Defenders of the Faith

Book: I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology

2011-11-21T23:29:00.001-08:00

I AM
A Oneness Pentecostal Theology
By David S. Norris
WAP Academic
385 Pages

The first book that addresses the oneness of God at an academic level, interacting with the very best theologians the world has to offer. In the end, the oneness of God is the irrefutable Bible truth.

From the Publisher:
In I AM, the author engages hundreds of academic works to construct a particular kind of argument. Rejecting a triumphalistic reading of church history, he argues that the first century church had a very specific christological confession, one very different from what the church later came to believe. Combining theological, biblical, and historical method, Norris works to demonstrate that this christological understanding is biblical, historical, and logical.

"David Norris has written an excellent, long-needed study of Oneness Pentecostal theology for those inside and outside the movement. His writing is both scholarly and readable. Using an Apostolic hermeneutic, the explains the Oneness understandings of christology and the new covenant." ~ David K. Bernard

To order the book for $30, plus $6 S&H, please click the button below:

...

Why were Nadab and Abihu killed by God?

2011-11-07T22:19:00.000-08:00

"And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." (Leviticus 10:1–2)

The sin of Nadab and Abihu was offering “strange fire before YHWH, which he commanded them not.” (Lev. 10:1) Strange fire most probably has to do with the kind of “fire” they used. Everything in the Tabernacle was purified with blood because “without blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22) and “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11).

The fire to be used in the censers was supposed to come from the altar of sacrifice. Any other fire was not purified for such a holy purpose and was, therefore, “strange fire.”

“And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of shittim wood shalt thou make it . . . Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.” (Exodus 30:1, 9–10)

God describes this in more detail:
“And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail; and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not.” (Lev. 16:12–13).

It is possible that Nadab and Abihu saw how God’s presence filled the place when they offered incense and thought it was their doing. They thought they could conjure up God’s presence in a “carnal” way. Even though they offered that incense “before YHWH” (Lev. 10:1), God was forced to show them He meant what He had declared earlier. There’s only one way to please and follow God: His way. Sincerity is not enough. All branches of Christendom, and all other religions, would do well to learn this lesson.

Joel Osteen: "I don't -- I don't know"

2011-11-04T22:37:00.000-07:00

Joel Osteen does it again on live television. When asked about the most pressing issues of the day Joel Osteen had no sure answers, and they certainly were not biblical. Here's the complete transcript of the interview with Piers Morgan on CNN.

----------------------------

PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT

Amanda Knox Freed

Aired October 4, 2011 - 21:00 ET

(THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.)

MORGAN: Up next, my in depth interview and extraordinary conversation in many ways with Victoria and Joel Olsteen, quite a fascinating encounter. You won't want to miss this with America's most famous preacher and his wife.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Victoria, Joel, welcome back.

JOEL OLSTEEN, AUTHOR/PASTOR: Thanks, Piers.

MORGAN: It seems like only yesterday you were gracing me with your presence. Now, you're here because you've got this great new book, Every Day's A Friday, How To Be Happier Seven Days a Week, and I'm thinking to myself, you are the two happiest people I've ever met anyway. How could you possibly get any happier? J. OLSTEEN: Well, you know, I think we all can if we -- if we learned what to ignore and certain battles not to fight, just, you know, I think we can all be improving and growing and being happier.

MORGAN: Why Fridays? Because, when I came to New York, in particular, I was horrified. On Fridays my staff all came in dressed like, you know, people on the street because it was apparently dress down Friday and I was like, what does that mean? Apparently, it means you dress badly, wear jeans and old T-shirts and things. So, to me, I associate Friday with this unkempt sort of misery. Why have you selected Friday as a day of great joy and happiness?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, Piers, for the most people, the studies show that people are happier on Fridays.

MORGAN: Why?

J. OLSTEEN: I think people are looking for the weekends, looking forward to it, getting to relax, you know, done with work and, you know, I've also read, Piers, where there's more heart attacks on Monday than any other day.

MORGAN: The stress of going back to work.

J. OLSTEEN: Yes, the stress. People just...

MORGAN: (INAUDIBLE) because most people don't enjoy their jobs? I don't know about you but I look forward to Mondays. I don't really like Fridays because everything sort of winds down, you know, everything slows down, you're not really working as hard. I don't really like it.

J. OLSTEEN: Yes, I'm the same way because, of course, we work weekends and I enjoy what we do -- what we do but not everybody's like that and, just, you know, the thought is in general, you've heard of that, thank God it's Friday. You know, we should -- we have the right perspective. We don't have to dread going to work, even if it's not the perfect job. When you have the right perspective and you think, hey, I'm alive, I'm healthy, I've got a lot right in my life, you can enjoy each day. Maybe not jumping up and down but you can enjoy it.

MORGAN: But, the theme of the book is very much that you make your own decisions about your life and your life will be happier. Is it as simple as that? I mean, lots of people, through circumstance, are not really in a position to do much about their lot in life. However, I mean, it's an easy thing to say and, you know, the critics will say it's all right with you Joel, you're worth $100 million. What about the poor guy who's trapped in a factory job or something or maybe has no job who, just through lack of opportunity and bad circumstance, is unhappy because he can't get out of that?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, Piers, to me, faith is all about learning to be happy where you are. I mean, it doesn't take any faith to be happy when everything's going your way, when the economy is great, when you get good breaks. But, you know, there are many people that are in a situation that seems like they're stuck but, you know, my belief is if you put your trust in God you can be peace -- you can -- you can have peace, you can be happy right where you are and I always say this, if you don't get happy where you are, you probably won't get to where you want to be because these are tests you have to pass as far as I'm concerned.

You've got to pass those tests, say God, I'm at a job and I don't like it or I've got some medical problems but I want to be good to somebody, I'm going to put a smile on my face anyway. When you do that, to me, you're releasing your faith and that's what allows God to change people.

MORGAN: Do you believe, fundamentally, that money can make people happier?

J. OLSTEEN: You know...

MORGAN: Victoria, you're shaking your head, why?

VICTORIA OLSTEEN: Well, I mean, it helps, I mean, it helps but, no, I don't -- I've seen people who are very wealthy and they're unhappy, they don't have good relationships, they may even have bad health and ...

MORGAN: Yes, I think I've met more unhappy rich people than poor people and the reason I say that, I went to South Africa. I went to the Soweto Township. There are millions of people living in complete poverty, some of the happiest people I've ever met. Their spirits were just alive with happiness and I couldn't really understand it. I still don't really understand it but it was a fact, I saw it with my own eyes. Why is that? You must have been in many of these places over the years.

J. OLSTEEN: Yes.

MORGAN: Why can poverty stricken people sometimes find joy in their lives?

J. OLSTEEN: I think there's not so many distractions. I think they have their priorities where they love their family, they're with their family, they don't have a million things that are getting them off course and they just take every day for what it is, just the simple things in life, getting up and enjoying family times and just not fighting a lot of the battles that we allow to steal our joy.

MORGAN: Does he ever get angry?

V. OLSTEEN: Angry?

MORGAN: Or is he always this content happy chap?

V. OLSTEEN: Angry, no. Is he content, yes. I think he chooses it. I mean, there's things that I'm sure that are stressful...

MORGAN: What really flips him out? What gets his goat?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, I don't really think he flips out but what -- he likes things to be right, you know, and, you know, I've watched him when things aren't right and he chooses to see the best in the situation. He's always really great about finding what is right, you know, because I -- you know, a lot of people have a tendency to look at the wrong -- one wrong thing.

MORGAN: When's the last time you heard him -- when's the last time you heard him shout, Victoria, come on?

V. OLSTEEN: Never.

MORGAN: You've never heard him shout?

V. OLSTEEN: No, he's never shouted ...

MORGAN: He's never shouted?

V. OLSTEEN: ...and if you -- listen, if you live with me and you don't shout, you're pretty good.

MORGAN: You're quite a live wire. I remember from our last interview. And I would imagine you can be quite lively, right?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, you know, I like to keep things hopping?

MORGAN: Do you have a temper?

V. OLSTEEN: Do I have a temper? I've grown out of my temper living with him. I don't have a temper.

MORGAN: So he really is this kind of bastion of calm...

V. OLSTEEN: He's infectious.

MORGAN: ...serenity. Do you never shout at anybody?

J. OLSTEEN: No, no, that's not my personality. A lot of it is just your personality. I've been like this my whole life. So, no, I don't -- I don't...

MORGAN: Let me just clarify, you've never shouted in your life?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I probably have, you know...

MORGAN: When was the last time?

J. OLSTEEN: ...I can't remember.

V. OLSTEEN: He doesn't shout.

J. OLSTEEN: I don't -- I don't shout.

V. OLSTEEN: He doesn't really shout but he does have a look, like when he's aggravated at you.

MORGAN: What's the look?

V. OLSTEEN: It's like ...

MORGAN: And that's when you know...

V. OLSTEEN: ...that's when it's like, OK everybody, kids, let's go, let's go, let's everybody be right.

MORGAN: That's blind fear. So, what -- what frustrates in the noisy, what can ruin your Friday?

J. OLSTEEN: You know, I don't know if it would ruin my Friday but I -- like she said, I like things to be right, I like, you know, I like organization. You know, I just -- I -- you know, I like to -- I expect excellence but not in the wrong sense but I believe we're supposed to be excellent so, if, you know, if we put things into -- into place and people aren't doing their job, you know, there are some times you think, OK, come on guys, let's get going.

But, you know, I -- I choose to believe -- you know, to use that energy to make things right and not just to yell at people or anything like that, that's just not who I am.

MORGAN: Have you ever had a fist fight?

J. OLSTEEN: I never have -- I never have. No.

MORGAN: Not even when you were a kid?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, probably with my brother, yes. Or my cousin.

MORGAN: That doesn't count. Brothers deserve it.

V. OLSTEEN: Now, you would wrestle with your brother but not a fist fight.

J. OLSTEEN: No, no.

MORGAN: Never actually -- have you ever been punched in the face?

J. OLSTEEN: No.

MORGAN: Never.

J. OLSTEEN: Never have.

MORGAN: Incredible life you've had.

J. OLSTEEN: I've been blessed.

V. OLSTEEN: Have you ever been punched in the face?

MORGAN: Yes.

V. OLSTEEN: You have?

MORGAN: Yes. Many times. I thought it was all part of life's rich tapestry but at least I'm not like you and I think I've missed out here. I think about a life of total serenity.

J. OLSTEEN: No. Now we've all had challenges. We all have to -- you know, the scripture calls it fighting the good fight of faith and that's when you know God's in control and, you know, I used to get frustrated when things weren't happening the way I wanted to or, you know what, I had everything worked out and my -- my plans didn't go the way I wanted it to but now I've learned to say, God, here's my plans for today, I'm going to do my best, if it doesn't work out I believe you're in control, that you're opening the right doors and what we don't, you know, hear a lot is sometimes God closes a door on purpose. And, I used to think, oh God that was a good opportunity, why didn't it work out? But, you know, I've learned now just to trust. God knows what's best for each one of us.

MORGAN: What do you say, we had the 10th anniversary of 9/11 recently and it's extraordinary being, you know, in America. I was in New York City after it happened and I came back here for the anniversary and so on. It's very hard to tell God-fearing people who've prayed all their lives, it's very hard to tell them that they lost relatives in that kind of thing that there is a merciful God.

I mean, they just -- they all, when I've seen them be interviewed, many of them, particularly if they're devout Christians or Muslims or all the denominations who perished on that day, what do you say to them? How do you explain that a just God can allow these kind of atrocities to happen, ruining so many lives?

J. OLSTEEN: You know, it's difficult, Piers, but the world we live in is not a perfect world. We're living in a fallen world and, you know, to simplify it, God's given us all our free choice. We can do what we want to do and, unfortunately, some people choose to do evil. I mean, God didn't make us as robots and, you know, it -- it's hard to explain because God is good. Obviously, God could have stopped it but he didn't but there's much about faith that I don't understand and I think that ...

MORGAN: Has it ever -- did your faith ever get dented?

J. OLSTEEN: You know, it really...

MORGAN: You always sound very unequivocal and I watch you on Sunday mornings and, you know, it's fantastic to watch, you're an incredibly inspiring speaker. But, I wonder, you know, I've had relatives who, for example, renounce their Catholic belief and their faith in God after the Holocaust who lived through the war who just couldn't understand how any God could allow 5 million Jews to be -- to have their lives taken in such a ghastly manner. And, it's hard to argue. You know, I -- I find it difficult. What do you say to people, again, who might come to you and say, I -- I can't continue having this faith because some appalling thing has happened?

J. OLSTEEN: You know what, that happens from time to time but, again, I go back to the fact that, you know what, having faith means you're going to have unanswered questions. I mean, that's what faith is all about. So, I can't explain why, you know, parents will come to me and their little child has cancer. I can't -- I don't -- I still believe God ...

MORGAN: What do you say to them?

J. OLSTEEN: What I say is this, God's got you in the palm of his hand. None of this is a surprise to God, you may be hurting, our hearts break with you but we're going to pray for you and God's going to give you a strength that you've never felt before and if you turn to God and turn to your faith and you don't get bitter and start blaming God and blaming everybody else and give up on your dreams, I believe somehow, someway, that God can bring good out of it. He can give you a new beginning. I know you'll never get your loved one back but God can make the rest of your life still very fulfilling if you'll -- if you'll (INAUDIBLE).

MORGAN: Victoria, have you ever had your faith dented?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, no, I've never -- I never have, you know. It's like what Joel is saying. A lot of times we don't -- we want to see everything happen but God's a supernatural God and he can bring grace and comfort into your life just by a state of peace and joy, even though when ...

