| "EXPOSING THOSE WHO CONTRADICT" [Titus 1:9 Concordant Literal New Testament] An open letter to T.B.N. critiquing James Kennedy, A.B., M.Div., M.Th., D.D., and Dr. John Hagee Also presented to: Dr. Paul Crouch (And others) By: L. Ray Smith Copyright 2000 © by L. Ray Smith - All Rights Reserved Worldwide
Dear Dr. Kennedy: My name is Ray Smith and I love the Scriptures. But I marvel how God's Word is being misrepresented today in such an organized worldwide effort. I believe that Paul calls it "the systematizing of the deception" (Eph. 4:14). After much meditation, I have some observations on two sermons by you and John Hagee. There was a time when I too believed many of the unscriptural teachings of modern theology. I see now how the God of Christendom is presented to the world as a God of meager and scant success in the running of His creation resulting in a minuscule reward for His well-intentioned efforts. And what is totally beyond reason or sanity is the teaching that adds colossal insult to this devastating injury. Except for a few who receive God's blessings, billions and billions will receive God's unquenchable frustrated cursings for all eternity. Gentiles accepting this God of Christendom must also accept the teaching that salvation will ultimately come to only a few of their people, not all. This is hardly a fair exchange for the gods these people are supposed to forsake. First, let me state my position succinctly:
In your sermon you mentioned visiting a person who had no interest in God. He remarked that if he lived his life the way he considered "good," that was all he needed. He then questioned how God would deal with Africans who know nothing of God. What would be their fate? You suggested that he posed this question in such a way as to feel self-assured that he had boxed you in. As though, surely, you wouldn't be able to answer him. You then assured your congregation that he had not trapped you in this question, but that you have the true Biblical answer to this question which has also been asked by countless truth seekers through the centuries. You used an analogy and a few scriptures on conscience to show that God is not responsible for the eternal fate of billions of unsaved humanity. It is your "analogy" that is the reason for this letter. Your analogy personifies much of modern theological thinking. Analogies are fine for teaching if they really are analogous to the subject. They should simplify, not contradict the Scriptures on the topic at hand! You opened a "theological can of worms" with your analogy.
HELL You said something to the effect that "sin is what sends people to hell." "Hell" is an unfortunate translation of numerous Greek and Hebrew words.
Why would an intelligent translator translate three totally different Greek words into the same English word? Are the Valley of Hinnom in Jerusalem, where our thoughts perish, and Tartarus, a place of restraint for Angels, all synonymous? I don't think so. "Hell" never was and never will be a proper translation of the Greek word hades. However, back in the Middle Ages it did have a totally different connotation than today. There is old English literature that refers to people "putting their potatoes in hell" for the winter. And I guarantee you that when they retrieved their potatoes they were still raw and not baked or burned by some fabled fires of hell. Although not a proper translation of hades, this old English word did (I said "did"-not anymore) have similarities to the word hades. My old Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary has this definition: "hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to cover, conceal.]" To "cover" or "conceal." That definition has at least some similarity to the Greek elements of hades: UN-PERCEIVED [the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE]. Before the King James Bible, the old Anglo-Saxon word simply meant a dark, hidden, concealed, or covered hole in the ground. Actually, hell would be a better translation for grave than hades. But now check a modern dictionary and look what we get: Webster's New World Dictionary: "hell (hel), n 1. the place where Christians believe that devils live and wicked people go to be punished after they die." What happened to the definition ... of the word ... "hell?" It doesn't even purport to define the word. It just tells us what Christians believe it is. I, frankly, don't care what Christians think it means. What a travesty of modern scholarship. So when unsaved people die, are they really punished eternally in this "Christian" hell? You know, it's the theologians who should be protecting the people against such modern heresy, but instead it is they who are causing and promoting the heresy. Let's see if God's Word really teaches eternal torture in a "Christian hell where devils live," immediately after death for unsaved sinners. Thank God one doesn't have to be a theologian to understand His Word. "Thou hidest these things from the wise and intelligent and Thou dost reveal them unto babes [Gk: minors]" (Matt. 11:25). The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior by John Broadus more properly translates Phil. 1:10 thus: " ... may distinguish the things that differ." Whenever and wherever God inspires different words in the Hebrew or Greek, translations should show those differences. We must be able to distinguish the differences in words as they are used Scripturally. In most cases this is not difficult if we consult all the ways the same words are used in Scripture. Let's look at body, spirit, and soul, and see if any dwell "with devils" at death.
BODY When a man dies his body (if not disintegrated) goes into a grave or tomb (Jn. 11:38) where within a few days it begins to smell and decompose (Jn. 11:39), and it returns [Heb. shub] to the dust of the ground from which it was taken (Gen. 3:17-19, Job 10:9, Psa. 9:17, etc., etc). The "person" is said to be where the "body" is and the "person" is resurrected from the place where the body is (Mat. 28:6). Only in a figurative or symbolic sense does a "body" ever go to sheol (Jonah 2:2). Jonah was not "literally" in hell [sheol], but in the fish, and besides he didn't even die. I'm sure Jonah's loss of perception inside the fish resembled his knowledge of the word "sheol."
