Dystopia

Mankind looks at the future, and it appears to be bleak. This theme has surfaced in dozens of literary works. One of those was The Time Machine, written by H. G. Wells in 1895, which involved a future society in which there were only two races: the Eloi, who lived above ground, were weak and barely able to think; and the Morlocks, who lived under ground, did all of the work, and had Eloi as their food. This kind of future certainly did not bode well for mankind.

There have been dozens of novels of dystopia—a future world where there is oppression or misery. George Orwell wrote 1984, in which Big Brother was watching everyone—and all had to conform to the latest propaganda. It was a thoughtcrime to have any desire for individualism.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World showed a future where people became dehumanized. Both individualism and initiative were discouraged, along with any kind of critical thinking. Families did not exist, since children were created technologically.

Logan’s Run depicted a future where, to avoid overpopulation, every citizen was put to death at the age of 30 in a process called Carousel. People were told the ritual was a form of “renewal.” The only way to escape was to try to make it outside the city to “Sanctuary,” but policemen called Sandmen would pursue if that choice were made.

In Fahrenheit 451, all books were banned and burned when they were discovered. The content of any particular book was irrelevant. All of them had to be burned. Only outside the city was a place where book-lovers lived.

To avoid emotional distress, the society of The Giver opted for “sameness.” Thus everyone lived in an identical, colorless house with a perfect climate. Only one person was granted to be the Receiver of Memories. No one seems to have been able to think critically here, either.

In Divergent, there are five groups of people, and everyone must fit into one (and only one) of those categories, which are Abnegation, Erudite, Dauntless, Amity, and Candor. One of the slogans was: “Faction is thicker than blood.”

One of the most popular of the recent dystopian novels (and movies, which were very well done) was The Hunger Games, in which two youths are chosen from each of the twelve districts after the war to compete in a contest to the death. The purpose was to satisfy man’s lust for violence. The young people in the “games” try to kill each other, as well as face unexpected challenges from the environment on which they do battle—only one champion survives the ordeal.

These are just a few of the dozens of novels about the dismal outlook for man in the future. Why are they so popular? What is so fascinating about them? They have now saturated our culture. Even Zager and Evans locked down the number one spot on the American pop chart back in 1969 for six weeks with: “In the Year 2525.” It also was number one for three weeks in the U.K. and has been recorded in seven different languages. What is the fascination?

Is it that we do not like the way things are going in this world and are afraid that one of these dystopian nightmares will overtake us? Is it the fear that something worse will come upon us than what we now experience? The imaginations of those who have written such novels are certainly keen. Soylent Green was based on the idea of overpopulation. Brave New World played off the development of technology and what it might lead to. 1984 seemed plausible because of the political ideologies involved.

Many seem to fear the taking away of critical thinking and individualism. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged proposes a solution to the nightmares that bureaucratic aristocracies can impose on society—on those who actually produce. Orwell frighteningly talked about convincing children that 2 + 2 = 5. Today we have teachers who say, “It’s okay if you want to believe that.” How long will it be until it is mandatory to believe error?

Apparently, a good many of us have fears that some of these outlined dystopian scenarios might have some validity. It seems that every day less and less of our world makes sense. One wonders at times if we are all being prepped to believe anything and to disregard logic. In many aspects of life, we are told to listen to our emotions—to place the heart above the head, which means that feelings should triumph over intellect, which is scary enough in the present culture.

Why do writers not depict Utopian societies? Maybe that requires even more imagination. And it might be more boring. After all, if life is perfect, no conflict exists, and without conflict, no one is going to have a book readership or a movie audience. What was the last movie anyone saw without a conflict that needed to be resolved? It might be an internal battle that an individual is fighting, but most likely the plot centers on a war between two individuals, two nations, or a small group of rebels against an oppressive regime.

Usually, the reader/viewer is pulling for the one who is being abused, but Winston Smith does not win (1984). Most of the others do because we want to see justice done. We want to see fairness win out. We want the dystopian universe to become normal. Why do we care, since it is only fiction? We identify with the abused individual, and we want them to triumph—just as we want ourselves to be victorious.

The problem that mankind has in general is sin. Dystopian futures frighten us—probably because we can envision them occurring—but problems have existed since the Garden of Eden. Abel apparently had no indication that his brother Cain would kill him (Gen. 4). And look at what happened within a relatively short period of time afterward. As families had children, and little or no disease as yet existed, people truly were fruitful and multiplied. If Adam and Eve had brought into the world only ten children in 100 years (although Adam lived to the age of 930), that would have meant that five couples could have had 50 children in the next hundred years. (These are conservative estimates, as each woman could have had 25 or 50 youngsters.)

By the third hundred years those 25 couples probably had in excess of 250 children who married and reproduced. At that same rate, with only a few deaths by the tenth generation (100 years for a generation, and only ten children per family during that hundred years), there would be a world population of nearly 20 million. In the next 500 years that population would increase to roughly 50 billion people—minus about 31,250 for the first six generations having entirely died off. This is about 7 times the earth’s current population. Genesis 6:5 and 11 describe our dystopian past:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

This world’s condition was not the hypothetical possibility that sprang from the mind of a clever author; it is the dismal reality of the way earth developed. Notice that what is described did not just affect one nation or one city—violence filled the earth. It was not imposed by one regime, such as Stalin murdering perhaps as many as 20 million of his own people—it was worldwide. The description seems to indicate a world in chaos. What had happened to the concept of love? It seems to have been replaced by that of, “Kill thy neighbor.”

No greater dystopia could exist than a world in which love is largely absent. Nothing is quite so ugly as any place in which God has been largely forgotten and the operating philosophy is “the survival of the fittest.” Might makes right means that, if I am more powerful than you, I can take what you have—just like the Danites who stole from Micah. They numbered 600, and they knew what Micah possessed. They entered his house and took his graven image, his ephod, his household idols, and his molded image (Judges 18:18). When Micah’s priest asked what they were doing, they invited him to come with them, too, and he did. When Micah discovered what happened, he protested their stealing of his property. They told him:

“Do not let your voice be heard among us, lest angry men fall upon you, and you lose your life, with the lives of your household.” Then the children of Dan went their way. And when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back to his house (Judges 18:25-26).

Even though this event occurred after the Flood, during what we often refer to as “the dark ages” of Israel’s history, it represents the type of behavior that existed before the Flood. Any time man chooses to exclude God from his thoughts, moral collapse follows close behind. Individuals or the state can confiscate property, control one’s children, and even impose death, should they so desire. And there is no seeming solution to those situations.

In most of the dystopian novels, however, a hero, heroine, or an alliance of rebels succeeds in conquering the evil ruling forces and setting things right. But they always succeed on their own ingenuity and not because of God. Usually peace results but not necessarily morality. Sometimes love triumphs, which is a characteristic of God, but that is about as close to Him as any writer gets. In fact, it is usually the human spirit that prevails. Dystopian novels do not usually exalt God.