MORGAN: How do you have -- how do you have moments, for example, when something bad has happened, you know, in your life or something that's really affected you badly and you've prayed to God to have that situation end in a happy way and then it hasn't, your prayers haven't been answered, in that circumstance do you not feel slightly let down?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, you know what, I can't tell God what to do. I can ask God what to do, I can -- I can ask him to do things for me but I know in my core that he's got my best interest at heart and it may not look good but there's -- but, somehow, some good can come out of it. And, you know what, you can't bring people back, you can't bring things, maybe, that you've lost back sometimes. But, God has a way of somehow getting you out of yourself and into a new place in your life.

MORGAN: We're going to take a little break and come back and talk to you about executions which is a burning issue right now, many people believing that America should now join most of the rest of the world and abandon executions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(VIDEO CLIP)

J. OLSTEEN: (INAUDIBLE) I can do what it says I can do. Today, I will be taught the word of God. I won't be convinced. My mind is alert. My heart is receptive. I will never be the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: That was Joel and Victoria Olsteen. Do you ever watch yourself back on TV?

J. OLSTEEN: I do. I still edit my sermons. MORGAN: Do you?

J. OLSTEEN: I do still edit them. I mean, I edit with somebody now but I did that for 17 years for my dad and, so, after I, you know, speak my sermon on Sundays, I like to edit it because I know what I -- where I messed up or where I could do better and you know how you do with editing now.

MORGAN: Well, yes, but, I mean, I've watched you. It's almost always word perfect. I mean, you have an extraordinary style. How have you developed that?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, my mother has had a great memory and when I started, you know, my dad just spoke extemporaneously and just would go and I couldn't do that. I had to write out what I'm going to say so a lot of mine I've put in me, I go over it for two or three hours a couple of days before and I get it so much in me that, you know, it can come out pretty good now.

MORGAN: I mean it's huge pressure now because you've got so many people tuning in to -- to watch these sermons. You can't get them wrong, can you? Every word gets analyzed.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, you do. You have to, you know, it makes me very responsible in what I'm going to say because people are going to, you know, some people are making decisions based off of what you are saying so you've got to think, OK, how is this coming across. This is the way I mean it but is it coming across that way? So, I try to think through it a lot.

MORGAN: There was a recent survey, which I found quite fascinating, New York Times named you one of the most influential figures worldwide on Twitter and you actually beat people like Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Rachel Maddow, Arianna Huffington, and so on, really big Tweeters themselves because they deemed that your influence, which they assess by the number of your Tweets that were re-Tweeted, actually exceeded all of them. I mean, that shows that you've got proper influence and I would say power.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I felt very, you know, honored when I heard that and, you know, but we've found, Piers, people come to us for inspiration for those little quotes and so we try to stay really focused on what can I speak to people that will help improve their day? My -- my Tweets are not about what I did that day.

It's always about something that they can use and I think when you give people good material they like to pass it on because, you know, the fact is, there's a lot pushing us down these days.

There's a lot of negativity so when you tell somebody go out and be good to somebody today, make somebody else's day and God will make your own day, to give them smaller tidbits like that, you know, that resonates on the inside.

MORGAN: One of the key things in the book is that forgiveness of sins is one of the central tenets of Christianity in many ways. And you're -- I know you're, by nature, a very forgiving man. I've watched you do these sermons and interviewed you before about this. What is your view of state executions and, in particular, the Troy Davis thing which happened recently where, by common consent, there was enough doubt that that man really could not be 100 percent said to have committed the crime, certainly no DNA evidence. What do you think of the whole issue?

J. OLSTEEN: You know, it's a complicated issue, Piers. I haven't thought a whole lot about it but, of course, you know, and I'm for second chances and mercy, yet, the flip side is there's consequences for what we've done and, so, I -- I don't know what my total stance is because I'm so full of ...

MORGAN: A life for a life?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I don't -- I don't know that that's -- you know, I -- it's -- it's hard for me.

MORGAN: You know, I don't think that you can say that. And I've had this debate with you before about these things. You can't be the man who influences millions of people and sit on the fence about key moral issues like that, key moral stroke ethical issues and you've got to have a view haven't you?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I think the thing is, is we have a justice system and I believe in our system of justice, number one. Part of me, the human part of me, the merciful part of me is wow, let's just give everybody a chance and if there is any, you know -- it's hard for me to say, yes, let's kill this person because he's so bad, you know, and they can be redeemed, they can be forgiven but you still, you know, they may still have to be put to death. That's hard for me. I don't know what's the right thing. I mean, there's people smarter than me that make all the laws. I do stand by our systems.

MORGAN: Two-thirds of all executions in America have taken place in five states, most of them southern states near where you're from, including Texas. Texas is well known to be -- may even be the highest in terms of executions for any state in America. So, I guess the part of your issue, unless I'm wrong, is it a lot of your brethren, that come to watch you, presumably, would support the death penalty.

J. OLSTEEN: Sure, I think so. I think -- I -- I don't know for a fact but I think many of them -- many people do and, you know, I, just again, I don't know the right answer. It's hard for me to tell someone to be put to death.

MORGAN: If you came out, particularly in somewhere like Texas, you, Joel Olsteen, came out and said enough, I don't think we can continue with this, particularly based on the -- on the facts, see, Joel, my problem with the whole death penalty debate are the statistics these days are alarming. Over a hundred people in America who are on death row have had their sentences commuted because of new evidence, 17 of them because DNA evidence proved they didn't commit the crime.

When you hear that, surely you begin to think that this isn't right and you have a lot of influence in your state. People will be watching this thinking, well, what does he think? Is he in favor of state killings or is he actually against it because they might take their lead from you.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, Piers, I don't know that I'm the one to give the final answer on that.

MORGAN: You're the perfect guy to ask.

J. OLSTEEN: You know, I guess, Piers, because I've not studied on it and I stay focused on what I feel like I'm called to do and I'm just careful about, you know, there's -- it's a more complicated issue than that than to just throw something out there and create a lot of waves and so that's probably the reason why I just ...

MORGAN: If I asked you about abortion, what would you say?

J. OLSTEEN: ...well, abortion, I -- I feel stronger about because it -- I feel like...

MORGAN: What's your view?

J. OLSTEEN: ...my view is that every baby should live, that, you know, that God's created that life and, so, again, that's what I feel strongly about.

MORGAN: There's a lot of contradiction between the sanctity of life with an abortion and the sanctity of life for somebody who may or may not have committed a crime. Should there not be a more consistent view?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I think there could be when you say may or may not. You know, that's the troublesome thing, if we don't know for sure and, you know.

MORGAN: Well, how can you know for sure, really? I mean, very few cases are completely clear-cut.

J. OLSTEEN: Yes.

MORGAN: And, really it comes down to just a general principle, whether in a modern civilized society, you know, especially in a country with many, many people -- millions, tens of millions go to church every Sunday and they kind of look to religious leaders to say, what should we be thinking? They'll all be a bit confused. So, you know, I know I do this to you when you come on but I sort of feel like you need to be more definitive.

J. OLSTEEN: Yes. Well, if I could I would but I'd have to -- let me study it and I'll come back with a great answer someday for you.

MORGAN: We'll going to have a little break, Joel, and come back and pin you to the floor on another issue where I've tried to pin you on the floor before and see whether your views have changed about homosexuality in light of the fact that now five states in America support same-sex marriage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Back with my guests, the Olsteens, and let's move on to another rather contentious issue, Joel, because last time you came on this show, the pair of you, and you were excellent guests, this happened, and I want to talk about this answer because it made a few headlines.

(VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Is homosexuality a sin, in your eyes?

J. OLSTEEN: Yes, I've always believed, Piers, the scriptures shows that it's a sin, but, you know, I'm not one of those that are out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they're terrible people and all that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: So, I suppose the obvious question is -- we did that back in January, has your position changed at all after that? Because it raised a lot of headlines, a lot of controversy. Since then, more states have endorsed same-sex marriage. It's becoming much less of a prohibitive kind of issue than it used to be. What's your view now?

J. OLSTEEN: You know, Piers, it really never changes because mine was -- mine's based out of the scripture. That's what I believe that the scripture says that -- that homosexuality is a sin. So, it -- you know, I believed it before and I still believe it now. Again, I would just reiterate what I said, I'm not after -- I'm not mad at anybody. I don't dislike anybody. But, you know, you know, respecting my faith and believing, you know, in -- in what the scripture says, that's the best way I can interpret it.

MORGAN: But, I mean, shouldn't the scripture be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. I mean, we were talking before the break about the issue about eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, not everything in the scriptures, really, is, in my view, conducive to modern life. I mean, like everything else, doesn't it have to move with the times and isn't it down again to people like you to interpret it in a way that evolves when you're known as a very progressive preacher?

J. OLSTEEN: Sure. Well, we want to be progressive but sometimes -- sometimes I just, when I read it, I can't see how you would change that, just like you wouldn't, you know, change some other main things, you know, in the scripture. I just, I don't see how that, you know, if you don't have a basis of truth, and that's what I base mine off of, the scripture, everybody else doesn't and I don't fault them if they don't, but this is just the way I choose to -- to live my life and what I teach based out of the scripture. So, I don't think, you know, I think, you know, personally, 200 years from now the scripture is still going to say that.

MORGAN: Yes, but the law of the land may not and it may not in your state and the law of the land is changing fast and, you know, your argument about executions was well, it's the law of the land in somewhere like Texas. What if Texas eventually, in a moment it's an unlikely place I would imagine to bring this in, but it may change with enough pressure, Texas brings in a law that same-sex marriage is permissible, how would you feel then if it's the law of the land?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, you know what, I'm going to respect the law and I'm going to respect gay people like I do now, you know, have plenty of people that come to our church and friends, I would call, that are gay so I'm going to respect that. I think where it puts a difficult situation is me being a Christian pastor believing the scripture, you know, it would be against my faith to marry two gay people.

MORGAN: You could never do that?

J. OLSTEEN: No, it would be against what I believe the scripture teaches and, so, that's where I think the rub comes in with people like myself. It's not that I'm against anybody or, you know, if people want to live together, that's up to them. But, my faith, when we say marriage, I mean, I think about it, Piers, and all through the Bible there are, you know, hundreds of marriages but none of them are shown as between, you know, the same sex. And, again, I'm not against anything but I just believe that's what the Bible teaches and that's how we've chosen to (INAUDIBLE).

MORGAN: Joel, do you feel a bit uneasy? The last person I heard speaking like this was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He's the President of Iran, who says there are no gay people in Iran and it's a terrible sin and curse. I mean, Victoria, what -- what do you think of all this -- the gay marriage debate. I mean, could you ever imagine attending a gay marriage between two people who come to your church, for example, if they invited you?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, I think if it was that easy, that we would have figured it out by now but it's been overthrown, states go for it and then they overthrow it, so it's very difficult for ...

MORGAN: But accepting an...

V. OLSTEEN: ...people...

MORGAN: ...but accepting an invitation is easy. So, would you accept one or not?

V. OLSTEEN: Would I accept one?

MORGAN: Two gay people who attend your church invite you to their wedding.

V. OLSTEEN: Sure, I would go.

MORGAN: You would?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, I don't -- you know, if I had time I would.

MORGAN: Joel, would you go?

J. OLSTEEN: If they were friends of mine...

MORGAN: Yes.

J. OLSTEEN: ...and I respect them, I would certainly go.

MORGAN: You would watch two people you think are sinners committing the ultimate sin.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I'm looking at it, I don't think it's the ultimate sin, but I'm looking at it from another point of view of respect to that person and, you know, it's -- you know, it gets convoluted but I'm looking at it as respect to that person.

MORGAN: Could you -- could you in your position actually actively encourage people to go through a same-sex marriage? Could you be seen to do -- could you be photographed at such an event?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I would not...

MORGAN: Would that cause you problems.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, you know, there's -- it's such a hypothetical and I'm talking about...

MORGAN: Well, not really because you said lots of gay people go to your church so it might happen.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I haven't been to many weddings lately to begin with and I'm talking about somebody that was, you know, dear to us. I'm not going to disrespect somebody that's dear to us and say, you know what, you're not good enough for us or something like that. That's the way that I would see it. Now, I'm not going to just run off and go attend, you know, certain marriages just to make a statement because that's not who I am and that's not what I stand for and, again, I don't look down on those people.

MORGAN: After the break, let's talk a little bit more about politics. I know it's a bit of a minefield for you. I'm curious who you think of all the Republican runners and riders at the moment, who's been catching your eye as potentially a leader for America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Back with Joel and Victoria Olsteen. Let's talk politics for a moment, Joel, because I know this is a bit -- as I said before the break, a bit of a minefield but of all the Republican runners and riders in the race so far to be the nominee, who -- who do you think is the most impressive leader potentially that you've seen.

J. OLSTEEN: Piers, they all look like great leaders to me.

MORGAN: That's a terrible answer.

J. OLSTEEN: Now, I can't pick out one. Now, Governor Perry is the Governor of Texas, a friend of ours, I've never met Mitt...

V. OLSTEEN: A great Governor.

J. OLSTEEN: ...a great Governor, a great, great man, a great friend of the ministry and I've never met Mitt Romney but, man, he looks fantastic and smart people and I can go down the row but I -- I don't know.

MORGAN: Rick Perry's not going to be a friend much longer if you keep saying how fantastic Mitt Romney is.

J. OLSTEEN: Well...

MORGAN: You have to make your mind up somewhere down the line. Got to back the right horse here.

J. OLSTEEN: ...well, to me, I'm just taking it all in like everybody else. I'm just an outsider looking in and, so.

MORGAN: But you are a Republican aren't you? You have to be.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I've voted both ways before...

