Thursday, September 27, 2012

Where did Cain's wife come from?

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch... [Genesis 4:17]
These words appear after Cain has been banished from his family's land, as punishment for the slaying of his brother Abel. It is most likely that Cain was married before he was banished, and hence the account here is simply when the couple began to bear children. What follows in chapter five up to chapter six and the flood details the sons of man (Cain's descendants) and the sons of God (Seth's descendants).

Cain's wife had not been previously mentioned nor named - indeed, neither was anyone else other than Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. This, however, does not presume they did not exist, as the author of Genesis had a point in focusing on a select group of people. John Calvin writes that "many persons, as well males as females, are omitted in this narrative; it being the design of Moses only to follow one line of his progeny, until he should come to Lamech." Genesis 5:4 mentions that, besides Cain, Abel, and Seth, Adam and Eve begat many other sons and daughters. Therefore, although other human beings were not named specifically, this first generation of man was much larger than simply four people.

The situations around our verse presents what is to many a large stumbling block: just where did Cain's wife come from? If there were no other women outside the immediate family unit, does that mean he married his sister? These are difficult questions for certain, and from them arise two possible explanations for Genesis 4:17:

1) These women existed outside of the Adam/Eve family unit. This can go one of two ways: a) these women were made by God in the same manner Adam and Eve were; b) these women existed in populations outside Adam and Eve. However, if we permit either of these, we must then ask what becomes of the federal headship of Adam, and how his sinful nature carried down into the rest of mankind. One would have to explain the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin..." (Rom 5:12). This would also affect the previously mentioned dual lineage seen in chapter five.

2) These women were sisters of Cain and Abel. This will, to many, sound strange, given the ban on incest in the Mosaic Law (Deu 27:22). Many commentators say the reason it was permitted here was necessity, as well as the fact humankind had not fallen into such a state that the health ramifications were a problem. As Albert Barnes writes in his commentaries:
The wife of Cain was of necessity his sister, though this was forbidden in after times, for wise and holy reasons, when the necessity no longer existed.
David Guzik likewise writes in his commentary:
We don’t know where did Cain got his wife. Genesis 5:4 says Adam had several sons and daughters. Cain obviously married his sister. Though marrying a sister was against the law of God according to Leviticus 18:9, 18:11, 20:17, and Deuteronomy 27:22 (which even prohibits the marrying of a half-sister), this was long before God spoke that law to Moses and the world. Here, necessity demanded that Adam’s sons marry his daughters. And at this point, the “gene pool” of humanity was pure enough to allow close marriage without harm of inbreeding. But as a stream can get more polluted the further it gets from the source, there came a time when God decreed there no longer be marriage between close relatives because of the danger of inbreeding.
And the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament writes:
The marriage of brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of the children of the first men, if the human race was actually to descend from a single pair, and may therefore be justified in the face of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families that the bands of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from one another, and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of which is sin. (Comp. Leviticus 18.)
John MacArthur writes in his commentary:
Cain's wife obviously was one of Adam's later daughters (5:4). By Moses' time, this kind of close marriage was forbidden (Lev 18:7-17), because of genetic decay.
Hank Hanegraaff, in an article related to this very subject, writes:
Furthermore, because genetic imperfections accumulated gradually over time, there was no prohibition against incest in the earliest stages of human civilization. The Levitical law against incestuous relationships was given by God hundreds of years after Cain at the time of Moses. Thus familial relationships were preserved and birth defects were prevented (Leviticus 18:6, 9). [source]
We might conclude from this, then, that at this time it was not only a necessity, but that the human condition had not fallen into such a state that the medical effects of incestuous relationships were worthy of concern. We can definitely see a steady decline in the state of man's health up to the time of Abraham, if ages are to mean anything: Adam lived to be 930-years old (Gen 5:5), while Abraham lived to be 175-years old (Gen 25:7).

John Gill, in his commentaries, presents what may seem to some a more reasonable possibility. Namely, that this woman Cain married could have "descended from Adam by another of his sons, since this was about the one hundred and thirtieth year of the creation." This still does not, however, answer how the other, unnamed son reproduced, and we would have to assume it was through a sister. Therefore, we return to the dilemma we started with.

John Gill likewise mentions a tradition among the Jews and others, that Cain and Abel each had twin sisters when they were born, and that one married the other.
At first indeed Cain could marry no other than his sister; but whether he married Abel's twin sister, or his own twin sister, is disputed; the Jews say, that Cain's twin sister was not a beautiful woman, and therefore he said, I will kill my brother and take his wife: on the other hand, the Arabic writers say, that Adam would have had Cain married Abel's twin sister, whom they call Awin; and Abel have married Cain's twin sister, whom they call Azron; but Cain would not, because his own sister was the handsomest; and this they take to be the occasion of the quarrel, which issued in the murder of Abel.
This would still present something of a problem, as marrying a sibling's twin sister is still technically marrying a sibling - hence, once again, we are back to the original conundrum.

