus Christ, our Lamb and our God.
Joe Hagmann and Doug Hagmann interview Brent Miller: Brent Miller is a CEO with Ingenuity Films and has a web site named Decoding The Future.com. Brent makes Christian prophetic films filled with Biblical prophecies that are well received by the secular world. Decoding The Future (DVD) covers the book of Revelation. Brent uses secular terminology in order to connect with unbelievers. For instance, in order to reach a secular audience, Brent says Decoding The Future instead of Revelation. He says Ancient Texts instead of the Bible. This strategy is great in reaching unbelievers. It is an evangelical tool. He reveals how monetary systems, governments and different religions are all merging in order to set the stage for the end times. He reveals to unbelievers how God uses nature and science to accomplish His purposes and fulfill Bible prophecy. God placed all of this in motion on the first six days of creation. The stage is being set for the book of Revelation to be fulfilled. Brent Miller reveals how science reveals the Bible to be true. If an asteroid is observed coming towards the earth, it can be proven to have been prophesied in the book of Revelation. We see the merging of politics. Religions are becoming tolerant and all inclusive. Nations like Russia and China desire one world currency. Knowledge is increasing exponentially. People are traveling to and fro. Our nation has turned its’ back on Israel. All of these prophesied events in the Bible are happening now, revealing that the end times are coming. Modern science and current events are tools to be used in order to validate the truth of the Bible. Brent Miller uses science and current events as apologetic tools in order to further substantiate the truth of the Bible.
Anti prophecy and anti Israel camps have been brewing for one hundred years. The following passage is from the oldest book in the Bible, and prophesizes the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Job 19:25-27 King James Version (KJV)
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
We are not teaching prophecy to our young people. It is a major evangelistic tool.
The 1948 return of the Jews to Israel needs to be emphasized more. There are no Hittites in New York City! Only Jews…
2 Peter 3:3-7 King James Version (KJV) 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Tony Compolo is against the Left Behind series.
Bob DeWaay writes positively about the Emergent Church and the Purpose Driven Life, and how thousands of pastors have left Biblical expository preaching in favor of Rick Warren’s philosophy.
Tony Jones has given up on “original sin.” He promotes a social gospel and he does not like prophecy.
The following all mock Bible prophecy: Rick Warren, Brian McLaren.net, and Robert Schuller. In the Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren says: “Jesus said prophecy is none of their business.”
False prophecies include the failed predictions by Jehovah Witnesses of Armageddon. Also noteworthy is the New Age Connection by Alice Bailey, predicting the reappearance of the Christ in 1948.
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religion committee leader Dr. Russell Moore has back peddled in doctrine, recommending to Christians in the Bible belt to accept their states’ court decision to allow for homosexual marriages.
Bob Roberts Jr. promotes for Muslim interfaith.
Harold Camping is the poster child of failed Bible prophecy, as all of his dates have crashed and burned.
In the following article written by Thomas Ice, Paul Smith (brother of Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel) expounds on the dangers of the New Evangelicalism proponed by Emerging Church leaders.:
Paul Smith, the younger brother of Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame, has written an important new book entitled, New Evangelicalism: The New World Order. In this book, Smith identifies the snares that threaten to destroy the effectiveness of Bible-believing, gospel preaching, Bible teaching churches, like those within his own Calvary Chapel movement. New Evangelicalism traces the roots for the last hundred years that lurk on the horizon and threaten biblical churches today, by demonstrating how too many evangelicals have already swallowed the poison. Smith not only exposes the problem, which is abandonment of the inerrancy of Scripture, but what the solution is and how it can revive our evangelical churches.
Origins of the Problem
Peter Drucker, the management guru, is identified as the key player that influenced the rise of the church growth movement at Fuller Seminary, which lead to many anti-gospel influences within evangelicalism. Smith demonstrates historically that the existential philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard influenced Drucker leading to his pragmatic theory and approach to community and the church�s role in his ideal community. Karl Barth, the famous Swiss neo-orthodox theologian, also drank heavily of Kierkegaard, who in turn captivated Daniel Fuller, the son of Charles Fuller who founded Fuller Seminary in 1947.
