"Precious Lord, Take My Hand" - The Story

In my early childhood, my grandparents had a farm just outside Tuscumbia, Alabama.  I loved being at their farm; I loved the adventures I had on that farm with my cousin, Buddy, and my brother, Bob - riding grandpa's palomino mare, Maudine, and his team of mules as we ventured along the country road to Dean's Market at the nearby junction of Old US Highway 43 and Mountain View Lane, or to Hester's Market a bit further north on Highway 43. 

But, the fondest memory which has stayed in my heart was the times I accompanied my grandparents to their little Baptist church sitting back in the woods, a tent church with sawdust on the ground - and the worship music they sang - hymns such as "Amazing Grace" - "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" - "Leaning On The Everlasting Arms" - "Have Thine Own Way, Lord" - etc.

When I was in Elementary School, we had a marvelous music teacher, Mrs. Alexander, who taught us to sing hymns such as "Fairest Lord Jesus" - "Onward Christian Soldiers" - and many other beautiful songs of our Christian faith and patriotic songs.  I wasn't really a Christian believer then, but the seeds were planted.

When I did become a Christian believer in 1987, I noticed a growing trend.  The churches were moving away from singing hymns and traditional Christian music - and moving toward singing simple choruses and contemporary Christian music, spurred on, to a large degree, by Calvary Chapel and the developing Maranatha! Music movement which wanted to bring the "milk" of God's Word to a young, drug-ladened hippie population of the 1960s who were not ready for the "meat" of His Word. 

Don't misunderstand, I like many of the contemporary Christian songs.  But, just as I would not want to subsist on a diet of nothing but cake at every meal - I do not like having only the contemporary Christian songs all the time.  In my early Christian walk, most of the churches offered a mix of the contemporary songs along with hymns.  But, gradually, that began to change as hymns were being excluded more and more.

In the early 1990s the beautiful hymn "It Is Well With My Soul" experienced a revival in churches.  This happened when Focus On The Family and other ministries began to feature a short presentation on the radio which basically told this story of the beautiful hymn "It Is Well With My Soul."

Horatio Spafford (1828-1888), a wealthy Chicago lawyer and business man who was also a devout Christian and faithful student of the Scriptures, planned a trip to Europe as a family vacation to help his family recover from the recent loss of their son, and to assist evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Ira Sankey in an evangelistic campaign in England.

Because of a last minute business problem, Spafford sent his wife and four daughters, ages 11, 9, 7, and 2, ahead on an earlier ship and planned to follow on a later ship. The ship his family was on sank at sea and his four daughters were lost.   On November 22, their ship, the S.S. Ville Du Havre, struck another ship and sank within twelve minutes. 

On board a ship to join his grieving wife, Anna, in England - Spafford wrote the words to "It Is Well With My Soul" which included the words "When sorrow like sea billows roll; it is well, it is well with my soul. . ."  By the time he returned from Europe, a friend, Philip Bliss, had set his words to music and the hymn we all love was born.

When people began to hear and understand the story behind that hymn - it began to be sung more often in church worship services.  That gave me the idea to try to do the same with another hymn which I have always loved, "Precious Lord, Take My Hand."

In the mid-1990s, Dory and I got together with a Christian Friend, Gary Whitlatch, who is a gifted musician, and put together the presentation below of that beautiful Spiritual "Precious Lord, Take My Hand."

It was our way of helping believers understand why this song was written, hopefully to encourage them to look at it, not as a dusty old hymn - but as a living testimony of how God works in the lives of those who love Him and know that they need Him.

I wrote the script and, with Gary on guitar and acting as co-narrator, I read the part of Thomas Dorsey and Dory led us in singing.   We performed this short presentation at several of our local churches and Bible studies.

Thomas Dorsey wrote this song of prayer and faith shortly after losing his wife and baby when both died in childbirth.  Through the pain of his double loss and his love for God, this song "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" was born.
PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND

BILL:   The apostle Paul, in Colossians, instructs us, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, sing with thankfulness in your hearts to God."  

Again in Ephesians Paul urges us, ". . . but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;"

GARY:    What did Paul mean in Ephesians and Colossians when he gave the instruction to the first century Christians, that they should sing, "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"?  The psalms refer to the rich heritage of Jewish music of that time found in the book of Psalms and other Old Testament Scripture, directing man's worship to the greatness and majesty of God the Father. 

His reference to hymns was an encouragement for those early believers to also sing musical expressions concerning New Testament truths and doctrines which reflect the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. 

BILL:   But to give a proper balance to their worship, Paul wisely suggested the use of spiritual or experiential songs, those more spontaneous expressions that flow from one's innermost being, out of a very personal love relationship with the Lord, prompted by the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
 
Isn't that what our praise songs are today?  The spirituals of the early church generations eventually become part of today's hymnals, and as such, now get classified as "old music!"  Perhaps we should take another look.  We just might find that those hymns contain a lot of spiritual "meat."

GARY:   Isn't Paul really saying, "When you sing and make melody with your heart to the Lord, make it a mix of the old, the Psalms - the new, their hymns, songs about what was happening in their lives - and the spiritual songs, songs of deep emotion and praise for the Lord."
 
BILL:   The song we are featuring today is one of those very intimate spiritual expressions, "Precious Lord, Take My Hand.”

GARY, ON GUITAR, PLAYS FIRST VERSE OF "PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND."

GARY:   "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" was written in 1932 by Thomas Dorsey, a black Gospel musician.  In Thomas Dorsey's own words:

BILL:     "I was born in the year 1899.  I grew up in a Christian home in Georgia.  My father was an itinerant preacher and my mother played the pump organ in the church.  By the time I was ten or twelve, I had learned to play that organ too.  As a preacher's kid, I was exposed to quite a bit of religious activity, and maybe that got into me some way, but I didn't follow it."
 
GARY:     Dorsey became interested in jazz music and during the first World War he began composing songs for blues singers, achieving considerable fame and financial success.  He put a band together and traveled a lot while writing over 150 blues songs.
 