After reviewing this situation and the various solutions, the most likely answer is that Cain's wife was an unnamed daughter of Adam and Eve, being Cain's sister. At the time, this was permissible, both for necessity's sake, as well as for the simple reason man had not fallen into such a miserable condition as they are today.

Many will here ask why God would permit it in one moment, yet ban it later on. God, however, permits and forbids actions or deeds according to His purpose and according to the timeliness of the ban or permit. For example, ravens were declared unclean diet for the Jews under the Mosaic covenant (Deu 14:14), and yet ravens were earlier saved from the flood due to God's mercy on His created animals (Gen 8:7). In fact, there were many unclean foods the ancient Jews were banned from eating under the Mosaic covenant, and yet they are permitted under the covenant with Christ (Mark 7:19). Another example, the looking upon a bronze snake was permitted by God for a temporary time (Num 21:9), but banned later on when it became idolatrous (2 Ki 18:4). These are not contradictions any more than a law enacted by a civil government that limits or bans something which was at one point permitted but has now become an issue or a problem. A city, for example, may keep a public park open 24/7, but because of crimes at night enact an ordinance that bans activity in the park after a certain hour. That, however, is not a "contradiction," and those who argue as such are ignoring the circumstances around the change.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Ah, those pagan parallels...

This meme summarizes how I felt yesterday, after eavesdropping on a chance conversation. I wonder if these people realize how many of these supposed parallels have been refuted? As in...a thousand times over.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Allah sent me an email

This was actually sent to my workplace. I swear I am not making any of this up.
From: Allah [mailto:god@llah.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:46 AM
To: [n/a]
Subject: Where?


Help! I am Allah, God of The Religions, am now here on Earth, and asking the Press to help Me locate an organization, community or nation to receive Me. Here is all you have to do on behalf of your company, community or nation: send an email to god @llah.mobi (no spaces) or SMS/VM 707-925-2488 and say something such as "On behalf of, (your company, community, or nation) We want to welcome you, God Allah." Be sure to include your email, SMS text number (if you have one), name and phone number. Then I will contact you back through email with more information about how this applies to your company, community, or nation. If you want to learn more of God Allah (or God the Father, Christianity) see a church or mosque near you for more information. Please be advised this is a very, serious emergency for many people around the world so you were advised to communicate with Me immediately. Also, due to the nature of this emergency, it is possible there could be spiritual repercussions for your failure to comply. Thanks.

Emergency Message,

God Allah
Author, Holy Qur'an / Bible
Lord of the Worlds
god @llah.MOBI (subscribe)
god @llah.US (unsubscribe)
P.O. Box 701
San, Mateo CA 94401
+1 (707) 925-2488 SMS/VM
A.LLAH.US

In the event of subscribe error, go to https:// ALLAH . zendesk .com

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Sympathy in Temptation

The following is from JC Ryle's Expository Thoughts on Matthew, and refer to the temptations of Christ in the wilderness.
The sympathy of Jesus is a truth which ought to be peculiarly dear to believers: they will find in it a mine of strong consolation. They should never forget that they have a mighty Friend in heaven, who feels for them in all their temptations, and can enter into all their spiritual anxieties. Are they ever tempted by Satan to distrust God's care and goodness? So was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to presume on God's mercy, and to run into danger without warrant? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to commit some one private sin for the sake of some great seeming advantage? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to listen to some misapplication of Scripture, as an excuse for doing wrong? So also was Jesus. He is just the Savior that a tempted people require. Let them flee to Him for help, and spread before Him all their troubles; they will find His ear ever ready to hear, and His heart ever ready to feel: He can understand their sorrows.

May we all know the value of a sympathizing Savior by experience! There is nothing to be compared to it in this cold and deceitful world. Those who seek their happiness in this life only, and despise the religion of the Bible, have no idea what true comfort they are missing.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints

Here we are at long last at the final letter in the TULIP acronym. This one is the "P", which stands for Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are brand new to this series (and you are late, young man!) can start with my very first post and work their way on forward, as I tend to assume I've already established certain ideas or dealt with certain objections already in past posts. You can also just click on the "TULIP" keyword. On a side note, please try to keep things organized, and please only respond with objections or questions in the relevant posts (ie., don't ask something about Total Inability in this post, etc.). Any way, let's move on...