In truth, God’s answer to a wicked and perverse world was to destroy it. There was no easy fix. Cleansing the earth and beginning again only lasted for a short time; it was not long before man created idolatry and began to worship the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:18-32). God used the rising and falling of nations to punish those who rejected Him thereafter. Unfortunately, it has never made much difference. People do not usually associate sin with their downfall even though the example of Babylon and Belshazzar is a vivid one. Many have ignored that God punished Israel for their sins and brought them back to their land when they repented. When people choose to forget God, they do not recognize His involvement in these matters.

Christ coming into the world had a powerful effect—for a while. He was certainly the answer to an evil society, but before too many centuries elapsed, even the purest religion became corrupt—and it has never recovered. Man, it seems, in general has rejected the way to an actual Utopia by refusing to apply the principles of Christianity as God designed them. What would the world be like if people showed love and kindness to all—if we were truly united and acted in the best interests of others? What if we truly honored God as a nation?

It will never happen because the free will God gave us allows us to be selfish if we so desire. Only Heaven itself will be where God and righteousness reigns (2 Peter 3:10-13). Only those who truly desire to be there and have proven it by their obedience to God on earth shall ever experience the blessings God has always wanted for mankind. All others will live (continually die) in the worst, inescapable dystopia imaginable (Rev. 20:15).

Letter to Abilene Christian University

LETTER TO ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
by Roelf L. Ruffner

To Whom It May Concern:

I read in the Winter-Spring issue of ACU TODAY that ACU will be adding the papers of Max Lucado to an honored place in the Milliken Special Collections and Archives of the Brown Library. As a Christian, a preacher of the Gospel, a student of Restoration history, and an ACU alumnus (’76), I wish to express my profound disappointment in the University’s decision. It is an undeniable fact that Max is a very popular religious writer who has sold millions of books and influenced millions. I have no qualms with a writer being successful, but at what a price? For example, the other day a Lutheran friend of mine told me that his “pastor” has started using one of Max’s books in his Bible class. With sadness and disgust, I told him that Max was no longer affiliated with the churches of Christ and even the church he serves in San Antonio (Oak Hills) has removed “of Christ” from their sign. Max Lucado is a false teacher, is no longer a brother-in-Christ, and has been marked by faithful members of Christ’s body for a long time (cf. Rom. 16:17-18). He no longer writes, teaches, or preaches the truth of the Gospel (John 8:31-32) as did those who took part in the Restoration or even the founders of ACU.

I have noticed that Max strives to offend no one, in tune with the religious pluralism of our age. You might call his message “cotton candy religion”—all fluffy sweetness yet nothing in the middle. Sin is rarely condemned in his books. I remember seeing him on the Larry King Show a few years ago. He would not condemn the sin of homosexual behavior as the Holy Bible does—in spite of Larry’s many attempts to get him to do so. The gospel Max teaches is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:9). He also downgrades or does not mention the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins for salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1-6) in his writings. When he does mention it in his books, he seems to agree with Baptist false doctrine that a sinner is saved before he is baptized. I attempted to correspond with Max a couple of years ago about this (cf. Mat. 18:15), but all I got was a terse four word reply and a referral to one of his aides. Would any of the Restoration preachers have agreed with Max about baptism? History says no!

Max also has problems with Christian fellowship: he fellowships those not in fellowship with Jesus and His church (Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9-11). He has fellowshipped Roman Catholic priests which none of the Restorers or the founders ACU would have done. Would Max debate Baptist preachers, Presbyterian preachers, and Roman Catholic Church officials, as Alexander Campbell and others did? Would he confront anyone about their religious error? Why then does his “collection” deserve to be in the same room as their work? … Please show some respect for those brave men who risked all for the Cause of Christ and the restoration of New Testament Christianity. Please recall the history of Abilene Christian University and how the founders of ACU in 1906 clave to the Lord and His word rather than the Digressives and their manmade additions to the worship of God. Max Lucado does not deserve to be mentioned in their company.

[Editor’s Note: Who would have thought that a “Christian” college, founded by those who had a commitment to the truth, would ever have honored a heretic like Max Lucado? It is sad that such a letter would ever need to be written, but “our” universities are all headed the same direction; some have just not yet gone as far as Abilene. Brother Ruffner is correct in what he wrote. All alumni should be so vocal.]

The Existence of Hypocrites

Almost everybody knows someone who refuses to become a Christian because, he says, “There are too many hypocrites in the church.” Frankly, there are some. Does that observation qualify as a new revelation? Hardly. Jesus denounced some of the leading scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in Matthew 23. Is it any wonder that some who are respected as Christian “leaders” today could be classified the same way?

In Christianity, we find those like Max Lucado, who grew up being taught the truth but departed from it a long time ago. The same could be said of Rubel Shelly and others. They all know the truth, but they are ignoring it and teaching otherwise because error is more popular. Paul warned that some brethren, who had itching ears, would heap to themselves teachers who would say what they wanted to hear (2 Tim. 4:1-5). No one wants to hear that their sins have condemned them and that they need to repent; it is much more enjoyable to hear that everything is fine and that God just wants everyone to be happy.

On May 10, 2015, the Orlando Sentinel published an interesting article: “Monk Targets Buddhism’s Underbelly.” The story is about a Buddhist monk in Thailand, whose name is, “Phra Issara.” He was being accompanied by bodyguards in public, and he had received bomb threats. His temple was attacked by gunfire last year, and he has also received kidnapping threats. What has provoked all this hostility? Essentially, the reason is that he is trying to rid their religious system of hypocrites (A10). Monks have always been revered in Thailand (which is 95% Buddhist), but many among the 300,000 of them have begun to use their religious system to make money.

Wow! Who would have thought of that—making money off of religion? What have these monks been doing—reading the history of the Catholic Church and its sale of indulgences and relics? Picture Mr. Haney from Green Acres saying, “Mister Douglas, this is a genuine (gen you wine) piece of the very cross on which Jesus was crucified. And it could be yours for only $400.” Or picture the televangelists who promise miracles and cures if you will just send them some “seed” money. While these things are obviously fraudulent, many buy right into it—literally.

Some Buddhist monks are catching on. They have refused to be transparent in their financial dealing; one was caught and forced to return about $30,000,000 that he had embezzled. Thailand’s 38,000 temples rely on donations to function. They receive annually between $3 and 3.6 billion dollars, which averages out to about $80,000 per temple per year. Some of the monks have turned greedy and don’t want to give an honest accounting of how much money they receive.

These negatives (stealing and violence) are not the religion’s fault. Buddhism does not endorse greed (by which some monks seem to be possessed) any more than Christianity does. How many hucksters are out there fleecing people in the name of Jesus? Leaders are susceptible to sin no matter what religion or what denomination they are. Of course, atheists must be excluded. Since they have no objective moral principles to adhere to, they have nothing to violate. Buddhists do, however, and some of their sins were listed:

There have been monks with girlfriends (and boyfriends), drunk monks crashing cars, monks pocketing wads of cash meant for funerals or playing the stock market. And that’s not even mentioning the monks on meth….