But Thomas Dorsey could never forget the influence of his early religious training, nor the memory of his Godly parents.  Even when busy playing in bars and night clubs around the country, he still thought a great deal about his early life.  Then as a young man in his twenties, Dorsey began to reflect seriously about himself; how God had preserved him on so many occasions, and that he was now foolishly wasting his time and his talents.
 
As Dorsey said,

BILL:   "It was in 1924 that I started to come back to God.  I knew that I was ruining my life.  That year I wrote 'If I Don't Get There,' a Gospel song that is still in the books today.  Today I can say that all that I am, and all that I ever will be, all that I have, all that I will ever possess, I owe to God.  He brought me out of my sin."

GARY:   For the next few years, Thomas Dorsey was actively involved in singing for church services and writing Gospel songs.  One day while ministering in a revival meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, he received a telegram that his wife Nettie had just died delivering their first child.  Arriving home in South Chicago that same night, he was met with further bad news, his infant son had also died.  Both were buried in the same casket.  The sorrow was more than Dorsey could bear.
 
BILL:   "That was double trouble, and I couldn't take it.  I said, 'God, You aren't worth a dime to me right now.'  I felt as if He had treated me wrong.  A few weeks later I was sitting with a friend, Theodore Frye, the Gospel singer, trying to get over my grief.  As I fingered the keyboard of a piano, I picked up a tune, which wasn't so original, but the words were.  I called it 'Blessed Lord.'  After I had gone over it and over it, I said, 'Come here, Frye.  How do you like this song?'"

GARY:   Theodore Frye responded, "Well, the words are good, but the 'Blessed Lord' won't work.  Why not call Him 'Precious Lord?"

BILL:   The next Sunday Frye's choir sang it at the Ebenezer Baptist Church with Dorsey accompanying on the piano and in Dorsey's words, "It tore up the church!"

DORY SINGS FIRST VERSE OF "PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND"

GARY:   Until his death in 1965 Thomas Dorsey wrote approximately 250 Gospel songs, including the popular spiritual, "Peace In The Valley."  All of his songs were written with much conviction as shown in his own words:

BILL:   "My business is to try to bring people to Christ instead of leaving them where they are.  I write all my songs with a message; If there is no message, there is no need for having a song.  I don't write for races, I don't write for colors, I write for all of God's people.  I want them all to use it.  I want the blessings to go to everybody.  All people are my people.  What I share with people is love, that is, the power of love.  I try to lift their spirits and let them know that God still loves them.  I want them to understand that God is still in business.  He's still saving, and He can still give that power."

GARY:   Thomas Dorsey left these instructions for enjoying Gospel music:
 
BILL:   "To listen to a Gospel song properly, you've got to be in the mood.  You have to give God your whole intelligence, your whole heart, your whole feeling.  You have to be able to bring yourself inside the realm of this expression that is being handed out, so it will reach you."
 
GARY:   Yes, spiritual songs like "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" are born in the heart of one believer, often out of much adversity, and then they minister to the heartfelt needs of countless others who may be sharing a similar experience.  That is why the apostle Paul instructed us to sing spiritual songs to one another as an important source of learning and encouragement.

BILL:    You'll find a copy of "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" in your bulletin.  Please stand and join us in singing this beautiful spiritual song.

PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND
Written by THOMAS A. DORSEY

Precious Lord, take my hand,
Lead me on, help me stand;
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn;
Thru the storm, thru the night,
Lead me on to the light,
Take my hand,  precious Lord, lead me home.

When my way grows drear,
Precious Lord, linger near;
When my life is almost gone,
Hear my cry, hear my call,
Hold my hand lest I fall;
Take my hand,  precious Lord, lead me home.

 © 1938 Hill and Range Songs, Inc. License

Now, I invite you to watch this video and hear from Thomas Dorsey himself about the Gospel music he lived and wrote - and, from him, the story of "Precious Lord, Take My Hand."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEosw5GUCzQ&index=1&list=RDnEosw5GUCzQ

When I was a young boy in Alabama, before Elvis, before rock & roll, before I was a Christian believer - I was often drawn to stand outside a black church near my home just to hear their beautiful Gospel singing.  And, this medley of early Gospel music which you find in these videos takes me back home to that time in my life when God was calling me, but I did not yet know it.

I pray this gives you a better understanding of how and why we need to be eating a balanced diet of all spiritual music - not just subsisting on a limited diet of contemporary Christian music only.  God has given us a full platter.  Why eat just the dessert?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Conservative Christian Or Fundamentalist Christian - Is There A Difference?

Often I have wondered how many Christians really know what the term "Fundamentalist" means and how it came to be in our Christian vocabulary.  Frequently, so many Christians will shy away from calling themselves "Fundamentalist Christians" -  because we have so often heard the term used with a derogatory connotation.  Mostly that is from non-believers and those of the Liberal Theology persuasion, who also have no idea what it really means.  In our secular society and in our secular news media today we so often hear about militant world religions, militant political groups, etc., all referred to as "fundamentalists."  And who wants to be associated with such groups?

Admittedly over the years we have seen wacko fringe groups claiming to be Christian and yet their actions contradict that name.  Examples most of us are familiar with include (1) the Westboro Baptist Church, an unaffiliated Baptist (in name only) church known for its hate speech and arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America - and (2) the Snake Handling churches, most often found in the southeastern United States and in the Appalachian Mountains.  And, there are a number of other such cults.  But are they Christian?

Such cult groups will most often pick one or two Bible verses and build their religion around those verses to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible. 

For example, with the Snake Handlers:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover"  (Mark 16:17-18).

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you" (Luke 10:19).

 
And, with the Westboro Baptist Church:

To the exclusion of the rest of Scripture, they take the verses which address the homosexual lifestyle and build their warped religion upon only these:

The homosexual lifestyle is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), a detestable act (Leviticus 20:13), a degrading passion (Romans 1:26), an unnatural act (Romans 1:26), an indecent act (Romans 1:27), contrary to sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:10), that it is unrighteous and those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God, i.e., will not have eternal life in the presence of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

They discard:  "For God so loved the world (all people) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"  (John 3:16).   Yes, God loves all people.  Yes, He loves homosexuals.  But, He hates the homosexual lifestyle as shown in the Scripture verses above.  Yes, God loves the sinner, but hates the sin!

