Temple seal found in Jerusalem

Here is another achaeological discovery just made in Jerusalem that affirms the reliability of the Bible.  Here is a quote from the archaeologist: “The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archeology and the biblical sources and serves as actual evidence of a family mentioned in the Bible,” she said. “One cannot help being astonished by the credibility of the biblical source as seen by the archaeological find.”

/by

Free Speech or Hate-Crime Laws: Can’t Have Both

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council points out in his January 9 email that so-called “hate-crime” laws are having a chilling effect on free speech in Canada (BTW, aren’t all crimes “hate” crimes?).  Mark Steyn is under attack for writing some unflattering things about Islam.  Notice, the issue isn’t whether Mark’s factually correct about what he wrote, but whether he hurt feelings!

The American and Canadian governments have several things in common, including, it appears, the pursuit of radical hate speech laws. As the U.S. braces for another round of hate crimes legislation this spring, our northern neighbors are already engaged in an all-out battle over free speech. The latest victim is popular author and columnist Mark Steyn, who wrote the best-seller America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. Although the book was published by an American company, excerpts that later appeared in the Canadian press have become the subject of investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The book, which contrasts Islamic values with those of the West, was considered “a misrepresentation” of the Muslim religion by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). As a result of CIC’s complaint, Steyn finds himself at the center of a controversial debate over the limits of public expression. Using charges of “discrimination” as a means of silencing opposition, the CHRC’s investigation jeopardizes freedom in all of North America. During an interview with The Washington Times, Steyn said, “Offense is in the eye of the beholder. The commissions aren’t weighing facts but hurt feelings.” Ironically, when Christians or conservatives object to similar treatment, they usually find themselves on the losing side of the argument, or worse, completely overlooked. Unfortunately, this is just a preview of things to come if the U.S. House is successful when the battle over new federal hate crimes resumes. As Mark Steyn can attest, nothing less than our first freedoms are at stake.

America needs to understand something before we adopt hate crime laws here– we can either have the right to free speech or the right not to be offended, but we cannot have both.

/by

Abortion, the Primaries, and the One Issue Voter

As the presidential campaign heats up (Obama? Clinton? Guiliani? Edwards? McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Thompson?), the media is likely to show disdain for what they call “one-issue voters.”  The disdain will be for those who are pro-life and will not settle for a candidate who is anything but (of course, if your one issue is to keep abortion legal, the media is just fine with that).

Allow me to offer a clarification.  I don’t think being pro-life automatically qualifies you to be president.  You can be pro-life but be otherwise a disastrous President (for me, Jimmy Carter was that guy).  I just think being pro-abortion disqualifies you to be president.  In other words, being pro-life is a necessary quality for a candidate but it is not a sufficient quality for a candidate.

Are there other necessary qualities or policy positions for a president?  Of course.  For me, character, national security, and defending traditional marriage are also critical.  But why is life one of those necessary policy positions?  Because the right to life is the right to all other rights.  If you don’t have life you don’t have anything.  If a presidental candidate refuses to recognize that helpless unborn children are human beings worthy of protection– a truth that in vitro technology has made undeniable– then that candidate lacks either the judgment, compassion or honesty to hold the highest office in the land.

By this criteria, there are leaders in both parties who disqualify themselves because of their pro-abortion stance.  They include Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Guiliani.   In fact, all four of these candidates have either voted for, or stated their support for, even partial-birth abortion–  that’s when a full-term baby is delivered nearly completely from the womb, a hole is drilled in the back of her skull, and her brains are sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.

Appalled?  Why would you vote for someone who isn’t?

/by

The Case for the Real Jesus

I think The Case for the Real Jesus is Lee Strobel’s best book so far, and that’s saying a lot.  Josh McDowell claims, “Whatever Lee Strobel writes, God reads!” 🙂

David Limbaugh has posted a review of Lee’s book that challenges skeptics to take a fair look at the evidence.

/by

The Bible Changed? What about the Ending of Mark?

Why do most scholars think the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20) were not written by Mark?  Lee Strobel calls on manuscript expert Dr. Daniel Wallace to answer here.   Wallace, who thinks the last 12 verses were added later, has an interesting insight:

One can easily see why scribes would want to add to Mark’s original ending, however: he wrote his gospel in such a way that would make the story open-ended. He wanted the reader to step into the sandals of the disciples and make a decision about Jesus themselves. Mark’s original ending was a brilliant maneuver on his part for he was drawing the reader into the narrative, showing that it was impossible to accept Christ in his glory unless one also accepted him in his suffering.

What does the inclusion or exclusion of verses 9-20 mean theologically?  Nothing.  If they are included, nothing new is taught.  If they are excluded, nothing is lost because the resurrection appearances are described elsewhere.

/by

The Seeker Church: Is Anyone Making Disciples?

Bill Hybels , the unofficial father of the seeker movement in the United States, recently admitted that seeker churches have done a very poor job of making disciples.  This is damning because making disciples is what Jesus commanded us to do!  Why has the seeker movement failed in the church’s central purpose?

