The Terrible C's Part 2 - Roman Catholicism

Here is part 2 of my response to Ex-Catholics for Christ's series of videos on what they called the Three Terrible C's. The second video is about Roman Catholicism. The videos are again found on Godtube and here is the second video.



As you can see in this video, instead of talking about the ways Catholicism falls short on being in line with Bible, more time is spent on talking about the Catholic Catechism. I agree with no book outside the Bible should be used to dictate faith and practice for a Christian, but there are many other important issues to talk about other than what was chosen to be discussed in the video. I do think that mitigating the centrality of Jesus in being right with God and basically embracing Hinduism, Islam, and other religions that deny key Biblical truths because of their sincerity of faith is wrong. I can sincerely believe 3 plus 3 equals 5 but that won't change the fact that I would be wrong. Unfortunately despite the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the way to get God, they seem willing to accept that other faiths are just as valid. I also do not want to paint all Roman Catholics as this way. I'm referring only to those Catholics who follow the Pope, the Vatican, and the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church that contradict what the Bible says. There are many Protestant denominations that are also off and do not follow the Bible as they should. This video seems to me imply that all of Roman Catholics are off center and deceived. To argue that idea means thinking that for over 1000 years God was not powerful enough to protect his Church from error. Jesus said that the Gates of hell will never prevail against his Church.

COGIC at the DNC 2008

The Presiding Bishop of the Church of God In Christ, Bishop Blake, spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. View the video below. On the main page of COGIC website it is clearly stated that as a denomination COGIC is not endorsing any political party.

The Terrible C's Part 1 - Charismatic Movement

I was in my Google RSS Reader today and came across three interesting videos on GodTube from a ministry called Ex-Catholics for Christ. The three videos are part of a series called The Terrible C's. Part 1 is about the Charismatic Movement. Part 2 is about Roman Catholicism. Part 3 is about Calvinism. I found the videos very interesting and worth discussing in detail. I will write three posts - one for each video. Here is the first video:



I found several things I disagreed with in this video. By and large there is very little scripture foundation offered for their idea. The men in the video believe several things that I nearly feel out of my seat when I heard them. I will enumerate three of them one by one.
1. The spiritual gifts discussed in the Bible are not in practice today. Spiritual gifts such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, healing, and other supernatural gifts that the Bible speaks about ended when the last book of the New Testament was completed.
2. Women did not ever speak in tongues
3. No one has spoken in tongues since the Apostles of the first century died and before the 19th century


Here are my responses to each one.
1. They did not offer any scripture to base on their teaching on the cessation of tongues. The only scripture I can even think of may be twisted to say that tongues and signs ended with the closing of scripture is 1 Corinthians 13: 8-12 which says

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Many people who use this scripture to prove that tongues and prophecies are over stop at verse 10 and say that the perfect thing that came is the completion of the New Testament. I don't hold to that because although the scripture is completed we still do not know or understand everything. In context, Paul is talking about Jesus' second coming. Then we will understand fully because we will finally be like him and see him as he is.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2

2. Where does the Bible say women never spoke in tongues? In the video, the man attempts to summarize the rules Paul passed on from God concerning how to incorporate tongue speaking and prophesying into the order of church services in 1 Corinthians 14. I want to focus on verses 26-40.
What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

In the video, the King James version was appealed to. It says "If any man" but newer translations say "anyone". I looked up the Greek and found that the word being translated in verse 27 as "anyone" is "tis" and it makes no designation according to gender. The Strong number is 1500 and it means "a certain, a certain one". You cannot use this scripture to say women never spoke in tongues in the early church. I realize that I could say something about the verses admonishing women to keep quiet but I will save this for another future post. Additionally, the Bible says in Acts 10:47 that the people at Cornelius' house spoke in tongues. This would have had to include the women in his household.

To be fair, the video is not all wrong.They did point out that according to scripture if there are to be tongues spoken in the environment of a church meeting, there must be an interpretation and if there is not, people need to to keep their tongues to themselves. Unfortunately, not all churches follow this prescription. In addition, it was pointed out that speaking in tongues is the easiest spiritual gift to fake.

3. No proof is offered for the idea that no one has spoken in tongues between the end of the New Testament and the beginning of the Charismatic Movement. I would not say that I am part of the Charismatic Movement, but I am part of a Pentecostal Denomination that does believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. In our history, we have taught in the past that speaking in an unknown tongue (human or heavenly languages) is the proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit, but now many of us believe that speaking in tongues is one of the signs. No where is scripture does it say that Tongues is the best sign of belief. Scripture says that we "...will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:20). We believe this because of the experience of realizing that people were speaking in tongues but not coming to Christ. There must be a change in behavior and a desire to live holy if a person is truly born again and filled with the Holy Spirit.

As for the challenge of proving that baptism of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts still goes on today the one question I have is if you want proof I have to ask what church are you going to where the gifts of the spirit is not being manifested? The same God who empowered the apostles empowers us today. Why are you not seeing miraculous healing? Why is cancer not being healed? Or the lame walk? Or amputated or withered limbs restored? Why are you not seeing true prophesy where God says something and validates it in a miraculous way? There are many recorded examples of these. Some of which I have personally experienced. I know what it's like to be sick with arthritis and medical science not being able to do anything to help me. I was on crutches and constant pain for 5 years and God healed me. No where does the Bible say that He will stop being our everything...the one upon which we must trust and depend on everything. One final scripture about laying hands is found in James 5:14,15. Remember no where does it say that there will come a day when we will no longer need to do this until Jesus returns for his perfect church.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

Unless you want to argue that telekinesis is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit then you must concede that the elders were laying hands on the sick people they anointed with oil and prayed for.