 
So, you ask, "Bill, what causes this difference, this tangential movement away from the full truth of Scripture?"

Glad you asked.  It all comes down to how one views the Bible, God's Written Word.  Cults will choose a few verses and build their religion, their theology, upon those verses, to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible.  Liberal Christians and most non-believers will view the Bible as merely a book, albeit a good book. To them it is a book of myths, fairy tales, symbolism, and metaphors, i.e., a good book and useful to guide Liberal theology believers in their daily Christian walk.  But, definitely not the inspired, inerrant, literal Written Word of God.

Conservative Christians (Fundamentalist) believe the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired, Holy Spirit inerrant, Holy Spirit literal Written Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

A close Christian Friend, Bob Ginger, and I were talking this week.  He told me of a conversation with one of his almost-Christian friends about the Bible.  The friend tells Bob, "Yes, the Bible does contain God's Word."   And, Bob told him, "No, the Bible is God's Word."

So, what is the difference, aren't we just using a play on words.  No.  To say that the Bible "contains" God's Word is saying that there are parts of the Bible which are not God's Word, not from God, but solely from men.

Bob's response is correct.  The Bible IS God's Word.  It is His full revelation to man.  The Bible is 66 books written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by 40 men.  This transpired across a wide geographical area and over a period of 1600 years.  Yet, the Bible has one main unified theme:  A unified plan of salvation for mankind - and it has one Author, God Himself, i.e., the Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Let's take a look at what the word "Fundamentalist" means.

If you google the word "Fundamentalist" - in Dictionary.com you will find:   "A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth-century and twentieth-century Christians.  Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true.  Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution."  And, that is an a pretty good concise description.  But, I would go further and say that all Fundamentalist/Conservative Christians ALWAYS argue against the theory of Darwinian evolution.

At Merriam-Webster.com we read: "Fundamentalism is a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching."     That, too, is a good concise definition.

On the other side of the coin, at Merriam-Webster.com we also find:  "A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles, i.e., Islamic fundamentalism, political fundamentalism, etc."  That is the negative side of fundamentalism - but, it has nothing to do with true Conservative Christian Fundamentalism.

Once more, on the flip side of the coin, the secular Urban Dictionary gives us this description of Fundamentalist, which aligns well with the accusations of non-believers and atheism:  

A person who takes their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith.  They typically believe in a literal, verbatim interpretation of their scripture.  They also have ridiculous, childish defenses to intelligent criticism of their beliefs that border on insanity. The level of hypocrisy and stupidity most of these people exhibit is truly profound.

Prime examples of fundamentalists are the geniuses who call themselves Christians and march around with signs that say "God Hates Fags" - (those who) seriously suggest that the earth is 6,000 years old when an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence proves otherwise - or (those who) tell women that they are filthy when they are menstruating - because it's in the Bible, you know.

Fundamentalists in general give religion a bad name.  By (their) definition, it is impossible for any religion or belief structure that is centered on love, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness (most of the major religions are) to be anything but great.    (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fundamentalist)

 
Why are we having this discussion about Fundamentalists, Conservatives, Liberals, and non-believers - and how we each view the Bible?

If you recall, I recently wrote a titled "Conservative - OR - Liberal Secularist. Which Flavor Christian Are YOU?" about a Religion Forum Friend, Crusty, and his persistent declaration that Bill Gray is a "Fundamentalist."   How did I address that accusation, i.e., secular slam? 
(www.billdory-christian-ministries.blogspot.com/2016/03/conservative-or-liberal-secularist.html)

I shared with my Friend, Crusty:

Well, let me see.  I call myself a Conservative Christian - Crusty, you call me a Fundamentalist.  Okay, no problem - for the vast majority of Conservative Christians I know do believe what is taught in the 12 volume set published in the early 20th century and distributed by Biola University, titled "The Fundamentals, A Testimony To The Truth."

 
"The Fundamentals" is a 12-volume set of essays defending the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith.  And, I praise God for putting that full set into my personal library.   How He did that is another story which I will share at a later time.

A century ago, Biola founder Lyman Stewart anonymously funded a hugely influential set of essays known as "The Fundamentals."   A Biola historian's research of archived letters and documents sheds light on how Stewart and others helped to shape the face of evangelicalism today.  If you truly understand what these volumes teach and why they were written, you will realize that being call a Fundamentalist - is really a great compliment. 

This Biola web site tells us more about "The Fundamentals" and why they were written and distributed:

The Untold Story Of The Fundamentals:
By Paul W. Rood II « Biola Magazine
magazine.biola.edu/article/14-summer/the-untold-story-of-the-fundamentals/

A remarkable literary project of the early 20th century, "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," is soon approaching the 100th anniversary of its completion.  The project was conceived and funded by Biola’s founder, Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith.

The 12-volume series of book-length journals contained 90 essays commissioned from leading theologians and religious leaders broadly representing conservative and evangelical Protestantism.  Over 3 million volumes were published, distributed free of charge to several hundred thousand pastors, seminary professors and students, missionaries, and lay church leaders in the English-speaking world.  The effect was both immediate and historically significant.

The series was listed among the top 40 books of the 20th century in a special ranking conducted by Christian historians commissioned by World Magazine.  Listing it among the works of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, World Magazine reported, “those who consider ‘fundamentalism’ a synonym for narrow anti-intellectualism have never read these books, which, for the most part, remain strikingly relevant.”

Their Vision: Stem the Tide of Liberalism.

The founders of Biola, along with the other evangelical Christians who came of age in the last half of the 19th century, faced an unprecedented series of scientific, social, and intellectual challenges to their faith.  The Darwinist theory of human origins provided a framework for a purely scientific and naturalistic interpretation of humanity and society.  Modern humanistic philosophies and ideologies embraced historical progress. 