MORGAN: Really?

J. OLSTEEN: ...but, I'm -- I'm conservative, you know, that's who I've always been. But, you know.

MORGAN: You -- you're very conservative aren't you? You would say?

V. OLSTEEN: I like to vote on the candidate.

MORGAN: Who do you like out there?

V. OLSTEEN: Who do I like out there? I'm still watching.

MORGAN: Right now, if you had to put an X by someone's name...

V. OLSTEEN: Yes...

MORGAN: ...who would it be?

V. OLSTEEN: ...good thing I don't have to right now because it's too early in the race.

MORGAN: Is Rick Perry your kind of guy? Is he the kind of guy...

V. OLSTEEN: I like Rick Perry. He's been a fantastic Governor. He's really done amazing things for Texas and, so, let's see -- let's see how he fares with all this. I think he'll do well.

MORGAN: Victoria, what do you -- what do you think are the key issues in society today? What do you think people most care about?

V. OLSTEEN: I think -- are you talking about political issues ...

MORGAN: Anything. Anything. When people come to your church, what are -- what's really concerning them?

V. OLSTEEN: They care about their relationships -- their relationships, their finances, and their health.

MORGAN: Yes, I would say that's what most people care most about. Do you think politicians, today, are doing the right kind of thing or are they too busy scuffling with each other in Washington to understand clearly, as you've just defined it, what the real issues are for people in America?

V. OLSTEEN: Yes, I think they're squabbling too much.

MORGAN: Yes.

V. OLSTEEN: Yes, I think they're squabbling too much.

MORGAN: There is, isn't it? I mean, they just spent a lot of time shouting at each other. We've already discussed that you don't shout. When you see them all ranting and raving and being deliberately obstructive to getting things done, what do you think?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I think, like most Americans, I would hope that they would work together and, you know, what I -- what I see that's difficult these days is any kind of compromise and, you know, it's hard to get 100 percent of what you want. You know, just like some of these issues we're talking about in this, I think it's getting more difficult for some people to have some type of compromise to say nothing's going to get done if we don't all come together. So, that would be my hope that we would -- you know, but it's difficult.

MORGAN: Are you comfortable with a Mormon becoming President if Mitt Romney won, for example, or John Huntsman? I mean they're both Mormons. Would you be comfortable with that?

J. OLSTEEN: You know what, I'm comfortable with -- that would not stop me from voting for somebody. I would look at the total candidate though, you know, what's their experience, what's their education? You know, what do they stand for? I don't think I would vote for somebody just because they're a Mormon or anything like that.

MORGAN: Are there aspects to Mormonism which you find offensive?

J. OLSTEEN: I don't know a lot about it and here I go again but I don't know a lot...

MORGAN: How can you keep saying that?

J. OLSTEEN: ...I don't know a lot about it but here -- here's the thing.

MORGAN: I bet you do but you just don't -- you don't want me to think you know lots about it, otherwise it makes the argument more difficult. J. OLSTEEN: Well, you know what, I haven't studied it. I hear things from time to time. There are certain things about the Mormon religion that I don't agree with...

MORGAN: Like what?

J. OLSTEEN: I don't know -- I don't...

V. OLSTEEN: Well, I think there's different degrees in religion too. It's just like being a Christian, you know, you could say, this -- these people think it's OK to do this, this, and this and they're Christian and these people say, oh, no, we don't do it like you're saying the Catholic Church, well they won't let you do this, this, and this. So, I think it has to do with degrees of how much you practice that religion, so.

MORGAN: Well, what are the things about Mormonism which are awkward for you?

J. OLSTEEN: You know what, I don't know enough about their -- their beliefs to -- to point out what they are, to articulate it well but here's what I -- here's what I believe that, you know, Mitt Romney says he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he believes Jesus is his savior, that's the -- to me, those are the foundational things, when I look at somebody, could I vote for them, do they believe, you know, in the major things like me. I don't know what all the other church doctrine is.

MORGAN: Could you vote for a Jewish candidate?

J. OLSTEEN: Sure, I could vote for a Jewish candidate. I mean, Jews, that's how our faith was started. They're God's chosen people in the scripture, I mean, sure I could.

MORGAN: So, you don't really mind, particularly, what religion. Could you vote for a Muslim candidate.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I think -- I think I could. I would have to look at it all but I would have to look at, you know, it's -- it's so hypothetical because, you know, if we're talking about for America, you know, 90 percent of America is Christian so I -- I am pretty sure that I would find somebody that more shares my beliefs and is educated and qualified so it's hard for me to go there because I think I don't think we'll come to that point.

MORGAN: What do you make of what's going on with the Palestinians and the Israelis right now?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, it's a -- it's a difficult situation. It's been that way for so many years. I mean, I -- you know, the scripture says we pay -- pray for peace for over there, we stand with the Israeli people, our hearts go out to the Palestinian people as well. They want peace. They want to live their life, you know, in victory and it's a difficult thing.

MORGAN: You've both been out there recently I think, to Israel, right?

J. OLSTEEN: We did. We went out in February.

MORGAN: Tell me about that. How did you find it?

V. OLSTEEN: We found it very peaceful. It's amazing, a country that has been under such conflict for so long. You know, you -- you hear stories in America like it's dangerous and, you know, you see like the worst but you go in there and the people are very solid, they're very peaceful, they have a lot of confidence in the fact that they're going to be OK.

Yes, they want to fight for what they feel like is rightfully theirs but it was quite interesting, we had a night of hope over there and we had -- the auditorium was full, we had a wonderful time and we just -- we thought it was a very fascinating, very -- it really brings the Bible alive, you go to these places where, you know, Jesus walked, where he prayed, where the disciples were, you know, the Sea of Galilee. We found it fascinating.

MORGAN: Does it worry you that so many areas of conflict of the world are religion prompted?

J. OLSTEEN: Well, I don't...

MORGAN: Sort of goes against the grain, doesn't it, in terms of the theory of these things, they're supposed to all be peace-loving religions but they all turn out to be excuses to kill people.

J. OLSTEEN: Well, it's been that way for, you know, hundreds, if not thousands, of years so it is -- it is a shame that -- that we can't get along in the day that we're living in today that you would think you would still have to kill people to try to get your point of view. But, you know, it is difficult but you just have to keep believing and hoping and praying and, you know, I think that's all you can do in some of these situations.

MORGAN: We're going to take another break, come back and talk about Olsteen, Incorporated, the burgeoning empire of the number one rock star preacher in the world. You don't look like a rock star.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Back with the Olsteens. You'll be pleased to know this is the final segment. Three minutes of hell left, Joel, and you're off the hook again. Do you like being interviewed or do you find it a bit of a minefield?

J. OLSTEEN: You know what, I enjoy it. I don't always know the, you know, subjects I'm not always familiar with but I enjoy talking with different people, especially you.

MORGAN: Your two children are both beginning to signs of real talent. Alexandria sings, she's 13, Jonathan is in a band as well, he's 16. Would you like them to do what you do, take over the business if you suddenly weren't around? Would you be happy with that?

J. OLSTEEN: Oh, I'd be thrilled, you know, nothing greater than for your children to follow in your legacy. I mean, I can't call them, I can't make them, I think it has to be a calling that they feel from on high but, you know, what I like about them is they're way further along than I was at that age. I wouldn't get up in front of people and, yet, they're very comfortable and just great kids.

MORGAN: Do they have to lead really squeaky clean lives? I mean, 16-year-old boys normally, certainly where I come from and this is around the time that they're getting into too many pints of cider and around the back of the bike sheds with, you know, their favorite girl in the town. I mean, are you going to have to keep an extra close eye because you're the Olsteens, everyone be looking to trip them up?

J. OLSTEEN: Oh, you know what, I never feel like it like that. I -- we -- we've tried to set a good example in front of them and, you know, do our best but, you know, they're great kids and, you know, I'm sure they're going to have challenges like we all do but I don't feel -- my parents were never strict on me, they never made me go to church, we went to church because all of our friends were there.

They're the same way. They -- I mean, my daughter had me getting to church at 7 o'clock the other morning. I thought, I don't want to get there that early. She said, oh, we're all getting there early. But, you know, that's what I like, that's where their friends are there and, sometimes, when you over-pressure and you -- I mean, I think the key, Piers, is to set a good example at home. We have fun and we don't have to have a lot of other things to make us happy.

MORGAN: Could you -- could you enjoy all of this without Victoria because even there she was looking at you really adoringly.

J. OLSTEEN: No, I wouldn't enjoy it half as much. I don't think I would be half of who I am without Victoria. She has spoken faith and vision into me from the -- from the beginning, before I was ever a pastor, sitting there when my dad was ministering, she used to say one day you're going to pastor the church and that would make me mad. I would say I can't pastor the church, I don't know how to speak, I don't know how to minister, but she just kept speaking those faith into me and, so, we have fun together too. We don't take -- we don't get -- we take life seriously but we have fun together.

MORGAN: Victoria, how do you have fun together? What's he talking about?

V. OLSTEEN: Oh, well, we -- we have good conversations. We like to do a lot of outdoor things together. We work together.

MORGAN: What the favorite thing you like to do together? On a Friday, when you're feeling your happiest? What's the thing you most like? What's your perfect Friday?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, we like to have a good dinner and we like to either ride our bikes or we like to just hang out and talk or, you know, we may have a few friends over.

MORGAN: Do you love him as much as you did the day ...

V. OLSTEEN: Absolutely.

MORGAN: ... you first met him? What's the secret?

V. OLSTEEN: And I respect him even more.

MORGAN: Yes, what's the secret of the Joel Olsteen magic, you think?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, I think he's a man of what he -- of his word, I think he's a man of what his word, he's -- he's always looking for the best in any situation. He's very respectful. He's very generous and he's very kind and he's extremely wise.

J. OLSTEEN: Do you agree with all that Joel?

MORGAN: Oh, that and more.

(LAUGHTER)

V. OLSTEEN: I left a few things out. (INAUDIBLE).

MORGAN: You -- you can't ignore it, I mean, you must get some groupies, any?

J. OLSTEEN: Oh, I have some kind people, I don't call them groupies, but people that, you know, they feel like you've helped them and you know what, I -- listen...

MORGAN: I mean, attractive younger women wanting to throw themselves at you? Do you get all that?

J. OLSTEEN: I don't -- I don't...

MORGAN: Are you like popular like Tom Jones, you know?

J. OLSTEEN: I don't -- no, not in the work we do. I mean, there's people that are respectful but I -- I don't ever -- I don't ever feel that.

MORGAN: Victoria, do you ever have to step in and just -- back off, he's mine. Ever do that?

V. OLSTEEN: Well, I -- you know, it's funny because when I -- when I'm out, even by myself, this is what women say to me, oh, Victoria, I love your husband. And, so, I've learned to say, so do I.

(LAUGHTER)

MORGAN: Well, listen, I really appreciate you both coming on, again. It was another lively debate and I hope we can do it again in six months.

J. OLSTEEN: Thank you. I appreciate it very much.

MORGAN: Nice to see you.

J. OLSTEEN: Great being with you.

MORGAN: Thank you. Thanks Victoria. That's all for us tonight.

A scientist weighs in on "Global Warming"

2011-11-03T11:42:00.000-07:00

Climate scientists have misinterpreted earth history by rejecting the biblical revelation of a global flood only a few thousand years ago that provides an explanation for the Ice Age and past climate change. Instead, they believe the Ice Age was caused by minor fluctuations i solar heating over millions of years. Consequently, they believe a minor change in global heating introduced by even small amounts of gases or particulates in the atmosphere could cause the earth to reach a "tipping point" and lead to a "runaway greenhouse" or to enter another ice age.

From a creationist perspective, if the Ice Age was a consequence of the catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood, then earth's climate would not be sensitive to minor influences. The climate appears to be a highly stable system and exhibits oscillations around an equilibrium level rather than being susceptible to transitions to new states. The earth-sun system does oscillate over short periods of time, as evidenced by minor heating and cooling and by the variation in the number of sunspots. But, these fluctuations do not destabilize the climate. So, the introduction of minor changes in gases or particulates in the atmosphere should not cause major changes but rather minor departures from an equilibrium state.

The primary cause of the conflict in the global warming debate is not the observation that carbon dioxide has increased int he atmosphere or that a small amount of warming has occurred, but that the Bible has been rejected as a source of important revelation about earth history. Scripture assures us that "while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22).

---

Extracted from an article by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. in the Acts & Facts Newsletter, Nov. 2011. Dr. Vardiman is Senior Research Scientist, Astro/Geophysics at the Institute for Creation Research.

...

Essenes: Defenders Theological Dictionary

2011-10-14T20:46:00.001-07:00

ESSENES
The Essenes were an apocalyptic sect of Judaism. They had a “revelation” that prompted them to eradicate evil and live righteous, holy lives for the God of Israel. Their zeal drove them to live as a community in the desert, separate from the “apostate” priestly religion of the Temple in Jerusalem. Some of their holy scriptures and other writings were found in caves at Qumran and are known today as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Philo: Defenders Theological Dictionary

2011-09-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

PHILO was a Jewish philosopher and theologian that lived in Alexandria, Egypt in the first century. Although he came from a Jewish priestly family, he was highly influenced by Greek Platonic thought. He thought of the Logos as a mediator of God and the creator of the physical world. Philo is well known for making use of allegorical principles in the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Godhead for English Teachers

2011-09-01T15:32:00.001-07:00

By J. R. Ensey

Jesus made the shortest complete sentence in history: “I Am!”