The government may be involved in the moral cleanup underway. (Fortunately, there is seldom any hypocrisy in politics.) Last year a military junta took over the country from a democratically elected prime minister, named Yingluck Shinawatra (no relationship to Frank). Yingluck is out of luck because he was “a polarizing figure.” Issara supported the overthrow. The junta has used “ever more dictatorial powers to crack down on opposition politicians, human right activists and the media.” That doesn’t sound good. Issara is said to be a good friend of the junta leader. Since they were reforming the government, Issara thinks the corruption in Buddhism ought to be purged, also.

This monk must be an optimist. He believes the worldliness infesting Buddhism can be fixed. He said:

If I can let the people know about the problems in the clergy that have been piling up for a long time and I find solutions, I’m glad to do this even if I die in the process.

His sentiments are noble, but one authority on Thai Buddhism does not think he will be successful. Commenting on the corruption, Sulak Sivaraksa said:

The fundamental teachings of the Buddha are that we should be transforming greed into generosity and hatred into loving kindness, but the new religions in this country are consumerism and capitalism.

Unfortunately, many Thai men are becoming monks for the benefits, such as a free university education. Any time there is something to gain from religion, it will attract people. How many become preachers because they love Jesus and love the souls of men? And how many become preachers because now they can earn a pretty good amount of money doing so? Has the motive for preaching changed since Acts 20:20, 27?

Sulak said that Thailand has lacked proper moral leadership; therefore misconduct went unpunished. A senior official at the Mahamakut Buddhist University, Anil Sakya, commented on the new reforms:

I think this is just a human problem. We are living in society and sometimes in societies things go wrong. Every country, every religion has good and bad people. Look at Christianity and all the bad Catholic fathers, look at the bad people in Islam.

Another commented similarly about the hypocritical religious figures in Thailand, saying, “Those people are not real monks, they’re just people wearing monk’s robes.” Undoubtedly, these observations are correct. Many are not genuine Christians, either; they just speak the lingo. However, the Buddhist solution to the problem is not accurate. Sulak said:

In Buddhism, we believe things will die and will be reborn. So in the future, maybe we will have fewer monks but better monks.

If that were the case, why hasn’t it happened in several thousand years? One would think that all the evil people who died in the flood a few thousand years ago would have spiritually evolved enough by now that there would be no evil left. But the world is actually regressing to the point of callous disregard for human life that existed then (Gen. 6:11).

The fact is that “it is appointed unto man to die once, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Nobody is continually reborn until he gets it right. This life is all we have, and we need to perfect ourselves now by, first of all, becoming Christians so that His blood can (in baptism) wash us, sanctify us, and justify us. Then we must go on to perfection (Matt. 5:48; Heb. 6:4-6; Gal. 5:22-23, 2 Peter 1:5-11). We must be converted from the inside out and always approach God in spirit and in truth. Only then can we have confidence in salvation and avoid the snare of hypocrisy.

Your Best Life Now: A Review (Part 2)

In beginning the review last week of Joel Osteen’s 2004 multi-million bestseller, Your Best Life Now, nothing was mentioned past page 31 because it was important to see how he presented the Scriptures at the very outset. Yet another example of his mishandling of the Scriptures involves Isaiah 54:2-3a, in which the Israelites are commanded: “Enlarge the place of your tent.” They are to “stretch out the curtains” of their habitations because they are going to be expanding “to the right and to the left”—or “bursting at the seams,” according to Osteen’s translation. What point does he make concerning this passage?

What a powerful picture of God’s desire for you! God is saying get ready for more. Make room for increase. Enlarge your tents. He’s saying expect more favor, more supernatural blessings. Don’t become satisfied with where you are (33).

Really? God is saying all that to each individual? Osteen assures the reader that God doesn’t want them to have so-so health; they need to feel terrific! They shouldn’t have to worry about just having enough money to pay the bills. God wants them to thrive financially. “God is waiting on you to stretch your faith” (33). If the reader could stretch his faith the way Osteen does the Scriptures, he would be an overnight millionaire. But this passage is not talking about the way God deals with Christians. Isn’t it interesting that Osteen made an application from 2-3a and ignored the first verse of the chapter, cited below.

“Sing, O barren, you who have not been borne!
Break forth into singing, and cry aloud.
You who have not travailed with child!
For more are the children of the desolate
Than the children of the married woman,”
Says the Lord.

Now we know why the tents need to be enlarged—children are on the way. Verse 3 (the part not quoted by Osteen) resumes this thought, talking about the blessings that their new descendants would inherit. It would be more appropriate to quote this verse and promise barren women that they would have children than to use the passage the way Osteen did, but both would be inappropriate applications. The verses are describing life after the captivity. Osteen has no clue on the proper way to use the Scriptures.

But he wants everyone to believe that God is a cosmic Santa Claus, just waiting to give them what they want—no, more than what they want! People should not just ask for a bigger apartment; God wants them to own their own house (35). One wonders how Osteen knows what God wants for each individual. Sometime, when he is checking with the Lord on all these matters, he might ask Him what His disposition is towards those who take Scriptures out of context.

Psalm 8:3-6 is an interesting passage:

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.

The last three of those verses are cited by the author of Hebrews (2:6-8) and applied to Jesus. However, Osteen mentions that fact not at all. How he does use the passage is to say that the word honor could be translated as favor. One wonders what lexicon he is using since he provides no documentation for this claim. The word means “ornament, splendor, honor.” The main sense of the word is “ornament, adorning, decoration.” It is also used of the majesty of God; majesty adorns Him. The King James translated the Hebrew word (haw dawr’) [Strong’s #1926] as glory seven times and majesty seven times. Also used were honor (5 times), beauty (4 times), comeliness (3 times), excellency (twice) and one time each for glorious and goodly. No major translation—not even some paraphrases, such as the New Living Translation—uses “favor.” It correctly renders the Hebrew word “honor.”

So, on what basis does he claim that honor could be translated as “favor.” None. Even if he did find some bizarre translation or some commentator who would agree with him, it would still not change the Hebrew word or the way it is used. Favor does not in any way present the meaning of the Hebrew word; it is a different concept altogether.

But having made this false claim, Osteen builds an entire principle on his error. After claiming (illegitimately) that honor means “favor,” he next defines favor to mean: “to assist, to provide with special advantages and to receive preferential treatment” (38). The claim is then made that God wants to give His followers preferential treatment in order to make their lives easier. People ought to live “favor-minded,” meaning that they should “expect God’s special help.” One wonders what would happen if everyone became a Christian; who would God favor then?

On the basis of this mistranslation of Psalm 8:5, then, those who consider themselves as children of the Most High God can expect preferential treatment (39). Not only are they (as children of God) to expect God’s favor in this way, they must declare it, which will cause employer’s to want to hire them and give them promotions (38). This is simply, “Name it and claim it.”