Even though Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California got off to a good start, by the 1960s the Seminary had abandoned inerrancy and started down the slippery slope to modern liberalism. Smith notes that former Fuller faculty member Harold Lindsell documented the Seminary�s demise and abandonment of inerrancy in his famous book entitled, The Battle for the Bible in 1976. Smith provides much more extensive detail of the philosophical and historical backgrounds leading up to the rapid theological demise of Fuller Seminary, which sets the stage for why that school has been at the epicenter of many of the influences that plagued evangelicalism for the last three decades.
At the core of Smith�s book is his belief, which I agree with, that biblical downgrade or apostasy starts with a shift away from belief in the doctrine of the inerrancy. This is true within academic institutions that are supposed to be training the next generation of leaders for the support of the church. Instead, they destroy the confidence in the Word of God, which the next generation of leaders will need to feed and expand the church.
Smith has an excellent chapter entitled, �How Historical Drift Happens.� In this chapter he explains how the world�s way of thinking comes to dominate the church. Basically, it starts with the denial of inerrancy, which means that there is a loss of confidence in God�s Word as the ultimate authority for man. Then, a given church is open to the thoughts of man as having the same authority as the Bible. The next step is to bring things like sociology, marketing, and psychology into the church to provide a basis for one�s philosophy of ministry, which is what the church growth movement has done.
An amazing testimony is provided by Smith of Fuller�s decline from then student Wayne Grudem in 1971, who is today a well-known evangelical theologian.
While I was still an undergraduate at Harvard, I had heard warnings that Fuller Seminary was seriously compromising the truth of God’s Word. Even though these warnings came from such respected sources as Francis Schaeffer, John Montgomery, and Christianity Today, I didn’t believe them. Now I do.
Not one of my courses here has strengthened my confidence in the Bible. Even more distressing is an intellectual narrow-mindedness: I have not had one professor who teaches biblical inerrancy as a possible option. Students that I talk to are completely unacquainted with the great defenses of inerrancy made recently by men like E.J. Young, Ned Stonehouse, and Cornelius Van Til.
I am concerned for Fuller Seminary, bur I don’t have any proposed solutions. The cards are all stacked in the direction of further concessions and compromise. Faculty members seem to think they are holding the only possible solution; those who thought otherwise have left the school. But as for myself, I want a seminary to make me a minister of God’s Word, not its critic. I have no choice but to leave.
The Church Growth Movement
In the 1960s Daniel Fuller, the founder�s son, returned from Switzerland where he had studied at the University of Basel and was taken captive by the liberal theology of Karl Barth. Fuller brought that mentality back to his father�s Seminary, which aided in its decline. The date in which Fuller Seminary officially abandoned inerrancy is identified as December 1962. The downgrade of Fuller Seminary and their low view of the Bible was one of the factors that lead to the founding of their school of church growth, which employed pragmatic and often humanistic principles.
In 1971 C. Peter Wagner became a professor of Church Growth at Fuller. The emphasis upon the social sciences, not the Bible, was the focus of Wagner and others influenced by the �science� of church growth. �The way for many pastors to grow their churches was by using social programs,� notes Smith. Wagner teamed with John Wimber to teach the mystical Signs and Wonders class that became very popular with Fuller students. Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church in Orange County California got his Doctor of Ministry degree from the school of church growth and was deeply influenced by their thought. Combined with his mentor, the unbelieving sociologist Peter Drucker, and the latest from Fuller, Warren moves forward to become the most influential pastor in America.
An Unholy Marriage
�Rick Warren credits the spectacular numerical growth of his Saddleback Church to his Purpose Driven model, an organizational and marketing strategy primarily inspired by Peter Drucker,� says Smith. Warren�s model for growing a church is based upon Drucker�s view of building a social community and has nothing to do with the gospel. Even though Warren uses the Bible, his philosophy of ministry is not taken from the Bible, but is derived from humanistic social theory as he admits. This explains why Warren is engaging in a global effort to further socialism, rather than a global effort to preach the gospel.