English teachers tell us that when we speak of ourselves, it is in the first person. When we address a person with “you,” it is in the second person. When we speak of “he, she, they or them” it is in the third person. Some say God is a trinity and want to make three separate, distinct persons out of God. OK, let’s do it this way:

First person: Jesus said of Himself, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).

We speak to Him in the second person: “And Thomas answered and said unto him, [You are] My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

We speak of Him in the third person: “The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower” (Psalm 18:1-3).

Come on, trinitarians, admit it. We can speak of Jesus in the first, second or third person, but they all say the same thing—He is God in flesh!

January is Pro-Life month

2011-01-13T18:23:00.000-08:00

January is Pro-Life month. Take this opportunity to create awareness in your local church by presenting a seminar on the subject. Alert your yound people to the holocaust of abortion.

You may also choose to participate in the battle against abortion by sending a special donation to organizations such as Tupelo Children's Mansion and New Beginnings, or your local Pro-Life charity.

To get better informed about the subject and be prepared when young ones come to you with questions get this amazing little book:

Why Pro-Life?

...

New Podcasts: The oil spill and God, Proposition 8, etc.

2010-09-03T11:05:00.000-07:00

Defenders of the Faith Podcast

"Global Warming," the oil spill and the "green" movement. Could man destroy God's creation? Is God's Earth so fragile?
To listen to the podcast click HERE.

Proposition 8, the courts and the homosexual agenda. Refuting the Top Ten Reasons for same sex marriage.
Listen HERE.

Mormon missionaries knock at your door to try to prove to you that unless you are a Mormon you belong to an apostate church. How do they handle it when the tables are turned? Why should we believe the Book of Mormon is from God in the first place?
To listen to the podcast click HERE.

Discerning the Endtime Culture. Standing against the culture of death and immorality in society should be a bold, Spirit-filled church.
Listen to this all-important message HERE.

DVD – The Antidote to the Infiltration ~ Philip Harrelson

2010-08-31T19:59:00.001-07:00

Bilingual DVD Video (English/Spanish) "The Antidote to the Infiltration"

False doctrines have infiltrated the Apostolic church. Many, including whole congregations, are being led astray in these end times.

In this study, given at the Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine in Houston, Texas, Philip Harrelson, an expert on the expository preaching of the Word of God and a member of the Apostolic Theological Forum, shares the antidote to the infiltration of wolves in the sheepfold.

$12 plus $3.50 for shipping & handling.

Order this important resource by clicking on the button below:

...

Podcast: Conversation with Mormon Missionaries

2010-05-28T09:46:00.000-07:00

Some time ago we had a chance to talk to a couple of Mormon elders that came to our door. We talked about changes in the Book of Mormon (of which they were not aware), and they tried to tell me about changes in the Bible and supposed missing books. In the end, the conversation centered on the question: If the Bible already contains the fullness of the Gospel message, why would we need the Book of Mormon? To this, of course, they had no good response.

To listen to the podcast click on this link. To receive future podcasts automatically, please subscribe to the Defenders of the Faith podcast by clicking on the podcast button.

The Acquittal

2010-05-27T07:47:00.000-07:00

In a faraway place and a different time
I killed my first child, a most heinous crime.

The state didn't come, and I didn't stand trial.
Judge Blackmun was calm when he said with a smile,
"Killing is legal, say we the High Court.
But we don't call it murder. Just call it 'abort.'"

The judge in my heart would not let the case rest.
I had no defense when once put to the test.
Found guilty I was by my heart's Supreme Court.
"You murdered your baby!" they screamed in retort.

With tears on my cheeks it was too late, I knew,
To bring back the life of the child I once slew.
The gavel slammed down, and it rang in my head,
"You are guilty as charged, and deserve to be dead."

"We now give you torment to pay for your sin,"
Was the sentence passed down from my own court within.
"You will never escape. You're branded. Don't hide.
Your just due is death. You should try suicide."

I was beaten in prison by daily attack.
I was paying a debt, so I never fought back.
No hope of escaping, and this I knew well.
I cried out to God from my own self-made hell.

That day I met Jesus; He smiled in my face.
He said, "I forgive you. Come and walk in my grace."
"Lord, I believe you forgive me and yet,
Blameless you are, can you pay for my debt?

"And Lord, please don't touch me for I am unclean.
I'm filthy with murder, a most wretched being."
I poured out my story. He showed no surprise.
I gazed up with awe at the love in his eyes.

He said, "I paid for your crime, yes, was nailed to a tree.
There's no condemnation if you'll trust in me.
I took on your blame, and your curse on my soul
So you may be free without judgment, and whole."

I sputtered, "Dear Lord, where's the justice in this?
I killed my first son, and you offer me bliss?"
Tears blurred my vision, yet there in his face
Were eyes of compassion, blue oceans of grace.

I thought to myself, "Now the past has been buried?
I'm free of the guilt that for years I have carried?"
He said to accept. It's a gift that is free.
This is atonement, not justice for me!

My judge was dismissed; my accusers, and jury.
The truth of his love made them leave in a fury.
He smiled, "Walk with me and come learn my way,"
And grasping his hand, I began a new day.

-- Karen Sullivan-Ables

...

Diccionary: Hermeneutics

2010-05-20T09:13:00.000-07:00

Hermeneutics = The subdiscipline of theology concerned with the study of the general principles of proper interpretation of biblical texts.

T-shirt — Defenders of the Faith 2010

2010-05-05T09:12:00.001-07:00

The Defenders of the Faith 2010 T-shirt, printed on both sides, is available for $15 plus only $3.50 for shipping & handling.
Important: Email us to faithdefenders(@)hotmail.com [without the parenthesis] to advise us on the T-shirt size you need.

Available sizes:
Youth: XS, S, M, L
Adult: S, M, L, XL, XXL

The FRONT shows the Shemá (Deuteronomy 6:4) transliterated from the Hebrew: Shemá Israel: YHWH Elohenu, YHWH echad.

The BACK shows the Defenders of the Faith 2010 shield in full color.

The T-shirt is available in 2 colors: Sport Gray and Stone Blue.

To order a SPORT GRAY shirt:

To order a STONE BLUE shirt:

...

Book: Vow of the Nazarite by Roger Perkins

2010-04-30T09:50:00.000-07:00

From the Back Cover:

Does Scripture actually address issues such as one's hair, apparel and jewelry? Can obedience to God's Word really be considered bondage? What is the true meaning of a legalist? Is it consistent theology to practice and loudly proclaim certain portions of the Bible and then willfully disregard others? Did God's people ever wear wedding rings or make-up in the Bible? If not, from where do these practices originate?

I can tell you before you even read the first page that unless you have the devoted heart of a Nazarite you'll discard this book about a quarter-ways through. However, if artificially and worldly materialism isn't for you, then take heart, because this books is!

--------------
If you're going to read only one book on holiness this year. Make it this one. Great gift for those who do not understand the Apostolic, biblical, doctrines of separation from the world.

Vow of the Nazarite.
ISBN: 0-9764881-0-8
92 pages
$US 10.00

...

Defenders of the Faith live video webcast

2010-04-22T07:05:00.000-07:00

The Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine and Apologetics will be transmitted via webcast by Mundo Pentecostal Live!

(All scheduled times are based on Central Time. Transmission may begin at the scheduled time and not before.)

To watch the live webcast click here: Mundo Pentecostal LIVE!

[Infiltration = Sneaky penetration of a mistaken teaching into Christian doctrine. Surreptitious introduction into a church or organization in order to deceive and/or destroy. To gradually introduce ideas or doctrines into someone's mind with hostile or subversive intent.]

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15)

Friday, April 23rd, 2010 — 7:30pm

Subjects:
• Infiltration: Mixing the Holy with the Profane — G. Jorge Medina
• The Necromancy of the Church: An Egyptian Resurrection in the Church — Roger Perkins, Oneness Apologist and Debater

Saturday, April 24th, 2010 — 6:30pm

Subjects:
• Paganism in the Church: The New Spirituality — Dr. Jorge Mendizabal
• The Antidote to Infiltration — Phillip Harrelson, Apostolic Theological Forum member

Mundo Pentecostal Church
1008 S. Main St., Pasadena, Texas 77506

$10 per person / Under 15: Free!

DVD - Why I am no longer a Muslim

2010-04-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

Can a Muslim come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?

This bilingual (Spanish/English) study, part of the Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine explains the profound differences between Islam and Apostolic Christianity; between Mohammad and Jesus.

Having been raised as a Muslim, Brother Farhad knows firsthand the doctrines of Islam and the teachings of the Qur'an (Koran).

In this testimony of his conversion Brother Farhad compares scripture to scripture to demonstrate how Jesus is superior to Mohammad and how he came to believe that Jesus is the true God manifested in the flesh. The PowerPoint used is an invaluable tool to understand this religion.

$12 plus $3.50 for shipping and handling.

To order this DVD, please click in the button below.

...

Reasons to avoid Planned Parenthood

2010-02-22T10:11:00.000-08:00

Reason # 1 — Planned Parenthood = Abortion
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas reported performing 7,915 abortions in 2008. On a national level, Planned Parenthood Federation of America reported performing 305,310 abortions in 2007.

Reason # 2 — Planned Parenthood Hurts Women
Houston's 9-1-1 records show at least two recent cases of women physically injured by botched abortion procedures at the Houston Planned Parenthood affiliate. Don't assume this won't happen to you or someone you love.

Reason # 3 — Planned Parenthood Experiments on Women
As of June 2008, a study conducted at the University of Michigan and published in The Journal of Immunology has indicated that "off-label use" of the controversial abortion drugs collectively called RU-48, may be linked to the death of at least eight women.

The FDA issued new warnings about the use of the pill, and rather than stopping its use of the pill altogether, Planned Parenthood has stated that it will merely stop its unapproved vaginal use of it.

In addition to altering the suggested dosage, Planned Parenthood urges women to take one of the drugs at home, disregarding the FDA's warning that the second portion of the pill regime "should be done in a medical office to monitor women for complications."

Reason # 4 — The aborted fetuses are used for stem cell research
Stem cell research is used as one reason abortion should remain legal. That is barbarism. Innocent members of society should not be destroyed to provide raw material for research on how to extend the lives of other members of society.

Reason # 5 — Planned Parenthood Condoms Received "Dead Last" Ranking
According to Consumer Reports condoms typically have a 16% failure rate. Planned Parenthood's condoms were ranked dead last in a recent review, with "poor" ratings in both strength and reliability... using them is asking for trouble.

Reason # 6 — They continue to misrepresent their morning after abortion pill to women calling it "Emergency Contraception," while failing to inform many clients that the use of this drug could produce an actual early chemical ABORTION.

Reason # 7 — The 14-year-old in this video is told by a Planned Parenthood employee to lie to a judge about her "boyfriend's" age. Her parents nor the police would ever find out about this situation as long as Planned Parenthood cashes in: View Video.

Reason # 8 — They celebrate their racist roots
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood wrote, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," when describing her plans for The Negro Project. She also spoke for a woman's gathering of the Ku Klux Klan. Planned Parenthood gives an annual award in Margaret Sanger's honor.

...

To heaven without holiness?

2010-02-13T09:22:00.000-08:00

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)

There is no (idea) so pernicious as this—that persons not purified, not sanctified, not made holy in their life, should afterwards be taken into that state of blessedness which consists in the enjoyment of God. Neither can such persons enjoy God, nor would God be a reward to them. Holiness indeed is perfected in heaven: but the beginning of it is invariably confined to this world.*

How shall we ever be at home and happy in heaven, if we die unholy? Death works no change. The grave makes no alteration. Each will rise again with the same character in which he breathed his last. Where will our place be if we are strangers to holiness now?

Suppose for a moment that you were allowed to enter heaven without holiness. What would you do? What possible enjoyment could you feel there? To which of all the saints would you join yourself? Their pleasures are not your pleasures, their tastes not your tastes, their character not your character. How could you possibly be happy, if you ahd not been holy on earth?

Now perhaps you love the company of the light and the careless, the worldly-minded and the covetous, the reveler and the pleasure-seeker. There will be none such in heaven.

Think you that such an one would delight to meet David, and Paul, and John, after a life spent in doing the very things they spoke against?

People may say, in a vague way, "they hope to to to heaven;" but they do not consider what they say... Heaven is essentially a holy place; its inhabitants are all holy; its occupations are all holy. It is clear and plain that we must be somewhat trained and made ready for heaven while we are on earth.**

_______
* John Owen, Owen on the Holy Spirit, p. 575 (as quoted in Intoxicated with Babylon by Steve Gallagher).
** J.C. Ryle, Holiness, p. 56, 35. (as quoted in Intoxicated with Babylon by Steve Gallagher).

DVD: Refuting Atheism

2009-11-09T15:13:00.001-08:00

A youth event that uses video of atheists themselves explaining their opposition to belief in God. Refutation of their points of view using science and logic.

See how the so-called "Horsemen of Atheism" fall from their pseudo-scientific horses and the existence of God is validated by sound argumentation.

This DVD is available for a special price of $10.00 plus $3.50 fo shipping and handling. Click on the button below to purchase.

...

Debate: The Oneness of God vs The Trinity on DVD

2009-11-09T14:57:00.001-08:00

Is the doctrine of the Trinity biblical?

Oneness apologist Roger Perkins debates well-known Trinitarian defender Matt Slick. A must theological resource for the study of the nature and true identity of God.

1 DVD $20.00
Shipping & Handling $3.50
Your total will show the shipping charges included ($23.50 dollars).

Water Baptism Debate on DVD

2009-11-09T13:34:00.000-08:00

Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

Oneness apologist Roger Perkins debates well-known Trinitarian defender Matt Slick. A must theological resource for the study of the significance of Jesus' Name water baptism in God's plan of salvation.