Osteen wants everyone to know that he is not arrogant. No, no, no. He gets preferential treatment—not because he is somebody important—the reason is that he belongs to God (39). This favor caused a policeman to let him go when he was speeding (40), but it will also cause a company to hire the “favored” one, get a seat at a restaurant, or find a parking spot in a crowded lot (41). Isn’t it wonderful? And it’s all based on a mistranslation of the word honor. Osteen is not done with this principle; he builds on it; the next chapter is titled, “Living Favor-Minded.”

Yes! It gets even better. If you live “favor-minded,” “God’s blessings are going to chase you down and overtake you” (41). How can anyone afford to pass this up? In this instance, you do not even need to seek God’s blessings; they come barreling out of nowhere to hunt you down. Osteen quotes again from a strange version of the Bible: “If you will hope to the end, divine favor will come” (52). The verse actually says: “Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:13).

It is hard to tell that these are the same two verses, but here is Osteen’s point based on the verse: “When you really understand that you have this favor available to you, living with confidence comes much more easily” (52). Uh, the favor (grace) described in 1 Peter 1:13 is received at the revelation of Jesus Christ (when He returns); it therefore has nothing to do with confident living now. All these examples of the way Osteen handles the Word of God reveal that he has practically no knowledge of the Scriptures, or if he does, he has no idea what they mean. He finds a word or a phrase and, whether he understands it or not (and he does not seem to care), he utilizes it as a major plank in his belief system.

Joel Osteen lacks respect for the Scriptures, as does anyone who searches for verses to sustain his theology rather than studying the Bible to see what it actually teaches. To be fair to the author, his book does have some positive value to it—but not so much that it could be recommended. Many people probably do look at themselves as failures and, for whatever reason, have a poor self-image. But since God made us, each and every one of us has value.

In making this point, however, he quotes from The Message, a really bad paraphrase of the Scriptures. Two blind men asked Jesus to be healed. He asked if they believed He could do so, and they answered “Yes, Lord.” He then touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be to you” (Matt. 9:27-29). This is a literal and fine translation, but The Message renders the verse thus: “[Jesus] touched their eyes and said, “Become what you believe’” (76). In other words, you can be it if you believe it. Arrgh!

In “Developing a Prosperous Mindset,” Osteen frowns upon those who think they have risen about as high as they can in their job—especially when they resignedly say, “This is just my lot in life.” He recoils at that attitude: “That’s not true! Your ‘lot in life’ is to continually increase” (87). He assumes that it is God’s will for every person to succeed and be prosperous. He does not cite the verse in which Jesus told one very wealthy man to give it all away (Luke 18:18-23).

The author is correct when he says we can choose our own thoughts (102); he even cites correctly Philippians 4:8. But he is wrong when he affirms, “There is nothing negative about Him [God]” (105). God brings judgment upon both people and nations. He struck Nabal, who died (1 Sam. 25:38). He caused both the northern and southern kingdoms to go into captivity, and they might have considered that God was being negative with them. Likewise, those who are cast into the Lake of Fire might very well contemplate a negative future (Rev. 20:15). God wants people to succeed spiritually, but He brings judgment on those who reject Him, and no amount of positive thinking will change that fact.

Just as with prosperity, Osteen thinks that God wants to heal everyone, also. Well, at least there is precedent for that. Jesus did heal people of their illnesses while He was on the earth; He did not make them all millionaires. But His healing of the physical infirmities was to demonstrate that He could help them with the spiritual problems. If everyone did what Osteen advises (127-29), no one would ever die. Is his case being overstated? He wrote these words:

If you are facing sickness today, you should confirm God’s Word concerning healing. Say something such as, “Father, I thank you that You promised me in Psalms that I will live and not die and I will declare the works of the Lord.” As you boldly declare it, you are confirming that truth in your own life (130).

Letting go of the past (painful events) is good advice, as is avoiding bitterness and allowing God to take care of justice. He also includes a helpful section on giving to others, although some of his suggestions lurch into the realm of the radical (244). Furthermore, he claims that happiness is a choice—another good principle (269).

Not only is his translation choice suspect, so are whatever commentaries he uses. He claims that Paul wrote “more than half of the New Testament while incarcerated” and that he was reportedly “standing in raw sewage that at times came all the way up to his waist” (276). Really? Scholars agree that Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon were written from prison, as was 2 Timothy. What are the others? And what Biblical evidence is there for Paul standing in raw sewage? Presenting positive principles is fine; we all can use some encouragement, but Christians ought to get these from the Bible—not Joel Osteen.

Biblical “Scholarship”

A new book is available for only $35, according to The Wall Street Journal of March 12-13, 2016.  The title is The Invention of God, and it follows in a long line of “scholarly” works that show no respect for the Bible as the Word of God—but quotes it as though it is true when it is convenient to do so.  The author of this new book claims, among other things, that YHWH had His origin in the 13th century B.C. “among Israel’s Edomite neighbors” (C6).  Yes, according to this theory, Jehovah was just a local Canaanite deity that developed into the concept of a universal, all-powerful God.  Really?  Think of the implications of just this one statement.  It would mean that:

• Genesis 1:1 is fraudulent, since God did not, as yet, exist;
• YHWH could not have instructed Moses to go down to Egypt to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage;
• The Ten Commandments were composed by men rather than God;
• The Ten Plagues must have been The Ten Accidental Catastrophes;
• The Law of Moses was actually not the Law of God, which has been accepted as true for centuries;
• The true and Living God is a myth and there is therefore no objective morality or ethics.

Yes, all of these fundamental facts are wrong because one “scholar” did some research and has an alternate theory.  But it gets even worse.  According to the author (who probably would like to see his name in print), YHWH had a consort named Asherah, aka the “Queen of Heaven.”  One wonders, sometimes, if “scholars” just try out the looniest thing imaginable to see how many gullible people they can sucker into their hypotheses.  No one can subscribe to these fantastic views without rejecting the first five books of the Bible in their entirety, which would also invalidate the New Testament, which accepts what is written in the Old Testament as true.

Paul references Adam and Eve as the first man and woman (1 Tim. 2:11-14); Jesus bases the permanence of marriage between one man and one woman on God’s original design, which He instituted in the Garden of Eden (Matt. 19:3-9; Gen. 2:18-24).  The end of the world is based on the universal Flood in Noah’s day (2 Peter 3:5-9; Gen. 6-9).  Jesus is the One through whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (Gal. 3:8; Gen. 22:18).  Much more could be cited, but the one thing it is important to understand is that Jesus and the apostles supplied evidence for what they said—namely miracles—which is the reason Christianity became accepted in the first century.  And the author of this book offers…speculations.  No thanks; we’ll stick with the truth.