Continental scholars and theologians developed new philological (study of literary texts and written records) and hermeneutical methods for examining the historical narrative of the biblical text in new ways.  Known as German “higher criticism,”  this method applied a developmental view of the Hebrew biblical texts that undermined their sanctity and authority.

These revolutionizing streams of thought prompted many Protestant intellectuals to construct a “modern” system of religious belief and practice, described as both “liberal” (indicating freedom from tradition) and “modernist” (indicating alignment with modern science and social theory).

By 1880, liberalism and modernism had begun to be taught in a number of leading theological schools in America.  And by the turn of the century it merged into a social theology with powerful appeal to the progressive political movements of the day.  The wealth of the Gilded Age also seemed to be in liberalism’s corner.

In February of 1908, (Lyman) Stewart and a group of other evangelical Protestants founded the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) to train missionaries, Christian workers, and lay Bible teachers for “the propagation of the old Gospel” and to remain loyal to “the Word of Truth.”   The Response:  A Movement is Born. 

The first volume was mailed out March 19, 1910, with a cover page stating, “Compliments of Two Christian Laymen.”  The project’s funders, Stewart and his brother Milton, chose to remain anonymous.  

It contained a strong set of essays on the fundamental doctrines of inspiration and authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, authored by such luminaries as professors Orr, Warfield, Torrey, and Pierson.  The Testimony Prayer League prayed over the mailing lists, the printing presses, and daily distributions to the postal office.

 
More about Fundamentalism and why I am a Fundamentalist Christian can be found in this document which I have chosen to archive for further study:

Church History - Free Sunday School Lessons www.freesundayschoollessons.org/docs/Church-History.doc

Gerald Priest (“History of Fundamentalism” class notes, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, spring 2003, p. 2) gives the following definition: “Fundamentalism is a movement committed to belief in and affirmation of the historic biblical doctrines essential to the Christian faith and insistent on separation from all forms of apostasy and ungodliness.”

"At the beginning of the last quarter of the 19th century, Christianity in America was facing daunting enemies: Darwinian materialism, German rationalism and higher criticism of the Bible, Roman Catholic dogmatism, and cultism in the forms of Christian Science, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Millennial Dawn), and Millerism (Seventh Day Adventism).  In such a dark atmosphere, concerned Bible preachers and teachers attempted to offset the inroads of these forms of apostasy ...."  (Gerald Priest, "'What's in a Name?' The Legacy of Early Fundamentalism," 2001 Mid-America Conference on Preaching notebook, p. 165). 

Gerald Priest ("'What's in a Name?'  The Legacy of Early Fundamentalism," 2001 Mid-America Conference on Preaching notebook, p. 170) rightfully dubs this phenomenon "ecclesiastical piracy," as the modernists essentially stole the institutions ~ churches, schools, etc. ~ (which) the fundamentalists had labored for years to build.

While it is true that fundamentalism as a movement is a fairly recent phenomenon in church history, fundamentalism is not.  Fundamentalists have appeared throughout church history, right from the very beginning:  the apostle Paul (Rom 16:17, 2 Cor 5:11, 6:14-7:1, Eph 5:11, 2 Thess 3:6, and 14-15), the apostle John (2 John 9-11 and Rev 18:4), Jude (Jude 3), et. al.  Fundamentalism is as old as Christianity itself. 

Harvard professor and theological liberal/modernist, Kirsopp Lake, said in 1925: "But it is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought.  It is nothing of the kind: it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. 

How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture?  A few, perhaps, but a very few.  No, the fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is.  But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority.  The Bible and the 'corpus theologicum' [doctrinal body] of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side."

"The Modernist-Fundamentalist Divide" is the story of how the early fundamentalists militantly fought the menace of modernism that invaded American Christianity in the later years of the nineteenth and early years of the twentieth century A.D. via such ideologies as Darwinian evolution, German higher criticism of the Bible, the social gospel, etc.  

In the early years of the conflict (until about 1930 AD), the fundamentalists sought to separate the modernists from them (nonconformist fundamentalism).  Once this strategy proved unsuccessful, they separated themselves from the modernists in obedience to the command to "Come out from their midst and be separate" (2 Cor 6:17), starting their own churches, educational institutions, missions agencies, publishing houses, etc. (separatist fundamentalism). 

Though the fundamentalists ultimately lost the furniture (i.e., control of the mainline denominations fell into the hands of the modernists ), they "kept the faith" (2 Tim 4:7), at, in many cases, enormous personal cost.

 
So, when my Friend, Crusty, and other non-believers or Liberal theology proponents declare that Bill Gray is a "Fundamentalist" - that is a hat I am proud to wear.  For, in doing so, I am in the company of many great Christians.   You will often see me speak of Conservative Christian theology; that could just as easily be called Fundamentalist Christian theology - for, in my heart, the two names are synonymous.

I pray that this has given you a fuller understanding of the Fundamentalist Christian, what we believe, and the great cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) who stand with us:

Hebrews 12:1-2, "Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, . . ."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Once Again: Is Writing Or Saying "OMG" Acceptable To God?

This is a "throw-back" to an article I posted on March 12, 2012.  But, I have found that it does not hurt to keep reminding ourselves that our Lord God is above all, beyond all - yet He is so close to us that something as simple as using His name in a flippant manner, i.e., such as using His precious name as an exclamation point to pep up our conversations - hurts Him.

This is what I posted in 2012; but it is even more relevant today:

IS WRITING OR SAYING "OMG" ACCEPTABLE TO GOD?  In earlier TimesDaily Religion Forum and Facebook posts, I have suggested that this is taking God's name in vain - and should not be used by any Christian believer.

In a response to my post, a Religion Forum Friend offers this opinion:

"Just for the record, I am a Christian and I try very hard to moderate what I read on Facebook.  I do have many pastors and ministry staff on my Facebook and see nothing wrong with that. 

I do sometimes have friends who say things that I really wish they wouldn't, and often they go back and delete the post when they have had time to re-think what they wrote.

But just so you know, OMG doesn't have to mean anything a Christian shouldn't say.  I choose to read and type it as 'Oh My Goodness!!!'  Of course it could be, 'Oh my gosh,' too."

