Category Archives: Christianity

The New Birth

The New Birth “Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth!

by Bill Lockwood

One of most powerful interviews in the NT is that of Jesus by Nicodemus recorded in John 3. In it the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God are explained. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus was going against scholarly public opinion of that day by coming to Jesus. Their disposition was flat rejection. Not interested in considering the Lord’s teaching, the Sanhedrin council, of which Nicodemus was a member, instead plotted to murder Christ. For that reason, Nicodemus was a “secret disciple” (7:51,52).

Prominent in Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus was that noted above: The New Birth—without which no one would see the Kingdom of God (3:3). Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth! Do not miss the point that one is not saved simply by being a faithful Jew. The kingdom cannot be a Jewish entity. Imagine the shock Nicodemus experienced. Jews supposed they would be members of the Messiah’s kingdom by virtue of natural birth. This is wrong. “How could this be?” asked Nicodemus.

Baptism

Jesus explains: The New Birth consists of “water and spirit” (3:5). One birth, two elements. The fact is given in v. 3. The details in v. 5. Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. A person is led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:12) into a New Birth. The Spirit speaks to us through His word. Water refers to the water of baptism. Richard Hooker (1533-1600), one of the “divines” if the Church of England, wrote a three-volume study. In it he stated: “Of all the ancient writers there is not one to be named who ever expounded the text otherwise than implying water baptism.”

Another Church of England leader of 1638, John Boys, expanded: “ …Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact … Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory …” all understood the text as referring to water baptism as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God.

How then do many moderns seek to explain the passage as having nothing to do with the essentiality of water baptism? Henry Alford, Greek scholar and Bible translator of yesteryear, puts it succinctly: “All attempts to get rid of baptism in this passage have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which views of expositors have been warped.” Examples of these abound.

Not

It is NOT: “Water—which is Spirit” (John Calvin). It is NOT: “Water alone” which equals infant baptism or “baptismal regeneration” as taught by the Catholic Church. Baptism, “merely as a rite, apart from the operation of the spirit, does not impart new life” (Vincent, Word Studies, II, 92).

Neither is it that “water” represents physical birth and “spirit” represents “spiritual birth.” Many modern day Baptists have sought refuge in this to avoid the implication of water baptism. They suggest that Jesus in essence answers Nicodemus this way when asked about the New Birth: “One must be born of his mother in natural birth THEN he may be born again by the Spirit.”

Several things need be said here: (1) The form of the expression “water and spirit” makes water and spirit inseparable. One birth—two elements. So states Greek scholar B.F. Westcott, one of translators of the ASV. (2) This overlooks that the whole expression ‘water and Spirit’ defines the manner in which one is born again. G.R. Beasley-Murray, a modern-day Baptist, notes that “suggestions like these do not do justice to the text and have not commended themselves to scholarly opinion.” (3) A parallel is found in John 4:24 where we are commanded to “worship in spirit and truth.” One preposition governs both nouns—spirit and truth. One worship; Two aspects. So also here in John 3:5.

One cannot enter into the kingdom of God but by a spiritual birth (led by the Spirit) through water baptism. Strange ideas to Nicodemus who supposed that traditional Judaism was the door into the Messianic kingdom. Strange ideas to denominations today who seek to avoid water baptism as essential to salvation.

BC/AD or BCE/CE?

BC/AD or BCE/CE?The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians.

by Bill Lockwood

Since the Middle Ages calendars have been dated from the central point of history–Jesus Christ. “Before Christ” (BC) and “Anno Domini” (AD)—a Latin phrase meaning “the year of our Lord.” Theoretically, the Lord was born on the year zero.

Our present calendar is based upon the Gregorian calendar of 1582 which was named after Pope Gregory XIII. This calendar was actually a reform of the earlier Julian calendar put together in the year 45 B.C. and named after Julius Caesar.

The labels BC and AD were not added until 525 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus, who used them to compute the date of Easter (Robert. R. Cargill, bibleinterp.com, 2009). Dates comprise the backbone of history and the BC/AD point of reference has been the backbone of western civilization.

This system has come under increasing criticism, however, and today “scholarship”—even Christian– recommends another option that removes Christ from that pivotal place in history. It is advised that the favored option B.C.E. and C.E., standing for Before the Common Era and Common Era, replace the older B.C./A.D. system.

Since both numerical systems utilize Jesus Christ as the point of reference (“Before Common Era” is equivalent to the time before Christ), how is it that tension exists on this?

First, by usage of BCE/CE the world of “scholarship” is insisting that the world of “science” has demonstrated the Bible to be inaccurate. Those of us in the less-educated circles need to get on board. Robert Cargill frankly states his case.

Despite the rise of science, Christians have used—and many times have insisted upon—the continued use of the labels ‘AD’ and ‘BC’ to designate calendrical years, and thereby portray human history as directly relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. But in our modern world of scientific reason and religious plurality, the battle over whether or not to use the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE … and CE … has not waned, but rather has intensified.

Cargill plainly implies that the biblical record is inaccurate. The marvels of science have fortunately saved us from believing the historicity of the Good Book! This is continually cast in the framework of “scholarship.” As Professor Alan Bloom stated, “Every scholar I know uses B.C.E. and shuns A.D.” (quoted by William Safire, August 1997). The implication: insistence on the BC/AD referents comes from the unlearned masses.

Second, the more modern designations reflect “religious plurality.” This is also echoed in Cargill’s statement above. Plurality simply means a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in their traditional culture.

That many various groups make up America and western civilization cannot be denied.

But those who have taken the pulse of academia and other cultural leaders know perfectly well that this has occurred by design, not accident. From the purposeful changing of immigration policies favoring non-Christian countries to the revamping of educational goals to celebrate other cultures while denigrating our own—Christian people have rightly been alarmed.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche of yesteryear recognized that the Christian faith was the undergirding of western civilization—not only of its religious beliefs but also of social values and its fundamental view of human nature (Os Guinness, The Dust of Death, 37). It is this Christian foundation that is under assault by continued emphasis upon “religious plurality.”

William Safire relates that the “shunning of A.D. …goes clear up to the Supreme Court.” He tells of Adena K. Berkowitz, who has both a law degree and a doctorate in Hebrew literature, who applied to practice before the Court. “In the application,” she wrote, “I was asked if I wished ‘in the year of our Lord’ to be included as part of the date listed on the certificate or omitted.” She chose to omit. “Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations—B.C.E. and C.E.—cast a wider net of inclusion, if I may be so politically correct.”