Your Best Life Now: A Review (Part 1)

Joel Osteen is one of the most well-known and popular religious personalities in the nation. In 2004, he wrote the book, Your Best Life Now, which was #1 on The New York Times Best Seller list. It remained on that list nearly four years and sold more than four million copies. Who knows how many people have read the words that he wrote? He is the latest successor to Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller. He appeals mostly to the power of “positive thinking.” What is dangerous about the book is that he mingles truth with error so that his teachings sound almost plausible and convincing—unless one looks a little deeper than the surface.

Well, okay, but did none of the other contestants envision themselves as winning? In fact, the following year after Osteen published this book, what if all the contestants read it and imagined themselves as winning? With only one young woman to crown, there must, of necessity, be 49 disappointed ladies who “conceived” of victory and “believed” she would have it—but lost anyway, which is one reason this type of psychology cannot always work.

Another example involves Roger Bannister, the first man to run the mile in less than 4 minutes, something that Osteen alleged that “experts” said could not be done. Why would they say that? If someone could run the mile in 4 minutes and 2 seconds, what is so hard about believing he could do it three seconds faster at some point? Nevertheless, Bannister was the first to set the record on May 6, 1954. He beat it by six-tenths of a second but had only trained minimally. That record lasted only 46 days before another runner broke it. The current leading time is far better than Bannister’s 3:59:54. Hitcham L. Guerrouj flew through the mile at 3:43:13—more than 16 seconds faster. Noah Ngeny is almost a half-second behind at 3:43:40.

Osteen tries to make a point regarding the original breaking of the record. Bannister believed he would do it, and he did. Okay, but then he added these words:

Within ten years after Roger Bannister broke that record, 336 other runners had broken the four-minute mile record as well! Think about that. For hundreds of years, as far back as statisticians kept track-and-field records nobody ran a mile in less than four minutes; then within a decade, more than three hundred people from various geographical regions were able to do it. What happened (29)?

His answer is (try not to laugh) that all the runners up until Bannister believed the experts! “They were convinced that it was impossible to run a mile in less than four minutes” (30). Right! So, how did that work? As they are coming down the backstretch, did they all experience a wave of defeatism and talk themselves out of breaking the record? If their efforts were of no use, what were they racing around the track for in the first place? Surely, no one seriously believes such a theory. Did Osteen ever think that running techniques improved—or training—or diet? Besides, some records stand more than 50 years once they are set. Everybody knows it is possible to achieve it, but no one beats it for decades. Positive thinking may be helpful, but it is not a panacea for attaining excellence.

Besides giving examples that people ought to be able to see through, Osteen will cite a Scripture. Unfortunately, he often twists it to mean what was never intended. Take, for example, the first one he mentions. He claims that God wants to pour out “His far and beyond favor” (5). The allusion is to Ephesians 2:7, which reads thus in the New King James: “that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace [far and beyond favor?] in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” The verse describes God’s grace extended toward all mankind with respect to salvation and the spiritual benefits we have in Christ. Whatever translation he is using remains a mystery, but once having mentioned the phrase, he will keep referring to God’s “far and beyond favor” as though the phrase had some sort of validity.

Another such example involves God saying: “Behold I am doing a new thing. Do you not perceive it?” (10). This reference is to Isaiah 43:19. In the remainder of the verse, God says: “I will even make a road in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” According to the Pulpit Commentary, Isaiah 43:19 refers to God leading His people back from captivity. The passage has an historical context, which Osteen ignores entirely. Here is his application: “God is ready to do new things in our lives” (10). He wonders if people are perceiving what God is individually and personally doing for them. In other words, are you making room for the possibilities God is setting before you in your own thinking? “It’s time to enlarge your vision.” None of these things relates to Isaiah 43:19. Osteen forsakes the context and just lifts out of it a phrase he likes.

He does the same thing again on the same page. He points out correctly that Christians do not need to depend on their own power and their own might. If he had referred to Ephesians 6:10 about being “strong in the Lord and in the power of His might,” he would have had a point—had he applied it to fighting the Lord’s spiritual battles. But instead he writes that God is telling us something similar to what he told the Virgin Mary—that the “power of the Most High God shall come upon you and cause it to happen.” Seriously?

When the power of the Most High came upon Mary, she conceived and bore Jesus, the Son of God. Does anyone besides Joel Osteen think that God is bringing that kind of power upon us? How can he even think of comparing the two? This is the result of reading pop psychology instead of studying the Scriptures. For someone to claim that kind of power, which resulted in the unique birth of the Son of God, not only suggests megalomania, but it borders on (if it has not snuck across the border) blasphemy.

Then Osteen tops this off with, “If you believe, then all things are possible” from Mark 9:23 (11). Once again, the author ignores the context of the passage in order to rip an idea from it—whether or not it is applicable—as a general operating principle of life, which it is not. In that marvelous event, a man came to Jesus, describing the condition of his son, who apparently had seizures. They brought him to Jesus, and the poor lad convulsed right in front of them. He asked the father how long this behavior had been occurring, and he answered, “From Childhood.” (v. 21).

The distraught father pleaded with Jesus, “But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us” (v. 22). It is at this point that Jesus tells Him that if he can believe, all things are possible. The man honestly cried out: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (v. 24), whereupon Jesus healed him. This problem had been lifelong. The father wanted to believe something could be done to help his son. He had certainly heard about Jesus. Did he dare believe that Jesus could heal such a persistent problem? Yes, God is great in His power. Honestly, he did have some doubts, however. He need not have worried. What an account of a great event, in which a man is strong enough to overcome reservations.

However, Jesus is not saying that whatever you conceive and believe will occur. He is not saying, for example, if a woman believes she can be Miss America, she will attain that achievement. God has no obligation to make that happen (especially when she wears immodest clothing). Nor is God necessarily going to arrange for a bank to grant someone a loan for a college education. No Scripture promises a happy marriage when someone has chosen a mate who is unreceptive to God (despite all the wisdom and warnings of friends). That is not to say that one’s personal circumstances might not undergo improvement (and with God’s help, depending on the person’s motive), but they are not what the passage refers to.

The graduating senior (on her way to pick up her high school yearbook) struck and killed by a truck was hopeful and ready to enter her future that for her came to an abrupt end. Nobody expects to be hit and killed by a drunk driver—especially in the afternoon. No one expects to be called down to the principal’s office for possessing marijuana in school—especially when the student suspected is not a user. (Someone planted it.) The point is that things occur despite any positive expectations we might have.

Once again, Osteen notices that Jesus says, “According to your faith…be it done to you” (14), which is part of a conversation Jesus had with two blind men when He healed them (Matt. 9:29). As with the man whose son suffered from epilepsy, what Jesus did constituted a miracle. This is not merely an example of conceiving and believing. Neither of these events involved being healed by doctors in the providence of time because of a positive outlook. How many are deceived into thinking they will have what they desire if they just believe they will receive it?