1 DVD $20.00
Shipping & Handling $3.50
Your total will show the shipping charges included ($23.50 dollars).

Perspectives Magazine Opinion Article on the Signs of the Second Coming

2009-10-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

Perspectives Magazine, one of the better Apostolic magazines in production, asked us to participate in a survey they were conducting to be published in their Opinions page. Due to their space constraints, my full contribution could not be published and the editing left some important things out. Not their fault, just the nature of publishing.

We were honored to be included in their survey and are avid readers of the magazine. To subscribe to Perspectives click here.

I'm including their request, along with my response below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme: How our current economic crisis may play into end time prophecy.

1. Do you feel our current economic crisis could be a key part of end time prophecy? How? Explain what the scenario might be that this economic situation could bring about.
2. Do you personally feel that the World will recover from our current Recession or Depression? Is this THE ONE or will there be another that will usher in the AntiChrist?
3. If you were to guess, just how close to you think we are to the rapture? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
4. Do you feel the church will experience any tribulation from world conditions prior to the rapture?
5. Is there scriptural support for a great endtime revival (ingathering) prior to the rapture of the church? What scripture?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

As bad as our economy has gotten and as bad as it may get in the next few months, I am reluctant to attribute end-time significance to every event that seems to make life difficult for us on this earth. That would be a form of "newspaper eschatology." Seeing a "prophecy fulfillment" in every disaster or war reported in the newspaper does not help prepare the Church for the Lord's coming. On the contrary, you can cry, "wolf!" only so many times until those that have been in church for a greater part of their lives stop listening to the same old scare tactics, "The end is near, look at this microchip!", "the end is near, the US is at war!", "the end is near, the Jews signed a treaty!".

Do I believe the Lord is coming soon? Yes, definitely. I believe the Lord could come at any time, but we are not waiting for any specific prophetic fulfillment before that happens. Christ’s coming is imminent, and its only announcement will be the trump of God. How close are we to the Catching Away? To speculate of 7, 10 or 20 years is to miss the point. We are always only a blinking of an eye away from seeing Him in the clouds.

One of our movement’s greatest needs is for a responsible eschatology. We need to study Bible prophecy in a methodical, exegetical way, based on sound principles of hermeneutics, not on that day's newspaper, nor on some prophecy teacher’s speculations. Brethren, our only infallible guide is the Word of God. "Whether there be [human-given] prophecies, they shall fail..." but God’s Word remains forever!

G. Jorge Medina
Defenders of the Faith
www.defendersweb.com
Author and Compiler, Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism

...

40 Days For Life Special Offer

2009-10-06T11:01:00.000-07:00

SPECIAL OFFER FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009

Why Pro-Life: Caring for the Unborn and their Mothers.
This is one of the easiest books to understand and apply in daily conversations on the subject of abortion. No issue is more divisive or troubling than abortion. Many believe that we have to choose between helping women and helping children. This books shows how critical it is that we help both. In a concise, nonabrasive fashion, Randy Alcorn offers compassionate, factual answers to the central issues of the abortion debate.

The back cover shows an award-winning photo of an operation on Sarah Marie Switzer, a twenty-four-week unborn child... born two months later.

This book should not be missing from any Christian family's library.

Regular Price: $8.00
NOW ONLY $5 plus $3.50 for shipping & handling.

...

Why retreat will not bring peace with Islam

2009-09-11T10:34:00.000-07:00

Eight years after the 9-11 attacks on America, more American voices call for a military retreat from foreign lands in the hopes we'll have peace with Islam. One thing we should never forget is that Islam's expansionist endeavors obey to their adherence to the teachings of their holy book. The Qur'an teaches that Muslims should fight until all unbelievers (non-Muslims) are subdued.

"Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them." (Surah 4:89)

"So, when you meet (in fight–Jihad in Allah's Causa) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)." (Surah 47:4)

Retreat will never bring peace.

"Let not the Unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate them. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom Allah knows." (Surah 8:59-60, Ali translation).

For Islam to agree to back off from their holy calling would be a betrayal of Allah and taking the side of those that do not believe in him. No godly Muslim will ever be satisfied until the whole world, including America, is under total subjection to Islam.

Muslim's Sharia Law in the United States!

2009-08-10T22:10:00.000-07:00

If you, by any stretch of the imagination, still think that there will be peace in the world with Islam... you are dreaming, and your dream will become a nightmare when you finally wake up!

This video was taken in the United States, at an Arab festival... imagine if the roles were reversed and the Muslims had been set-up, abused, and thrown out... every media channel would be broadcasting it and every organization condemning the actions of the Christian "intolerants." But it seems that America has changed, and if the Muslims have their way, even questioning Islam will become illegal. Imagine how much worse this is in Muslim countries!

Many things become clear as you watch the video. Among them, Muslims can not compete with Christianity on a level playing field. They are scared of the Truth and will lie, cheat and become violent to silence any voice of truth. Islam has never been and will never be a religion of peace. Just reading a biography of their greatest example, Muhammad, will show you that. Islam's worldwide expansion has always been by the sword, not by evangelism.

...

Obama camp member admits to Socialist agenda

2009-08-01T10:57:00.001-07:00

This is a must-see video. This Socialist's slip of the tongue was very revealing...

Click here to watch video.

...

Prophecy book #4 in sales!

2009-06-27T17:59:00.001-07:00

Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism, was printed in 2005. It is refreshing to see that it is still in high demand.

Recently a good friend emailed us letting us know our book was fourth in sales through www.pentecostalpublishing.com, the web page of the Pentecostal Publishing House.

The book, written by some of the best theologians of our day (David K. Bernard, J.R. Ensey, Ken Gurley, etc.) is part of the reading requirements for applicants to ministerial license with the United Pentecostal Church International.

...

Does God Exist?

2009-05-17T21:47:00.001-07:00

** DVD now available in our Online Store **

This Friday, May 22nd, 2009 - 7:00 pm

Defenders of the Faith presents

Theism (God exists)
vs
Atheism (God doesn't exist)

Is there any evidence for God's existence?

Are the so-called "Four Horsemen of Atheism" right in denying God is real?

What should a THINKING person believe?

Can a Christian be logical in accepting God's existence?

Have the atheists proved there is no God?

Don't miss this important youth-sponsored event!

Everyone welcome!

Mundo Pentecostal Sanctuary
1008 S. Main Street
Pasadena, Texas 77506
281-797-9594

...

Planned Parenthood's Illegal Conspiracy

2009-04-28T06:54:00.000-07:00

Planned Parenthood will stop at nothing to destroy the unborn. They don't even care that a minor may be involved in sexual relations with an older man, which is illegal!!! If a 14-year-old is engaged in sexual activities with an older person, they are victims of sexual abuse. Not to report it is to condone something illegal and dangerous. It is against the law. But abortion gives Planned Parenthood money. So much for their contention that they want to help young girls make the best decisions for their future.

The 14-year-old in this video is told by a Planned Parenthood employee to lie to a judge about her "boyfriend's" age. Her parents nor the police would ever find out about this situation as long as Planned Parenthood cashes in.

Watch the following video:

Defenders of the Faith Conference 2009 starts today!

2009-04-24T11:53:00.000-07:00

Live webcast: Click on PLAY here: Webcast

Global Warming "Postponed"

2009-01-30T15:16:00.001-08:00

Apostolic Theological Forum 2009

2009-01-09T08:36:00.000-08:00

Click on the image to expand

Obama "proud" to have gay band perform at his inauguration

2008-12-30T15:05:00.000-08:00

The Nonsense of Global Warming

2008-12-18T22:31:00.000-08:00

By Paul Johnson

www.Forbes.com October 6, 2008

"It's global warming, of course." That's the Green's [= global warming extremist's] stock response to anything weather-related. Too much sun? "Global warming." Too little sun? "Global warming." Drought? "Global warming." Floods? "Global warming." Freezing cold? "Global warming."

I wish the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper were alive to denounce the unscientific nature of global warming. He was a student when Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was first published and then successfully tested. Einstein said that for his theory to be valid it would have to pass three tests. "if," Einstein wrote to British scientist Sir Arthur Eddington, "it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature, then the whole theory would have to be abandoned."

To Popper, this was a true scientific approach. "What impressed me most," he wrote, "was Einstein's own clear statement that he would regard his theory as untenable if it should fail in certain tests." In contrast, Popper pointed out, there were pseudo-scientists, such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Marx claimed to be constructing a theory of scientific materialism based on scientific history and economic science. "Science" and "scientific" were words Marx used constantly. Far from formulating his theory with a high degree of scientific content and encouraging empirical testing and refutation, Marx made it vague and general. When evidence turned up that appeared to refute his theory, the theory was modified to accommodate the new evidence [rather than abandoning it as false]. It's no wonder that when communist regimes applied Marxism it proved a costly failure.

Freud's theories were also nonspecific, and he, too, was willing to adjust them to take in new science. We now know that many of Freud's central ideas have no basis in biology. They were formulated before Mendel's Laws were widely known and accepted and before the chromosomal theory of inheritance, the recognition of inborn metabolic errors, the existence of hormones and the mechanism of nervous impulse were known. As the scientist Sir Peter Medawar put it, Freud's psychoanalysis is akin to mesmerism and phrenology; it contains isolated nuggets of truth, but the general theory as a whole is false.

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Green's theory of global warming— has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory's conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully...

Thanks to heavy government subsidies, many farmers switched from growing food to biofuel crops—perhaps the most expensive form of energy ever devised. The result has been a world shortage of food, with near starvation in some places, and a rise in the cost of food for everyone...

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article?

...

Why I will not vote for Barack Obama

2008-10-24T06:41:00.000-07:00

Although many use pictures (some of them doctored - see above picture), cartoons, or slogans to alienate people from a candidate ("NObama," "Obama Sin Laden," "Obama/Biden/Laden"), we do not think those are acceptable. My reasons for not voting for Barack Obama have more depth, and yet are not complex.

Simply put, as a Christian I am devoted to God and His Word. God is pro-life, Obama takes very much the contrary position.

A very good article written by Robert P. George, who is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, states the following:

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

The research done by Professor George uncovers things that no Christian would want to be associated with. You may want to read the complete article.* But here's some of the troublesome content:

"It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

"But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

"It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

"You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

"For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

"But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

"Can it get still worse? Yes.

"Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos."

As a Christian, I do not vote with my wallet in my mind, but rather, with the Bible in my hand. I do not only look for what will profit me, but for a leader for the United States that will stand for justice. The rights of the unborn are trampled by Obama at every turn. I can not support a candidate that would do that. I know Jesus wouldn't.

...
Please pass this information on to others who may be thinking of voting for Obama.

To see what abortion really does to an unborn baby, click here.

________________

* http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

Science vs. Religion in Future Constitutional Conflicts

2008-07-23T10:53:00.000-07:00

Debbs McKown wrote an essay in 1984 which was later published in F. D. White & S. J. Billings (Eds.), The Well-crafted Argument: A Guide and a Reader (pp. 587-591). New York: Houghton Mifflin. Professor of philosophy McKown’s main purpose is to warn about a future constitutional conflict between science and religion. As professor of philosophy, he marshals his philosophical training to try proving his premise. Since the Founding Fathers designed an “utterly secular Constitution,” (p. 586) he asserts, they did not provide enough safeguard for the free practice and advance of science. Furthermore, because science opposes Christianity’s religious myths, there is peril that technology “would, one day… be endangered by it” (p. 586). The author goes on to describe religion’s threat to science and chastises Stephen Jay Gould for believing that “science and religion, properly understood, do not conflict” (p. 587). Especially since American fundamentalism’s “blood is boiling at present” (p. 587). McKown also asserts that “creationism threatens biology” (p. 587) and that all major sciences would “be gutted,” “emasculated,” and “suffer substantially,” (p. 587) at the hands of creationists. The author goes on to assert that “Christianity is scientifically unsupported” (p.588). The author insists that speaking about God is philosophically pointless, and the claim to religious experience as validation for religion can render contradictory results that cannot be verified.

McKown then accuses Christianity of historical fraud, asserting that the Gospel stories are suspect because they were written to convince people to believe in Christ. He points to alleged Christian misuse of the Jewish Old Testament to prove Jesus as Messiah, and the “suspiciously different resurrection tales” (p. 589). He surprisingly concludes that the Christ of the New Testament “never had any existence” (p. 589).

McKown claims that if schools were to teach modern science then a wholesale adoption of rational empiricism would be necessary. McKown proposes a 7 step plan of action that includes “the possible use of professional sanctions, to help safeguard the integrity of science instruction in public schools” (p. 590). He also proposes education that would help wean Americans from religion.

After reviewing the article, we concluded that McKown has not effectively proved his claim. His stated title seems to require a more thorough treatment of the Constitution as it relates to the relationship of religion, science and education. One expects to see some treatment of current proposed amendments that may in the future bear on the author’s subject, but none are given. McKown’s claim that the Constitution is “utterly secular” (p. 586) may be contradicted by religious people, but he offers no evidence for his claim.

A surprising claim is the one that asserts that the “useful arts” in the form of “technology” are endangered by religious people (p. 586). This sounds like an unfounded exaggeration, especially considering the churches’ use of technology to disseminate their beliefs. This should have been clarified by the author. McKown sees American fundamentalism as a threat to science (p. 587), but does not define the term. This would have been useful; especially considering the range of meanings that “fundamentalism” has had since its inception into American religious life. He also asserts that creationism is an enemy to all sciences, but fails to comment on the fact that a great amount of modern science discoveries were pioneered by Bible believing scientists. No specific examples are given to show that his assertions are true. I found this trend one of the greatest weaknesses in McKown’s paper. Also, because the range of beliefs in American Christianity is so vast, defining the group that he is addressing would have helped to make his paper intelligible to a general audience.