I attended a seeker church this past weekend.  As I was sitting there watching the pastor perform his way through his presentation, props, film clips and all, the thought struck me that the seeker church is in many ways a Protestant form of Roman Catholicism (I grew up Roman Catholic and the Roman Catholic church is having the same problem).  I know the connection is not immediately obvious because of the major differences in liturgy, hierarchy and theology.  But there are several significant similarities:

  1. Time:  This won’t take long– 45 minutes to an hour, max.  You can set your watch by these services.  And if the pastor or priest goes just a wee bit longer, the congregation gets restless.
  2. The Bible:  Leave your Bible home– the folks on the stage or altar handle the Bible reading which is normally a mere sprinkling of verses yanked from their context.  Moreover, there is no attempt to teach you how to study the scriptures yourself.
  3. Worship:  Just watch– there is a performance up front.  You’re more of an observer than an active participant in worship.
  4. Message:  It’s groundhog day– you hear the same, short message repackaged every Sunday.  The sermon (or Homily) is to preaching what cotton candy is to nutrition.  Sweet but of little value.
  5. Outcome:  Low commitment and little life change.  A significant portion of Roman Catholics disagree with official church teachings, and Hybels’ own research shows the seeker movement has failed to produce disciples

Now before I get hate mail from my Roman Catholic and Seeker-oriented friends who can cite several exceptions, let me grant that there are exceptions, but they simply prove the rule.  We’ve got to stop defending our church practices if they are not doing what Jesus told us to do.  If you’re not making disciples, you’re not doing church the way Jesus commanded it.  As Jesus warned, we can’t let our traditions nullify the Word of God.

Unfortunately, most other denominations are not doing much better.  We’re loosing 75% of our young people because– instead of making disciples who are in awe of God and devoted to His purposes– a majority of churches from most  denominations are producing shallow narcisists obsessed with themselves and their own happiness.

We fail to realize that what we win them with we win them to.  If we win them with entertainment and low commitment, we win them to entertainment and low commitment.  Charles Spurgeon was way ahead of his time when he implored the church to start “feeding the sheep rather than amusing the goats.”

/by

Romney and Huckabee Don’t Want a Theocracy

In disussing Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Sam Donaldson makes the common mistake of confusing religion and morality.  Donaldson seems to think that anyone with traditional moral views (such as Romney and Huckabee) is trying to set up a Christian “theocracy.”   But this is nonsense as pointed out in the post below (“You can’t legislate religion, but you must legislate morality!”).  No major candidate for President wants to impose the Old Testament law on the United States, have the Church run the government, or force U.S. citizens to obey religous rites and practices.  But every candidate for President (including every Democrat) wants to impose certain moral values into law (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape, etc.).   

In fact, all Democrats and some Republicans argue that abortion is a moral right. Rudy Giuliani goes so far as to say that since abortion is a constitutional right, the government ought to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them!  (I wonder if Rudy thinks the government ought to pay for the guns of those who can’t afford them.  After all, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right).  

But I digress.  The main point is that all this talk about theocracy is just plain wrong.  Yes, some candidates are Christians or Mormons, and some may have the religious worldview of an atheist.  But that doesn’t mean that their religious worldview (Christian, Mormon or Atheist) is going to be legislated on the country.   All laws legislate someone’s moral viewpoint, but that’s not the same as establishing a “theocracy.”  If you want to know what a theocracy is like Sam, take a trip to Iran.

/by

Why Don’t People Believe in Miracles?

Lee Strobel has put up several short video clips of some of my presentations on his website. Click here for a clip on Why Don’t People Believe in Miracles?

By the way, LeeStrobel.com has hundreds of other short videos related to apologetics.  I highly recommend you check it out.

/by

You can’t legislate religion, but you must legislate morality!

Here is a great column by my friend David Limbaugh in response to those who criticize people such as Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney for allegedly infusing their religious views into politics.  But, of course, Huckabee and Romney are not trying to legislate religion on anyone– they want to legislate morality which is what everyone in politics is trying to do (including political liberals).

Religion has to do with our duty to God, but morality has to do with our duty to one another.  No one wants to require by law when, where, how, or if you must worship.  That would be legislating religion.  But everyone in politics is trying to tell you how your ought to treat one another, and that’s legislating morality.

Even on abortion– the most divisive issue of the day– both sides want to legislate or impose morality.  The pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother.  But the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby whenever abortion is chosen.  Both sides argue from moral positions (a right to life/a right to “choose”) and want to impose it via law.  When Hillary Clinton, for example, argues that a woman has a right to choose, she is arguing from a supposed moral position.  The problem for Hillary is that there should be no “right to choose” the death of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights– if you don’t have life you don’t have anything.   What do you think Hillary would want the law to be if we could put her back into the womb?

The criticism of politicians like Huckabee and Romney could be answered if they would just distinguish between religion and morality.  Most moral principles are consistent with religious teachings, but that doesn’t prevent us from legislating them.  If you couldn’t legislate a moral value because it’s found in the Bible, then we couldn’t have laws against murder, rape and theft!  In fact, nearly every good law we have is in someway consistent with one of the Ten Commandments.

/by

Nehemiah’s Wall Found

Another in a long list of discoveries that affirm the historicity of the Bible: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T7ORS00&show_article=1.  Archaeology so confirms the Bible, that it’s been  said that “every time a spade goes in the ground an atheist gets converted.” If atheism were just a matter of the mind and not the will, that would be true.   (BTW, Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, tries to discount the discovery at the end of the article. I’m not sure anything would convince Finkelstein who is a self-proclaimed skeptic.)

/by