The author continues by referring to what Elijah told Elisha—that if he saw him ascend into heaven, he would receive a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Osteen’s conclusion is: “If you can see it, you can be it” (18). First, this was a specific promise to a specific person made on one occasion—not a general principle, such as a proverb would be. Second, Elisha did not visualize anything; he literally saw Elijah’s ascent. Yet Osteen immediately continues by talking about visualizing something—seeing it with your “spiritual eyes.” Elisha saw this occurrence with his physical eyes.

Another of Osteen’s favorite sayings is that “God will pay you back double for your trouble,” which is based on “a twofold recompense for our former shame” (31). Isaiah 61:7 states: “Instead of your shame you shall have double honor….” Does anyone want to know what the context of the statement is? This is another post-captivity passage, in which God promises His people that they will have double their former glory, as well as possessions. These words may also have a Messianic fulfillment, which is indicated by the first verse of Isaiah 61, which is quoted in Luke 4:18-19. If Osteen insists on stealing verses out of context, he ought to at least say that intense suffering and repentance must precede the wonderful blessings that come afterward. No, none of us will be holding our breath on that one.

Praying for Healing

Ask Amy is an advice column with which Spiritual Perspectives has taken issue (and rightly so) because the author of it frequently contradicts Biblical values. However, the March 6th column was intriguing—not so much for the advice but for the problem itself. A woman in her 30s was sitting outside at a café, drinking a cup of coffee. She was sitting in a wheelchair because of a congenital defect. A man at another table asked “Chairchick” (as she signed her letter) if he could pray for her. She shrugged and said, “Okay.” He then grabbed her hand and asked Jesus to heal her. Then he continued to explain to her how that she could be healed if she “accepted Jesus” into her heart.

Chairchick found his behavior a “tad presumptuous,” undoubtedly being a little sarcastic at such appalling nerve. The zealot who accosted her, however, probably meant well, but he has been woefully misguided by those who preach the “health and wealth” gospel, which is false. The adherents of this doctrine have never learned anything from the Book of Job. All health problems do not result from sin; only God knows if they should be cured—or when. The man who prayed for this woman assumed that sin was the cause for her being in a wheelchair.

“Yes, if you are poor or sick, it’s your own fault,” many have been taught to believe. “It’s God’s will that you be rich and healthy. Only Satan inflicts diseases on people; you must cast him out in order to be well.” Many people hear these inaccuracies week after week, and they believe them. However, such ideas fly in the face of reality. Plenty of wealthy people sin frequently. Many righteous people are afflicted. Have they never heard of Lazarus in Luke 16? With all the so-called “faith” healers in society today, one wonders why it is so difficult to get a room in a hospital at times.

Furthermore, where is the passage that sets forth the idea that “accepting Jesus into your heart” will cure anyone of all maladies? Is that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost? “Repent and be baptized for all your illnesses to go away” (Acts 2:38); is that what he said? Even Jesus never said, “If you accept Me into your heart, you can live pain free.” In the first century people were healed—not just for their own benefit—but so that the gospel message might be validated. Chairchick is not the type of individual to feel sorry for herself. She wrote: “I have a loving family, good friends and a rewarding career. The wheelchair is just transportation.” Now who has the healthier attitude toward life?

“I’m Not Here Telling People What They’re Doing Wrong.”

Does it really matter what the subject is when a leading religious figure makes a statement such as the one in the above title? After thinking about the meaning of that sentence, different words come to mind from the Scriptures. Jesus taught:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

Jesus taught that there is a broad way that leads to destruction and a narrow way that leads to life. Is that where we want to leave this subject? Or do not people have the right to know what is wrong and what is right? Did Jesus not come into the world to tell people what was wrong? Was He not telling people what was wrong when He said the following things defile a man: “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt. 15:18-20)?

It was that same Jesus Who said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” seven times in Matthew 23 (13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). In each instance the Lord told them specifically what was wrong with their behavior. He also said they were fools and blind (sometimes blind guides) for behaving the way that they did (16, 17, 19, 24, 26). It’s almost as if Jesus came to tell people that what they were doing was wrong. John records these words of Jesus:

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (3:19-21).

Man’s deeds are evil, but we are not going to tell them what it is that they are doing wrong? What kind of attitude is this? Jesus further warned that all would perish unless they repented (Luke 13:3, 5). Repent of what? If no one explains what sin is and the need to repent of it, then how could anyone be saved? Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Matt. 18:11), but they cannot be saved unless they repent, and they cannot repent unless sin has been clearly defined for them. Somebody must be the harbinger of bad news in order for people to profit from the good news. John the baptizer did not mince words. He came, preaching this message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:2). And guess what? The response to this stern message was great! The people “were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:6).

Norman Vincent Peale published The Power of Positive Thinking in 1952, and the book had a tremendous impact in various religious circles. Another individual of this stripe was Robert Schuller, associated with the Crystal Cathedral and the Hour of Power television program for 40 years. He wrote a number of books on thinking positively. The new heir of this mentality is Joel Osteen. He is the author of the quote under discussion and is well-known in Houston and for writing books that spread this philosophy.

His comments were made specifically in connection with homosexuality. Several articles can be found on the Internet involving Osteen’s recent interview. Among other things, Osteen said these words to the Huffington Post:

It doesn’t matter who likes you or who doesn’t like you, all that matters is God likes you. He accepts you, He approves of you.

Is that right? No, such a statement is not even close to the truth. God loves all men and sent Jesus to die for their sins (John 3:16). His love is truly amazing in that it is extended even to those who are hostile to Him (Rom. 5:8). God “desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). None of these passages, however, teaches that God accepts or approves of anyone while they remain in their sins.

Osteen’s false ideology that God accepts and approves of sinners (including homosexuals) is what makes him so popular with people like Cher and Oprah Winfrey. Who doesn’t want to hear that you can have your cake and eat it, too? The message that God loves all people regardless of what they have done is powerful; to say that He accepts people in their sins is anti-Biblical and an attack against the atonement provided by Jesus Christ, Who died that we might be delivered from our sins—not abide in them.

When asked if Osteen’s philosophy included homosexuals, he answered, “Absolutely. I believe that God has breathed his life into every single person. We’re all on a journey. Nobody’s perfect.” What? God created Man in His own image, and he breathed the breath of life into Adam (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7). What is the intent of saying, “Nobody’s perfect”? The meaning is, again, that God accepts all of us as we are. Why doesn’t Osteen ever think of Scriptures? In this case, he might have thought of, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Osteen looks at man’s sinfulness, shrugs his shoulders, and says, “Nobody’s perfect.” God wants us to be cleansed of sin and go on to perfection (Heb. 6:1).

Osteen apparently knows that if he defined sin and encouraged people to repent of it, he would lose his vast audience. So he doesn’t want to say anything negative.

But I believe every person is made in the image of God, and you have accepted them as they are, on their journey. I’m not here to be preaching hate, pushing people down. I’m not here telling people what they’re doing wrong.

One wonders what people like Osteen think of when they sing the song, “Just As I Am.” Apparently, they think God approves of them just the way they are. Actually, the song does not mention repentance or even allude to it. It does recognize sin, however, and the need for Jesus to cleanse it. The words of verse 5 seem to teach salvation by “faith only.”