McKown claims that real religion involves “scriptural literalism,” and because the scriptures are mistaken regarding the nature of the universe, the earth, life and other subjects, then a conflict with science is inevitable. Although by the end of the paper it is obvious that Christianity is the object of his attack, he nowhere declares so. He uses the term “religion” but seems to define it (in his own mind) quite narrowly. This makes the above claim about “scriptural literalism” meaningless, and even wrong, apart from a Christian (fundamentalist?) understanding, especially because many religions in America do not have holy scriptures in the manner Christianity has, and some religions that do actually do not interpret them literally (i.e. those of the Gnostic persuasion and others).

The author’s claim that “Christianity is scientifically unsupported” (p. 588) needed a lot more detail. Declaring in what way it is unsupported; explain what scientific, repeatable experiment had proven it to be so would have been helpful. Some of the gaps in his arguments are quite surprising given the fact that the author is a professor of philosophy. It seems to me that most Christians probably do not have anything against science per se but McKown’s entire paper seems to depend on that supposed fact. The author nowhere defines what he understands as “science,” and this, again, weakens his position. McKown quotes Ralph Alpher approvingly when he states that if there is a god “it will become evident to the scientist” (p. 588). But it seems that if God is defined as the all-powerful, all-knowing Designer and Creator of the universe, His knowledge would be so far above mankind’s that it would be easier for a “scientist ant” (if there was such a thing) to understand man’s science than for a human scientist to understand God’s. McKown contends that Freud had it right when he wrote that “biological research robbed man of his particular privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world.” (p. 588) The author does not interact at all with modern scientific models like Intelligent Design and does not seem to be aware that unproven traditional evolutionism (a la Darwin) has been mostly rejected in favor of other theories like punctuated equilibrium. The author’s dogmatism does not take into account that evolution, far from being a law, is still a “theory” of origins.

The most powerful arguments were expected to be under the heading of “No Support from Philosophy,” but none are given. He asserts that “nowadays, philosophy is not a welcome place to land,” but does not provide a logical argument why that is so. He does not interact with the theories of current Christian philosophical scholars. Interestingly, one of the most publicized debates between atheist and Christian philosophers have rendered results that seem to contradict the author’s position. Prolific British atheist writer Antony Flew and Christian philosopher/historian Gary Habermas debated the subject of the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ and the scholars present, atheists among them, concluded that Habermas won the debate. Some years later Flew abandoned his atheism when the evidence of intelligent design pointed him to the existence of God.

When it comes to historical evidence, the author asserts that Christianity has massively misused the Jewish Old Testament, but again no proof is given. Christians could point out to Isaiah 53 which describes the life and death of Jesus in astonishing detail, even though it was written hundreds of years before he was born. McKown calls the resurrection a “tale” and incredibly decides that Jesus “never had existence” (p. 589), a point of view that had been quite popular in the eighteenth century but finds no modern support. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Christ in the first century, and Roman historian Tacitus recognizes the existence of the followers of Christ around the same time. Furthermore, it would be interesting to find out what McKown would do to explain the empty tomb and the origin of the Christian church apart from Jesus’ real existence and resurrection. To assert that the Apostles invented Him would not explain their willingness to die as martyrs for their beliefs.

The author hopes for constitutional guarantees for scientific inquiry “equivalent to those enjoyed by religion” (p. 590) and shares his seven step plan to obtain better science education in American schools. One of them suggests “the possible use of professional sanctions, to help safeguard the integrity of science instruction in public schools and to shield science teachers against uninformed [Christian?] Public opinion” (p. 590). It seems to me that if enforced in the way the author envisions this, especially considering he would like some kind of constitutional amendment to guarantee similar results, it would cut off any and all divergent points of view. It would birth a totalitarian system where dissenters could end up losing their professional status and the opportunity to work for public schools unless willing to conform to the current “scientific” regime. Public (paternal?) opinion would not matter and children could be indoctrinated without any opposition. It seems to me that giving that much power to either side (religious or atheistic) would be a grave mistake. Openness to different points of view in the market place of ideas is a better way to guarantee a better science education.

The author ends his paper appealing to “a new and unique source of truth” that can be used to revise “ethical premises” (p. 591), but he does not clarify how and in what way could science, the science of empirical experimentation, provide a basis for an ethical system, when, by definition, ethical systems are not quantifiable in a laboratory. Is he suggesting that a test tube could be the foundation of morality?

Throughout his writing McKown assumes what he wants to (and should) prove. In the end, one is left wondering if the author did not provide evidence for his many assertions because his goal was to make an emotional appeal only, without a scientific basis, or perhaps because he is not informed enough to do so, or whether evidence for his point of view simply does not exist. In the end, his essay is not worthy to be included in an anthology such as The Well-crafted Argument, because there is a patent lack of any such argument in his biased writing.

G. Jorge Medina
Defenders of the Faith
www.defendersweb.com

...

Report on the First Spanish Symposium on Apostolic Pentecostalism

2008-05-28T07:14:00.000-07:00

First ever Spanish Symposium on Apostolic Pentecostalism held in the South Texas District of the United Pentecostal Church International.

At Mundo Pentecostal we consider it a privilege and an honor to have hosted the event, which had the participation of at least three Oneness organizations. The Symposium was scheduled to coincide with our V Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine, a Spanish event that has given much to talk about in the last few years by hosting a debate on the Oneness of God vs the Trinity in 2003, standing against the false teaching of the divine flesh of Jesus in 2004, and against Preterism in 2005 (the 2005 event lead to the publication of Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism, published by Word Aflame Press).

The Symposium papers were made available in attractive binders to all attendees, and soon they will be available on CD-Rom in PDF format to all interested ministers.

For our first Symposium we had five presenters, and the event was open to all licensed ministers.

The topics covered:

The Role of Women in the Church, at Home and in Society - Dr. Jorge Mendizabal

An Apostolic Hermeneutic of Matthew 28:19 - Alfonso Suarez

The Apostolic Church and the Use of Mass Media - Octavio Muñoz

Restoring the Ministry of Apostles - Dr. Daniel Gordon

Apostolic Foundations for True Holiness - G. Jorge Medina

The papers were read and then questions and answers were fielded by each speaker. Encouraging the expression of differences of opinion enriched the Symposium and some of the exchanges were lively but respectful. The pastors that attended expressed their gratefulness at the way the subjects were handled and the opportunity to interact with the speakers.

We are grateful to Pastor David K. Bernard, President of Urshan Graduate School of Theology and Pastor J.R. Ensey, former President of Texas Bible College and Chairman of the Apostolic Theological Forum for sending letters to the Conference wishing us success in our endeavors.

This year’s Symposium was an exciting beginning to deeper explorations of our beloved doctrine and our Apostolic heritage in Spanish ministries. Great things are in store in the years to come!

G. Jorge Medina
Founder & Director
Defenders of the Faith
www.defendersweb.com

Video Feed of Defenders of the Faith

2008-04-22T21:38:00.000-07:00

To view the Defenders of the Faith Conference through the internet make sure you log in Friday, April 25th at 7:30pm and on Saturday, 26th at 6:00pm (Houston, Texas time).

To visit Mundo Pentecostal's video page click here.

...

Defenders of the Faith Conference 2008

2008-03-25T05:59:00.000-07:00

Click to enlarge image

Mark your calendars for April 25 and 26, 2008

Our Defenders of the Faith Conference is not designed for the shallow Christian, but rather for the soldiers of the Cross that want to make an impact in their generation. Those that want to deepen their knowledge of the Word of God and become skilled in the use of the Sword of the Spirit are encouraged to attend.

Friday, April 25th, 2008 - 7:30pm

"Nobody Left Behind"
G. Jorge Medina
Founder & Director of the Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine
Authored and compiled the Word Aflame Press published prophecy book Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism

"How Close Are We To The End?"
Dannie Hood
Evangelist and Prophecy Teacher

A multimedia session outlining the accelerated fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the endtime.

Brother Hood, along with Brother Lee Stoneking, taught a prophecy conference in Houston's Astroarena the year 2000, ministering to thousands of Apostolic Pentecostals. Untold numbers received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Saturday, April 26th, 2008 - 6:00pm

"Why I Left Islam"
Brother Farhad
Ex-Muslim converted to Oneness Pentecostalism

A multimedia session revealing Islam's secret agenda. Find out why this insider asked us not to use his last name.

And later on in the night...

"The Unstoppable Advance of the Oneness Message"

Trinitarian ministers are being baptized in Jesus' Name by the hundreds all over the world. Find out what God is doing and why so many are forsaking their Catholic and Protestant traditions for the revelation of the Name of Jesus.

DVDs, CDs and books on these subjects will be available at the conference.

Place: Mundo Pentecostal sanctuary, 1008 S. Main Street, Pasadena, Texas 77506

Cost: $10 per person

More info: faithdefenders@hotmail.com
or call Mary Mendizabal at 832-755-1775

...

Refuting Preterism - 2 CD Album

2008-01-02T12:20:00.000-08:00

CD 1: Has Jesus Already Come in the Clouds?
Refuting Preterism and the AD. 70 Date

CD 2: Has God Rejected Israel Forever?
Refuting Preterism & Replacement Theology

2 Audio CDs $13.99
Shipping & Handling $3.50
Your total will show the shipping charges included ($17.49 dollars).

Refuting pro abortion arguments

2007-10-28T06:25:00.000-07:00

The only differences between a fetus in the womb and a newborn baby can be remembered by the acronym S.L.E.D.

Size

Level of development

Environment

Degree of dependency

None of them are essential (that is, none of them have to do with "what" the fetus "is") and none of them make the fetus non-human.

Refuting pro abortion rhetoric is essential to the pro life cause. In this podcast we give you some foundational tools.

To listen to the podcast click [Here]

...

The Bible on Trial

2007-10-28T06:18:00.000-07:00

Famous people have had different views on the origin of the Bible, and as far as human opinion goes, they have a right to their views.

But when we examine the Bible itself, what does the internal evidence tell us? Is the Bible really the Word of God?

Should we consider the Bible’s own claims regarding its origin?

Listen to this Defenders of the Faith podcast by clicking [Here]

...

Defenders of the Faith Podcast

2007-08-15T12:56:00.000-07:00

Now you can tune in to our English Podcast. Click here to listen

The first program treats the subject of Preterism.

As Preterism continues to deceive believers, it has become more necessary to expose its fallacies. Preterists believe that many (or all) of the prophecies regarding the second coming of Christ were fulfilled in a.D. 70, when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem. To them that was "Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven."

Listen in as we explain what they believe and why their theories are mistaken.

The complete study is available on Audio CD by clicking the following button:

...

Why Christians must practice critical thinking

2007-06-15T16:12:00.000-07:00

Charles Francis Potters authored, Humanism, A New Religion in which he wrote:

Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?

Researchers continue to come up with increasingly grave statistics that reveal the success of the Secular Humanists. Consider how serious the condition is among self-professing Christian adults:

64% believe moral truth depends on the situation;
60% believe male/female co-habitation outside of marriage is acceptable;
55% believe a good person can earn his or her salvation;
44% believe Jesus Christ committed sins while on earth.

And consider the peril of college students:

67% of college professors approve of homosexuality;
84% of professors approve of abortion;
65% embrace socialist and communist ideals;
88% of students from “Christian” homes deny their faith before they graduate from college;
91% of students from evangelical churches do not believe in absolute moral truth.

We must teach our members biblical discernment and critical thinking. Instead of accepting the postulates of a godless society without examination, they should be able to analyze such ideas from a biblical worldview mindset.

The Apostle Paul advised:

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)

...

Statistics used above were recently reported by a Worldview Weekend email update.

Homosexuality brainwashing for third graders

2007-06-04T16:30:00.000-07:00

Pastor J.R. Ensey reported this in his Advance Ministries Newsletter:

"If you doubt that the homosexual agenda is being promoted in our public schools, just check out these two excerpts from a film that teachers are required to watch to learn how to promote gay and lesbian lifestyles. This is not a set up. These are real teachers and real students. It will shock you!"

Click here to see the video

This is another wake-up call to our churches, specially our Sunday Schools, to really "train" our children in the ways of the Lord. Need we mention the responsibility parents have to explain such issues to their children?

...

The Crucifixion in Prophecy

2007-05-20T15:28:00.000-07:00

One of the clearest prophecies of the crucifixion of Messiah is found in Psalm 22:16

"For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet." (NKJV)

Written centuries before the coming of Christ, this prophecy is not only amazing because of the time-span between the writing and the fulfillment; the unlikelihood of a Jewish person to be killed by crucifixion was, at the time the prophecy was written, very unlikely to say the least. That method of execution would not be invented until centuries later.

Also, Jewish people would usually apply capital punishment by stoning in cases of blasphemy (which was the charge brought against Jesus by the Sanhedrin); what are the odds they would kill him any other way?

In the Book of Zechariah there are more scriptures that speak of the piercing of his hands:

"If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body?' he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'" (Zachariah 13:6)

And then again:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." (Zechariah 12:10)

The context makes it clear that Messiah is in view.

The Bible, in spite of its critics, proves time and again that it is the Word of God. The exactness of its prophecies are one more evidence that it was really God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

...

Planned Parenthood vs a baby's smile

2007-05-09T15:19:00.000-07:00

April 18, 2007 - Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Supreme Court has reversed a decision it handed down in 2000 and upheld a Congressional ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. The ruling indicated that the federal ban on the abortion procedure did not violate the so-called right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court and indicated that the abortion advocates who sued to overturn the ban "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases."
President Bush signed the national partial-birth abortion ban into law in 2003 and abortion advocates took it to court in three separate lawsuits and federal courts in each case relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 and declared the ban unconstitutional.