It may be indeed a “wider net of inclusion” but the fact that it is a “Jewish designation” shows that it was not originally intended to be so much “inclusive” as simply “excluding Jesus Christ.” Those familiar with blasphemous Jewish Talmudic references to Jesus Christ can readily understand this erasure of Jesus Christ. That it has gained popularity in the world of “scholarship” may point more to the skepticism that now undergirds academia. This brings me to another reflection:

Third, the designations BCE/CE originated in Jewish unbelief.  Even Wikipedia recognizes, as Adena Berkowitz confessed, that these terms “became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish academics. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians, by not explicitly referring to Jesus as ‘Christ’ …”

Besides secularists, another group preferring the more modern designations are Muslims. They date their lunar calendar from the date A.D. 622, the day after the Hijra, or flight of the Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. How eager does the reader suppose Muslim scholars would be to accommodate Christians in Islamic societies by usage of the Gregorian calendar? How successful does one think would be the efforts to erase Mohammed from their calendars—no longer dating with the traditional Muslim A.H. (After Hijra)?

The State of Israel uses an official Jewish calendar which is based upon a lunar cycle. I would suspect that efforts for them to adopt the Hijra calendar of reckoning by Islam would meet with stiff resistance, even claiming that it would be tantamount to melting cultural supports of Israel. I wonder how Israel would meet the argument of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who stated:

The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of all faiths and cultures—different civilizations, if you like—that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.

Multiculturalism and plurality always demand Christians—not Muslims or Hindus or Humanists– to be accommodating. This reminds me of the modern usage, even by conservative Christian writers and authors, of “Judeo-Christian Culture.” This term only became vogue in the 1950’s and one never read such a statement from the Founding Era of our nation. To those men it was “a Christian culture.” The change occurred in the 1950’s and does not represent the views of earlier generations. And the alteration of “Christian culture” or “Christian nation” to “Judeo-Christian nation” represents a change in philosophy.

I choose not the modern scholarly option on dating, not because I “cling to … the symbolic superiority [I] feel”, as Robert Cargill patronizes—or because I “deny the facts and use different labels (i.e., ‘intelligent design’)”—but because the facts upon which Cargill relies are not so factual. Most of all, I oppose the world of naturalistic assumptions cornering the market on the label “scholarship”, then demanding we must all fall in line; even to the point of reframing history. Jesus Christ is the center point of all history. His life is historical; the Gospels factual; and His resurrection from the dead defensible.

Bill Lockwood, Anno Domini (The Year of our Lord), 2017.

Jesse Lee Peterson: CIVIL WAR AND THE CONTROLLED OPPOSITION

CIVIL WAR AND THE CONTROLLED OPPOSITION – Jesse Lee Peterson sounds off on ‘spiritual battle’ raging across America

by Jesse Lee Peterson

I have warned for 27 years since being aware: There is a war between good and evil.

Violent liberal riots recently shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech in Berkeley. Trump supporters showed up some weeks ago to rally for free speech. Fights broke out as liberals attacked, and police stood down. Mere threats of violence canceled Ann Coulter’s speech last week. The failing New York Times blamed the victims: conservative speakers. But a growing number of conservatives aren’t taking it anymore.

This war is not about “racism,” although whites are truly hated due to liberal scapegoating. It’s not about “sexism,” although males are manipulated to think and feel like women, and are punished when they don’t (see Bill O’Reilly).

The war on whites by those who hate America, and the war on men by those who hate masculinity, is neither about race nor sex, but about power. The intent is to weaken the people who represent good – often white men – so they sink to the moral level of angry blacks, angry Hispanics and liberal women, so no good example remains to stand in the way of the wicked. This evil campaign has been largely successful, until Trump.

We could see the country’s division during the close, controversial election of George W. Bush. Because of his weakness in not defending himself, because he catered to political correctness, that division only grew, which brought us Obama.

During Obama’s presidency, liberals complained that “racist” Republicans didn’t let him do anything, while conservatives complained that cowardly Republicans refused to stop Obama for fear of being called “racist.” Barack exacerbated the divide like no other president in history, spreading lies and justifying hate against men of authority (including police and good men like Sheriff Joe Arpaio).

When Donald Trump emerged, even some “conservatives” called him a divider. But he divides the way Christ divided – with the truth. He exposed the lie within once-trusted conservatives, do-nothing politicians, the controlled opposition in our midst. Actually, anyone with anger can be controlled, and is controlled opposition – one who pretends or wants to fight for good, but due to weakness actually helps the side of evil.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

But Donald Trump is also a uniter with the truth like no other president I’ve seen: As a man of strength without anger, he won over supporters from young people, libertarians, tea-party leaders, blacks, Democrats, even Bernie Sanders socialists. I commented a year ago how he beautifully preached unity at Liberty University, and he urged Christians to band together and support one another.

Today, we are in a spiritual war. Evil has grown and come out in the open like never before in America.
Homosexuals and drag queens are out in public, backed by politicians and judges, suing Christians, forcing us to pretend they’re right. Black Lives Matter, supported by the media and Obama, brazenly hurl false accusations against whites and police, even inciting murder.

Illegal aliens, blacks and Antifa communists assault Trump supporters in the streets. Yet mainstream media pretend Trump and his supporters are the hateful ones. The “fake news” media reported a spike in “hate crimes” that ended up being liberal hoaxes, and they gave precious little attention to correcting the record.

Whites, Christians and men feel angry at the insanity, injustice and demonization against them. But I strongly urge against this: With anger, you will lose. I told Owen Shroyer of InfoWars how much fun I’m having: This is the best time to be alive in America. Evil clearly reveals itself now, but because I forgave my mother and father, I am completed within, and I have perfect peace and no doubt. I deal with evil in the world, but it never gets to me. I sleep like a baby each night after a good day fighting evil.

It’s not just a “battle of ideas” to convince other people, nor a physical fight, although we wield the truth and should protect ourselves. It’s a spiritual battle. With anger, you become the enemy you’re trying to fight – because anger is of your father, the devil.

I interviewed white advocate Jared Taylor about the Alt-Right. He said that some in the Alt-Right are so rabidly anti-feminist that they get accused of hating women. He said some blame Jews for the anti-white direction of the country, many being angry at feeling unfairly villainized from a young age by academia, media and government propaganda.