Just as I am, thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Why should God receive, welcome, pardon, cleanse, and relieve the sinner? Because the sinner believes His promise to do so. There is no sense of “Trust and Obey” here. The closest mention is in the first verse. He bids me come, and on that basis I come, but obedience is not otherwise mentioned anywhere in the song, nor is repentance. Certainly no mention is made of baptism. Billy Graham claims that he was “converted” when this song was sung at the conclusion of a revival in Charlotte, North Carolina. He then used the song in all of his “crusades” during the latter half of the 20th century. The song talks about our need of salvation—our need of forgiveness—but not a word is spoken concerning man’s need to repent; God accepts us just the way we are. What could fit Joel Osteen’s theology any better than that? He can always skip verse 2, which deals with sin—or say that God has accepted us in our sins, as cited above: “…you have to accept them as they are.”

Another justification for accepting homosexuality, which he has admitted is a sin, is that Osteen says: “The Bible said a sin is pride, a sin is selfish ambition. We tend to pick out these certain things.” Apparently, that comment means we shouldn’t select one sin to target when plenty of others are available to discuss. That complaint would be legitimate if preachers only selected one sin and neglected to mention all others. The Bible defines sin and lists many of them numerous times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:21-32; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, et al.). So, yes, it would be wrong to focus on just one, but who is doing that? Christians study the whole Bible, which has the proper emphasis. Osteen is the one who selectively cites verses of the Bible, ignoring most of those that deal with sin.

In his book, Your Best Life Now (2004), he mentions zero lists of sins and barely mentions the concept, period. One of his strongest statements is:

God does not always approve of our behavior. He is not pleased when we go against His will, and when we do, we always suffer the consequences and have to work with Him to correct our thoughts, words, actions, or attitudes (67).

Immediately afterward, however, he undermines what he just said by asserting that “nothing you do will ever cause God to love you less…or more. His love is a constant you can depend on” (68). If this statement were true, how could God condemn anyone to hell on the Day of Judgment? While God’s grace and love is unconditionally offered, they are appropriated on the basis of man’s response. God loved all of those who perished in the Flood and made salvation available to them, but they rejected it and perished. Osteen says that we must “correct our thoughts….” But then he says it doesn’t make any difference if we do. Well, then, why waste the effort?

Osteen later provides this scathing denunciation of sin: “We never have permission to live an ungodly life” (92). Whoa! Probably, everyone is trembling in his boots! So, we don’t have permission to live ungodly, but what is the penalty for doing so? God doesn’t love us any less, according to him. Osteen surely cannot be classified as a “hellfire and damnation” preacher.

The only reason for emphasizing a certain sin at a particular time is that it happens to be pertinent in society. When citizens realized the problems associated with alcohol, many spoke against it, which led to prohibition, which (despite problems associated with it) improved the quality of living for all. When Roe v. Wade was legislated from the bench, many preached lessons pertaining to the value of human life, including when life begins. Just because a great deal of attention was given to one of these sins did not mean that other sins, such as pride or selfish ambition, were ignored.

Likewise, the attention given to the sin of homosexuality has received a great amount of condemnation during the past 25 years because homosexuals established an agenda to get the “grievous sin” (Gen. 18:20) accepted into society. Their success has culminated in the acceptance of even homosexual “marriage,” which very well may hasten the destruction of this nation which was founded upon Biblical principles and which it has mostly abandoned.

All sin offends God and needs to be repented of; national sins such as idolatry (in Israel’s case), abortion, fornication, unscriptural divorce and remarriage, and homosexuality lead to the downfall of nations. Christians have lost all of these moral battles, but hey! we still have Joel Osteen to tell us how great we are and that God loves us no matter what.

Never Able to Come to the Knowledge of the Truth

In 2 Timothy 3:1, Paul warns of perilous times to come, after which he describes what ungodly men will be like. One of the last descriptions says that they “creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:6-7). Are there individuals who really are that gullible and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? Yes!

While conducting our door-knocking campaign, one of the workers came across a Jehovah’s Witness named Diego. He was very pleasant at the first meeting, so much so that the worker even commented that he was “the kindest Jehovah’s Witness I have ever met.” However, when he and I made a return visit, the situation had changed—not that he was nasty, but he suddenly seemed to have no desire to continue the discussion. We asked him some questions anyway, but he kept repeating that he was learning and was not allowed to talk to anyone.

Imagine that! The Jehovah’s Witnesses did not want him talking to anyone until they had finished indoctrinating him. Where in the New Testament was anyone forbidden to talk to someone about the Scriptures? We suggested that he might ask his teacher to study with us. No, he was not willing to do that, either. I asked if he was familiar with the book that Jehovah’s Witnesses had used for decades when studying with people which is titled, The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life. He said, “Yes.” I asked if he knew that it contradicted the Scriptures. No, he did not and seemed quite surprised to learn that. I told him to look up what it taught about baptism and gave him a page number (from memory, which turned out to be wrong). We parted on good terms.

Two weeks went by, and we had not heard from Diego; so we called on him again. He did not look happy to see us. He kept repeating that he was not allowed to talk to us. He advised us to talk to the higher-ups in the organization, which we were willing to do. We asked him for a contact, but he told us, “I’m not going to provide that information.” We asked how he expected us to contact them. He did not know but said that we could find out on our own. We asked if he would pass some information on to them, and he refused. He made it clear that he would not read anything that we left, nor would he give it to anyone else. What is so ironic is that he is learning to be part of a group that goes door to door to talk to people! Yet he refused to talk to us and would not put us in touch with anyone from his organization, which was not only unreasonable but also hypocritical. Realizing that we would not be talking to Diego again, we tried to call his attention to some important facts.

I asked him to permit me to read something from The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1968:

We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us, and then to do it.-John 8:32 (13).

“These words,” I told Diego, “we believe 100%. Truth has nothing to fear.” But he refused to budge. He was not allowed to talk to us, nor would he provide someone to study with us—even though their own book encourages that very course of action! He said the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer use that book. He also affirmed that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not debate. I asked, “Why not, if truth has nothing to fear.” The person who was with me said, “But you have debated,” and showed him the published debate. He waved it off and said they might have done so in the past, but they no longer did so.

I told him that I had previously given him the wrong page number regarding baptism and went to page 183 in their same book. On a piece of paper I had written down what Saul of Tarsus was told by Ananias: “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Then I showed him what their book said: “What then does Christian baptism signify? It is not a washing away of one’s sins, because cleansing from sin comes only through faith in Jesus Christ” (183). In other words, baptism

“washes away your sins” (Bible)

“is not a washing away of one’s sins” (their book).