Biblical Basis - Jesus' Humanity

One of the most important doctrines of Christianity is the fact that Jesus has duel natures. He is 100% man and 100% God. Again, like in the post about Jesus' deity, I will not discuss the Trinity in this post but next week. I'm also skipping the question of Jesus' race. The truth is the color of his skin, while an interesting discussion, has no bearing on a person's identity in a first century context, which is the time Jesus was on earth. It has no bearing on his identity as the Savior of this, his creation.

Instead, I'd like to discuss what the Bible says about Jesus' humanity. One of the gripes some people express about the Gospels is that they do not emphasize the same things. They do not tell all the same stories and when the stories parallel they contain varying degrees of detail and aimed at different audiences. Some folks even try to use these differences to say that the Gospels conflict with one another. I disagree. I can find no contradiction and no conflict. It's important to recognize that each of the four Gospels emphasizes different aspects of Jesus. Matthew was written to Jews and emphasis his kingship and messiah status, focusing on how He fulfills Old Testament prophecies. You can see much about Jewish culture. Mark was written to the Romans and more action oriented. It moves at a more rapid pace and covers nothing of his background before his public ministry and talks more about His deeds. Mark emphasizes Jesus' identity as a Servant. Luke was written to the Greeks. It reads more like what we think of today when we talk about biographies. We see Jesus as a baby, at age 12, and during his public ministry. Luke emphasizes Jesus' humanity. He really was born and had many of the same experiences that we all have to face. In John's Gospel we see Jesus as God. No other Gospel is more blatant on that point. You will notice the John's Gospel contains some of the strongest languages on that point.

Turning attention to Jesus' claim to be fully human, it's important to recognize that his humanity is fundamentally different than ours. Jesus had no taint of sin that permeates the rest of us. He is what God had intended us to be. It is through Jesus and only through Jesus that our humanity can be purely and truly expressed. He always did the right thing and never ever sin. None of the rest of us can say the same thing. Jesus is the second Adam. Paul wrote in Romans 5: 12-19

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobediencee of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

It was only as a man that we could be redeemed from sin and death because it was by a man that we all feel into slavery. In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul also wrote:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We see that Paul taught that Jesus is God and voluntarily became a man and then died for us in humble obedience to save us all. It is important to embrace all things that the Bible teaches about Jesus. A whole book could be written about the Humanity of Christ but I will make one last point based on Hebrews 10:1-10 which says:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' " First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The entire book of Hebrews is apologetic in nature - it brilliantly defends the faith in light of Judaism. By Chapter 10 the author explains why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary and uses a couple of scriptures from the Old Testament to show the Jesus really did have a human body - a life to be laid down only to be picked back up again. The scriptures quoted were Psalm 40: 6-8 in verse 7. The author makes the point that Christ's incarnation is nothing strange to Judaism. Jesus fulfilled this and many other scriptures from the Old Testament and those that are yet to be fulfilled He will fulfill in His second advent.

Biblical Basics - The Deity of Christ

After studying the Bible and apologetics I agree with what Hank Hanegraaf, the Bible Answer Man, when he said:

"...nearly all heresies begin with the misconception on the nature of God."

This has been true throughout history. Think of how in the first 3 centuries of the common era, the Gnostics denied the humanity of Jesus - the very reality of his life. Fortunately, God made sure that we had an antidote to this poison.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1st Corinthians 15: 3-8

In his first recorded letter to the Corinthians, Paul set forth the key truths of the Gospel. Jesus really did die and was really raised from the dead on the third day to save us all from our sins. All of Christianity rests on these facts. These facts brings into focus questions concerning who Jesus is and how does he relate to God.

During the third and fourth centuries the heresy known as Arianism reared its ugly head. Arianism denies the deity of Christ in particular and the Trinity in general. It seems to have started with Arius (c. AD 250-336). Thankfully the church was largely able to snuff these ideas out but even today these ideas come up again and again even today. The purpose of this post is to discuss the deity of Christ. I will discuss the Trinity in another post.

Many people try to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. I think the reason why is if Jesus is not God, then He was either a myth, a lunatic, or a liar. This would mean that one could go off and live any kind of way he/she feels fit because there would be no consequences. The Bible could be ignored. Problem is that each one of us must deal with the question of who Jesus is for ourselves. It's been two thousand years and He is not going to go away. Sooner or later you have to deal with what He said. I am going to be basing this post on the Bible. If you do not believe that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God...complete and perfect...then you should look at a couple of my earlier posts where I deal with those issues. For the purposes of this post I will assume that the reader agrees with me that the Bible is true and all that I write must line up with it. Whole books have been written on this and right now I will barely scratch the surface.

Many people who claim to believe the Bible, like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, are quick to discount the deity of Jesus. They and others claimed that Jesus never claimed to be God.
Let us look at some scriptures to see what Jesus really did say and what his earliest followers said. I often wonder if they are reading the same book. Consider John 8:48-59

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Why was the Jewish leaders so angry? They were angry enough to kill Jesus because they understood exactly what He was claiming. Jesus said that if they were really children of Abraham in more than just a physical sense they would be happy to see Jesus come. Jesus asserted His authority in the strongest possible way in their context. He applied the divine name of God to Himself. If you look up "I am" from verse 58, you will see that in Greek it is the same name God used when He revealed Himself to Moses from the burning bush if you look at the Greek translation of Exodus 3:14. The Jews understood that Jesus is claiming to always have existed and will always exist. Jesus is not teaching that He and the Father are the same person. In order to fully expand on His relationship with the Father, I will leave it to what Jesus said about that and save it for my Trinity post.

