In God We Trust – Or Not

In God We Trust – Or Not

In God We Trust

In God We Trust

If you’re a Facebook user, chances are pretty good that every few months you see one of those chain messages being passed around about how newly-minted American money is going to remove “ In God We Trust ” from its inscriptions. While those messages aren’t true as of this point, they do tend to cause quite a bit of controversy and uproar among Christians who believe that one key phrase will no longer be in use. During last Thursday’s episode of Focus Press Radio (Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10 am and 4 pm Central, kttradio.org) we had a discussion about how the folks at the ACLU were doing their best to make sure the phrase “ In God We Trust ” was kept out of all civic Independence Day celebrations. Other efforts in recent years have been made to remove public displays of the Ten Commandments and to keep “ In God We Trust ” off of new monuments because of the flawed interpretation of the concept of separation of church and state.

My question to all of this uproar over keeping “ In God We Trust ” off of public money, buildings, and anything else is this: Who cares?

By that I don’t mean that In God We Trust shouldn’t be written on public displays or that it doesn’t matter that certain people are trying to erase the phrase. I’m simply pointing out that we should reconsider our thoughts on this issue and ask what the point is, what we’re really fighting for.

The problem is that we are more concerned with whether In God We Trust is engraved on blocks of stone or metal coins than we are with it being engraved on people’s hearts. Consider where we stand today: God’s name is currently inscribed all over the buildings in Washington, D.C., yet our nation has still legally slaughtered over 50 million innocent babies in the womb, marriage has been repeatedly compromised by laws and court rulings decade after decade, and the percentage of people in this country who actually recognize Jesus as Lord of all creation by their actions rather than just saying it is embarrassingly low. Much like the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3, our trust is not in God but in our wealth. They trusted in their wealth, their lavish clothing, and their revolutionary medical care. We trust in our wealth, our security, and our heritage as a nation that once saw God as the supreme ruler of the universe.

Are we not like the Pharisees John the immerser preached against in Matthew 3, who put their trust in their Abrahamic bloodline? They were always pointing to the past and defending it with their lives while completely ignoring the teachings that affected their hearts and how they treated those around them. When we defend our national spiritual heritage without  It doesn’t matter who you are or what your past is if you aren’t serving God in the present.

So, I’ll ask again: Who cares if In God We Trust is still on our buildings or coins if people don’t believe it? We have to remember that our work is about souls and the eternal consequences of disobedience. Buildings and coins won’t endure the fires of hell if they don’t bear God’s name, but people will. When we share articles on Facebook about how our nation is turning from God if we take His name off of things but don’t care to share the Gospel with our neighbor, we’ve completely missed the point. Our nation is taking God’s name off of its monuments because it has turned from God, not the other way around. Don’t just fight for the monument, fight for the souls of the people who want to deny God.

In God We Trust means nothing if people don’t actually trust God. That’s just basic logic. If we want to live in a nation and a world where that phrase truly means something again and can be spoken freely in every place, we have to become the salt and light that Jesus called His followers to be in Matthew 5. We have to take the Great Commission upon ourselves and show people why they need to put their trust in God.

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , | Comments Off on In God We Trust – Or Not

Recommended: Job

Job, A Man Whom God Recommended

The book of Job opens by stating, “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil” (Job. 1:1). Four sterling characteristics are mentioned concerning Job. He was perfect, upright, feared God, and eschewed evil. Job was a man whom God recommended as an example of a faithful servant (1:1; 2:3). Let’s notice the four characteristics that made Job a man recommended by God.

job

Job: A recommended man.

First, Job was described as a perfect man. The word “perfect” does not mean that Job did not sin. It simply means that Job was a complete man. He was mature spiritually. Within the context of the book, Job admired that he had sinned (Job. 14:16). Job was perfect in the same sense that other great patriarchs were perfect (Gen. 6:9; 17:1). For example, it is said of Noah that he was “a just man and perfect in his generations” (Gen. 6:9). Yet, we know that Noah was not sinlessly perfect. On one occasion, we have the record of how he became drunk (Gen. 10:20, 21). Likewise today, God does not expect us to be sinlessly perfect (1 Jn. 1:7–‐9; 2:1–‐2). Yet, He still wants us to grow into mature servants. He wants us to “grow in the grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior” (2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:2; Eph. 4:15).

Second, Job was described as a man that was upright. The root meaning of the word “upright” is “straight.” The idea conveyed is that Job did not deviate from the paths of righteousness. Job was careful to do as the Lord had commanded him and not to “turn aside to the right hand or to the led” (Deut. 5:32; 17:11). He wanted to walk in the way that God had selected (Jer. 6:16). He realized that those who follow the paths of unrighteousness “go to nothing, and perish” (Job. 6:18). Sadly, the friends of Job did not address him as an upright man (Job. 8:6). Job came to understand that sometimes “the just upright man is laughed to scorn” (Job. 12:4). Yet, Job continued to be upright in the sight of God. Today, God wants us to walk in the strait and narrow way “which leadeth unto life” (Matt. 7:13, 14). We must remember that, as in the case of Job, God “saveth the upright in heart” (Psa. 7:10) and that the “end of that man is peace” (Psa. 37:37).