It is true that a person could be meaning "Oh, my goodness" - but, in most cases, if the person who says this is asked, he/she will admit that what was said really did mean "Oh, my God!"

How often, on television and in person, have we heard people exclaiming "Oh, my God!" - to add emphasis to a statement?  Watch Jay Leno or David Letterman.  They, and many of their guests, must say this dozens of times in each show.   This is why I seldom watch Letterman for he is the worst offender - and I am beginning to wean off Leno for similar reasons.

And, in person, when I have experienced a Christian saying this - if I smile and ask them to finish their prayer - most often they will have a red face having been caught in a momentary indiscretion.

My Religion Forum Friend suggests that a person might be meaning to say, "Oh, my gosh!"   But, what is that person really saying?
 

gosh [gɒʃ] interj --an exclamation of mild surprise or wonder [euphemistic for God, as in by gosh!] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © Harper Collins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 
So, just as a person uses the word "Geez" or "Geezus" - as a worldly society accepted alternate for Jesus Christ; so is a person who uses the word "Gosh" using this as an off-handed way of saying God.

No matter how we slice it, it is still taking God's name in vain - for it is using God's name as an exclamation point to emphasize a statement. 

And, this is why when I hear a Friend say "Oh, my God" or write OMG - I will frequently suggest, "Please, go ahead and finish your prayer" - for we know that any Christian who begins with, "Oh, my God" - must be on the way to finishing that prayer with, "I ask this blessing upon my family" - or a similar prayer closure.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Conservative - OR - Liberal Secularist. Which Flavor Christian Are YOU?

This Blog is a wee bit long.  But, when addressing the false teachings of those who loosely wear the Christian hat, while teaching doctrine which is not Biblical, which is better - to just briefly touch the tip of their false teachings - or to respond more fully?  I offer a fuller response to those teachings for it helps me to better understand - and I pray it helps you to better address these issues when witnessing.

For those who have often wondered about some of these issues, you may find it worthwhile to read my full post.  For others who do not have the time, I pray that you can browse through and find one or two golden nuggets which will help you when confronted about your Christian faith. 

Over the years a Religion Forum Friend, Crusty (a pseudonym, for he has never been comfortable writing under his real name), has been gleefully tossing around the terms "Fundamentalist" and "Fundamentalism" when addressing me.  Several months ago I started to write a rebuttal to his implications that being a Conservative Christian, i.e., (1) a Bible-based Christian who believes that a Christian Theology should be based upon the full 66 books of the Bible, (2) a Bible-based Christian who believes that the Bible is the Holy Spirit Inspired, Holy Spirit Inerrant, Literal Written Word of God and (3) a Bible-based Christian who is a dispensationalist, one who believes the Bible teaches a Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the church, the body of all believers worldwide, and a PreMillennial Second Coming of Christ to establish His 1000 year millennial reign upon earth  - is proof that such a Christian should be lumped into a derogatory group which he labels and spits out as "Fundamentalist!"

Even though I had begun to write a rebuttal to his skewed attempts to denigrate all Conservative Christians, other more deserving issues seemed to always take precedence over that writing.  But, recently on Facebook, a young Christian Friend "Liked" a post from the "Unfundamentalist Christians" Facebook group titled "Whether Or Not It’s Possible To Debate Fundamentalists, Fundamentalists Want To Debate You."   The article was written by a gentleman named Ryan L. Stollar and posted on his blog web site "R.L. Stollar //// Overturning Tables"

(www.rlstollar.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/whether-or-not-its-possible-to-debate-fundamentalists-fundamentalists-want-to-debate-you/)

Fearing that my young Friend seemed to be capitulating to an extreme liberal secularist view, this bothers me.  So, maybe it is time to take up the gauntlet once again and better explain to the world the meaning of being a "Fundamentalist" Christian or a Conservative Christian.

Are all Conservative Christians "Fundamentalist"?   And, are all Fundamentalist Christians "Conservative"?  We will talk more about that later.

In his personal battle with Conservative Christianity, the writer, Ryan L. Stollar, quotes frequently from a writing titled "The Tyranny Of Fundamentalist Language" written by a gentleman named Race Hochdorf.  Mr. Stollar seems to identify himself as a Christian.  But, as typical of this genre of writers, his beliefs seem to be a mixture of Liberal Christian and Secular beliefs.   And, he makes no bones about not liking nor trusting "Fundamentalists" - i.e., in his vernacular, all Conservative Christians.

And, since he appears to stand shoulder to shoulder with the blog writer, Race Hochdorf, we can assume they have the same, or nearly the same, beliefs.   How does Mr. Hochdorf view Conservative Christians?  He tells us:

"That’s why it’s impossible to debate with a fundamentalist.  By replacing 'my' with 'God' and melding beliefs about authority with authority itself, fundamentalist vocabulary has left no room for humility, reason, openness, doubt, or change."

Mr. Hochdorf, who identifies himself as a 24 year old student of Enlightenment values, tell us about his beliefs:  "I am liberal in my Christian theology and I am liberal politically.  I believe in universalism - I believe in purgatory - I believe in praying to the saints and to Mary - I believe in having ordained female priests and bishops - and finally, I believe in changing traditional Christian doctrines on sexuality to be more inclusive and accepting.  .  .  I write very passionately in defense of: euthanasia, Democratic Socialism, sexual freedom, labor rights, and secularism."   Okay!

One question fights to jump off the page!  "Since he believes in universalism, i.e., the belief that all people go to heaven - why does he need to pray to anyone, God, saints, or Mary?"

And, on Race Hochdorf's Facebook page, he tells us about his interests: "Secularism, Democratic Socialism, European Culture and History, Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance Era, Liberal Christianity, Victorian London, History, Philosophy, Literature, Anglicanism."  So, we can see where he is coming from in his beliefs and in his writings.