Further, the Greek word for the name "I Am" ( I use "name" because in Hebrew it was the name God gave himself) was also used by Jesus when He walked on the water to the boat His disciples were on at the time (Matt 14:22-33; Mark 6:47-51; John 6:16-21). Our English translations miss the thrust of Jesus' words translating John 6:20 this way:

But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid."

More accurately, Jesus said: "Don't Be afraid. I am." again applying the divine name to himself.

Although there are several other example that could be used, let us turn attention to what Jesus' followers said about his divinity. Paul wrote the following in Colossians 1: 15,16

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The "He" and "him" in this passage refer to Jesus Christ. Obviously, if Paul is saying that Jesus made everything and everything is held together by him, then Jesus must be deity. When Paul uses the word "firstborn" he is not saying that Jesus is the first thing God created. He means that Jesus is primary and most important and over all creation.

Here is another passage of scripture talking about who Jesus is. It is found in Phillippians 2:5 -11 which says:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

I really like this scripture because it gives insight into what Jesus' mindset and motivations were when he went to the cross for me and you. It points out that the reason why it was a humbling experience for Christ is because Jesus is God. In an upcoming post I will write about Jesus' humanity.

One last thing. We as Christians talk about Jesus being "God Incarnate". - literally God-in-flesh. Some say that this is antithetical to common senses and the Old Testament. They say that God cannot become a man and enter into his own creation. This is one of the first objections Jews and Muslims raise. Rather than tackle this in a lengthy discussion, I'll use a Hip Hop song the group called Hazakim in which they take on this very issue. I've already posted the video that goes with this song on this blog in the post called "The Truth Behind G. Craig Lewis Part 2" and it is on YouTube and GodTube so now I will just post the song itself. I ask with Hazakim, is it really that far fetched to believe that God became a man? And if it is impossible, then who was Abraham conversing with in Genesis 18:1-33?

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Bible Basics - Objections to the Bible

There are a few major objections that people use to attack the Bible. I don't believe these objections or any objection are valid. I'm not intending to cover all objections but two that I consider major. One objection is that the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts, especially the New Testament, and were written down so long after the events that one cannot trust what is written without thinking that myth and legend had crept into it. Another objection is the translation and transmission of the Bible. They ask that if the Bible has been copied and recopied, translated and re-translated over and over again how can we be sure that the message has not been corrupted?

The thing to remember about time lines concerning the dates the books of the bible were written is that scholars and historians disagree. Some date them very early and some of them date them very late, many times depending on whether or not they are believers. Scholars even use different rules for deciding how to date the book. Some use use the earliest fragment and others use the oldest complete version. When it comes to the Old Testament I hardly ever hear this objection but it's sometimes the first objection raised against the New Testament. For example, if the Gospel according to John was not written before 100 AD, then detractors could argue that there would be no way the author could be one of the original disciples let alone an eyewitness to Jesus' life and works, thereby casting doubt on the veracity of the whole book of John. Even if you argue a second century dating for any book of the Bible there is not sufficient time for myth and legend to crop into the early church's teachings about Jesus. No one has been able to prove that the second century Christians beliefs differed all that greatly from the first. Even the most liberal and/or Christian-hating scholar will grant you that Paul most likely wrote his epistles (letters) like 1st Corinthians in the 60's AD. This means that 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 which says:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

must have been written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion. This means that the early church did believe in Jesus' resurrection and all of Christianity is based on that truth. Further that this was something Paul inherited and not originated. More could be said and few have done it better that Lee Strobel in the his book The Case for Christ.

As for the second objection, the numerous copies are a good thing. We have so many copies from various times and places we can compare them and see that the variations are slight. From these copies, through comparing them against one another, we can figure out what the originals actually did say. This is what our modern translations are based on. The majority of the variations include misspelled words or phrases with words in different order. The new testament was written in kione Greek and I have found out that in Greek you can have nouns and verbs switched in order and not change the meaning of a sentence. Not so in English. As for the Old Testament, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the text doesn't seem to be much in dispute. The oldest copy of any book from the Old Testament we have is a copy of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is more than 99% the same as the text from which our Bibles are translated from. For more information on this I think one should read The King James Only Controversy by James White for a wonderful treatment on Biblical translation and transmission. Here is a video about the reliability of the Bible:

Be Transformed

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2

Bible Basics - the Bible

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Bible is the word of God. We believe that it is the revelation from God on faith and practice as we live out this life according to God's purpose. This is an important part of any discussion of theology. It must be agreed upon what standard will opinions and conclusions will be based. I mean how do you know Jesus love you? How do you know that you are a sinner, cut off from relationship with God - caught in an endless bondage to sin terminated only in death? How do you know that you are in a predicament whose only remedy is the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Simple, the Bible says so. I'm not suggesting that there is not any reasonable evidence outside of scripture to believing these things, but I do recognize that the fundamental evidence that I am basing my life on is based on what the Bible says. No way we could know these truths without direct revelation from God.