Third, Job was described as a man that feared God. Job walked before God with reverence and awe. Job said, “Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job. 28:28). He understood that need for fearing God. Job feared God because of his great power, wisdom, and love, We must learn that if we want to be servants that please God, we must fear Him. Paul wrote, “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Heb. 12:28; Eccl. 12:13).

Fourth, Job was described as one that eschewed evil. The word “eschewed” has reference to the fact that Job turned from evil. Job was a man that avoided the evil lusts of his day. He had avoided both vanity and deceit (Job. 31:5). He had not followed the lust of his own eyes or lusted after another woman (Job. 31:6–‐11). Job had pondered the path of his feet and avoided the pathway of sin. He had removed his “foot from evil” (Prov. 4:26, 27). As servants of God today, we must also eschew evil (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:2). Peter wrote, “for he that would love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensure it” (1 Pet. 3:10, 11).

Job was a man whom God recommended. To the devil, God said, “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?” (Job. 1:8). Job was a shining example of what it means to be a servant of God. May we strive to imitate this man that God recommended.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Recommended: Job

Denied

I Do Not Know You

I remember hearing a story one time of a groupie of a famous singer who tried to get backstage after a concert.  All the man wanted to do was to meet the object of his admiration; yet because he did not possess a pass, he was turned away.  Not to be denied, the man supposedly followed the singer to an exclusive restaurant and attempted to gain entrance by saying, “I’m with him.”  When the “maitre d” asked the singer to confirm the man, he said, “I don’t know him,” and he was denied entry.

denied

Will you be denied?

 

I can’t help but to see a spiritual parallel here. Matthew 25:1-13 tells of five foolish bridesmaids who tried to gain entrance to the wedding; but the Lord said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you” (v. 12).  They were denied entry because they were unprepared for His arrival.  In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” These ones will be denied entry into heaven because they have not satisfied what God requires of them.

What about you?  Where will you stand in the Judgment?  Perhaps you will be pleading your case before God, saying,  “But I loved You!  I believed in You!  I worshiped You!” – only to hear Him say, “I do not know you.  Depart from Me.”  Friend, you do not want to hear those words.  What a sad and terrible day that will be for those who thought they were saved but did not do what God told them to do that they should be saved.  Are you really prepared for that Day?

Posted in Aaron Veyon | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Denied

Husband and Wife in the Quran

Husband and Wife in the Quran

quran

Husband and Wife in the Quran

The Islamic world has not distinguished itself over the centuries in its respect for and kind treatment of women (Austen, 2012; Thompson, 2011; Kotz, 2009; “Melbourne Islamic…,” 2009; “Missouri Couple…,” 1991; “Father of…,” 2008; Schoetz, 2008; “Raped…,” 2007). This observation is unprejudiced and hardly novel. Around the world for centuries, Islamic women have endured a subpar status with Islamic men. As General George S. Patton observed, having witnessed the impact of Islam on the countries of North Africa during World War II:

One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).

No doubt 7th and 8th century Arabian culture contributed to Muhammad’s view of women. However, the Quran stands on its own for its advocacy of female inferiority. For example, in Mohammed Pickthall’s translation of the Quran, Surah 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great (emp. added).

A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation are rendered: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them.” Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” Saheeh International reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Qaribullah and Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Qarai reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).

Observe two startling realizations from this passage:

(1) The Quran explicitly gives sanction to Muslim men to beat their wives. Some translators try to soften the directive by inserting qualifiers like “lightly” (Ali) and “without harshness” (Qaribullah and Darwish), but the Arabic text is unqualified. In stark contrast, the Bible, while assigning differing roles and responsibilities based on gender, nowhere suggests that men have a right to inflict physical punishment on women. The intimidating, overbearing role of men in Islam is proof that the religion was invented by a male.

(2) The command to banish a wife to a separate bed implies at least three concepts that cast Islam and the Quran in an unfavorable light.

First, the Bible and the Quran contradict each other on this point. Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians:

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Corinthians 7:2-5, emp. added).

The Quran says a man may sexually banish his wife, without her consent, as punishment for displeasing him. Yet Paul said a married couple is not to refrain from sexual relations except by mutual consent, and then only for a brief period. One cannot take the position that the Quran and the Bible are both from God. They contradict each other on many matters. Insisting that these differences are due to the Bible having being corrupted is an untenable and unsubstantiated explanation (Miller, 2005, p. 89; Miller, 2013).