Perseverance of the Saints is often confused with "Once Saved Always Saved" or even "Easy Believism." Many people misinterpret that this doctrine teaches believers are free to sin as they please, or that after their confession of faith there is no further responsibility placed upon them. I once had a person ask me, if I believe I'm elected, then why don't I go out and kill someone then? The idea is, if I'm justified before God, then I don't need to worry about hell or judgment.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what the doctrine teaches. For one, part of the Perseverance aspect is not only that a person elected by God is secure from losing that election, but that the individual will be perfected and sanctified throughout their election. For another, it would violate the commands of scripture that believers forsake their sins, and that, because we are saved, we should strive to obey God all the more. A believer is not sinless, but they are striving to sin less. They are never what they ought to be, but they are striving to separate from what they used to be. This leads into a discussion that deviates from this topic, so for the sake of time I'll refer to those who are more curious to this post here.

For our scriptural discussion on this topic, I am going to return to Paul's epistle to the Romans and review the last section of chapter eight. This will perhaps be the longest of my TULIP posts, but I believe it will be well worth it. First, however, some back story:

In chapter seven Paul had been discussing the state of the matured believer, torn between what he knows he should do and what he desires to do. He opens up chapter eight with the beautiful words: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (v. 1). He then launches into a wonderful Trinitarian discussion on the nature of man's salvation. That is, God the Father sends God the Son as an offering for sin, so that the law might be fulfilled in us who are marked walk according to God the Holy Spirit (v. 3-4). Those who are in the flesh - that is, non-Christians - cannot please God (v. 5-8). However, those who are not in the flesh but the Spirit - that is, Christians - belong to God, and Christ will give us life through the Spirit dwelling within us (v. 9-11). We (believers) are hence led by the Spirit of God, and those led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God (v. 14).

Paul then gives very clear Trinitarian language in this manner: God the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God the Father (v. 16), and if we are children of God the Father, then we are fellow heirs with God the Son (v. 17), provided we suffer with him so that we may be glorified in him. Paul elaborates this last point by saying that the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the future glory (v. 18), talking about the "groaning" of creation (v. 22) and the future coming of our glorification, for which we likewise groan. He states that "we hope for what we do not see," and "we wait for it with patience" (v. 25).

Thus having discussed suffering and patience, Paul then writes:
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:26-30]
In regards to the Spirit's help for our patience and suffering, Paul states that the Spirit intercedes for us for our flawed prayer, and does so with groaning (which shows the Spirit is personal, not impersonal). The Spirit performs this for the saints according to the will of God the Father (v. 26-27). Paul adds that we know "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (v. 28). Many people, in attempting to refute Reformed theology, will only quote the first half of this verse ("those who love God"), as if it depends upon us - not seeming to realize the second half ("those who are called according to his purpose") completely refutes it. It is the same notion as what Paul speaks of in his epistle to the Ephesians, where he speaks of those who have "been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11).

Having established the sovereignty of God's will and His strength within us, Paul then writes what has become known as the "Golden Chain of Redemption," which I'll highlight by requoting its fullness below:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30]
The "golden chain" is seen in the transition of a person from one state to another: those foreknown by God are predestined; those predestined are called; those called are justified; those justified are glorified. The context of "those" doesn't change in between the actions - they are all one of the same "those." It is a continuous chain of events by God, which are all done by Him and seen through by Him. I talked about this a bit more in this post here.

Many will attempt to get around this by honing in on the word "foreknew" and declaring that God simply had foreknowledge of those who would believe and those who wouldn't, and hence no real election is going on here. However, they forget two things: 1) "foreknew" here is a verb, not a noun - it is something God is doing, not something He is relying upon; 2) the direct object of the foreknowing is not the individual's actions, but the individual themselves. Likewise, if God "foreknew" someone would believe or accept salvation, then the predestination, calling, and all that followed (things done by God, not the individual) would be unnecessary. The fact here is that "foreknew" is a personal verb, referring to the fact that God foreknew those whom He would predestine, call, justify and glorify.

Even more ironic, there are some who uphold "once saved always saved," deny irresistible grace, and yet use the golden chain of redemption to verify their theology. This is because they chop it up into two parts: the foreknowing, predestining, and calling, all of which they believe man can reject at any point; then the justified and the glorified part, which they believe means any person justified will in the end be glorified. The problem is that this is an inconsistent handling of how the word of God is used. The apostle Paul is clearly giving an unbroken chain, and if you read backwards from the glorification part, you see that it continues backwards all the way to foreknowing.