I pointed out that anger does no one any good. Young whites who blame Jews act like blacks who blame “white supremacy” for their plight. Everybody failing in life blames somebody else. In reality, their parents let them down. They must forgive and fight with love, not hate. There will always be evil people doing evil things. But there is never justification for anger.

If we are to win this civil war in America, we on the side of good must ourselves become good, not angry and blaming the liberal media, politicians who betray us, nor anyone or anything else. Then we will see clearly to hold media and politicians accountable, as Trump does. Then we can become the leaders that we need.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/civil-war-and-the-controlled-opposition/#rlEJtHSfUaLg5Vmz.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: TRUMP’S MAGIC IS NOT FROM HUMAN POWER

TRUMP’S MAGIC IS NOT FROM HUMAN POWER – Jesse Lee Peterson cheers president’s work to protect, strengthen U.S.

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Most people do not understand the magic working through President Donald Trump.

He controls and confounds the media (“the opposition party”) – and they don’t know they’re being controlled! They endlessly attack him and insinuate suspicions of collusion with “Russia.” Trump tweeted that Obama “wire tapped” Trump Tower, and for weeks they shouted, “There’s no proof!” But as proof comes out, they remain in denial.

Trump struck Syria after the alleged “chemical attack” and got the media on his side (although he put his nationalist and Christian supporters very much on edge).

He dropped a bomb on ISIS, and so sent a message to North Korea and Iran. The terrorists now know they’re not dealing with a girly man like they’ve been for the past eight years under Obama.

Meanwhile, Trump took bids to build the wall. Jeff Sessions (who will go down as the greatest attorney general in history) announced that the border in the “Trump era” is no longer open, restoring the morale of border agents. Sessions laid out a logical policy to stop criminal illegal aliens from hurting Americans. Border crossings are reportedly down 70 percent. The theft of jobs and services by illegal aliens, plus the drugs and the crime they bring (especially affecting poorer black Americans), are coming to an end.

Most blacks do not recognize that Donald Trump is their white savior, but his attorney general is cleaning up the violent ghettos by untying the hands of police, after Black Lives Matter’s coup of police departments under Obama. Remember, the long-obsolete NAACP (“National Association against Colored People”) and godless liberals like Cory Booker accused Jeff Sessions of being “racist.” They side with criminals and thrive on black misery and anger.

Despite attacks from the children of evil, Trump works to protect and strengthen America, just as Barack Obama worked shamelessly to destroy and weaken America.
Remember when Obama went on his “apology tour” and bowed to our enemies? Evil grew, and America diminished. In contrast, Trump is meeting with leaders, maintaining his dignity and graciousness and winning them over to support our interests.

The Last Refuge” described how Trump invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump’s granddaughter sang in Mandarin to Xi and his wife, an act of honor and personal respect. As Kim Jong-un in North Korea gets more reckless in word and action, China is pulling some of its support for North Korea, turning its coal ships around, taking ours instead and even offering help to get rid of North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

As Christians, we are supposed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. We are to be “cunning as serpents and innocent as doves.” President Trump appears to be a living example of this.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Notice how, despite all opposition, he maintains a good attitude. Remember how nasty Obama acted when challenged, when his anti-Second Amendment agenda was frustrated? You don’t see that spirit with Trump when things don’t go his way. This sets a good example in the country. I’ve long pointed out how his family, even after his unfortunate past wrongs, divorces and remarriage, still love and respect him.

Do not be dismayed at the attacks on Trump or the strong men who have stood with him (such as Gen. Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon or Sean Spicer). These men can take their hits. It’s time we stood up and took ours.

Jesus Christ came and died so that we might return to the Father. As Christians, we are to overcome the world, not be overcome by the world. Trump seems to be overcoming the world – overcoming evil with good. Too many Christians today are lost in intellectualism and emotionalism, pontificating, complaining and fighting in the wrong way as their character and families slide into hell. Yet the mind of God is spiritual and present, with no fear, doubt or confusion. It produces strong action.

I’ve long said that if we don’t rebuild men, it’s over for society. Remember when President Ronald Reagan brought such goodness and hope to America? What happened when he left office? America continued its downward moral dive. After Reagan, we’ve grown worse off than we’ve ever been morally. Men and families continue to crumble spiritually. No matter what physical good President Trump brings to America, our country will be an empty shell without men becoming men again.

I’ve worked 27 years through my nonprofit BOND to rebuild families by rebuilding men, offering church services, counseling, open forum discussions to awaken people and get them past their issues, and even an Entrepreneurship Academy for men and boys who have become so lost and neglected in the academic culture.

Evil will always do what it does, because Satan is the father of this world. The children of Satan, like Obama, the media and politicians, are supposed to do evil. It’s time for men and women to do the work of good, not back down – starting with our character and our own families.

This Easter season, let’s face the spiritual battle in the country with confidence that God our Father is with us.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/trumps-magic-is-not-from-human-power/#VVFYpuBTmGKiEYKr.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Looting, and Civilization Jihad

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Looting, and Civilization Jihad- “The common thought is that this destruction is perpetrated by “an extremist group”, namely ISIS.”

by Bill Lockwood

Archaeological looting is a global issue that threatens the preservation of our shared cultural heritage” writes Robin Ngo in Biblical Archaeology Review in September, 2016.  “In the Middle East, archaeological looting and the deliberate destruction of archaeological sites and monuments amid ongoing warfare have captured international attention.”

In a related article (11-23-16) Marek Dospel soberly warns that “Cultural heritage around the globe is constantly under threat and needs to be protected not only as a constituent of peoples’ historical memory and identity, but also as the source of future dialogue and understanding between peoples and cultures.”

While it is inevitable that what comes down to us from the material relics of the distant past is a mere shadow of what human talent has created, the new global phenomenon of the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage can and should be prevented. Especially disturbing are images of material destruction related to immense human suffering in the Middle East, where scores of people are being killed or displaced every day and cultural heritage is being wiped out forever.”

The Ancient Lamassu

Articles in Biblical Archaeology Review have noted a number of UNESCO designated sites which have been obliterated by the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In total, thousands of sites and artifacts detailing ancient history have been destroyed by Islamic warriors. One of the cherished archaeological sites, for example, is the Nergal Gate, one of the gates into 7th century B.C. Nineveh, the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

With sledgehammers and drills in hand, the ISIS insurgents toppled, smashed and defaced millennia-old antiquities as well as modern replicas,” Ngo lamented (ISIS Destroys Antiquities in Mosul, Iraq, 2-27-15).