Second, when one weighs both the Bible and the Quran’s portraits of deity, it quickly becomes self-evident to the unbiased observer which of the two books portrays the inspired view of women. The Bible contains the fair, compassionate, majestic perspective in taking into account both marriage partners as equals. As Peter stated so eloquently: “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). Both male and female were made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

Third, observe further how the Quran exposes its human origin, demonstrating that it came from man, not God. Women are “wired” differently from men. They have one-tenth the testosterone of men (“Testosterone,” 2011). To suggest that a man could punish his wife by the cessation of sexual relations with her is undoubtedly written from the perspective of a man, and not from the vantage point of most women.

Comparing the Bible with the Quran is a useful exercise. The process calls the inspiration of the Quran into question. At the same time, the Bible’s superiority is reinforced.

Dave Miller – http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=4993

REFERENCES

Austen, Ian (2012), “Afghan Family, Led by Father Who Called Girls a Disgrace, Is Guilty of Murder,” The New York Times, January 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/americas/afghan-family-members-convicted-in-honor-killings.html?_r=0.

“Father of Slain Teen Girls Upset That Daughter Dated Non-Muslim, Police Records Show” (2008), Associated Press, January 9, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/09/father-slain-teen-girls-upset-that-daughter-dated-non-muslim-police-records/.

Kotz, Pete (2009), “Faleh Almaleki Runs Over Daughter in Attempted ‘Honor Killing,’” True Crime Report, October 30, http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/faleh_almaleki_runs_over_daugh.php.

“Melbourne Islamic Cleric Says its OK to Rape Your Wife,” (2009), Herald Sun, January 21, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/rudd-condemns-rape-in-marriage-cleric/story-e6freol3-1111118630585.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.

Miller, Dave (2013), “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4649.

“Missouri Couple Sentenced to Die In Murder of Their Daughter, 16” (1991), The New York Times, December 20, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/20/us/missouri-couple-sentenced-to-die-in-murder-of-their-daughter-16.html.

Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).

“Raped ‘for reading Holy Bible’” (2007), News.com.au, April 17, http://www.news.com.au/national/raped-for-reading-holy-bible/story-e6frfkp9-1111113353497.

Schoetz, David (2008), “Daughter Rejects Marriage, Ends Up Dead,” ABC News, July 7, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5322587&page=1.

Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.

“Testosterone” (2011), Lab Tests Online, American Association for Clinical Chemistry, http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/testosterone/tab/faq.

Thompson, Carolyn (2011), “Jury Convicts Muslim TV Exec of Beheading Wife,” Associated Press, February 9, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/.

Posted in Guest Authors | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Husband and Wife in the Quran

The Blood

The Blood of Lambs or the Blood of THE LAMB?

A profound truth found throughout the Bible is stated so clearly in Hebrews 9:22.  “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission” These words follow the description of what happened at Mt. Sinai. “Moses took . . .the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people . . . he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.”

blood

The Blood of the Lamb or lambs?

Blood was part of the Passover doorposts (Exo. 12:21-23); the sanctification of Aaron and his sons for priestly service (Lev. 8:23-24, 30); the sanctification of the altar for burnt sacrifices (Lev. 8:19); the altar for incense (Lev. 4:7, 25); the book containing the words God spoke at Mt. Sinai tabernacle (Heb. 9:21) and all the people (Exo. 24:8). It is so important to notice the words of Moses, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you” (Heb. 9:20).

The Hebrew writer shows the significance of the events where Moses used the blood of animals. These Old Testament items were only a copy of the heavenly things in the New Testament (Heb. 10:1). They were purified with the blood of animals, but God had a greater sacrifice for the better covenant His son would reveal. These heavenly things themselves should be purified “with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:23). They were so much better than animal sacrifices.

We must not overlook what Jesus said in the upper room. While Moses presented the words of God given at Mt. Sinai to the people and used the blood of animals, he said that the blood of animals was the blood of that old covenant. At the last supper Jesus spoke of blood and a new covenant. Taking the cup, He said, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28).

What significance does this have for us? There was that old covenant, the Ten Commandments (Deut. 4:13). These ten commandments were not given to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob (Deut. 5:2-3). These commands were sprinkled with the blood of animals (Exo. 24:4-7; Heb. 9:21). But God had something far better in mind. The Sabbath was given to Jews who had been slaves (Deut. 5:15). They were to rest on the seventh day just like God did. They were to remember that day by resting.

The new covenant remembers something far more important than slavery in Egypt, it remembers the death of Jesus on the first day of the week. To choose to remember deliverance from slavery is to choose the blood of the animals which purified that day, over the precious blood of Jesus!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Blood