Calling the decision a "dark day," for the fight to keep abortion legal, Planned Parenthood president Cecille Richards sent out a fundraising email to the abortion business' supporters just hours after the decision.

"Your immediate help is essential as Planned Parenthood responds to the disastrous U.S. Supreme Court decision," Richards wrote in the financial plea.

She claimed the high court "turned its back on more than 30 years of Supreme Court decisions" promoting abortion, despite numerous decisions uphold pro-life laws since the Roe ruling in 1973.

"There is no way we will let this stand," Richards warned, adding that "Planned Parenthood lawyers and medical experts are carefully studying the justices' opinions, searching out ways to ensure" that it can continue doing hundreds of thousands of abortions despite "this reckless ruling."

----

Hmmm. Let's see what the babies in peril of being killed with the partial birth abortion procedure think:

Sorry, "Planned Parenthood," I'll side with the babies on this one.

...

Dealing with Postmodernism

2007-01-09T17:26:00.000-08:00

Modernism was partly a reaction to premodernism’s lack of evidential integrity. Premodernism was a blind faith that would not be bothered by the facts. Modernism swung the pendulum in the extreme opposite way, making reason and science the arbiters of what one should believe. With Postmodernism comes the tendency to overcorrect the abuses of modernism but in so doing the very idea of ultimate truth is lost (Truth with a capital “T,” if you please). Anyone can and should believe anything they choose, even if their ideas are contradictory to those of others, no one is wrong because no one can be sure they are absolutely right.

Postmodernism and premodernism are similar in that they embrace personal experience as a valid way of “knowing,” although they both may define “knowing” in a different way; “knowing what and with what amount of certainty” is the question that may remain.

In reaching the postmodern world new methods must be employed, but people will not accept us and our message only if we show them love, because postmodernism has redefined the word “love.” To a postmodern person love is shown in never judging anyone else’s actions and above all by never telling them they are wrong and that you are right regarding anything, specially religion. It can be misleading to expect that if you show people love they will automatically associate that with your Christianity. “Love” is the battle cry of the postmodern and is misused to provide acceptance of those that are different than us, including gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. Although we should love all sinners, that should not be construed as an acceptance of their sinful lifestyle. In today’s society the only wrong is thinking you are right. Unless you accept everyone around you as they are, without trying to change their moral (or immoral) convictions, you are not “loving,” but rather a “hate-monger.”

We need apologetics(1) in order to overcome the insidious philosophy of relativism in the postmodern world. This is not only necessary to reach the postmodern world outside the church, but also the postmoderns that have been born into the church. Our children go to postmodern schools, are trained by postmodern teachers, many of them grow up watching T.V. programs with a postmodern, relativistic bend (I know what most of our churches say about television, I also know that realistically speaking the recommendation of not owning a television has been highly disregarded). Statistics show that up to 80% of Christian youth abandon the church when they reach college age. Could it be that we have failed to provide them with sound reasons for faith? How many youth do you personally know that have no biblical clue as to why they dress the way they dress? To them it is just the way they were brought up, or their parents insist they do so. What usually happens to their dress codes when they leave the home to go away to college?

A young person that attends secular college is not only bombarded with a sensual environment, but also with an academic world that thinks the Bible is a bunch of tales and that evolution has done away with the need for a God. They have no answers to their nagging questions. Could they have been wrong? There is a divorce of the mind and the heart, which is unscriptural. The mind and heart should be united in their worship of the one true God (Mark 12:28-30).

We must not forget that when it comes to biblical faith it is never an either/or situation, but rather a both/and reality when it comes to knowing, believing in and experiencing the God of Pentecost.

------
Note.
1. Apologetics is defined as a "rational defense of the Christian faith."

...

The Apostolic Doctrine of God, Part 2

2006-12-27T14:48:00.000-08:00

In the first part we asserted that Jewish monotheism was the basic and fundamental belief during the Old Covenant and there could be no other God but YHWH.

Strangely, when Jesus comes on the scene, He demanded and His disciples offered Him the same kind of worship that only YHWH God should have,(1) they gave Him the exclusive titles of God,(2) became witnesses of His Name,(3) notwithstanding they were people of the covenant, Jewish monotheists that would repeat the Shema on a daily basis. In fact, the Apostle Paul goes so far as to modify the Shema and includes Jesus in the monotheistic confession of fundamental faith.(4)

How can this be explained? David S. Norris believes that “Christology, then, must be defined within its Jewish provenance…”(5) Scholar Richard Bauckham asserts that such an approach should be the hermeneutical key to the study of Jesus in Scripture.(6) If we are to approach Scripture with such an understanding, and read what the Apostles wrote about Jesus being God, then we must conclude that by “God” they meant only what a Jewish monotheist would mean, that is: “YHWH,” the only true God. Scripture makes no room for another, neither should we.

The doctrine of the incarnation, revealed in 1 Timothy 3:16, is the answer to the dilemma of how Jesus could be called God. “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.” Jesus is the revelation of God in human flesh.(7) YHWH of the Old Testament coming to earth to “seek and to save that which was lost,”(8) fulfilling His promise of redemption.(9) God becomes a Son in the fullness of time.(10) In the man Jesus God dwells, not the presence of a second “God,” nor another “Person”(11) of God, but the fullness of the one Godhead.(12) That is, everything that God is was revealed in Jesus Christ (13) so that whoever has the Son has the Father also,(14) for the Father was in the Son (15) reconciling the world unto Himself.(16) Therefore, the confession of Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, “My Lord and my God,”(17) is in reality a reaffirmation of the Old Testament confession of faith in YHWH (18) rightly applied to Jesus, God manifest in the flesh.

Notes:

1. John 5:23; Revelation 5:12.
2. Romans 10:13; Philippians 2:11; John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 3:5; Romans 9:5; 2 Corinthians 5:19, etc. Cf. Isaiah 9:6 where Messiah is called El Gibbor (Mighty God) the same title give to YHWH in Isaiah 10:21.
3. Acts 1:8; 9:15; 8:12; 4:12; 5:40-42.
4. “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6.) Emphasis mine.
5. David S. Norris, I AM the God WHO IS in Covenant, unpublished paper, p. 161.
6. “the understanding of Jewish monotheism… will function as the hermeneutical key to understanding the way in which the New Testament texts relate Jesus Christ to the one God of Jewish monotheism.” (Bauckham, God Crucified, p. 26.)
7. 2 Corinthians 4:4-6; John 14:9-11;
8. Matthew 1:21, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Jesus literally means “YHWH Savior” or “YHWH is become salvation." See also Luke 19:10.
9. “Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.” (Isaiah 35:4-6). Jesus applied this Scripture to Himself in Matthew 11:3-5.
10. John 1:1, 14, 18; Galatians 4:4.
11. The word “Person” as applied to God is not used by the New Testament writers in the Trinitarian sense not even once. It would be Tertullian who would invent such extra-biblical words to try to explain his nascent trinitarian belief. In Tertullian’s view, however, the members of the Trinity were not co-equal, but there’s a subordination of the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father.
12. See Colossians 2:9-10. The oneness of the Jewish God is reaffirmed in the New Testament in such passages as Romans 3:30; Galatians 3:20 and James 2:19.
13. John 12:44-45.
14. 1 John 2:23.
15. John 14:10-11.
16. 2 Corinthians 5:19.
17. John 20:28.
18. “Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.” (Psalm 35:23) Emphasis mine.

The Holocaust Never Happened?

2006-12-26T16:59:00.000-08:00

I guess this is as good a way as any to silence those that would deny the truth about the Jewish Holocaust under Hitler's regime.

If you haven't yet read the classic Diary of Anne Frank you owe it to yourself (and your children) to read it.

...

The Apostolic Doctrine of God, Part 1

2006-12-15T13:19:00.000-08:00

How does Jesus relate to the Godhead? Is He a member of a triune God? Or is Jesus the fullness of YHWH of the Old Testament manifest in the flesh? Our approach is to study what the biblical writers wrote, seeking to understand them in their own historical and cultural context.(1) Apostolics approach Scripture with reverence and awe since they consider the Bible as wholly inspired by God and the only authority for faith and praxis. An Apostolic hermeneutic seeks to mine the treasures of Scripture and apply them to their daily lives as authoritative, having the seal of God’s revelation to humankind.(2)

The doctrine of God has as its foundation God’s self-revelation in covenant to the people of Israel. Deuteronomy 6:4 is known as the Shema, the most foundational commandment in all of Scripture, “Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH.”(3) There could be no other god or gods beside YHWH.(4) No other being could even be compared to YHWH,(5) and He would not share His glory with anyone.(6) YHWH is the only mighty God,(7) the lone Creator of everything that exists.(8) No other god could ever be known,(9) nor other Savior ever expected.(10) The people of Israel were called to become witnesses of God’s oneness and of His Name.(11)

Notes:
1. David K. Bernard, “An Apostolic Approach to Hermeneutics,” paper.
2. Cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Scriptures are literally God-breathed (Greek theopneustos).
3. Reaffirmed in the New Testament by no other than Jesus Christ Himself. See Mark 12:28-31.
4. Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 45:5, 21.
5. Isaiah 46:9; 44:8.
6. Isaiah 48:11; 42:8.
7. Isaiah 10:21. Hebrew: El Gibbor.
8. Isaiah 44:24; 37:16.
9. Hosea 13:4.
10. Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-22; Hosea 13:4
11. Isaiah 43:6-7, 10-11.

Proof that God exists

2006-12-06T13:56:00.000-08:00

Try this on an atheist friend. See if they can follow it to its logical conclusion.

Click on the title of this message to see proof that God really does exist!

...

Trinitarians see Jesus as YHWH

2006-11-14T18:55:00.000-08:00

Having to read scholarly work on the Godhead from a Trinitarian perspective may have its surprises!

I recently read the book God Crucified by Richard Bauckham and I found that he had some beautiful insights into the deity of Jesus, specially his explanations of Jesus as the greatest revelation of God, “when the christological pattern of humiliation and exaltation is recognized as revelatory of God, indeed as the definitive revelation of who God is.” We can say, Amén! to that.

German theologian Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives some more theological Oneness “candy” when he says, “All the titles which in the N[ew] T[estament] are ascribed to Christ have an O[ld] T[estament] root,” and recognizes, in my view, that a Trinitarian attempt to harmonize passages like John 10:30 and John 14:28 has “given classical systematic theologians great difficulty.” To Oneness believers passages like those were used to teach us that Jesus was both God and man even when we were new converts.

I certainly enjoyed reading Berkhof and Bauckham’s take on the deity of Jesus. They brought to mind once again that the most substantial evidence for who Jesus is can be found in Jesus’ own words and self-understanding. His actions, his life, speak so loud that we really would not need a theologian like Paul to help us understand that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,” or that “God was manifest in the flesh.” Facts that to some are but details attain greater significance when seen through the eyes of a first century Jew.

For instance, the fact that Jesus healed all manners of disease, cast out demons, even resurrected the dead, and not even once calling the name of God over them to do it. He never said, “In the Name of YHWH you are healed,” yet, in His John 17 prayer, He assures the Father that He has made God’s name known. He affirms He revealed the Name of God, yet we find Him always saying, “In my Name you shall cast out demons...”, “where two or three are gathered together in my Name...”, etc.

He revealed the Name that was given to Him as inheritance: the very Name of God (Hebrews 1:4).

In Jesus we truly encounter YHWH revealed for our salvation.

...

Da Vinci Refuted: Spanish Apostolics fight back

2006-11-13T14:30:00.000-08:00

As the movie The Da Vinci Code comes out on DVD we continue with our Apostolic response.

We are sending our Spanish book "Desenmascarando El Código Da Vinci" [Unmasking the Da Vinci Code] to everyone that asks for it. We have created a digital version (Acrobat PDF with multimedia enhancements) and are asking everyone to share it with anyone they might think is interested in it (and understands Spanish).

We wrote the book thinking beyond the current controversy to be a defense of the deity of Christ and the trustworthiness of the Bible. We even have a short appendix on the newest gnostic release, "The Gospel of Judas."

If you think this might be helpful to someone we ask that you please let them know all they have to do is email: faithdefenders@hotmail.com with the subject: DaVinci book. We will send them the digital version free of charge via email.

If they need anymore information, please direct them to our Spanish blog site: http://defensoresdelafe.blogspot.com. You can visit it by clicking in the title of this message.

The Watchmaker

2006-10-10T16:57:00.000-07:00

Click here to see a good presentation of the design argument for God's existence.

Specially neat for kids, also useful for adults.

The fact that there's such intricate design in everything living, specially at the molecular level, leaves little room for mindless, purposeless evolution to do. This demonstrates God's existence at the most fundamental level.

...

“I’d rather obey Jesus than Peter”

2006-09-29T10:53:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when talking to Trinitarian friends we hear the phrase, “When it comes to baptism, I’d rather obey Jesus than obey Peter.” This usually comes after we’ve shown them Acts 2:38,

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

The part that bothers them is that Peter said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and they see that as contradicting what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19,

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Which is the right way to be baptized?

When a Trinitarian friend says that they’d rather obey the words of Jesus they imply that Peter may have been mistaken, but Jesus, of course, could never be mistaken. By asserting this they essentially shot themselves in the foot, among others, for the following reasons.

1. He is admitting there’s a contradiction in the Scriptures. He assumes Peter was wrong when he said baptism was in Jesus’ name. Then, ALL Scripture would NOT be inspired of God as Paul asserts in 2 Timothy 3:16. No true Christian should ever make such an affirmation. It destroys the trustworthiness of the Bible.