Among the destroyed relics was a seventh-century sculpture of a lamassu (a human-headed winged lion). The lamassu was conceived by the ancient Assyrians to be a protective deity that guarded the Nergal Gate. Other similar sculptures at one time decorated the palace of Neo-Assyrian King Sargon II (721-705 B.C.). Sargon is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 20:1 as the monarch who attacked Ashdod and captured it.

Palmyra

Another devastating blow to historical and cultural heritages of the world is the recent destruction by Islamic warriors of a “landmark ancient Roman monument and parts of the theater in Syria’s historic town of Palmyra” (Fox News, 1-20-17).

Militants destroyed the façade of the second-century theater along with the Tetrapylon, a cubic-shaped ancient Roman monument that sits in the middle of the colonnade road that leads to the theater.” Satellite images have verified these news reports coming out of Syria.

Also destroyed in Syria are many “ancient temples including the Temple of Bel, which dated back to A.D. 32, and the Temple of Baalshamin, a structure of stone blocks several stories high fronted by six towering columns.” The new report adds, “The militants also blew up the Arch of Triumph, which had been built under Roman emperor Septimius Severus between A.D. 193 and A.D. 211.”

Islam

The common thought is that this destruction is perpetrated by “an extremist group”, namely ISIS. This implies that if somehow the real Islam would rein-in these extremists, cultural sites would be safer. To civilization this is a fatal mistake.

Two years before his death, Mohammed was finally able to marshal enough forces to capture his old home of Mecca. Having waged relentless war against all tribal enemies on the peninsula of Arabia, he marched triumphantly into Mecca. By the time he died in 632 A.D., Islam had subjugated all Arabia. As part of this jihad Islam, led by Mohammed himself, annihilated the entire culture of the peninsula. This was not “extremist” or an example of many Muslims spinning out of Mohammed’s personal control. It is pure Sunna.

Upon Mohammed’s personal orders the entire city of Mecca was “purged” of what he perceived to be paganistic influence and all artwork, cultural artifacts, sculptures, and monuments were systematically destroyed. And so it has ever been. Civilization jihad.

Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be Hindu cultures. Where are the Hindu relics of old in these nations? The second caliph after Mohammed, Omar Ibn Al Khattab (about 645 A.D.) set fire to the library of Alexandria per the fatwa. The world itself lost several centuries of knowledge, thought, and history due to that Islamic fire. Egyptian culture was crushed.

The indigenous cultures of Afghanistan were Zoroastrian, Greek, Hellenistic, with some Buddhist and Hindu mixed in. Very little, if any, traces of those cultures remain today, and that is the way it has been since it was captured for Islam during the 7th through the 10th centuries.  Today 99.8% of the Afghan population is Muslim. The same story is re-told regarding any civilization that is dominated by Islam. This cannot be explained on the basis of persuasive thought-provoking reasoning, but only on the basis of violence.

Compare America’s history. Although a Christian culture as conceived by the Founders, it did not systematically destroy every artifact or historical vestige of the cultures that preceded it, even if misinformed liberals insist that “we” somehow “annihilated” the Indian peoples. Instead, the remnants of Indian tribes are carefully preserved in museums and archaeological remains are cherished. Nor was the population of America ever forcibly brought into the Christian Church.

But with Islam it is all about Civilization Jihad. As Islam gains ground, down will come such time-honored sights such as the Washington monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and certainly Moses will be removed from the U.S. Supreme Court building. The ACLU will assist in this, and Bible verses will certainly be purged from the collective American memory.

If Americans wish to honor and protect their own cultural heritages or memories, and even their own civilization which gives them their identity as a peoples, understanding the extreme danger of Islam itself is paramount. Tragic it is that with the advance of Islam the world itself loses its heritage.

Divine Science Part 2: Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Divine Science Part 2: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics- “Christianity is neither a scientific system, nor a philosophy, it has yet a world view of its own… ”

by Bill Lockwood

John Adams was not the only Founding Father to classify the realm of politics as “Divine Science.” Another signer of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, James Wilson, explains to the modern generation why it is that Christians should be interested in the political sphere.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other….All [laws], however, may be arranged into d=tow different classes. 1) Divine; 2) Human….But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God….Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that which is Divine.”

Wilson was of Scottish descent who attended universities in Glasgow, St. Andrews, and Edinburgh before immigrating to America at the age of 21. He studied law under John Dickinson, another signer of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson served as the original justice of the Supreme Court.
Religion and Law: Twin Sisters

It is clear from Wilson’s writing, that his view of Christianity and the Bible would be greatly shocked to hear modern-day Bible students opine that the doctrine of salvation has nothing to do with any view of man or government. Quite the opposite is the case. There are only two systems of laws. God-based or Man-based. A third alternative does not exist.

One has only to ask the question: Whence arises the rights of man? From God or man? Right to life, property and liberty do not stem from a human-oriented worldview wherein man alone determines what is right and what is wrong. Misguided are masses of Christians at this point which believe that religion and law are on two separate planes and never intersect.

From the vantage point of a God-centered worldview, Wilson notes: “All men are by nature equal and free. No one has a right to any authority over another without his consent. All lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it. Such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature. The consequence is that the happiness of the society is the first law of every government.”

If the above be true, it naturally follows that no governing authority has the right to remove the labor or property of one person and give it to another. On an individual basis, this is slavery. On a society basis, this is socialism. Both systems are built on beliefs that contradict both Divine and Natural Law.

The socialistic principles that govern much legislation today is as antagonistic to a God-centered worldview as is slavery. Just as well argue that the issue of slavery is off-limits Christian thinkers on the grounds that it is an “economic theory” of government and Christians should have nothing to do with economics. Socialism is nothing more than slavery at a civic level.

An Entire Worldview

All political systems flow logically from a particular worldview. The great theologian James Orr (1844-1913) when discussing the worldview of evolution, observed the following in his The Christian View of God and the World, “What now, it may be asked, has Christianity to do with theories, and questions, and speculations of this sort? [evolutionary concepts] As a doctrine of salvation, perhaps, not much, but in its logical presuppositions and consequences a great deal indeed.