Paraphrasing the old saying "All roads lead to Rome" - for the two gentlemen, Ryan Stollar and Race Hochdorf, I would rephrase that to say, "All roads lead to the Liberal Secular Patheos web site."   Why do I say that?  Well, Mr. Stollar's blog was found on the "Unfundamentalist Christians" Facebook and that Facebook page points us toward its web site:  Patheos.Com

And, the "Unfundamentalist Christians" Facebook page, where Ryan L. Stollar's article was posted, we are referred to www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/about-unfundamentalist-christians/ to read their "What We Believe" statement. 

To maintain some degree of brevity, I will just touch on excerpts from the Liberal Secular Patheos "What We Believe" statements.  My comments are shown in blue text:

1.  Jesus Christ was divine.  In the course of his dutiful incarnation on earth he therefore easily (what with being divine and all) performed, what to him alone, weren’t miracles at all.  .  .

This is the Patheos way of saying that Jesus Christ did not truly perform miracles during His earthly ministry.  This makes me wonder how the folks at Patheos view turning water into wine, giving sight to a life-long blind man, bringing four-day dead Lazarus back to life, feeding over 5000 people with only two fish and five loaves of bread, calming the stormy sea, etc., if not supernatural miracles.

2.  The Bible is not a contract stipulating the rules for being a Christian.  It is an ancient, massive, infinitely complex tome comprising songs, visions, histories, dreams, parables, commandments, and more.  .  .  

This is the Patheos way of saying that the Bible is just a good book of myths, metaphors, and symbolic writings by men, a guideline for living, but not the literal Written Word of God.  Conservative Christians view the Bible as God's book of instructions on how to attain eternal life in Christ, how to live the Christian life, and how to overcome Satan's roadblocks (such as Patheos) which are intended to keep people in bondage to himself.  In contrast, these folks seem to view the Bible as just a user's manual on how to be live happily in this material world - with about as much spiritual value as a Shakespearean writing.

3.  Christianity is supposed to be all about nothing more (and nothing less!) than living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility.

This is the Patheos way of saying that all a person needs do to be a Christian who has eternal life in Christ - is to be a good, moral person.  Yet, Jesus tells us, in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."   And, we are told in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."  Wouldn't just being a good, moral person be an attempt to get into heaven through our own good works?  

4.  The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word condemning natural homosexuality - is more credible and persuasive than is the scholarship claiming that he did.  .  . 

This is the Patheos way of saying that Paul did not speak out regarding homosexuality.  Yet, we find in Romans 1:26 that God, speaking through the writings of Paul, calls homosexuality a "degrading passion" - an "unnatural" lifestyle.  In Romans 1:27, Paul warns of men turning from women and turning to desire for other men, calling homosexuality an "indecent act."  Paul also address homosexuality in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 (homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine) and in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (those who practice homosexuality shall not inherit the kingdom of God).

And, I would have to ask the folks at Patheos for a clear definition of what they mean by a "natural homosexual."  Is that their way of saying that people are born homosexual?  The Bible tells me, in Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;  .  .  .'"   So, if God created some people to be homosexual - does that mean that God is also a homosexual?  For if a person is born, i.e., created, homosexual and also is created in God's image - that would be saying that God is homosexual.  Not even a devout atheist would say that!  

5.   God does not want any woman automatically “submitting” to her husband or to anyone else.

In this issue, Patheos is like the rabble-rouser who wants to see if he can stir up discord within the Christian family.  "Hey, look ladies, these Christians are telling you that you are not equal to your husband and you have to submit to him in all things!"   Is that really what Ephesians 5:22-33 is telling us?

I believe this excerpt from the GotQuestions.Org post  "Does a wife have to submit to her husband?" explains this issue very well:

+++++++++++

There is much misunderstanding in our world today about the roles of husband and wife within a marriage.  Even when the biblical roles are properly understood, many choose to reject them in favor of a supposed “emancipation” of women, with the result that the family unit is torn apart.  It’s no surprise that the world rejects God’s design, but God’s people should be joyfully celebrating that design.

Submit is not a bad word.  Submission is not a reflection of inferiority or lesser worth.  Christ constantly submitted Himself to the will of the Father (Luke 22:42; John 5:30), without giving up an iota of His worth.  .  .  .

Submission should be a natural response to loving leadership.  When a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25-33), then submission is a natural response from a wife to her husband.  .  .  .  This means that her obedience to God - her acceptance of His plan - will result in her submission to her husband.  The “as to the Lord” comparison also reminds the wife that there is a higher authority to whom she is responsible.  .  .  .

The submission of the wife to the husband in Ephesians 5 does not allow the husband to be selfish or domineering.  His command is to love (verse 25), and he is responsible before God to fulfill that command.  The husband must exercise his authority wisely, graciously, and in the fear of the God to whom he must give an account.

When a wife is loved by her husband as the church is loved by Christ, submission is not difficult.  Ephesians 5:24 says, “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”   In a marriage, submission is a position of giving honor and respect to the husband (see Ephesians 5:33) and completing what he is lacking.  It is God’s wise plan for how the family should function.

Commentator Matthew Henry wrote, “The woman was made out of Adam’s side.  She was not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved.”

The immediate context of the commands to the husband and wife in Ephesians 5:19-33 involves the filling of the Spirit.  .  .  . A wife should submit to her husband, not because women are inferior (the Bible never teaches that), but because that is how God designed the marital relationship to function.   (http://www.gotquestions.org/wives-submit.html)

 6.  Using masculine pronouns to refer to God is strictly a matter of convention, a profoundly unfortunate necessity of the English language .  .  .   

This is the Patheos attempt to make the Bible and God gender neutral.  Even though we know that God is spirit and does not possess physical characteristics - in the King James Bible, He refers to Himself as Father, i.e., patēr (a masculine noun in Greek) 268 times.  If God had wanted to be called Mother, the Greek word in the Bible would have been métér.  God as métér is not found in the Bible.

7.  The belief that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different culture streams is more reasonable, respectful, and compassionate - than is the conviction that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God.