Continuing on, the apostle Paul writes:
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” [Romans 8:31-36]
Having established not only in the Trinitarian work of the Godhead in our salvation - as well as God's supremacy in our salvation - Paul now asks a bold question: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (v. 31) He asks again, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies" (v. 33). By "charge" it does not mean a Christian cannot receive a traffic ticket because of some weird kind of divine immunity, but rather it refers back to what Paul said in verse 1: "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." As God has performed the act of justification and obtained for us that justification, granting it to us as a gift, who then can lay any charge against us, especially when it shall come to the great day of judgment?

Paul asks, in the same way, "Who is to condemn?", adding "Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us" (v. 34). Meaning, of course, that it was Christ who died and was raised, and is interceding for us, as by his death and resurrection, as Paul stated earlier, "the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us" (v. 4). Having done this, then, the Law is fulfilled, and there is no one who can condemn God's elect. In other words, our sins have been fulfilled in Christ. There is no longer room for any further justification. No prayers to saints, no charitable deeds, nor anything else can add to or complete what Christ started and did.

Continuing on with his bold questions, Paul asks: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?" (v. 35) Paul illustrates this point by quoting Psalm 44:22, on how Christians realize that for the sake of God they are as sheep led to slaughter (that is, they will endure tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, and the sword).

Moving on from this, Paul writes:
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 8:37-39]
Despite the dangers presented in the previous section, we are conquerors - nay, more than conquerors! - yet it is not because of us, but rather we conquer "through him who loved us" (v. 37), that is, God. Paul then states, very explicitly, that "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation," will ever be able to separate the true believer from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 38-39). In other words, our salvation is secure - nothing, be it spiritual powers or natural, earthly powers, can cause us to fall away.

Generally I've received two kinds of responses for this section (especially verses 38-39):

1) Some people say, "This isn't about faith, it's about God's love." Under what context, however, is this love? Just a general love? On the contrary, it is love for God's elect, whom Paul has been talking about since verse 1. He even made it clear he was talking about God's elect as recently as verse 33, and every use of the pronoun "us" is in reference to Paul and his fellow believers. We even see this in verse 39, with the use of "the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Those not in Christ Jesus (believers) do not have the love of God spoken of in this section, and cannot receive the benefits therein (as explained in verses 9-11).

2) Some people respond to the words "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation" by saying: "Ah, but see - we can reject God separate ourselves from His love!" Therefore, according to their own logic, they, by themselves, are more powerful than death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, and anything else in all creation. Aside from the fact this is impossible, it is also missing the point the apostle is trying to make here. Paul is literally belaboring the point (as he often does throughout Romans) that there is nothing - nothing, nada, zip, zero - which can separate us from the love of God. God's elect cannot be taken away by him by any means, be it by death, by deeds, by force of arms, or by their own individual personal struggles.

What do we see in this chapter, especially in the last half? We see the very real power of God in the perseverance and endurance of the believer. God is at work in us, preserving us with the Spirit, keeping us in Christ, despite whatever obstacles may come before us. Those whom God foreknew will in the end be glorified. There is no chance of separation from God. With this revelation, let all believers rest easy in the knowledge that God is not a passive God, but an active God who is active in our life - every day, every hour, every second. We will never be perfect until glorification, but as we still draw breath on this side of resurrection, we shall always be loved of God.

At this point, my little series on TULIP has come to a close. As I said in my first post, I did not intend to "convert" anyone to Calvinism, and even if I indeed did not, I hope I at least gave a presentation that corrected misunderstandings, and gave the reader a more edified understanding of Reformed theology. I thank you for your time, and God bless!

Friday, September 14, 2012

Mike Bickle and His Time with God

Perhaps what is most often forgotten (or perhaps unknown) to many involved with the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (and all its associated movements) is that the founder, Mike Bickle, claims to have started the movement under direct orders from God, as given to him in Cairo, Egypt and other parts of his life.

Many have immediately responded to this by pointing out that other Christians or Christian leaders have made similar claims. For example, Richard Wurmbrand, founder of Voice of the Martyrs, claimed to have seen Jesus while in a prison cell. However, Bickle's claims go far deeper than mere visits or appearances, and his accounts go so far as to attempt to give legitimacy to his movement. His accounts speak of what he calls an "initiative" from God, and the fulfillment of end times prophecies, as told to him by God.