This is why you find many agnostics, atheists, other religions, and cultists attacking the Bible. Their ilk have attacked it since the beginning because they know if the Bible is not the word of God then everything Christians believe is a lie. This is why how you see the Bible is very important. If its full of errors, then how do you know that the parts promising eternal life are not lies? If it embellishes miraculous events then maybe the hope-giving encouragements are to be taken with a "grain of salt"? It also means that there is no judgment and everyone can live and do as they themselves see fit. In this case, laws and civil order go out the window. Who are you to tell someone like Hitler that he is wrong to kill anyone he doesn't think was worthy of life? Or what stops a person from walking up to you, smacking you on the head, and taking all you own? That person could no longer be called a "thief" or a "murderer". Those terms and many others would loose all meaning. Thank God that he gave us a standard outside of us that we can use to know right and wrong. That measuring stick is the Bible - against with all faith, opinion, suggestion, idea, thought, and conclusion should be weighed, counted, and measured against and if found wanting - should be discarded. No one, no matter how dastardly their deeds thinks of themselves as evil, even if they know they are wrong.

It took 1,500 years for all 66 books of the Bible to be written. It was written by over 40 different authors, writing in different languages, from different backgrounds and cultures, on three continents. The kicker is that despite these facts there are coherent messages without conflict or error. How could this be unless God is behind it? I want to turn to some scriptures in which itself tells us what it is.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:16-21

And Paul said:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

This is why I consider Biblical Inerrancy to be a major sticking point concerning anything with Christianity. The Bible tells us what our world view should be and gives us glimpses into the mind of God. It also records for us how God has related to other people who were like than any of us. We see their triumphs and their failures. How if they trusted God, they succeeded (just read Hebrews 11 as a summary of this point) and if they turned their own way they failed with disastrous consequences. This is no different today.

This post went a little longer than I thought it would. I had planned to discuss,on the surface, some of the objections that have been raised by those who don't think that such discussions on real matters should be based on the Bible. I guess I'll save that one for a later time.

Biblical Basics - Introduction

I am intending to write a series of post that discuss biblical topics. Most of it will be very basic and will do nothing to challenge orthodox Christian theology. All my posts will be attempts to read only out of the Bible what was intended to be there and not read into it my own biases and traditions. I use the word "attempts" because I know how hard it is to do that and I welcome feedback and challenges. These are going to be things that I desire to get the correct understanding of I know that i will always have more to learn and to grow into yet. I don't have it all now and I will never have it completely down until I see Christ. Paul said:

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
1st Corinthians 13:8-12

If the apostle Paul, handpicked by God to take the Gospel all over the Roman world , understood that he did not have the complete picture, makes you wonder why any of us have such audacity to think we do. I pray daily not to fall into that. Because of the grace of God, and only the grace of God, I have three college degrees in engineering and technology so I am constantly examining my attitude towards other people. The following scripture helps with that. It almost seems written for me.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness."
1st Corinthians 3:18,19

One thing about the Bible is that for every scripture that you can use to condemn others there are several that get you too. To add emphasis, Paul uses the weight of the Old Testament quoting Job 5:31 in verse 19. Reminding others and informing some that God cannot be outsmarted, tricked, or manipulated. I intend to follow his lead the best I can as I write, footnoting and referencing whenever I can. I want to use science, history, philosophy, archeology, anthropology, and art to talk about theology and Bible doctrine. When I make a mistake, or when clarification is needed, please comment and let me know. Also if you have some ideas for articles that I can research with you on, please also let me know.

Mugen Project

I'm interested in learning how to use my computer programming skills to write video games. Thankfully, I can use Mugen to practice. So far I've been finding content that others have created and using them to make my own fighting games. Now I think it is time to make my own content. - characters and stages. Also thankfully there is so much tutorials and tools available. I want to create a Black Panther and a Blade characters because as far as I can tell no one has released those. I guess the first thing is to take a character that already exists and see what how it is put together. I want to make a couple of characters and corresponding stages that work on the Windows Mugen of Windows. I'm excited at the prospect of releasing them for others to play. I will post tests and demos as they become available.

Today is a big day

Today, August 20, 2008. is my fourth wedding anniversary. I thank God daily for the gift he has so graciously bestowed upon me - my wife. Mitsouky is so wonderful in so many different ways. She has an outgoing personality. She lights up a room with her charm. She is so very intelligent. God blesses her to accomplish whatever He puts in her. She has wonderful people skills and does her best work in the center of attention without being arrogant or prideful. On top of that she is beautiful - inside and out; physically and mentally. On top of all of that she is a powerful partner and helpmate. I have no idea what I would do without her. She has also blossomed as a mother. Our daughter is blessed to have her as a mother. I love her sense of humor and her abilities to sing and dance. Mitsouky brings the party with her where ever she goes. She loves music and has talents that allow her to explore musical genres.

The Bible says that

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD. Proverbs 18:22 (KJV)

Mitsouky is my good thing. I love that scripture. It reminds me that no matter what my wife is a gift from God and He gave her to me to show me His favor. Favor is undeserved on my part, meaning it was because of his mercy and goodness not because of anything I have said or done. I thank Mitsouky for choosing to give me the love God has put inside of her for me and for accepting the love God has put inside me for her.

Not that there aren't problems or issues. Not that sometimes neither one of us knows what to do or how to do. But with the help of God we stick to one another, loving and caring for each other's needs and desires just as much as we care about our own individual needs and desire.

The only downside to having an anniversary in the middle of a week is that we can't celebrate that day. So we'll be celebrating this weekend.

The True Meaning of Ambidexterous

I found the picture on the left on the internet and I know it perfectly captures what the word Ambidexterous means to me!

Gemini Division Episodes I & II

A few weeks ago I was reading the blog called Sci-Fi/Journalist and came across a posting about a webisode series called Gemini Division on NBC.com starring Rosario Dawson and Justin Hartley. Both great actors. Although I have seen 2 episodes, each just deepen the mystery as to what is going on. I can't wait to see how it further unfolds. I got all the material on this post from Sci-fi/Journalist and from NBC.com and here is the first episode.