Diego was not interested that what Watch Tower published directly contradicted the Scriptures. We asked if he was familiar with the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses—with the founder, Charles Taze Russell and his successor, Judge Rutherford. He was. We asked if he was familiar with the book written by Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die. He was not. We pointed out that it was written in 1920 and was supposed to be fulfilled in 1925. Now, 96 years after the book was written, there are not millions still living. We asked him if he knew what Moses wrote concerning someone who prophesied that something would come to pass but it did not. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, if what a prophet predicts in the name of the Lord does not come to pass, the Lord did not speak through him; he spoke presumptuously.

Diego (as well as other Jehovah’s Witnesses) do not want to “own” their history. They seek to separate themselves from Russell and Rutherford. But here is the real shocker. They do not even want to consider any of their past materials, period. Concerning The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, a book that Jehovah’s Witnesses both published (several hundred thousand copies) and taught people for decades, they refuse now to defend or to look at anything in it. Diego says, “We have learned more since then.” Really? We asked if that meant that all those who studied that book are lost. He would not answer the question except to repeat what he had already said. He also became hostile and told us not to come back.

What is essentially being argued is that people must disregard what they said yesterday because today they have learned more. How convenient! Nevertheless, the Mormons operate by this principle. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, marriage was clearly to be a monogamous institution. However, he soon desired more wives—so he had another revelation, and by the time he wrote Doctrines and Covenants, polygamy had become acceptable. Mormons practiced polygamy for several decades, but they were told emphatically that they would not be admitted to the union as long as that practice stood. So some Mormon “prophet” had a new revelation that made polygamy wrong again—even though the first two leaders of the Mormon Church both had multiple wives (Smith had more than 50, and Brigham Young had at least 27). (Utah became a state in 1896.) Now that homosexual “marriage” has been approved, who will forbid “throuple” relationships or polygamy. If that happens, how long will it be before another Mormon “prophet” has a new “revelation” okaying the practice once again?

In other words, what these groups believe only goes back to their most recent revelation or publication. One cannot see what they wrote 100 years ago because that is out of date. Fifty years ago does not matter, either. It will do no good to study what they wrote as recently as ten years ago because anything can be rescinded at any time, and then they will say, “Oh, you can’t look at materials from our past because we’ve learned more, and all of that is out of date.”

That sounds a little bit like Mac Deaver, who told brethren, “Unless you have my latest book, you don’t really understand what I believe.” But then he has written another one since he made that statement and is undoubtedly working on yet another sequel. God did not see fit to produce the Bible this way. Yes, He made one covenant with Israel through Moses, but He foretold that another prophet was coming with another covenant (Deut. 18:15-19; Jer. 31:31-34). When that second covenant was established through Jesus, it was not designed to be constantly changing. Rather, it was once for all revealed to the saints (Jude 3). God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

Had God not said, “This is the truth,” we would be wondering from day to day where we stood. And that is where Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and Catholics are because they are subject to be told any particular thing at any time. Catholic teaching has changed since the day in which they sold relics and indulgences. If the pope said tomorrow that abortion was all right, what would they do? Does anyone know their current doctrine towards homosexuality? Is the practice right or wrong, according to their latest teaching?

What will most Mormons do if the head of their church says that polygamous marriages are accepted once again? Will they protest the change or practice it? And what about Jehovah’s Witnesses? They seem willing to give up the teachings of Russell, their founder, along with Judge Rutherford. According to Diego, they will not endorse their own published book that they used in studying with people for years. Was it wrong? Can they point out why they no longer use it? And what has happened to those who were taught that doctrine all those years? Are they lost? If they are, how do we know people will not be condemned by studying what they are currently using—because in five years it may become obsolete, condemned, and tossed on the rubbish heap? In other words, why should anyone trust them enough to study with them, period?

We would not settle for this chicanery in any other field. What would we think if a teacher said, “Last year addition and subtraction worked, but we have learned more since then,” and then proposed something entirely different? What if a science teacher said, “The conversion formulas from Farenheit to Celsius and vice versa don’t work this year”? What if traffic laws changed and now blue meant stop and pink go. We have enough trouble getting people to cooperate in stopping on red now, let alone trying to break in new colors.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). His Word remains valid, and it shall never pass away (Matt. 24:35). The fundamentals of salvation have not changed since revealed in the first century. Sure, we may obtain a deeper understanding of the Scriptures as we read, study, and grow. But we do not find contradictions in the Word. We have never had to tell anyone, “Oh, we no longer believe what we did last week concerning salvation.”

It is sad that anyone would be part of a religious group that is always standing on the verge of change—who admit that all of the doctrine that they believe in today may suddenly change and be different tomorrow. Yes, they are unstable, always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Especially must that be the case if truth changes with the pages of the calendar. How could anyone fall for this kind of nonsense? No wonder Paul describes those who are willing to trust their souls to such charlatans as gullible!

Fornication, Greed, and Lying

On February 4th, 2016 (just ten days before Valentine’s Day) the Orlando Sentinel published a local story that claimed in the title: “Ex-Lovers Differ on Lottery Ticket Promise” (B2). Lynn, a retired school teacher from Seminole County, won a million bucks in the Florida State Lottery. Happiness did not ensue. Her former “live-in lover,” Howard, had filed suit to collect his half because she refused to give it to him though, according to him, if either of them ever won, they had a longstanding agreement to share in the reward. He lamented that this “dispute had wrecked their 16-year romance.”

Really? Is that what we’re calling 16 years of fornication–a romance? The dictionary lists a multitude of definitions for romance, including “a love affair” and “a strong, usually short-lived attachment or enthusiasm.” Sixteen years seems a bit long to qualify as a romance. Howard and Lynn also disagree as to how long they were together. She aid the relationship terminated four years earlier than he did. And Lynn told the jury that she “never, under any condition, any place, anywhere” ever promised to share half of any prospective winnings with Howard. So, who is the jury supposed to believe? They did live together and were renovating a farm house that belonged to Lynn. Both are now 62 and still not married to each other or anyone else.

As one might imagine, there are two different versions regarding the winning ticket. Howard says they ate dinner at Red Lobster and stopped at a convenience store later, where he spent $20 on lottery tickets, which she kept. Lynn says she had dinner alone at Sonny’s BBQ and stopped at a convenience store on the way home to her mother’s. She said she ran into him by chance there–after she had paid for her own lottery tickets. However, there is a third version. She listed a different convenience store in the deposition. So, who is correct? Was it a 12-year “romance” or one that had lasted 16 years? Were they together as a couple when the ticket was purchased, or just together by accident?

The jury believed him and awarded him $291,000. No one knows if Lynn has any of the money left, and she left the court house without comment. Howard said their relationship changed immediately after the winning lottery ticket was announced. He said that she cashed out and then disappeared for a month. She refused to answer any of his phone calls. Why should he be surprised? First, they both ignored God’s institution of marriage for 12 or 16 years, depending upon whose version of the story one believes. Second they both had a covetous streak–wanting to get rich off someone else’s money. Is anyone surprised that one or both of them would lie? The willingness to disobey one or two of God’s precepts sets the stage for denying all of them.