Out of the church growth movement of the last forty years has arisen the next progression down the slippery slope away from orthodoxy called the Emerging or Emergent Church movement. Warren and others support this movement. However, Paul Smith notes that his brother totally rejects it and has issued a Calvary Chapel position letter against this threat to biblical Christianity. Chuck Smith is critical of the Emergent movement and notes the following objections: �1. That Jesus is not the only way by which one might be saved. . . . 2. The soft peddling of hell . . . 3. We have difficulty in their touchy-feely relating to God, . . . 4. We have problems with the use of icons to give them a sense of God or the presence of God. . . . 5. We do not believe that we should seek to make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church. . . . 6. Should we seek to condone what God has condemned, such as the homosexual lifestyle? . . . 7. Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices of meditation through Yoga . . . 8. their challenging the final authority of the Scriptures. . . .� Pastor Chuck ends his letter with the following: �There are those who say that [the] Emergent Movement has some good points, but so does a porcupine. You are better off if you don�t get too close!�
Paul Smith believes the slippery slope that too many evangelicals are on is setting the stage for globalism and the new world order, which will usher in the anti-Christ once the true church vacates planet earth via the rapture. There is no doubt in my mind that Smith is right on track. The final form of the apostasy within the false church will be some form of mysticism, which is exactly where the American evangelical church in steadily heading. Everything seems to be moving toward globalism, whether social, economic, political, or religious. Smith notes that even Rick Warren has a global PEACE Plan that he promotes. Promote Reconciliation, Equip Servant Leaders, Assist the Poor, Care for the Sick, and Educate the Next Generation. There are two e�s in Warren�s PEACE plan, but neither stands for evangelism, because the gospel is totally missing from his plan.
Smith does not just curse the darkness in his book, instead, throughout his discourse he tells believers what we should believe and be doing in contrast to the New Evangelicalism. Smith notes how the movement that he has been apart of for over forty years—the Calvary Chapel movement—was built, not on church growth principles and the planning of men, but upon the simple preaching and teaching of God�s Word and His gospel, while relying upon the Holy Spirit to apply that Word to the heart of men, whether believer or unbeliever. When the Word of God is proclaimed, notes Smith, the Lord builds his church. Frankly, the Calvary Chapel movement (with thousands of churches worldwide) is likely having a greater impact globally for the cause of Christ than any other denomination or movement that I know of. This was not the product of human planning but the result of preaching God�s inerrant Word while trusting in the Holy Spirit to open people�s hearts. Maranatha!
 Paul Smith, New Evangelicalism: The New World Order (Costa Mesa, CA: Calvary Chapel Publishing, 2011), 215 pages.
 Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). Lindsell�s follow-up book was The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
 Wayne Grudem, cited from the Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton, IL. Harold Lindsell Collection 192, Folder 6-20ff, Item 3, in Smith, New Evangelicalism, p. 74.
 Smith, New Evangelicalism, p. 95.
 Smith, New Evangelicalism, p. 108.
 Smith, New Evangelicalism, p. 126.
 Smith, New Evangelicalism, pp. 140–41.
 Smith, New Evangelicalism, p. 166.
© 2015 Pre-Trib Research Center. All rights reserved.
As mentioned, the raising of Lazarus was glossed over in the film, and this is the act that gave more people a desire to crucify Jesus Christ than any other event. One week before Christ’s death, the Lord asked His disciples to retrieve a donkey. You Bible scholars already know that He fulfilled Zechariah 9:9 by riding the donkey into Jerusalem. The disciples who retrieved the donkey, suggested that He manipulated the event in order to appear that He was fulfilling prophecy. Yes, a skeptical theme is evident throughout this movie. Fast forwarding ahead to Jesus and the disciples in the garden of Gethsemane: when the officials came to arrest Him, as you may recall, zealous Peter cut off the ear of a soldier. The Bible says that Jesus healed the ear. Again, in consistent fashion, the movie omitted this miracle, one of His last performed on earth. Prior to His crucifixion in the movie, one uttered that “He walked on water and fed the multitudes.” In the background one could be heard asking: “Did you see it happen?” Again implying a lie was being told.