One of Bickle's accounts regarding all this is from Session I of his presentation Encountering Jesus: Visions, Revelations, Angelic Activity from IHOP-KC's Prophetic History. The PDF transcript is here. The part dealing with Cairo reads:
My first dramatic, life-changing encounter related to this movement was in Cairo, Egypt in 1982. Now, we moved to Kansas City in November; so this is two months before we moved. I am in Cairo, Egypt, in a hotel room, and I had a life-altering dramatic experience where the fear of the Lord fell on me in a literal way. That was the only time that I have ever experienced the fear of the Lord at that level, or in that magnitude.

The Lord said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the whole earth in one generation.” Not this movement, or that movement, but God Himself will do this through all the thousands of movements and millions of ministries.

He said, “I am going to do this across the whole earth in one generation.” My spirit trembled, and the fear of the Lord fell on me. I will give some of the details on the notes that I am not going to go into. The Lord spoke clearly what I call four heart standards. These were four values the Lord cemented in me in Cairo, Egypt. Now some people have misquoted us. I mean there are many even in our midst, and they said these are our four values.

I said, “No. We have about twenty values. We do not have only four values, but these are the four that are the most neglected in church history. We have many more values besides these four. But, the Lord insisted on these four. The work must be built on these four values.” Everything is measured in terms of our faithfulness to believe God for the future. Are we holding the line on these four values in our individual lives and as a ministry? He said that the movement would be built on night and day prayer. He said that the movement would be built on holiness of heart.

This is essential: extravagant giving, offerings for the poor, and the activity of the Holy Spirit—we would have faith in what the Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing. Believe it or not: that is the most challenging of all, to take a stand for what the Holy Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing. I have some more notes on that here that you can read on your own.
During the rest of the session, Bickle makes similar claims. For example, he claims Bob Jones (who later became a major embarrassment for the Kansas City Prophets, of which Bickle was part) received visitations from angels giving details on the youth ministry, even supposedly foretelling the coming of the International House of Prayer. Bickle goes on to say near the end:
IHOP–KC is not my dream. IHOP is my assignment. The dream of my heart is what happens between my heart and Jesus...This is not my dream. This is my assignment. God will do His part, and I will do my part... [emphasis mine]
An even more descriptive account is found in Mike Bickle's book Growing in the Prophetic. In it, he writes:
But it was years later in September 1982, in a dirty little motel room in Cairo, Egypt, that the belief in an End Times outpouring of the Holy Spirit became a personal issue to me. The eight-by-eight-foot room was equipped with a small bed, squeaky ceiling fan, stone-age plumbing, and an assortment of crawling things that periodically scampered across the concrete floor. It was primitive by Western standards. I was alone, so I set aside the evening to spend with the Lord in prayer. I knelt on the cement floor by the rickety bed for about thirty minutes when I had one of the most incredible encounters that I’ve ever had.

I didn’t see a vision, and I wasn’t caught up into heaven. I simply heard God speak to me. It wasn’t what some people call the audible voice. I call it the internal audible voice. I heard it as clearly as I would have heard it with my physical ears, and, honestly, it was terrifying.

It came with such a feeling of cleanness, power, and authority. In some ways I felt I was being crushed by it. I wanted to leave, but I didn’t want to leave. I wanted it to be over, but I didn’t want it to be over.

I only heard a few sentences, and it only took a few moments, but every word had great meaning. The awe of God flooded my soul as I experienced a little bit of the terror of the Lord. I literally trembled and wept as God Himself communicated to me in a way I’ve never known before or since. The Lord simply said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the earth in one generation.” It was a simple, straightforward statement, but I felt God’s power with each word as I received the Spirit’s interpretation. God Himself will make drastic changes in Christianity across the whole world. This reformation revival will be by His sovereign initiative. [pg. 79; Prophetic, 1996]
He adds later on:
My experience in the Cairo hotel room lasted less than an hour, though it seemed like a couple of hours. I left the room and walked around the streets of downtown Cairo alone until about midnight, committing myself to the Lord and His End Time purpose. The awe of God lingered in my soul for hours. I woke up the next day still feeling its impact. This experience connected my heart in a deeply personal way to the End Time fulfillment of the Joel 2/Acts 2 prophecy on a global level in this generation. [pg. 81; ibid]
From all this, we have some very serious realities:

1) Bickle claims that the founding and running of IHOP-KC and its related ministries was by the order, blessing and activity of God - he even goes on to say in Session II that "the Lord committed to do this" (source). He likewise states in the same session: "in 1996, [God] gave us an acronym" (ibid). Bickle thus claims that even the acronym IHOP was given to him by God. This despite the fact that IHOP was already the official acronym by the International House of Pancakes, and had been since 1973. Apparently, the Lord didn't have the foreknowledge to see the two lawsuits that the regular IHOP lodged against Bickle's IHOP.