Black Comic Creator - Christopher Priest

Christopher Priest is the first black person to work at Marvel Comics and at DC Comics as a writer and as an editor. Looking at his website shows that he is into music, photography, and the arts. He changed is name in the 1990's and some of his work is under his given name James Owsley. I'd seen his work and enjoyed him for years and never knew he was black. Historically, whenever you are the first black anything you end up dealing with so much racism and obstacles. It was no different for Christopher. Somehow I thought it was different for black comic book creators. I guess it was hopeful thinking. I mean at Marvel I thought that it would be less racist especially in the 1980's because one of Marvel's flagship franchises, X-men, is an unabashed parallel to man's inhumanity to man based on nothing more than difference in appearance or ability. I guess I thought that the people who work there carry those same ideas personally in their lives.

What I liked about Priest's website is his essays on his life experiences and the peers he worked with. He doesn't seem bitter at all concerning the shocking racism he endured. Personally, I wouldn't have made it. Had he given up, I don't think we would have as many black characters or black people working in the entertainment industry as we do today. Priest wrote about his regrets and triumphs. It was so real. He neither painted anyone completely evil or good. Not even himself I was amazed at how he had to constantly prove himself over and over and how few breaks he got. He seemed almost expected to fail and not succeed. One of the things that I love that he wrote was back in the mid-eighties: Spider-man vs Wolverine. He showed a profound understanding of their personality and great action sequences. I liked it a lot and still have a copy. Although set in the background of Cold-War East Berlin, the story makes you feel like you are there.

He was also responsible for great stories in the Black Panther title that was launched in 1998. His website does a great job of documenting the major works he's done in comics. I would also recommend reading his essays about working in the industry. When he edited the Spider-man books, he resisted the idea of Spider-man marrying Mary Jane Watson. He thought that it would ruin the character because Spider-man should be free to date whomever so that young single guys could identify with him. Twenty-Two years later Marvel seems to agree, in 2007 they effectively started to pretend the marriage never happened. I don't agree with him, and at the time he was fired. I think it added more drama and gave him someone to carry the burdens of his life with.

Black Comic Characters - Black Panther

Marvel Comics must have published thousands of characters during its nearly 70 year history. Not all of those characters are as well known as Spider-Man, Wolverine, or the Hulk, especially black characters. Black Panther may not be well known but he's one of my favorite. He's not an African-American character because he is an African. He's a born and raised African monarch in a fictional African nation called Wakanda. Keep in mind that all of Marvel's characters populate the same universe (or multi-verse). This means that they are all connected. That is one of the things that makes it all very interesting. In our world, most (if not all) the nations of Africa are poorly developed, impoverished, and economically exploited for their wealth of resources. (You know writing about that make me want to address that at a future date.)

However, Wakanda is far different. It is one of the most (arguably the most) sophisticated nation on the fictional earth of the Marvel Universe. They had never been subjugated by anyone and this is because of their fighting skills and remoteness. Their King is given superhuman abilities through the use of a herb. This is why the Black Panther can go toe-to-toe with super villains and keep up with his teammates in the superhero team called the Avengers. The Avengers will be made into a movie soon, I hope Black Panther will be included. The Black Panther is not just a great fighter but he is a top-notch military strategist, scientist, and engineer, rivaling Tony Stark (Iron Man), Reed Richards (from the Fantastic Four), and Dr. Doom. Wakanda is almost a Utopia. Wakanda is a sovereign and rich nation independent from the rest of the world.

If you are unfamiliar with the politics and stories Marvel publishes you may wonder why Black Panther has so much conflict and drama? Why would he have to fight so hard to protect his people? (I mean besides racism.) Simple. Black Panther's country contains the only deposits of a fictional metal called Vibranium. It's precious because it can absorb any form of energy thrown at it and reflect it. It's rare. It doesn't take much imagination to see a great many people would want it and not all for ethical reasons, even if it means destroying Wakandans to get it. I mean why pay for it when you can take it. That's is what such people do in Africa in real life. Black Panther however will not all his people to be bullied or destroyed. He does not play and won't cower before anyone not even the United States. He manipulates his enemies staying many many steps ahead of them. Don't get me wrong, if he has to fight he does, like his namesake with moves that Batman would envy.

To give an idea of how important vibranium is consider that Captain America's indestructible shield is made of vibranium alloyed with adamantium, an indestructible fictional metal and the same metal that laces Wolverine's skeleton.

Over much of time he has been depicted more as a superhero than a true monarch -- along side the Avengers, saving the world. More recently they have play up his role as a king. Exploring the politics and culture in his country. Looking at his motivations. How does a guy like this deals with American Foreign policy? All interesting and heavy questions. I love that stuff as much as I like the high-paced action/fight sequences.

Black Panther will be getting a solo animate television series next year on BET. As far as I know, BET's President of programming, REGINALD HUDLIN, is currently the writer of Black Panther's current comic book series. Mr Hudlin is very talented and he's been taking Black Panther is some new directions...for example in the books, Black Panther has gotten married....to Storm from X-men. Good choice. She is very regal and queenly. It also adds all the dynamics that comes from Storm being there. I mean he's got to deal with the fact that I'm sure many of his subjects don't like the idea of their queen being a mutant....oh the drama.