The following episode is classic of so called “Hollywood” poetic license. We know how Judas Iscariot was given thirty pieces of silver for turning Jesus over to the authorities. The Bible tells us that he brought it back to the priests and religious elders in the temple because he betrayed innocent blood. Since it was “blood money,” the priests decided it could not be used for temple service, and reserved it for the Potter’s Field, which was a parcel of land used to bury strangers. It became known as the field of blood. The movie has Judas giving a boy thirty pieces of silver, to purchase a rope that the lad had around his goat! This is the rope Judas hung himself with. Furthermore, the movie has him hanging himself in a level area which could not have happened according to the scriptures. One Gospel account says Judas hung himself. Another says his bowels gushed out down a cliff. Merging the true accounts together we find that Judas hung himself over a cliff, the rope/branch broke, and he fell down the cliff.
In the movie, the authorities gave Jesus a crimson colored robe for His mock trials, yet the Bible says it was purple. The movie quoted it as purple even though it was not. Have colors changed in the last two thousand years? Inri was the only sign placed on the cross. There were no miracles displayed at the cross. The earth did not quake and the sky did not turn dark. The veil in the temple between the holy place and the holy of holies was not shown to be split top to bottom. Lepers were not cleansed, and people did not rise from the dead as the Bible tells us. This could have been the crucifixion of Spartacus rather than Jesus. The thief on the cross who became saved, was far from Christ and never heard from. In the movie, Jesus was never heard saying: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Bill O’Reilly claimed “that would never have been said.” Then O’Reilly quipped “No one being crucified would have made such a statement or have the strength to do so.” O’Reilly’s audacity and foolish presumption is downright scary! A very human Jesus was presented at the crucifixion.
Three days later, the movie displays an empty tomb, asserting no real evidence for the resurrection or suggestion of why His body was missing. The women who came to the tomb, however, smiled as they noticed it was empty. That was probably the largest inference to the resurrection in the entire movie. No angels appeared, the ground did not quake, fearful Roman soldiers were not to be seen, and the resurrection of Jesus was glossed over.
Later, Peter is shown fishing once again, and he caught another huge, miraculous amount after he appeared to be in prayer. The implication was that the Lord enabled the great catch, but Jesus is no where to be seen. In fact, the movie shows no appearances of Jesus whatsoever after the crucifixion, nor is His ascension to heaven displayed either.
Here are a few mind boggling closing statements in the movie: 1)Peter took the “Christian tradition” to Rome, where he formalized the “Mason Christian Church.” [This is classic Catholicism. There was no pope for three hundred years after Peter. Christians do not call our faith “tradition,” we call it the Gospel.] 2)The movie claims once again that “according to tradition John was exiled to the island of Patmos.” This is mentioned in the book of Revelation. The authors again refuse to believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures. 3) Furthermore, they said the Gospel account of John is open to debate in regards to its’ authenticity and authorship. What more is there to say?
Conclusion: There are so many excellent Biblical movies on Jesus Christ that hold to the integrity of the scriptures. For instance, watch the excellent sequel to “The Bible,” on Easter night- it is called “A.D., The Bible Continues…” (9pm/8c, NBC). There is also Jesus of Nazareth, King Of Kings, Ben Hur, The Passion Of The Christ and The Greatest Story Ever Told. To me, watching the movie Killing Jesus was a consummate waste, except to expose it. O’Reilly claims to believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ, but does he believe He is the only way? (John 14:6) Furthermore, what good is accomplished in this film? Lost souls and inquirers to the faith will only become confused by watching it. O’Reilly has a “buffet style” approach to the Bible, and believes in only part of the Bible and rejects the rest. This is in direct conflict with the caption at the beginning of the movie that says it is based on the Bible. O’Reilly arbitrarily decides what is to be taken literally, what is to be accepted as an allegory or hyperbole, and what is to be rejected. He probably vacillates himself from day to day about what he accepts and rejects. [I like Bill O’Reilly and a lot of what he does, such as standing up for the Christians’ right to celebrate Christmas. As a reputable news anchor, he also helped secure the release of an American prisoner in Mexico, who was there on trumped up false charges. Writing books on the King Of Kings however, is not his forte. He needs to stick with writing about Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and George S. Patton]. Let me close with a simple question to you who know you are saved. Would you write such a book, or direct this movie? The scriptures are added to, taken away from, distorted, and tampered with. It is indeed confusing, at least from my perspective. The Gospel is 100% true and there are many movies on the life of Jesus Christ that better represent the true, infallible, inerrant, immutable Word of God.