2. If there's a contradiction between both scriptures, then the Holy Spirit made a mistake, because Peter had just received the anointing of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:1-4) and this was supposed to have given him the power to be a witness of Jesus (Acts 1:8).

3. If the Holy Ghost can make a mistake, then, how can we trust the rest of the Scriptures? How can we know which parts are true and which are in error?

4. We must also remember that Jesus never wrote an epistle. Matthew is the one that reports Jesus commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This would not be a case of Jesus vs Peter, but Matthew vs Peter (IF there was a contradiction).

5. If there was such a disagreement between Peter and Matthew, why did Matthew, on the day of Pentecost, say nothing but rather stood with the other Apostles backing up what Peter was preaching? Why did Matthew not correct Peter, if Peter was mistaken? (Acts 2:14).

6. Why did Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven if He knew that the day Peter was to receive the Holy Spirit he would disobey and betray His instructions?

The only solution to harmonize this apparent contradiction is to see in Matthew 28:19 the commandment and in Acts 2:38 the fulfillment or obedience to the commandment of Jesus. Both scriptures are true. The “name” of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus!

In other words, the Spirit that was in Peter reminded him of the words of Jesus, and gave him the Name that should be called on the baptismal waters. Matthew, being present, full of the same Spirit, was in total agreement with Acts 2:38. The rest of the Apostles understood Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19 in the same way since they consistently baptized calling on the name of the Lord. (Please do take the time to study the following scriptures: Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16.)

For Apostolic Pentecostals “all Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). There are no contradictions in the Holy Word of God. There’s perfect harmony between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. There’s a Name revealed for our salvation, a Name so high and glorious that manifests the identity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That name is the name of Jesus (Please see Hebrews 1:4; Ephesians 1:21-23).

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NKJV)

...

A "Preterist" Prophet

2006-09-19T16:21:00.000-07:00

Preterists insist that Jesus returned on 70 A.D., evidenced by the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. They assert that we are waiting for a Second Coming that's already come.

They also insist that the "end of the world" or "end of the age" really meant the "end of the Jewish age." So, in their view, this "end of the world" has already occurred.

They can believe and preach what they want, but we remain, as the Apostle Paul, "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13)

...

What does this passage mean to me?

2006-09-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Most small group Bible studies are lead by reading a portion of the Scriptures and then asking the participants, “What does this passage mean to you?” Everyone answers what they feel this passage is trying to say to them, they have a group discussion and that’s it. That’s a cell group’s “Bible” study.

The problem with this approach to Scripture is that it makes every individual’s feelings the interpreter of Scripture. It is one of the easiest way to twist Scriptures and make the Bible say what we want it to say rather than what God intended. The important question when sharing Scripture in a small group settings (as well as when preaching from a pulpit) is not “what does it mean to me?” but rather, “what does the passage say and what reasons do I have for such an interpretation?”

In Apostolic circles, not even a “Holy Ghost impression” is enough to judge the validity of an interpretation, but rather we judge every impression by the written Scripture as instructed by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Interpreters (this includes the leaders, pastors and theologians) are not infallible, only Scripture is. That is why the context of a passage is so important to determine the meaning of the author. We compare Scripture to Scripture to make sure we are interpreting it correctly.

We believe the Holy Ghost can guide us in ascertaining the meaning of Scripture, but His meaning will never contradict the plain meaning of the Bible. The Holy Spirit didn’t make any mistakes when he inspired the writers of Scripture, therefore He doesn’t need a prophet or apostle today to fix His Word. He doesn’t make mistakes when He leads us in our Bible studies. But sometimes we think God is guiding us to a certain meaning when in reality is just our own mind or emotions. The Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes but people do. That is why we teach that the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself.

We don’t ask, “What does this Scripture mean to me?” but rather, “What does God mean in this Scripture?”

...

Are tongues for preaching the Gospel?

2006-09-15T11:43:00.000-07:00

I was at a wedding early in the year when a man that had been a member of a United Pentecostal Church (UPC), now backslid, came around trying to engage every UPC member he could get to listen to him.

“You should leave the UPC, the UPC doesn’t save, only Jesus saves. You don’t need tongues to be saved. Tongues were for missionary work, to preach in foreign languages. We don’t need tongues like that anymore, and certainly the UPC doesn’t use tongues that way.”

Since this was his son’s wedding I found it really strange that he would be spending his time going from table to table trying to find an apostolic to engage in the same conversation.

When he approached me I assured him that I was very interested in conversing with him, but that perhaps this occasion wasn’t the best venue for it. He had strayed so far from the truth that now he wasn’t even able to enjoy his own son’s wedding without attacking the church he had left many years ago.

I emailed him a couple of months later wanting to resume the conversation. I asked him where specifically the Bible taught that tongues were for preaching the Gospel in missionary work. He asked for more time to send me his reply. It’s been about four months now, and I have followed up with him on at least three occasions. He hasn’t replied yet. I wonder if he is still trying to find a Bible verse that teaches what he has come to believe about tongues. He will not find such a verse.

The truth is tongues are not a preaching tool, tongues are given as a sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 14:22; Acts 2:1-4; 11:15-18). Sometimes they are known languages (Acts 2), some times they are angelic tongues (1 Cor 14:2). They can help us in time of prayer for private edification or even for intercession (1 Cor 14:4; Rom 8:26). Tongues don’t save, the UPCI doesn’t save, Jesus does and He comes to us in the Holy Ghost if we repent of our sins and are baptized in Jesus name (See Acts 2:38-39). This experience is available to everyone that thirsts after God. Jesus is still making the invitation:

“If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive…)” (John 7:37-39).
…

Attitudes in defending the faith

2006-08-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

When the Apostle Peter instructed us to defend the faith, he laid out some principles that every successful ambassador of Christ will follow:

1 Peter 3:15:
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."

"Meekness and fear" means with a humble attitude, with reverence. It is not the pedantic Apostolic that gets a listening ear, but the one that is not afraid to treat others with the same respect he'd like to receive.

God has given us a beautiful treasure to share with others, we must do so in a Christian spirit of love. We are not suppossed to hit people over the head with the truth.

For those that think that an argumentative way of doing apologetics is the best way, I'd like to ask them how many Trinitarians have they won to the Lord that way?

Every Trinitarian minister that our local church, Mundo Pentecostal, has baptized in Jesus' Name has been won first by love, then by doctrine. Both are important, both are required.

We are not shy to share the truth. We will never be ashamed of being Oneness believers. We will never be ashamed of believing in the Holy Spirit baptism with tongues or our lifestyle. At the same time, we will never be afraid to become friends with those we want to win to the truth.

We did not receive the truth because we deserved it. We weren't worthy. We weren't more honest that other people that go to denominational churches or other religions. It was by God's mercy and grace that we were saved. In ourselves we have nothing to be proud of. We certainly can not look at others as less spiritual or less honest. We must show them the "mark" that everyone can see: love.

I haven't found any other method that works to win souls. Have you?

...

The Christian Origin of the University

2006-08-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others schools were founded primarily for the training of ministers for the evangelization of the world. The world may be surprised to learn that a full-fledged university was a Christian idea, not a secular one.The Church may be even more surprised to learn that such world-renowned universities used to be ministerial training centers.

The idea of a University, a place where all different sciences can be learned and studied in depth was born out of a desire to study God’s world precisely because creation was thought to be a revelation of the true God. It was thought that compartmentalized knowledge (the focusing on only one subject) was not worthy of a man created in God’s image. Man should be able to discourse on different subjects, was the thought, so a place where all avenues of knowledge could be explored for the glory of God was devised in the university.

I am not sure when anti-intelectualism hit the Church, but I have a feeling that part of it had something to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The thought was that if science had disproven God by making Him obsolete due to evolution, then believers either accepted science and denied God or held on to their faith by closing their eyes to modern science. Such thinking was very mistaken (and that’s a huge understatement), specially because evolution used faulty assumptions to construct its main theories.

Apostolics are called to reclaim science (and other disciplines) to the glory of God. I can only speculate the difference that Harvard, Yale and Princeton (among others) would have made in our world if they had remained Christian centers of knowledge and training. God and true science are never opposed to each other.

...

We can do better than abortion

2006-08-18T13:38:00.000-07:00

Right-click the image above to save the graphic. Please email it to all your contacts.

There are better options for the crisis pregnancy mother than abortion.

1. Give birth and keep the baby. It may not be easy, but this is one decision they'll never regret.

2. Give birth and give the baby up for adoption. They will always know their child is with a loving family and well taken care of. New Beginnings, an Apostolic Pentecostal organization is always ready to help with this option. Click on the title of this message to visit their website.

•••

The Vision recommends Upholding Our Future Hope

2006-08-18T13:37:00.000-07:00

The Vision, the official magazine of the South Texas District of the United Pentecostal Church International carried an article by Brother David Bernard in their November/December 05 issue recommending to their readership our book Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism.

We thank God for what He is doing.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

What others have said:

The belief in the soon coming King was a significant part of the gestalt of beliefs that led to the rise of Pentecostalism. Early Pentecostals were convinced they were living on the cusp of the coming of the Lord and this belief provided added motivation to live their lives fully committed to the Gospel. This book takes a fresh look at the importance of the coming of the Lord in the life of the church. I trust it will renew our committment to the coming King.

Rev. Robin Johnston
Vice President, Gateway College of Evangelism
Director, The Center for the Study of Oneness Pentecostalism

Apostolic Bible Institute commends Brother Jorge Medina for his scholarship in writing this book which reveals the error of the false doctrine of Preterism. It is a work that we will include in our classes on end-time prophecy.

Rev. Gerald F. Grant
President, Apostolic Bible Institute
St. Paul, Minnesota

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Pentecostal Publishing House has also been marketing the book agressively in all their mailouts to members of the Pentecostal Book Club and in ads placed in different magazines within the Apostolic community.

The book can be obtained at http://www.half.com (click the title of this message) or http://www.pentecostalpublishing.com

•••

Prophecy Conference Tapes

2006-08-18T13:36:00.000-07:00

Brother William Chalfant sent us this ad which appeared in Indiana Bible College's Perspectives magazine.

The tapes can be ordered by calling 913.773.8318

•••

Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism

2006-08-18T13:35:00.000-07:00

Printed by Word Aflame Press
$14
272 Pages
$3 shipping & handling
Payment can be sent to the following account: ejad@hotmail.com

Via PayPal

This book refutes the preterist theory that Jesus returned invisibly during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and demonstrates fully the truth recorded in Scripture.

Compiled by G. Jorge Medina.

Contributing authors include: David Bernard, William B. Chalfant, Steve Pixler, John T. Larabell, J. R. Ensey, Phillip A. Dugas, Jorge Medina, Ken Gurley, and David Norris.

Brother Jorge Medina has provided in these writings a book that has long been needed. For several years we have needed answers to the many questions that the doctrine of preterism has raised in students and ministers across the globe. This book is written from a biblical perspective and we can always trust the Bible to have the correct answers for every subject that would not appear to be sound doctrine. Thank you Brother Medina for the many hours you have spent in compiling such excellent writings.

Bishop James L. Kilgore
Life Tabernacle
Houston, Texas

Our movement has made allowance for unity in diversity. We must not, however, seek diversity at the expense of truth. We must at all times take a firm stand for biblical truth, as the authors of this book have done. They have thoroughly demonstrated that preterism contradicts the Holy Writ. While we can allow for a pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib Rapture, we cannot allow preterism to rob us of 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'

Anthony Mangun
Pastor, The Pentecostals of Alexandria
Alexandria, Louisiana

I am happy to recommend this work that calls us back to a renewed emphasis on "that blessed hope," the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Since two men in white stood by the awestruck disciples as they watched Jesus ascending into heaven, believers have waited for Him to "come in like manner" as they saw Him go. With Paul, we confess that we who are alive and remain when the Lord descends from heaven shall be caught up with the dead in Christ to meet the Lord in the air. There is, as Paul says, comfort in these words.

Rev. Daniel L. Segraves
President, Christian Life College
Stockton, CA

For more info, write: faithdefenders@hotmail.com

•••

Apostolic Prophecy Conference

2006-08-18T13:33:00.000-07:00

Wow!

What a Prophecy Conference we had in Kansas!

With names like William Chalfant, Mark Bassett, Todd Nance, David Hunt (Texas Bible College) and others we really had a powerful time digging deep into the Word of God.

Among the subjects treated were:

* Coming in the Clouds (Was Jesus to Return by A.D. 70?)
* God's Covenants in Prophecy
* The Reality of the Resurrection of the Body
* One Coming: Two Views
* Has God Rejected His People? (Israel, the Church, and Replacement Theology)
* The Relation of Apostolic Doctrine & Prophecy
* Judgment in the Plan of God
* And more...

You must obtain the tapes of this conference.

To do so call or write:

Truth Tabernacle
Apostolic Prophecy Conference
79 Ash Street
Leavenworth, KS 66048

913-651-0353

•••

Welcome to Defenders of the Faith!

2006-08-16T16:44:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Defenders of the Faith blog. This site is dedicated to apologetics of the Apostolic Faith. Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia = defense. It is inspired by 1 Peter 3:15:

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."

The word "defense" used by Peter is precisely "apologia." We understand apologetics to be a reasoned defense of the Apostolic Christian faith. We strive to do this with humility and love for those that may not share our points of view.

In this blog we will share some entry level Bible studies, answers to doctrinal questions, Evolution vs Creation, the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, cults, false doctrines, etc, etc.

I truyly hope this will be a blessing to the average church member, and an inspiration to our Apostolic ministers across the globe.

Please note that all Scriptures quoted are from the New King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise identified.

...