Another writer on the book I admire is Christopher Priest...who was the first black writer/editor at both Marvel and DC Comics. I'll be writing about him in the future as well. I enjoyed his first story arcs when the book was first launched back the very late Nineties. The first stories were told in the first person from one of the supporting characters...a skinny, cowardly white guy in over-his-head and out of his element. I forget the character's name right now. Ross something. He referred to Black Panther as "the Client" and he was assigned as a liaison between the US State Department and Black Panther. He was told basically to avoid incidents and to babysit. Before the end of it, Ross and the reader were in for the ride of our lives. I think the first arc was called "Enemy of the State". I highly recommend it. Marvel collected the entire story into a trade paperback or you should be able to find it at Marvel's digital comics.

Lastly, I'm sure all who have read my blog know I like to play Mugen. As of yet I have not been able to find a Black Panther mugen character but as soon as I do, I will post it here.

Saddleback Showdown: Obama vs McCain

I don't know if you saw the Faith Forum last night on television but I found it very interesting. As one might expect the entire thing is on YouTube. I've created a playlist (unfortunately, not all together in the correct order) and embedded it. I'm not sure when but I'm sure someone will upload the whole 2 hours in one chunk or in 2 chunks. I've got a lot to say about it, but I'll hold off for now because I'm running back to church.

The Gospel According to Chris Nolan

One of the biggest movies of 2008 so far is The Dark Knight, directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan, is not just one of the most highly grossing movies of all-time it is chock full of opportunities for discussing biblical theology. Other folks have commented on the theological ideas behind movie. One blogger whose insight I have enjoyed reading goes by the name "Dr. Ransom". You can read his articles called Heroes, Sin, the Knight's Dark Doctrine and More on darkness, light and 'The Dark Knight'. I'd like to add my own two cents, responding to these articles, the movie itself, and why this is an important subject.

Several Christians and people who don't believe in anything may wonder why or how a film about a man who dresses up as a bat and goes out and hits people, based on a comic book that started in 1939, could have anything meaningful in it about God, theology, and humanity? The truth is that there is so much there. To begin to understand you have to consider why Batman has been continually published for close 60 years and why the movie was made successfully in the first place. This actually breaks into three questions. First, the Batman character and all of the characters that populate his world are extremely popular because they like all of the greatest fictional characters of human history perfectly symbolize different and conflicting aspects of human. Through them we can truly explore what it means to be human. Second, of course the movie was made to explore Batman and his world in as many different genres as possible (to make as much money as possible....oh well what you gonna do?) and the other movies (5 before this one since 1989) made a lot of money. Third, the reason why this film is so successful is because the writers, director, producers, and actors really get the characters and were able to leverage all that makes the comics great. In addition, the story really seems tailor made for our times and culture today.

As Dr. Ransom points out in his articles that many movie critics missed the key Christian concepts of sacrifice and substitutional atonement that filled the movie. He deconstructed their arguments so well that I won't waste the time making the same points he did. He and a few others are very quick to equate Batman's and Gordon's decision to put the blame for Harvey Dent's murders (sins) on Batman himself to protect Dent's reputation and legacy with Jesus sacrificing himself for us so that he bore the punishment for our sins - death; with the Joker cast as Satan. I agree that the comparison has merit but it does fall down. I'm not suggesting that Dr Ransom is equating Batman to Jesus only that there is a symbolic parallel to help understand what the Gospel is and is not. I would say that analogy falls down if pressed on just a little harder. Having spent the last year studying human free choice (Arminianism) and God's sovereignty (Calvinism), I saw the film depiction as being more Arminian. I'll go into this a little further later on.

Batman is Batman because of the choices he makes. He is willing to do whatever he thinks is necessary to achieve his goals to protect innocent people and bring justice to those exploit others. He is driven to keep others from experiencing the horror and pain that was inflicted on him watching his parents being murdered right before his eyes as a child. The Joker's goal in the film seemed to break Batman. Knowing that Batman does not kill, the Joker was determined to push Batman to the point that he would kill the Joker. Batman is heroic because he refused to fall into this trap even when the Joker killed the woman he loved. It was obvious to the Joker that she was special to Batman when he jumped out of a window to save her when the Joker through her out a window. Harvey Dent was also in love with her, but the Joker was able to scar him not only emotionally like Batman, but also physically. Then the Joker was able to twist Dent's mind to get him to kill all those whom he blamed for the death of his lady - even his allies Batman and Commissioner Gordon. He blamed Batman and Gordon because they did not save her and blamed the 5 cops who were bribed to help the Joker kidnap him and the girl leading to his disfigurement and her death. The Joker was so cunning that he was able to get Dent to blame everyone but the Joker. Sounds like the devil.

When Batman was interrogating the Joker in the film, the Joker made it clear he didn't care about money or power. All he wanted was to show that everyone is just as cracked and depraved himself and if given the right circumstances anyone would given in to their baser instincts. He reminded me of the way Satan is shown in the book of Job. Satan challenged God saying that if you let me break him, Job will hate you and turn on you. Like Batman, Job didn't fall for the temptation. Harvey Dent did. I got to say that under the same strain that Harvey Dent was under that most people would fail and some might argue that he was under more psychological trauma than Batman due to the scarring of his face and the falling to a place where he could no longer make decisions without flipping a coin, but I would argue that Batman's scars are just as deep. They go back to childhood. He just chooses to daily deal with them differently...he refuses to kill those he considers responsible.