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever.” Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)
Have A Blessed Easter/Resurrection Day
Maranatha, Pastor Steve
The topography and scenery in the movie Killing Jesus was excellent. (Filmed in Morocco). I also appreciated the melancholy music in the background, featuring the violin and the flute. It seemed to be a good fit for Jesus, a man of sorrows. Part 1 touched on infant Jesus, the paranoid Herod, and the visit from the Magi. We pick up in Part 2, with Jesus leaving Egypt at about the age of ten. In the early going, a lot of emphasis was placed on the Galilean insurrection against Pontius Pilate. (This is mentioned in Luke 13)
Killing Jesus is all about the one size fits all, generic, down sized Jesus. The “Jesus” presented in the movie was so mundane, He would be fully acceptable by the Antichrist and the New World Order (NWO). By attempting to satisfy both believer and unbeliever, the authors have failed with Christians who believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures. No, you cannot please everyone. People who do not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ or believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures love to present their material during holy week. Whether it is The Da Vinci Codes, The Last Temptation Of Christ, or the annual alleged falsehood that the camels mentioned in the Bible were not really used or domesticated during Abraham’s life, and anachronistic to his time, people enjoy exploiting this season. Since Bill O’Reilly is making a “killing” on all of his books, he is no exception either. (pun intended)
At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist. The movie reveals that prior to His baptism, Jesus is mystified because John the Baptist knows who He is. I mean, they were even cousins! Furthermore, John the Baptist gives Jesus a clinic on how God speaks to him in the desert, so perhaps Jesus could follow suit when He is tested for forty days in the wilderness! Jesus is Immanuel, God be with us, and He knows all things. I found the authors’ view of Jesus Christ throughout the movie absolutely surreal. The movie revealed John baptizing Jesus via full immersion, which was indeed the true and Biblical technique used, but that is where the good news ends. There is no manifestation of the Trinity like the Bible tells us. The Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit came as a dove. Why is this not mentioned? Because the authors did not think it happened. During conversation between John the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus does not seem to realize He is more than a carpenter, and does not have a grip and understanding of His own mission. Jesus’ demeanor throughout the movie is very human, featuring no Messianic distinction. He lacked the calmness, the I am in control persona, that we would expect from God the Son. Also noteworthy is His somewhat angry countenance at times (His mother Mary told Him “You are angry at God.”), at other times He is worried and anxious, walking in a fast and irreverent gait. In a later scene, Jesus prayed, and His disciples caught an extraordinary amount of fish. Jesus also cast out a demon from a young boy, and appeared to have healed a leper. That was pretty much the extent of the miracles displayed in the movie. Both John the Baptist and Jesus fearlessly addressed the Pharisees as “a generation of vipers,” severely chastising them. John the Baptist was arrested and later beheaded, both in accordance with the scriptures. In the movie, Jesus does not preach with authority, unction and power, sounding more like an ordinary man. The Bible says that no one ever spoke like Jesus. Some scriptures were spoken out of context, and/or at a time that was in conflict with that in the Bible. One example is when Jesus was in the temple, He told the Pharisees “that one stone would not be left upon another.” In reality, He said this to the disciples during the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:2). He told the Pharisees “destroy this temple and it shall be raised in three days.” Of course we know He was not even referring to the temple but to His own body, and His death, burial and resurrection.
In the next and final entry, we will refer to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, because the story writers and film makers did not see fit to reveal the reality of ANY resurrection in the movie, be it Lazarus or Jesus. Jesus’ numerous post resurrection appearances were totally omitted as was His ascension to heaven. Great Easter story, eh? The “Bible” of Thomas Jefferson has some serious competition.