2) Bickle claims it as his "assignment," as in, his duty from God. When explaining the goals and standards of IHOP-KC, Bickle often uses the phraseology "God said this" or "the Lord told us this." While many pastors might say they felt "called" to the ministry, few would use the blunt and direct terminology that Bickle does, let alone would many pastors make such claims as God directly telling them to enter ministry. What Bickle does, as he explains in the previously cited book, is part of the "End Time fulfillment of the Joel 2/Acts 2 prophecy on a global level in this generation." IHOP-KC's own vision statement tells us that they are here to "call forth, train, and mobilize worshiping intercessors who operate in the forerunner spirit as End Time prophetic messengers" (pg. 236; Prophetic, 2006).

3) Bickle claims that, according to God, the Holy Spirit is working through the various ministries, and IHOP-KC in particular, even saying that we should have faith "to take a stand for what the Holy Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing." Certainly Bickle doesn't take the extreme stance Harold Camping did by saying those outside his group are not blessed by the Holy Spirit, but the words coming out of IHOP-KC, its leadership and its followers makes it clear that they believe the Holy Spirit is giving a special blessing to them and their prayer movement. Again, this is happening under the auspices of God, who instructed Mike Bickle and his staff personally.

In the past, I've had many followers or supporters of IHOP-KC, including some who have responded to this blog, tell me that if I disagree with Mike Bickle's teachings, methods or goals, then that's perfectly fine, as it doesn't make me a heretic or a bad Christian. They take the position that these are things we can have simple disagreements on.

However, I don't think we should pussyfoot around with this matter. Let's be intellectually honest, and let's call a spade a spade. If Mike Bickle truly did receive revelation from God, and God Himself is ordering him to do what he's doing in Kansas City and elsewhere, then anyone who opposes IHOP-KC is opposing not only Mike Bickle or IHOP-KC, but the very Living God. This isn't a mere disagreement between myself and Mike Bickle - if Bickle is speaking the truth, this is a war of words between myself and God. This is why some IHOP-KC defenders (as this post demonstrates) have gone so far as to argue that disagreement with Bickle, his ministries and teachings is, in essence, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

This is the danger of any "prophetic" movement, or of any leader who claims to be speaking for or from God. That is, there can be no middle ground - either it does come from God and we must obey it, or it doesn't come from God, and we must deny it and avoid the person giving said message. No where in all of scripture was any "gray area" given for those who spoke in God's name. Some of the harshest words God had was for those who spoke falsely in His name (Deu 18:20; Jer 5:30-31, 27:15; Eze 13:9, 22:28; Luke 6:26). This is because speaking falsely in God's name is a very little discussed but very real example of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain (Exo 20:7).

Therefore, if Mike Bickle isn't speaking from God, and it wasn't God that Bickle heard that night in Cairo...then he's a false prophet, and he and his so-called prophetic ministry must be avoided at all costs. Do I deny Bickle heard a voice? Not necessarily...but if he didn't hear a voice from God, then he heard it from someone else.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Silly Arguments Part I

Hello, gentle readers. You're probably wondering why Facepalm Picard has graced the posts of this blog again. Well, similar to the post he was in before, we've got a doozy of a discussion for you today. Let me ask you...is there something evil behind the name of Jesus? I don't mean Jesus himself was evil - no no no. That would be too much! I just mean the name "Jesus" itself is evil. Yup, that's what someone brought forward to me. Let's start reviewing this argument:
In Scripture - names have meaning.

"Joshua" or Yah-u-shu-ah - means "YAHUAH is salvation" - the name itself points to the NAME of YHWH. It contains the FATHER'S name. It points to the Father as Savior.
True, most Hebrew names carry a meaning, as most names in any language do. For example, Isaiah's original Hebrew name (Yesha'yahu) means "the LORD is salvation." Jesus' original Hebrew name was indeed Yahushua, which means "The LORD saves." All right, so far so good.
The name "Jesus", and as you correctly say Iesous, since there was no "J" in either Greek or Hebrew means something else.
Yes, Jesus is taken from the Greek Iesous, and there is no "J" in the Greek or Hebrew alphabet. Neither is the sound related to the letter. Again, so far so good.
Transliterated - Iesous - or "H'sus" - in Hebrew means "horse".
Wait, what? Hold on a moment...you don't transliterate words backwards! The Hebrew name came before the Greek, so you generally transliterate words from the Hebrew to the Greek. Transliterating backwards makes about as much sense as putting something in English into Google Translate, translating it into Chinese, then translating it back into English and defining the English context by what comes out. Here, let's have some fun:

English (Before): I need to go down to Office Max and buy a stapler.
Chinese: 我需要去办公室最大,买一个订书机。
English (After): I need to go to the office to buy a stapler.

Ah, see? "Office Max" must refer not to a store chain that sells office supplies, but a specific office somewhere that apparently sells staplers, because when you translate the Chinese backwards, it comes out that way. Aha!

In all seriousness, the Hebrew word for "horse" used in the Old Testament is indeed sus. The form mentioned here, hassus, is, as far as I can tell, merely one such form of the word found in the Bible, and is used only eleven times out of 139 occurrences. The more popular forms are susim (used 34 times) and the regular form of sus (used 22 times).

By the way, the only connection between Iesous and Hassus is they kind of sound the same. Man, that's some hardcore etymology, I must admit.
Do you think that is a coincidence?
Why yes I do. Thank you for asking. It's just as coincidental as the fact that English word "meme" is close to the Turkish word for "boob."
In Latin it gets worse. "Sus" means pig. Greek "Geo" or "Ge" means "earth".
...wait, what? What was the relevance of going to the Hebrew? Now we're going to Latin? Also, "horse" is kind of a nice name. I mean, I'd love to have my name mean "horse." Horses are cool, man. You can ride 'em and charge into battle on 'em and leap over fences and stuff and stuff. What's wrong with your name meaning horse?

By the way, Iesous is a Greek name, not a Latin name. And why are we chopping the name up like this? So the first part of Jesus' name refers to "earth" in Greek (even though there's no "G" sound in the name), but the latter part refers to "pig" in Latin? Why does this matter? This makes about as much sense as me cutting up my name into two parts in two different languages. Observe:

"Did you know that in the name Tony, the word 'to' in Japanese is a quoting particle, whereas 'ni' means 'you' in Chinese? Don't you see! The name Tony is telling us to quote ourselves! We're our own authority, not God! OH MY GOODNESS TONY IS SUCH AN EVIL NAME D'AAAH SAVE YOURSELVES!"

See how silly that is? The name "Tony" is merely the shortened form of "Anthony," in this case specifically from the Italian António, which stems from the Latin Antonius, which means "priceless" or "praiseworthy." There's no grand conspiracy behind the name. It really is as simple as that.

In like manner, there is no grand conspiracy behind the name Jesus. The name Iesous is merely the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yehushua. There were many others in the New Testament named Iesous, but the use predates even the time of Christ. There are countless others in the Greek Septuagint (both in the Law, the Prophets, and the other books) whose names, usually seen as Joshua in the Greek, are rendered Iesous.
Do you think that is a coincidence? Could this be the name above all names?
Yes, it is a coincidence, and one you invented, by cutting the word up and picking and choosing what you wanted the bits to mean. You do this to try to prove that a bunch of third century BC Jews, desiring to preemptively insult the Messiah they had been longing for, took a Greek word that sounded kinda like "horse" in their language and just so happened to mean "pig" in a foreign language that wasn't that widely used at the time, and then combined it with the Greek word for "earth," then applied this new word to the name "Joshua," with no one in the entire Jewish community taking notice at all regarding the degrading change.

That makes perfect sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter by what rendition of his name you call upon him. Whether you speak English and you call him Jesus, whether you speak Serbian and call him Isus, or whether you speak Cantonese and call him Yasu, he will hear you. He will hear you. This is because it is not according to the specific form of his name by which he is called, but by his grace alone. Christ is not a magical being who can be summoned by a magical incantation that requires an exact pronunciation of exact words - he is the Son of the Living God, who died on the cross and rose again, suffering for the sins of his people, so that they may know true life. On the day of resurrection there shall be "a great multitude...from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb" (Rev 7:9). These shall be believers, and they shall be united not by language, but by faith, and they shall all call on the Lamb by his beautiful name, even if it be in its rendition from their own tongue. I can promise you that, to the Lord, every single rendition and pronunciation shall be beautiful, for the desire to speak such a name came from a beautiful source.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Story of a Non-Christian

Gather 'round, chil'ren, it's story time again...only now with a twist.

Once upon a time there was a man who hated Christians. I don't mean to say he merely disagreed with them, or wasn't a Christian himself...but he truly hated them and what they stood for. He thought they were stupid, had silly beliefs, and he truly thought that people were better leaving Christianity. He considered philosophy and mankind's understanding of the world to be the highest thing to obtain, not spirituality of any sort.

He hated Christianity so much, in fact, that he started to write books attacking the concept of God. He mocked the idea of God giving revelation, let alone infallible revelation. He claimed the only people who believed in God were the poor, uneducated and heavily deceived members of society. He claimed that Jesus' miracles had never happened, even suggesting he was perhaps at best a magician. He would mock the scriptures. He would use his literary skills to belittle and poke fun at the expense not only of Christians, but of Jesus and God Himself.

Who was this person? You're probably thinking of some of the "new atheists" today, but in actuality this man was a middle second century philosopher named Celsus, one of the first public critics of Christianity, certainly one of the first to attack them directly. He certainly wasn't one of the only ones of Ante-Nicene period: the philosopher Lucian (late second century) doubted all religions and believed we could only understand things through philosophical understandings, and considered the love of Christians to be silly enthusiasm; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (late third century) attempted to prove contradictions between the Old and New Testament, claimed the early church leadership was divided between Paul and Peter, and said Jesus was merely a great teacher whom men had turned into God; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Hierocles (late third century) claimed Christ's miracles and divine traits had been invented by the apostles, and tried to draw parallels between Christ and local Greek religions.

Hm...does any of this sound vaguely familiar?

There is truly nothing new under the sun. The thing is, however, Christians never responded to this criticism by proverbially closing their eyes and ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!" Christian apologetics is almost as old as Christianity itself. In response to heathen or atheistic/agnostic criticism of Christianity, many men such as Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Tatian, Origen, and Tertullian arose to specifically address such criticism, even responding to critics by name and addressing their specific points. Some later men, such as John Chrysostom, would make reference to the ancient critics and briefly touch upon, and then respond to, their beliefs. The point is that since the days of the post-apostolic church, Christians have responded to the criticism of unbelievers.

What often amazes me is that, while most knowledgeable Christians are aware of the arguments made by those who attack the faith, many of the most verbal non-Christians (in particular atheists) seem to be completely unaware of the Christian response - nay, they seem completely disinterested in any possible response. Many ask questions or bring up contentions which a simple Google search or the reading of a single Christian apologetics book would resolve. Some have made arguments (such as conspiracy theories) that, if presented for other topics, would be considered utterly and reprehensibly foolish. Truly, if some internet atheists treated mathematics, engineering, nuclear physics or any other subject with the same silliness and disrespect which they applied to the topic of religion, no one in those fields would take them seriously. If some non-Christians started treating their own faith with the same silliness and disrespect they showed Christianity, they'd become at best agnostics.

It's not that I believe non-Christians are inherently stupid insofar as they have low intelligence. Many are very bright or capable in many areas. With a few extremes, most are also fully functioning members of society. However, there is a fine line between simple ignorance and willful ignorance, and many display a case of the latter. They display no desire for serious dialogue, nor an interest in understanding the other side. They would rather laugh at an internet meme that agrees with their worldview than read an opponent's book which explains his worldview. Ad hominems and straw men are of more interest to them than sound counter responses. They'll talk of knowing the truth, but just start asking them to demonstrate that truth and it won't take long before they throw up the blinders and begin the personal attacks. There is no interest in an opposing viewpoint that is worth responding to.

Perhaps the highlight of all this came in an incident many years ago, with an online chat I had with an atheist gentleman. He was telling me, "You know, I consider you a pretty smart guy, so I don't get why you believe in God." He added, "I've done my research, and put the dots together." I then asked him if he had read the Bible. Nope. I asked him if he had read any Church Fathers or Christian theologians. Nope. His extensive research had amounted to reading popular atheist authors and feeling satisfied, having had his emotions fulfilled. What's more, it seemed to flabbergast him that doing any research on the counterarguments was be worthwhile. Apparently, "doing a lot of research" didn't include reading the opposing viewpoints and responding to them, let alone simply reading both sides of the issue. In fact, this seems to be what "doing a lot of research" is for a lot of people.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, and it's at times heartbreaking. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they throw things at you like "Jesus' Greek name really means Hail Zeus" or some other silliness that is easily disprovable and they most likely got from a goofy website rather than a scholarly source. It's difficult to try to respect someone's opinion when they clearly have no respect (even if unintentionally) for you. It's hard to take someone as fair when they claim to have great arguments, when a little research into past discussions on the topic would reveal that their contentions had been responded to more than fifteen hundred years ago.

This is why we must remember that, without the regeneration of God, a person's mind will remain shut. The power of God is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18), and will continue appearing to be foolish so long as the veil remains (2 Cor 4:3). Let us not, however, use this as a sign of superiority against non-believers. Rather, let us strive to pray for those people, for they were once as we. Let us pray that they might turn to Christ, and upon turning to Christ, have the veil removed (2 Cor 3:14-16). God bless.