As I stated I agree that Batman choosing to take the blame for the murder of the five police officers by Harvey Dent is a good analogy for what Jesus did for us. In effect Batman chose to be labeled the villain and allow Dent to be a martyr for Gotham City at the hands of the Joker. Batman offers himself as a scapegoat The reason why the analogy does not fully hold is because everyone knew, even at the time Jesus was crucified, that Jesus was innocent of any wrong doing. They knew that he should not have been executed. The reason why Batman was the obvious choice to take the blame is that the public does not know who he is or what he would be capable of doing. I don't know what the next movie will be like, but when he gets tired of being hounded by the authorities he can take his mask off and be Bruce Wayne - a millionaire playboy. How high a sacrifice will it really be...it'll make it harder to be Batman in many ways but also it could make criminals more frightened of him - a plus. On the other hand, Jesus horribly died.

To accept this analogy of the Gospel with The Dark Knight means symbolizing Jesus with Batman, Dent with us, and Satan with the Joker. This is definitely an Arminian view. The heart of Arminian theology is the thought that all people have it within themselves to choose to follow Jesus or not to follow Jesus. That we are not so depraved that we need a new heart and a new mind than the one we come into the world with. The view is that like Dent, we are all basically good and until the choice is presented to us and we reject Christ our eternal destiny is uncertain. Like Batman, Jesus took our place as taking the blame for our sins. Dent is the sinner. Here things break down more because Dent dies because of the choices he makes. Jesus died because we choose to disobey God. He took not just the blame, but the punishment in our place. Batman only took the blame and not the full weight of Dent's sins.

Apologist James White would say that you cannot be a historically consistent Arminian because they used to reject substitutionary atonement because how could Jesus' death set aside the punishment for sins of those who will not ever be saved from hell. Put another way: when Jesus died did he pay for the sin of everyone who has ever lived and ever will live or just for those who believe in Jesus Christ - the elect? Calvinists like White say Jesus died for only the elect. Arminians say that Jesus' atoning sacrifice has universal scope but applied only to those who choose to accept Jesus Christ. My opinion will be stated in a different article. For the purpose of this article I am going to allow those Arminians to have their cake and eat it too.

Instead, I want to turn attention to a Calvinistic view of the movie. To make it truly Calvinistic would mean changing the movies plot to fit Jesus even more. Joker is actually more like us than like Harvey Dent. We would need to see that the Joker symbolizes us before we are saved - depraved, evil, selfish, and with no hope of reconciliation with society and God. Jesus performed a miracle that Batman could not do when he saved us - turning us from Jokers into Commissioner Gordons. Like Gordon after Batman emerges in Gotham City, he has more freedom to do good. That is what belief in Jesus brings freedom from the consequences of sin and death. Batman's death in the movie was a death of reputation. Jesus actually died and proved his claims of deity by rising from the dead bodily not metaphorically. Because he conquered death, through him we will be raised to life. Batman sacrificed his reputation to make sure the Gotham City does not loose hope because Dent fell from grace. May be in Nolan's trilogy, Batman will be able to "resurrect" his reputation, I don't know what that story will be about, but at least we know that Jesus was raised from the dead for our justification and through him we have eternal life.

Purpose Driven Critique

My pastor recently reminded me that all books that we read must be carefully scrutinized and considered in light of scripture. With the Saddleback church being back in the news because of the Obama and McCain event happening today at that location, he reminded me that we need to view Rick Warren's (his picture is on the right) book Purpose Driven Life with much more discernment than I know I did in the past. It reminded me of 16 page article I saw many months ago on the Berean Call website ran by Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon . I first came across that ministry because of the work of James White and his ministry, Alpha and Omega Ministries. They are almost constantly at odds, especially on Calvinism and Armenism (much more on that later). I find a lot of problems with Dave Hunt and some of the things he teaches but I he's been around so long and has a platform so he cannot be safely ignored. I really, really liked Purpose Driven Life and although I read through it two or three times nothing really awful jumped out at me. McMahon did write that 16 page critique I mentioned earlier and I felt like it was more written out of jealousy or nit-picking, but I will set aside that judgement and re-read it....maybe he had some valid theological gripes. I'll provide a more thorough analysis later. Read the article here.