Christianity, it is granted, is not a scientific system, though, if its views of the world be true, it must be reconcilable with all that is certain and established in the results of science…. Christianity is neither a scientific system, nor a philosophy, it has yet a world view of its own, to which it stands committed, alike by its fundamental postulate of a personal, holy, self-revealing God, and by its content as a religion of Redemption—which, therefore, necessarily brings it into comparison with [other] worldviews…” (p. 8).

Earlier he noted, “He who with his whole heart believes in Jesus as the Son of God is thereby committed to much else besides. He is committed to a view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of Redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, to a view of human destiny, found only in Christianity” (p. 4).

Christianity is much more than a doctrine of the salvation of mankind. It is an all-encompassing conception of the world that includes a doctrine of mankind. Logical consequences proceed from it, including the nature of man and how he is to be governed. It incorporates an entire worldview that is entirely in contrast to philosophical opinions such as anarchism or economic theories of man’s development such as socialism, Nazism, communism, fascism or philosophical speculations such as the general theory of evolution posing as science.

With the same vigor a Christian must stir to oppose evolution or communistic philosophy or slavery is the same sturdiness which must withstand a socialistic system. Christians who shy from these tasks are not viewing it in a correct light.

Much of America’s current woes stem directly from either non-involvement by Christian people who have deserted the field to atheists, humanists and the like; or to the swallowing of the false doctrine which supposes that socialistic redistribution is somehow taught in the Bible. One has only to peruse the National Council of Churches website to witness how this lie has corroded pure biblical truth.

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics- Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. ”

by Bill Lockwood

Multitudes of Christians seem to be far too-short sighted when it comes to understanding the implications of their own faith. Especially is this the case regarding how the principles of God work themselves out in the affairs of men. For example, biblical teaching of God’s creation eliminates any compromise with evolutionary theories that dominate the educational system. Not only are there bold contradictions between them, but both creationism and evolutionary theory are expressions of an entire world view. There are also principles involved in each which are at cross-purposes with the other.

Yet, many there are who name the name of Christ but also wish to honor the name of Charles Darwin. Sad is the state of the complacent Christian mind that does not recognize the disconnect and even contradiction between these or thinks it not substantial enough to “give answer” to designed assaults against its worldview (see 2 Pet. 3:15).

Exactly so pertaining governing concepts or the polity in a society. Too many Christians have been fooled so as to consider the realm of politics to be divorced from any religious or biblical principle. “These are two different realms and never the twain shall meet,” seems to be the motto. The exact opposite is the case. As Founding Father John Adams instructed, “The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.”  Adams recognized the plain simple fact that there are only two basic worldviews. One, theism; Two, atheism.

In spite of the many subsets that may be offered of the two basic worldviews– whether pagan, polytheism, socialism, fascism, communism—all fall neatly into two categories; Theism or Atheism. Every form of governance, be it the United Nations or the United States of America, or any other political organization, is an offspring of one of these two philosophies. Governments are the outworking of principles that flow from a God-centered worldview or a Naturalistic worldview.

Divine Science of Politics

The above is the very reason why a host of the founding generation sacrificed their fortunes to serve in politics. John Adams even described “politics” by the well-known phrase divine science. “Politics are the divine science, after all. How is it possible that any man should ever think of making it subservient to his own little passions and private interests? Ye baseborn sons of fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers? Yet the divine science of politics is at length in Europe reduced to a mechanical system composed of these materials.”

Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. It involves whether or not God has bestowed upon man certain rights and whether or not we are enabled by God Almighty to construct any formulation government to protect those rights based upon those principles. This alone explains why Adams thusly wrote, “What is to become of an independent statesman, one who will bow the knee to no idol, who will worship nothing as a divinity but truth, virtue, and his country? I will tell you; he will be regarded more by posterity than those who worship hounds and horses; and although he will not make his own fortune, he will make the fortune of his country.”

What Adams realized, and what is surprisingly so lacking today in the churches and pulpits, is a cross-examination of the basic principles behind prevailing winds of political doctrine.

Illustrations

The American Revolution. As illustrative of these basic concepts one might consider the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. John Quincy Adams explains that they were “actuated upon very different principles” (Forward to Frederick Gentz; The American and French Revolutions Compared, iv). Our American “principles of religious liberty did not result of indiscriminate contempt of all religion whatever.”

“The essential difference between these two great events, in their rise, their progress, and their termination, is here shown in various lights … A modern philosopher may contend that the sheriff, who executes a criminal, and a highwayman, who murders a traveler, act upon the same principles; the plain sense of mankind will see the difference between them …”

Either Christian principles are at work in society or not. The French Revolution proved, at least in France, they were not. The American Revolution ended in a very different place, precisely because of differing principles.

Communism. Writing with reference to the worldviews of Communism versus Christianity, Lester DeKoster observes, “The American Declaration of Independence is the last significant political document which attributed human freedom to a superhuman force. Its immediate successor, the French Declaration of the Rights of Men, its title betraying already the shift of emphasis, ignores the Creator; and fifty years later, the Communist Manifesto sneers at Him” (Communism and Christian Faith).

Like it or not, both communism and socialism are the out-workings of religious principles. For a modern counterpart to the French Declaration one might peruse the United Nations’ Declaration of Rights and be enlightened on the very different principles that inspired America.

Socialism. The philosophy of socialism is a competing worldview with Christianity. In the Encyclopedia of Religion Vergilius Ferm writes, “American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue and the given faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia …this is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine” (720).

Socialism is “an anti-Christian doctrine.” It is a matter of no little concern that hardened atheists such as Karl Marx, who popularized a socialist state through The Communist Manifesto, readily recognized that his mandates for government were a direct thrust against the God of the Bible. Materialistic philosophy was a bold and direct repudiation of a God-centered and biblical worldview and so it continues today.

For the same reason the early 20th century Swiss socialist-theologian Karl Barth came to a crisis point in his faith. Having bound himself to the eternal “progress” of man, he had a re-thinking in the wake of World War I. Either man was continuing onward and upward in an evolutionary trajectory as taught by his utopian socialism; or man was a creature made in God’s image whose fallen state demanded governing principles of a different sort. It was all about religion.

What a person believes about mankind, about the future, and about God, has everything to do with how he will behave in the present. That includes what kind of governing principles we will own upon which to operate a society. Call it politics or civic society or whatever, but the administrative concepts which govern decisions at a local and national level are religious in nature. If Christians remain unaware of the implications of their own belief-system, little shall we expect them to “give an answer” to the political assaults that arise from atheistic socialism. Even Donald Trump cannot change this.