When the folks at Patheos say there is more than one way to "worship" God, i.e., if they are suggesting the various Christian worship services such as the solemn Presbyterian, or the slightly boisterous Baptist, or the booty shaking Pentecostal ways to worship God - I agree with them.  However, it appears to me that they are saying that there is more than one way to get into God's heaven than through Jesus Christ, i.e., that all religions lead to eternal life in heaven (which fits with their belief in Universalism).  And, if that is the case, I will refer them to the words of Jesus Himself:

John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 14:6,  "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me."

8.  There is no support in the Bible for the morally repugnant idea that hell is an actual place to which God sentences people to spend eternity in mortal agony.

This is the Patheos belief in Universalism, i.e., that all people, believers and non-believers, eventually go to heaven.  It seems that they believe that all folks, including the non-believer, goes to a place called purgatory to pay for their sins - and then eventually all are promoted to heaven.  If that were true, you could count on seeing Judas, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all such villains in heaven one day.  Makes me wonder what heaven would look like with all of them there.  Would it really be heaven?  Or, is that really hell where God is not to be found? 

What does the Bible say about hell?  In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells us about Hades Torment, the abode of all who die as non-believers - and Hades Paradise, the temporary abode of all Old Testament believers.  Until Christ was crucified and risen, no one could enter heaven (John 14:6).  Upon His death, Jesus went into Hades Paradise to proclaim victory - and then led those Old Testament believers who had been waiting for Him (effectively in a type of prison, temporarily deprived of the heavenly presence of God), into heaven (Ephesians 4:8).   Hades Paradise was closed, permanently out of business, and moved into heaven to become Heaven Paradise.

Yet, nowhere in the Bible are we told that Hades Torment is out of business.  Quite the contrary, Hades Torment is open and doing a landslide business.  But, after the 7 year Tribulation and the 1000 year Millennial Reign of Christ on earth, those non-believers who have been suffering in Hades Torment will be resurrected into their immortal bodies and will stand in judgment before Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment, a judgment of punishment.  From there we are told that they will go into the Lake of Fire, i.e., eternal hell (Revelation 20:11-15).  

9.  God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

More Universalism teaching.   Yes, God does desire that all would be saved.   We are told that in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, .  .  . not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."   He created man and woman to be His eternal companions.  That we are told also in Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;  .  .  .'"  However, Adam and Eve were disobedient to God's will and brought sin and death upon all the Creation.

Romans 5:12, 18-19, "Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned .  .  .  Therefore, as through one man's (Adam) offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's (Jesus Christ) righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.  For as by one man's (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's (Jesus Christ) obedience many will be made righteous."

Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.  All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.  And He will set the sheep (believers) on His right hand, but the goats (non-believers) on the left.  Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' .  .  . Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels' .  .  . And these (non-believers) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous (believers) into eternal life."

Revelation 20:11-15, "Then I saw a Great White Throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away.  And there was found no place for them.  .  .  And anyone not found written in the Book of Life (non-believers) was cast into the lake of fire."

God is perfect Love and perfect Justice.   Therefore, those who will not believe on His Son, Jesus Christ, condemn themselves to eternal punishment void of the presence of God, which can only be called hell.   

10.  Anyone desiring to mix Church and State has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either.

It seems to be the Patheos contention that America was not founded on Christian principles, those based upon the teachings of the Christian Bible.   "Separation of church and state" is a Liberal Secular attempt to prove that if one keeps repeating the same falsehood over and over long enough - many folks might begin to believe it is true. 

"Separation of church and state" has never been found in our Constitution.  This falsehood is based upon the Liberal Secular twisting of words found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a committee of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut, to assure them that America will never have a state controlled church like the one the Pilgrims fled in England. 

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution:   "Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized.  Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business.  Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state" phrase, most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution.

The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.  His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them.  The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.  (www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm)

More on this can be found at:  www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/was-the-american-us-constitution-really-based-on-biblical-principles/

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; .  .  ." - was written to protect the church from government dominance - not to keep Christian faith influence out of our government.

John Adams wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 and said “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.  I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." 

It would seem ridiculous to believe that this nation was not founded upon Christian principles, by Christian men, because there are five clear references to God in the first three paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.  .  .

On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy.  A week and a day later, the President’s opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” .  .  .

Thomas Jefferson . . . wrote in his The Writings of Thomas Jefferson:  “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ” (p. 385) - and Benjamin Franklin who wrote in his letter to Ezra Stiles, then the president of Yale University, “Here is my Creed.  I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe.  That He governs it by His Providence.  That He ought to be worshiped” (March 9, 1790).

It is crystal clear that this nation was founded by Christians and with Christian beliefs, morals, values, and ethics - and these same men wrote the U.S. Constitution.  

The Mayflower Compact of 1620 which preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was written by the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock (Massachusetts).  Their goal upon initially landing in the new land of America was to establish guidelines and laws by which they would govern themselves in their new homeland, America.  It is obvious that their intent was to establish a Christian community, which led to the establishment of a Christian nation - birthed by the Declaration of Independence and set in concrete by our Constitution. The Mayflower Compact reads: 

In the name of God, Amen.  We, whose names are underwritten, .  .  . by the grace of God, .  .  . having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, .  .   . doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie .  .  .   (www.ushistory.org/documents/mayflower.htm)

Should we keep the influence of the Christian faith separated from the governance of America?   That would be like trying to drive an automobile which has no engine.   Remove God - and you remove the power which has made America great.

11.  God can handle converting people.  Our job is to love people.

The Great Commission, i.e., the marching orders given to all Christian believers by Jesus Christ is:  "Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, Teach them.  .  . Be My witnesses in all the world"  (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15).   That tells me that Jesus Christ not only wants us to be witnessing, He is commanding us to be witnessing, i.e., sharing His Gospel with the lost of the world.

Why?  Because the most content, the most effective, the most productive workers - are those who are included in the inner operations of the task before us, pointing the lost toward eternal life in Jesus Christ.  Does the Holy Spirit need our help to save people?  No.  But, He has chosen to use we believers as His "feet on the street" to keep us involved and active in our Christian faith.  So, what is our job?  It is to keep telling people about Jesus Christ and pointing people toward faith and eternal life in Christ.  When we do our job well, more people are encouraged to seek God through the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Jeremiah 29:13, "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."