Obama, Race, Christianity, and Black Liberation Theology Part 3 - My Dad

As for the comments made by James White on May 6, 2008. I have got to say that I agree with (as I am sure you can tell) his comments concerning the racism and biblical slant Cone advocates in his position. I only think that Dr. White is not able to see Cone from a black stand point. Yes, everyone is equal. Yes, everyone is important. Everyone is loved by God regardless of race, gender, or economic standards. Why? God said so. That should be good enough. However because of life experience no two people are going to view life the same way. Your race does play a role in your world view. It is really easy to accept that when you do not feel the weight of oppression based on something you cannot change - perspectives people hold against you. White was correct when he said that many poor people in this country have elevated their economic status with nothing but their hardwork and the grace of God to help them. It could be argued that this how all success is made in America regardless if God is recognized in it. However the black experience in this country has been far different. I do not even have to go as far back as slavery to find a tenable example. My father (my parents above) is not nor has he ever had to live as a slave to another human being. My father was trained in the Navy during the 1950's to run steam powered engines of the large ocean-going ships that made up our national naval forces. When he got out of the Navy he tried to get a job with the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)company running the same kind of technology. They would not give it to him because of his race. How did he know it was because of his race? White men of his same age, rank, and experience levels were being hired right out of the military and there were no black people doing that kind of work at PG&E. When my dad could not get a "cushy" job like that he did other things to support his family: janitorial service, door-to-door salesman. Eventually, he was able to go to community college and get an education in carpentry. When he worked in private industry, racism again showed up. He and other non-whites had to do the hard strenuous dirty jobs like laying foundation and the kinds of work no one wanted. Then when the job was easier my father and his peers would be fired and skilled white people would take over (making more money).
My father, through the grace of God, has endured much...survived much just as I am sure James White's father did. My dad is old enough to be his father. I have a brother that is older than James White (not by much). The question is do white people have more advantages over black people based on nothing but what color their skin is. Even today there is racism. Not like it was. I have never had to deal with all the crap my father has. (I doubt I would have made it). My father grew up in south Georgia and he was the one of the first black people to be allowed to go to the 12 grade in the county he lived in. Prior to that, black kids had to stop in the 11th grade. My father was also one of the first black people to serve in the Navy after President Truman commanded the desegregation of the military. The Navy was the first to comply. I did not hear James White agree or disagree that there is still racism in society today. I would say that there is. James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, like my Father, have experienced a racism that I am not all that certain that I can relate to or survive. In their day, a black man did not have to be doing anything and they could be lynched and-or tarred and feathered in broad daylight and the authorities would do nothing. James Cone responds with anger and resentment. I understand that but twisting the gospel into something it is not is not the answer. Funny thing is that my generation is way more angry about it than my father and his generation are. My fathers response: Be the man God has called him to be - love God first and foremost and protect his family (see us on the right - children and grandchildren) and do good to others no matter what color they are, trusting God to make up for what he cannot do, following Jesus where Jesus leads him. I prefer my father's response because it is biblical and it has worked during his whole 75 years. It is what God is calling us to no matter your race, gender, or economic status. White people are not the cause of our problems. The problem is sin. Jesus is the only Cure.

Obama, Race, Christianity, and Black Liberation Theology Part 2 - James Cone

As I noted in part 1, when Obama rose to national prominence the media dug into his background and discovered the kind of church Obama had been attending for 20 years. Because of his name some people tried to make Obama out as Muslim but came to found out that his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his church advocate the empowerment and liberation of black people. And they dug up footage of Wright condemning the act of against non-white people. The media has used all of this to paint Wright as a racist cult leader and by extension, suggesting that Obama shares the same views, The white media has also suggested that all black churches think and teach the same thing that Wright does. All of this I chronicled in some detail in part 1.

What I want to do in Part 2 is discuss what exactly Wright is saying that he teaches. I noticed besides trying to make Wright look as bad as possible the media never made any move to address his message and whether or not it lines up with the Bible. The media stayed away from this because it would also shine a light on the depravity of American Society and glorify God. Wright said himself that in order to understand his theology you must be familiar with the works of James Cone. One of my favorite apologists is James White. On his web cast on May 6, 2008 he said he heard Wright make that statement about Cone decide to really look at Cone's seminal work: Black Theology and Black Power. He was horrified. I was too. I thought I understood what Black Liberation theology is and I was wrong. So I decided to read his book too on my Pastor's recommendation so that I don't go on just what others have said. Therefore I will respond to White's comments as well as Cone's work and how it affects the I want to deal with if this theology is racist? Is it Christian?

I think the aims of Black Liberation Theology are noble: end racism and inspire black people to stop looking at themselves as nothing but sub white people. Black people have been beaten up and oppressed by American society so much that some black people don't realize that they are every bit as human and loved by God as White people. The problem is that James Cone wrote that God has chosen oppressed people (black) and has turned against white people. He said that it was okay for black people to hate white people because of the evil black people have suffered. Cone said that we should look to ourselves and not to the White understanding of Christianity. He wants us to stop looking at Jesus as White.

My problem with all of this is that, Cone believes that the worse thing in this world…the thing that that Jesus came to address…is racism. Racism is the result of a larger, more fundamental flaw in the hearts of every man, woman, and child on earth: sin. Sin is anything that God hates and displeases him. Be sure I tend think that racism is on God’s list of No-No’s but we need to look at the Bible to understand how God is addressing these things. Cone is right God addressed this problem by send Jesus to die for our sins, but not just our sins but the sins of those who are racist against us. He came to reconcile us not to ourselves but to God. If we put God first then all those other things fall into place. The problem with the Black Power movement is that many in it thought that if we turn away from the white people’s conception of God (Christianity) we can take control of our destiny. True Christianity repudiates the evil that has been perpetrated in Christ’s name…an understanding of the Bible bears this out. Cone almost seems to thjink that because Black people suffer they are closer to God’s heart than white people. The thing is all people suffer under the crushing weight of sin – in various ways to varying degrees. No matter your color, all our sinner deserving to go to Hell. This is what Jesus saves us from – ourselves. Left to us, we will destroy ourselves, individually and a species, if he did not intervene.

In Black Theology, the black man is glorified not God. White man, his opinions and good intentions are devalued for no other reason that he is white. Women too are also devalued. These ideas make Black theology no different than the errors we claim white people make in dealing with us.

Concerning Jesus we make the same mistake in Black Liberation Theology that the Jews of the First century made. They thought that messiah’s mission was to restore the greatness of Israel and destroy Rome. We make the same mistake today. We think Jesus came to give us material wealth and happiness on earth, or racial and economic equality. Jesus came to give us eternal life and save us from our sins so we can become more like him and please God. This gets into what the Gospel really is.

There are several theological problems with Cone’s theology. For starters he denies the inerrancy of the Bible. This I think is a major flaw. Without the Bible, what guidebook do you use? What standard is there? How do we know what God has really said? Should the guidebook be me? You? Cone? Personally, I’d rather believe what it is God has said. I will cover at another time how to know the Bible is inerrant and how we know it is reliable. It’s not blind faith.