Hillary Clinton & Islamo-fascism

Hillary Clinton & Islamo-fascism-“A complete whitewashing propaganda campaign in behalf of Islam is now being waged throughout our educational system…”

by Bill Lockwood

Hillary Clinton and her campaign scurries to welcome Muslims and to ensure they have a place in America. Witness her answers in the recent presidential debate. However, the recent email dump from WikiLeaks demonstrates that her staff, and presumably she herself, do not feel the same way about Christianity. What is most frightening about this, however, is the apparent lack of moral clarity and courage by average Americans to make distinctions between Islam and Christianity.

Pounded continually by a complicit media, citizens can scarcely see that Christianity of the Bible is a religion of peace with man and God (Christ is the Prince of Peace) while Islam of the Koran is primarily a totalitarian system of government control akin to communism (Muhammad was a violent War-Lord). There is very little religion within Islam.

To Christianity we owe the sacred concepts of the value of life, liberty and the validation of owning private property. Islam knows nothing of these. Unless citizens can begin thinking clearly about these concepts we can expect a continued dramatic uptick by Islamo-fascists in America led by Clinton-Obama forces.

Raymond Ibrahim of Hudson New York wrote in 2011, Muslim violence against the Christian world is “on its way to reaching epidemic proportions.” It continues unabated.  Inspired by Sharia Law, as well as bold passages in the Quran itself which call for bloody violence against non-Muslims, Islamicists worldwide have intensified their jihad and communist aggression.

One of the most obvious causes of this upsurge is the fact that America elected a President who declares personal solidarity with Islam—even referring to himself as a “Muslim” in aired video clips. Obama then boldly lied when he informed America that he was a “Christian” and the liberal media establishment has been complicit to deceive John Q. Public.  If Hillary becomes president, the aggressiveness of Muslims world-wide will continue.

Around the Globe

Efforts by the Obama administration to placate Islam have merely intensified conflicts. As David Kupelian puts it, we are literally “feeding” jihad and “nurturing it.” Reports from Pakistan, for example, include school textbooks denigrating Christianity while lauding Islam. Sounds like the Clinton campaign have been studying Pakistani texts!

The result: increasing intolerance of Christianity as well as other non-Muslim religions. Christians are regularly portrayed in Pakistan as second-class citizens who are enemies of Islam. Consequently,  beatings of pregnant Christian women have been inflicted by Pakistani Muslim police who threaten to kill their unborn fetuses. In Egypt, dozens of Christians were killed several Octobers ago during what has been called the “Maspero Massacre.” Literally hundreds of Christians came under attack in Maspero by Muslim mobs throwing bottles and stones and several were murdered.  One senior leader of the Islamic Salafi party blamed Christians themselves for their deaths at the hands of Muslim thugs, declaring it was “Allah’s curse on them.”

Islamic militants in Nigeria are routinely attacking churches and police stations. Ibrahim reports that the attacks include opening fire on congregations of ‘mostly women and children,’ killing dozens. This follows massive violence that erupted after a Christian, President Jonathan, defeated his Muslim rival in elections. Identical events are occurring daily across the globe: Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Kenya, and the list goes on.

America

While a common-sense American would be glancing around the globe with alarm wondering how our culture might resist the onslaught of violent Islamic teaching and practice– what instead do we find? Hillary Clinton’s staff loathing Christianity while she schmoozes Islam.

Added to that are the relentless attacks against Donald Trump for his common sense proposal of suspending immigration from Islamic nations until we find out what is occurring. But that is exactly what our cultural leaders do not want to occur, even though “what is going on” is that Islam is setting about to conquer nations through jihad as was practiced by their founder, Muhammad. Too many spineless citizens have not enough courage to look beneath veneer of misinformation published by the major media.

A complete whitewashing propaganda campaign in behalf of Islam is now being waged throughout our educational system with very little opposition from right-minded patriots.  Indoctrination includes California school children ordered to pretend that they are Muslims on a pilgrimage to Mecca and learning to shout “Allah Akbar” in imitation of murderers such as the Ft. Hood terrorist.

Some textbooks now used in our public schools actually declare that polygamous marriages are better than monogamous marriages; others teach that Islam is a religion of “tolerance and peace”; still others praise the implementation of Sharia law while upholding the murderous Muhammad as one who simply “defended himself.”

Added to these fabulous lies and distortions we now have various courts which unlawfully utilize aspects of Sharia to adjudicate civil cases.  The bottom line is that the American public is being carefully and systematically indoctrinated in favor of radical Islam.

President Obama had been quickly transforming our society into a socialistic morass that resembles more Mussolini’s fascist state than the republican ideal he has sworn to uphold. Hillary Clinton promises to continue that legacy. With the onslaught of Islam its color is might just as quickly become Islamo-fascism.

If Sharia Law and its denigration of women begins to be implemented in America, as Islam promises it will, Donald Trumps’ ugly talk about women will seem a small matter.

Back to Homepage

Free Thinkers or Christians: Who are the Real “Idol Worshippers?”

Free Thinkers or Christians: Who are the Real “Idol Worshippers?”

by Bill Lockwood

According to Greg M. Epstein, humanist “chaplain” at Harvard University, those who believe in God worship idols. At least, this is the essence of his position. This must be the case since Epstein says that “belief in God is … a by-product—of two of the most important architectural features of our minds: archways of our brains that produce the spandrel of faith–what cognitive scientists call ‘causal reasoning’ and ‘theory of the mind.’” In other words, God is merely the product of our imagination.

This is consistently the atheist position. Humanist Manifesto II asserted that modern science “affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces” and that the “total personality is a function of biological organism.” The reason, per Secular Humanism, that “no deity will save us” is because there is no deity. And since idolatry is “to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25)—that which man has created—Christians must be the idol-worshippers for having “created” God in our minds! Thomas Altizer of Emory University popularized the “God is Dead” “theology” in the 1960’s in which he asserted the same in so many words. To Altizer all religion was the by-product of man’s imagination which was is nothing less than humanity “grasping for power.” Idolatry.

Richard Dawkins, who has sensationalized the theory of evolution, tries to get more creatively sophisticated with the entire scenario. Still committed to the belief that religion itself is the creation of the human mind, Dawkins suggests that “religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful” (The God Delusion). This would be, he proposes, like the analogue of steering by the light of the moon for a moth, which produces slavish gullibility. “Religion can be seen,” he concludes, “as a by-product of the misfiring of several of these modules …” of the brain, “equivalent of the moths’ celestial navigation, vulnerable to misfiring in the same kind of way …” (209).

Religion: A Creation of Man?

All of the above proposals are merely variations of the same concept: that religion and belief in God is the product of mechanical pressures in our minds. Two things must here be noted.

First, if all thought, including religious belief, is nothing more than matter in motion–mere mechanical functions– there can be no blame for any product of the mind. If “nature” is all there is, as Humanists maintain, then the thought processes of my brain are merely the haphazard product of purposeless impulses. What is blameworthy about any conclusion that it draws? Thinking itself would be the result of random energy. Dawkins may call it a “misfiring” of brain modules, but who is to be blamed for physical malfunction? There can be no responsibility where there is no free will. Yet, secular humanists refer to themselves as “free-thinkers!” They themselves are not even “free vibrators” if their position is right!

Is Dawkins controlling the “firing mechanisms” in his brain and I am not? This position empties itself of any possibility of value judgment. And how is “misfiring” of brain modules to be remedied? A good clunk on the head? Perhaps placing of chemicals into the cerebral system. An electric shock? Isn’t it strange how evolutionists from Epstein to Dawkins and beyond write books as if to educate and inform the mind while all the while insisting that beliefs are the result of physical electrical impulses of random energy.

Second, if, as the Humanist Manifesto II states, “the total personality is a function of the biological organism,” this must include any product that flows from my mind, including Secular Humanism itself! Upon what basis would “belief in God” be labeled as “idolatry” while atheism is proclaimed logical? Both positions are the result of random vibrations. Perhaps it is the Humanists and evolutionists who need a jolt or two of electricity. Or, in Dawkins’ terms, who is to say that religion and belief in God is not the proper firing of brain modules in the brain and evolution is the misfire? Interesting it is that humanists can never seem to apply with equal force criticisms against their own position. How can they level the charge of “idolatry” against anyone?

Idolatry is the worship of one’s own creation, yet if humanism be true, humanism itself is the creation of mankind. Or, in the words of Greg Epstein, “belief in Secular Humanism is the by-product of two of the most important architectural features of our minds: archways of our brains that produce the spandrel of faith—what cognitive scientists call ‘causal reasoning’ and ‘theory of the mind.’” Secular Humanism thus becomes idolatry.

Back to Homepage

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

by Bill Lockwood

It is surprising to see the number of Christian people who, apparently from lack of informative study, would suggest that the “God” of the Bible and the “God” of Islam are one and the same. One of the basic concepts of biblical Christianity is “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18-20) (The Trinity) which Islam refers to as blasphemy. That Jesus Christ is Deity (Col. 2:9) and equal to the personage of the Father (John 10:30) and worthy of our worship is also a core Christian concept. But this too Islam declares to be rank blasphemy. But these comparisons only touch the hem of the garment regarding the differences.

The chief attribute of God is “love” (1 John 4:8). But this characteristic is completely lacking in the Islamic description of God. Again, the capricious nature of Allah is set forth in the Koran compared to the one true God who “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:2). “But of a God of infinite Holiness and of infinite Love, Muhammad had no idea whatever” writes Islamic scholar William Tisdall (Religion of the Crescent). Can it be that Allah and God are one and the same?

Character of God

From the fact that “God is Love” flows also the fact that God is our Father and man has been created “in His image” (Gen. 1:27). But in the ninety-nine Titles or “Names of God” repeated by Muslims the name of Father is not one of them. “Not only so, but the very application of this term to God in any sense seems to the Muhammadan mind to be the most utter blasphemy.” Instead, Muhammad’s conception of God was altogether a Deistic one. Being created “in the image of God” man has an affinity with and to God. But there is not the slightest approach to any kinship between man and God in Islamic theology. No sympathy with man and no possibility of it.

Paganistic Concept of God

It is so well documented that in “Pre-Islamic” Arabia “Allah” was regarded as a pagan name for a peculiar pagan Arabian deity that to note all references would be a large task. But they include Encyclopedia Brittanica, I:643; Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Houtsma, I:302; Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406; Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Lewis, III:1093. “Allah is a pre-Islamic name … corresponding to the Babylonian Bel” (Encyclopedia of Religion, eds. Meagre, O’Brien, Aherne, 1979, I:117).

According to Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, whose translation of the Koran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, like the worship of Baal, was an astral religion in that it involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Witness the Islamic crescent-moon symbol. Alfred Guilluame, another Arabian scholar, explains that in Arabia the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god and one of the names by which he was known was “Allah” (Islam, 7). This moon god was married to the sun god by which three daughters were produced—Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. These too were viewed as on top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Could it possibly be that Christians who worship the God of the Bible and Muslims who worship Allah honor the same deity?

For those who are in doubt regarding this, examine Surah 53 of the Koran where the original text reads of three daughters of Allah: “These are exalted females, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for.” These, of course, are the much-discussed “Satanic verses.” Impeccable Muslim sources (al-Tabari; Waqidi) verify the original reading. Later, Muhammed changed the verses and declared that “Satan” had put the original ones in his mouth.

It is sad that Christians are the only ones who insist upon being ill-informed on this subject. “…though the liberal Muslim may admit that Christians or Jews call upon Allah, he could never speak of the Allah of the Christians or Allah of the Jews” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. Hastings). The spirit of compromise unfortunately is alive in the Christian world.

Back to Homepage

Shedding of Blood

Shedding of Blood

by Bill Lockwood

A chasm as wide as the world separates Christianity and Islam. Whether one compares the founders or the doctrines or the practices, the difference is as stark as beams of sunlight piercing the gloom of inky darkness. The living Christ is the light of the world while cultures created by following a dead Muhammad are comparable to descending into dark dungeons of ignorance. To see and feel the distinction, consider in the following the doctrine of what might be called The Shedding of Blood. Christianity and Islam each have a teaching surrounding the shedding of blood.

Prophetic Preparation

Christianity. The Old Testament canon was completed almost four centuries prior to the arrival of Christ and contains more than 300 specific prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. At the heart of these predictions is Isaiah 53 which, with great specificity, speaks of the shedding of blood in the life of the Messiah. It was a vicarious suffering on behalf of mankind.

“Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrow: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed. … And as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people for whom the stroke was due? … Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul of offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 8, 10).

Islam. What does one find when one turns to the religion founded by Muhammad? There were no predictive prophecies of him, of course, because true prophecy requires divine inspiration, which is lacking in Islam. However, later biographers of Muhammad invented “predictions” which they put into the mouths of individuals which were supposedly spoken by persons before Muhammad. One of the earliest of such biographers was Ibn Ishaq.

And what “prediction” do we read in Ishaq’s treatment of Muhammad? Ishaq relates that a “Jew” came to the Muhammad’s Arabian tribe of the Koreish which lived in Banu Qurayza. He was looking for a “prophet” from among that people and he issued a “warning.” This “Jewish warning” was that a “prophet” would “emerge” who would be “sent to shed blood and to take captive the women and children of those who oppose him.” Ishaq reminds the reader that later, when Muhammad “besieged Banu Qurayza” (626 A.D.) the “young men” remembered this prediction. (The Life of Muhammad, p. 94).

One was predicted to shed his own blood in a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of mankind; the other was to wear an iron sword and “shed blood” by besieging cities and destroying people.

The Founding of the Religions

Christianity. One fourth of the gospel material (Matthew-John) centers on the voluntary self-sacrifice of Jesus shedding His own blood on behalf of others. The writer of Hebrews emphasizes that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). Actually, the very theme of the Hebrews demonstrates that the Old Testament has been replaced by the New and that all of the sacrificed animals under the Old system were but types of Christ who has now “once for all” shed his blood for the redemption of mankind. He “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26).

At the core of Christianity is the blood of Christ. Through faith “in his blood” which was voluntarily shed (John 10:17, 18) our redemption was purchased (Rom. 3:23-25) and we are now “justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9). The entirety of the New Testament is summarized in his blood (1 Cor. 11:25).

But the shedding of blood is only efficacious to us because, as all four gospel records relate, Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead. Hinging upon this truth is the entire corpus of Christianity (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 12-15). This is why Christianity is “good news.” The late New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce explains:

“For the Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. … And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, … in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ” (F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?).

Therefore, it matters not how many times President Obama or those of his ilk point to the bloody Crusades of Medieval times as a period of shame. These were apostate Roman Catholic physical wars that had nothing to do with any doctrine of Christianity.

Islam. What do we find when we turn to the religion of Islam? There is indeed the “shedding of blood.”

Islam is defined by the trilogy of texts: Koran, Sira (the biography of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). The complete foundation of Islam is laid in these authoritative texts. What did Mohammed do, and what did he say? Without this there is no such thing as Islam.

Muhammad claimed that Allah commanded him to fight bloody wars with unbelievers in Islam until they become Muslim and carry out the ordinances of Islam. All Muslim scholars without exception agree on this. In the hadith collected by Bukhari Muhammad said, “I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay [money]. If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me.” (Bukhari, vol. I, p. 13).

These wars were not just “defensive wars.” Dr. Muhammad Sai’id Ramadan al-Buti, one of the modern Azhar scholars in Egypt, his book Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, explains: “The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them.” With this dictum all Saudi scholars agree.

The practice of Islam is the Iron Rule. Might makes right. “And one who attacks you; attack him in like manner as he attacks you” (Surah 2:194). There is nothing “defensive” about “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you may find them” (Surah 9:5). “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (47:4). “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords” (Jihad in Allah’s Cause, Bukhari, Vol. 4, book 56, no. 2818).

The above texts are not aberrations. This is the heart of Islam. Measuring in the complete trilogy the amount of texts devoted to Jihad is one-third. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad and spells it out in detail. The Sira is a strategic manual of how to wage jihad and two-thirds is dedicated to violent jihad. “Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion (the first period of his life, bl), Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year” (Bill Warner, Factual Persuasion).

The founder of Christianity shed his own blood in sacrifice for others; the founder of Islam personally shed the blood of multitudes to force compliance.

Marching Orders

Christianity. Following the example of Jesus Christ himself, Christians are commanded to copy their Master. Instructed “not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1) but, like the Lord, be self-sacrificial for others. “Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good unto edifying. For Christ also pleased not Himself…” (15:2, 3).

Going forward, the purpose of the cross and the shedding of Jesus’ blood is “leaving you and example that you should follow his steps … who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judges righteously” (1 Pet. 2:22,23). The New Testament is replete with such-like admonitions of self-sacrifice, putting others and their needs above our own.

Islam. Since Mohammed’s time his doctrines have inspired the murder of more than 270 million and the rape of tens of millions of women. Led by the example of the false prophet Mohammed himself, Islam hacked its way across Europe, violating treaties and destroying kafir (unbeliever, non-Muslim) cultures. The pretended inspiration of the Koran has motivated centuries of violence after the order of the marauding Bedouin.

Muhammad’s final instructions to his followers were to wage jihad which is why his religion is named “Islam”—submission. This violent fighting is not optional for the Muslim. “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing that is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and ye know not.” . How then are we continually lectured today by our cultural leaders that violence-mongers are only a “handful” of Muslims who are somehow “misinterpreting the Koran”?

The contrast between Christianity and Islam is as stark as can be imagined. Turning to the Bible from the Koran is like stepping off of shifting sand onto solid rock. Most damaging of all, therefore, is the common paradigm that Christianity is a religion and Islam is a religion, and the two somehow must be on an equal footing before our Constitution.

With the ongoing blood-letting rampages in America, from the Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hasan, to the Boston bombing at the hands of the Tsarnaev brothers, to the recent San Bernardino, California Islamic terror massacre by Farook and his female partner Malik, it would seem that Americans would be willing to peer beneath the false façade that Islam is merely another religion. But alas! Too many are still scratching their heads in bewilderment, unable to understand that Islam is nothing less than political communism with a sharp religious edge.

The late Belgian Muslim jihadist responsible for the recent Paris blood letting, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, can be seen in a photograph that has now been published world-wide. In a silent message he is seen holding forth in his outstretched right hand a copy of the Koran and in his left he clutches the flag of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). From the professorships in the university to the media and law enforcement the question that continues to be so elusive is, “How did he become radicalized?” But to those who have not been so willfully blinded by politically correct whitewashing the answer is obvious.

Back to Homepage

« Older Entries