Matthew 7:7-8, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

Rev 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."

12.  An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

One of the weak links in many Liberal Christian theologies - is the desire to make God and His Creation compatible with secular science.  God cannot disagree with science, for God created all the diverse fields of science and all the laws governing those various branches of science.  So, for God to disagree with the sciences He created - would mean that God is disagreeing with Himself.

So, what happens when science (or its advocates) tells us one thing - and God tells us another?  If a house could speak, who would you believe, the house - OR - the Master Builder who planned it (God the Father), the Master Architect who designed it (Jesus Christ), and the Master Contractor who built it (Holy Spirit)?  If science disagrees with its Creator, one must go back and look for where science, or its supporters, went wrong.  Why?  Because God is never wrong, God never changes, and God's Word is final.

Genesis 1:26-28, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'"

Then, who is right - God OR Darwinian Evolution?

Since man was made in the image of God - was God at one time a single cell amoeba floating in a primordial swamp?   Was God addressing some simple cell amoeba floating in a swamp when He commanded, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth"?  Not so believable, right?

Did God need billions of years to accomplish His Creation?  No, He could have finished the creation in a matter of seconds.   Yet, He chose to do it in six days and rest on the seventh day.  Why?   I imagine it was to to provide a guideline for man's life - work six days, then you and your domestic animals rest for one day.

On the other hand, Darwinian Evolutionist MUST have billions of years to accomplish their theory of man evolving from a simple cell amoeba in a swamp - to the man we know today.   The whole philosophy, the whole theory of evolution is dependent upon having billions of year for it to happen.  God did not need billions of years - but, Darwin does.

13.  Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided.  But in and of itself divorce is not immoral.

Matthew 19:8-9, "He (Jesus) said to them, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.'"

From my Facebook Notes:   What Did Jesus Mean - Regarding Divorce? (October 24, 2014)
www.facebook.com/notes/bill-gray/what-did-jesus-mean-regarding-divorce/804307949615360

Question: "Is remarriage after divorce always adultery?"
www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html

A person who gets a divorce for a reason other than the reasons listed above, and then gets remarried has committed adultery (Luke 16:18).  The question then becomes, is this remarriage an "act" of adultery - OR -  a "state" of adultery.

The present tense of the Greek in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; and Luke 16:18 can indicate a continuous state of adultery.  At the same time, the present tense in Greek does not always indicate continuous action.  Sometimes it simply means that something occurred (Aoristic, Punctiliar, or Gnomic present).  For example, the word "divorces" in Matthew 5:32 is present tense, but divorcing is not a continual action.  It is our view that remarriage, no matter the circumstances, is not a continual state of adultery.  Only the act of getting remarried itself is adultery.

In the Old Testament Law, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10).  At the same time, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions remarriage after a divorce, (but) does not call it adultery, and does not demand the death penalty for the remarried spouse.  The Bible explicitly says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but nowhere explicitly states that God hates remarriage. 

The Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce.  Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not describe the remarriage as invalid.  Ending a remarriage through divorce would be just as sinful as ending a first marriage through divorce.  Both would include the breaking of vows before God, between the couple, and in front of witnesses.

No matter the circumstances, once a couple is remarried, they should strive to live out their married lives in fidelity, in a God-honoring way, with Christ at the center of their marriage.

A marriage is a marriage.  God does not view the new marriage as invalid or adulterous.  A remarried couple should devote themselves to God, and to each other – and honor Him by making their new marriage a lasting and Christ-centered one (Ephesians 5:22-33).

14.  The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

While it is true that even the most devout atheist can be a very moral person, this is supposed to be the Patheos Liberal Christian "What We Believe" statement.  Even a Liberal Christian would, or should, state that Biblical Christianity is not about being a "moral person" - but about being a "saved person."   There will be many, many very moral people in hell.  But, the goal we should set for ourselves and for our loved ones - is to have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ so that we all spend eternity in His presence.  Just being a "moral person" will not accomplish that goal.

How does one have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ?  It is not through good works or being a very moral person.  There is only one Way to having eternal life in Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Yes, only by faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross (John 19:30) can a person be saved.

Continuing the Patheos statement from their web site, we find:

A question we are sometimes asked is: “Why the name Unfundamentalist Christians?  Wouldn’t it be better to define yourself by what you’re for, rather than what you’re against?”

Christian fundamentalism is defined by and vigorously promotes everywhere:  authoritarianism - the oppression of women - homophobia - xenophobia - the “danger” of education - corporal punishment - a literal and inerrant view of scripture - “all or nothing” thinking - and a God whose primary function is to judge and punish.

We are Christians who are for none of those things.  And we think it’s high time Christianity stopped being associated with them.  Hence our name.

Nowhere will we find a better explanation of Secular Humanism than in the three previous paragraphs from the Patheos web site.

 
I pray that my young Christian Friend who has been actively following and "Liking" posts from Patheos and from its contributors - will understand that what I offer in this writing is not meant to put her down - but, is only offered to her and to all my Friends as the way a Conservative Christian should view such writings which are opposed to what is written in God's Word.  I post this because I love her as a Christian sister and pray that she will not allow the secular world and such twisted views of Liberal Christianity to pull her astray from God.

That said, let me take a moment and look back at my Religion Forum Friend, Crusty, and his persistent declaration that Bill Gray is a "Fundamentalist."   Well, let me see.  I call myself a Conservative Christian, you call me a Fundamentalist.  Okay, no problem - for the vast majority of Conservative Christians I know do believe what is taught in the 12 volume set published in the early 20th century and distributed by Biola University, titled "The Fundamentals, A Testimony To The Truth."

But, since this writing has become so long, I reserve the right to answer the accusations of my Friend, Crusty, in another writing, maybe titled "Conservative Or Fundamentalist?"

Let me leave you with these thoughts:

Romans 3:3-4, "For what if some did not believe?  Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?  Certainly not!  Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.  .  ."

Proverbs 30:5-6, "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.  Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill