Monday, May 2, 2016

Defending Our Faith


Some of the most virulent attacks on Christianity come from atheists who spam creation blogs with their intolerant -- often hateful -- diatribes against our belief in the Bible and faith in God. Even the most civil antagonist will wear you down with their oft-repeated talking points which are a non-starter since they don't allow the Bible to defend itself. (See comments at, Open Letter to a "Skeptic".)

Imagine, for example, a communist debating a capitalist -- but the communist will not hear his opponent's position which he has already determined to be invalid.

So, Christian, you are (at least) stupid for believing as you do; and though the Bible is the subject of our debate it is not permitted to cite the Scriptures, in any way, as being authoritative.

Liberals debate religion in the same manner they debate politics. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage (as Obama and Hillary once did except for political expedience) you are a hateful, intolerant bigot. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Mainstream denominations (Episcopalian, Methodist and Presbyterian) have succumbed to this tactic, and promote the gender agenda in the performance of non-traditional marriage rites, and ordination of practicing homosexuals.

People don't like to hear over and over that they are stupid and hateful so they bend with the prevailing wind, and compromise their faith in God -- and thus their faith.

Liberal pastors graduate from seminary believing that the characters and stories of the Old Testament are Jewish fables. King David, for example, was only a fictional character whose narrative was nothing more than an inspiring tome of courage and valor albeit tainted by the flaws of human nature. An atheist will demand proof that David was a real person. But, of course, we are not allowed to source the Bible for this evidence.

Found in northern Israel (1993) by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran was a stone slab (stela) bearing the Aramaic inscription Tel Dan, or House of David.
The stela’s fragmented inscription, first read and translated by the renowned epigrapher Joseph Naveh, proved that King David from the Bible was a genuine historical figure and not simply the fantastic literary creation of later Biblical writers and editors. [1]
Detractors will otherwise challenge the interpretation which is widely accepted by archaeologists and Bible scholars.

Years ago a fundamentalist preacher called upon his liberal counterparts to provide evidence that the Bible is not inerrant. Be aware that there are seminary-trained pastors who don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. To them it is nothing more than a Shakespearean sonnet -- an ancient literary drama about good and evil.

The liberals did not have to turn many pages of Scripture before they discovered an apparent discrepancy. Did Noah gather two of every kind, or seven of every kind?
And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female (Genesis 6:19).
-- or --
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female ... (Genesis 7:2).
A careful reader will plainly see there is no discrepancy. How can one who is schooled in Bible text ask, "Depending on which scripture in the 'infallible Word of God' one reads, is it two or seven?"

Do they not teach reading comprehension at Seminary? Even the public schools do that. Obviously, Noah took two of every beast, but of the clean animals he took seven. The Seminarian may ask why. For an offering unto the LORD.
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar (Genesis 8:20).
We still have the problem that Noah is, after all, a fairy-tale -- right? It amuses me that an atheist friend will deny Noah's Flood, but then agree with the words of Jesus Christ. But didn't Yeshua make reference to the days of Noah? (See Matthew 24:37.)

And my friend will assert that the story of Jonah was a fable even though Christ cited the prophet as a type, or foreshadow of His own death, burial and resurrection (Matthew 12:40).

The beloved Dr. McGee recalled a dispute he once had with a liberal pastor who denied the Biblical account of Jonah. "Jonah," argued the pastor, "was not a real person, and there was no other Biblical evidence that he even existed." McGee then cited 2 Kings 14:25:
He (Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah) restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which He spoke through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was of Gath-hepher.
"Well," replied the liberal, "that was a different Jonah."

Really? The author of Kings wrote that Jonah was the son of Amittai. Who, then, was the Jonah of whom Christ compared? We read in the Book of Jonah, The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai ... (Jonah 1:1).

This should give us pause to ask, "Is my pastor an anointed man of God, or a wolf in sheep's clothing?"

A skeptic cannot prove that King David, for example, was a fictional character out of Jewish mythology. They will, however, attempt to undermine your faith by disparaging the very thing in which you believe -- the Holy Bible. They will dismiss the Biblical narrative, and deem holy writ to be inadmissible. In other words, you are not permitted to allow the Bible to defend itself.

Truth becomes a lie, and deception becomes reality.

I once had a Marxist poly-sci professor who would not allow me to cite the Constitution in our class debates. When the parameter is such that the subject of debate is off-limits it makes it very difficult to exposit your position. Dare not quote the Bible in a debate about the Bible for that will only elicit condescending sneers.

If God said two-plus-two equals four then forget about using that as a valid counterpoint. It is absurd and pointless to engage in a debate with swine. Now, now ... I didn't call anyone a pig -- Jesus did:
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces (Matthew 7:6). [2]
Brothers, the prowling lion will seek to devour you with lies and deceit. For the preservation of your soul keep sober and alert. Faith is a gift the world does not possess. Are you equipped to defend what the Spirit has so freely given you?

Notes:

1. The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible, Bible History Daily, Dec. 08, 2015.

2. Albert Barnes:

The usual mode of poetry among the Hebrews, and a common mode of expression in proverbs and apothegms, was by the parallelism, where one member of a sentence answered to another, or expressed substantially the same sense with some addition or modification. 

"Dogs" signify people who spurn, oppose, and abuse that doctrine; people of special sourness and malignity of temper, who meet it like growling and quarrelsome curs (aggressive dogs). 

"Swine" denote those who would trample the precepts underfoot; people of impurity of life; those who are corrupt, polluted, profane, obscene, and sensual; those who would not know the value of the gospel, and who would tread it down as swine would pearls. 

The meaning of this proverb, then, is, do not offer your doctrine to those violent and abusive people who would growl and curse you; nor to those especially debased and profligate who would not perceive its value, would trample it down, and would abuse you. 

Visit Us at WordPress

Copyright © 2016 Messiah Gate