SPIRIT When a man dies his spirit returns to God Who gave it (Lk. 23:46, Psa. 104:24-30). The "spirit" is never said to go to hades or sheol, and the "soul" is never said to go to Heaven at death. Men and beasts have the same spirit [ruach] and they go to the same place (Ecc. 3:18-21). There is no getting around this: when God takes away a living soul's spirit, it always dies. The spirit "gives life." No one can live without "spirit," no matter how young and healthy he may be. There are no exceptions. If there are, where is the Scripture? A dead person cannot experience anything-not pleasure in Heaven or pain in a fabled hell. This is a serious thing. Rom. 14:23 says: "Now everything which is not out of faith is sin." If one doesn't have Scriptures that show people go to eternal hell fire after death, then it is a sin to teach it.
SOUL When a man dies his soul goes to the unseen or imperceptible [Gk: hades, Heb: sheol]. We also know that when man is in this condition (dead) it is likened to "sleep" (Psa. 13:3, Dan. 12:1-2, Jn. 11:11-14). God Himself likens death to sleep, "The Lord said unto Moses [concerning his imminent death], Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers ... " (Deut. 31:16) This is substantiated by the fact that: "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything" (Ecc. 9:5,6). Again: " ... for there is no work, nor device [contrivance, intelligence, reason], nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol." (Ecc. 9:10). Do we think all of these Scriptures lie? According to what we just read in Ecc. 9:5,6,10, do dead people know anything? And these verses are correctly translated. The words "soul" and "spirit" have become corrupted through theology so that they are now used interchangeably, as if they were synonymous. They are not synonymous. There may be certain similarities between soul and spirit, but similarities do not make them one and the same. The "soul" is the seat of sensation, consciousness, and feelings, not the body or the spirit. It is the spirit that imparts life to the body and the body then becomes a living soul (Gen. 2:7). A thorough study of the word "soul" in the Scriptures proves that it is used of consciousness, feelings, and emotions. Hence, "sensation" is a good word to define its usage.
These verses show the wide range of emotions and sensations that "souls" experience, but dead souls experience nothing in the unseen or imperceptible (hades). We need to pay close attention to the meaning of words. Hades comes from the Greek a(i)des. The a is a prefix which is equivalent to our un- and the stem -id means perceive. Thus we have UN-PERCEIVE, or imperceptible: the unseen. Etymologically, your doctrine of torment in hell falls flat on its face. From the words that God chose to call this condition of the soul after death, one thing is crystal clear: There is absolutely no perception there. And the soul has everything to do with perception and sensation as clearly seen from the verses above. So why do you teach that there is perception in death? The very meaning of the word itself (hades) is unseen or imperceptible, so how can a dead soul have perception in a condition of imperception? God Himself chose this word which teaches us that hades is UN-perceptible or IM-perceptible (NO perception). Your teaching is blatantly false and deceptive! Because of the shameful way these words are translated and interchanged in the Authorized Version, it is nearly impossible to understand their true meanings without an exhaustive concordance. FROM KING JAMES TRANSLATION:
This kind of translating is not responsible scholarship-it's confusing and contradictory. The Apostle Paul admonished Timothy to "have a pattern of sound words" (II Tim. 1:13) The Scriptures quoted above clearly show the translator's disregard for this instruction. I am amazed that people put up with such irresponsible teaching. You teach that man has immortality in his soul. The Scripture says man is "mortal," and "Our Lord, Jesus Christ ... Who ONLY has immortality." Which do you think is true - your teaching or the Scriptures? What part of the word "ONLY" don't you understand, Dr. Kennedy? Man is mortal (Job 4:17). Not one Scripture says that man is "immortal" or has an "immortal" soul. Not one. "Our Lord, Jesus Christ: the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality" (I Tim. 6:14-16). It is by means of the "resurrection" that God causes dead people to live again. The Apostle Paul said: "Concerning the expectation and resurrection of the dead am I being judged" (Acts 23:6). The truth regarding the "resurrection of the dead" is not even taught in Christendom today. They teach that there are no dead people (only dead bodies). They teach that people are either alive on earth, alive in Heaven, or alive in Hell. What need have we for a "resurrection of the dead" if there are no dead people to resurrect? This, my friend, is heresy! Paul also stated: "Now if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been roused. Now if Christ has not been roused, for naught, consequently, is our heralding, and for naught is your faith" (I Cor. 15:14-15). The very salvation of mankind rests on the resurrection. This is most important to understand: "For, if the dead are not being roused [resurrected], neither has Christ been roused. Now, if Christ has not been roused, vain is your faith-you are STILL IN YOUR SINS." (Acts 15:16-18). That is just how important the resurrection is, and according to you and most Christian theologians, it isn't necessary at all, because you teach that man has an immortal soul that goes directly to Heaven or Hell without resurrection and thus make a mockery of the very Word of God. And where, Dr. Kennedy, is all the "hell fire and brimstone" in all these verses on body, spirit, and soul? Where? If you don't understand the Scriptures concerning God's punishment and chastisement on mankind, fine, but don't force them into these versus regarding "the dead." And don't turn "ages" into "eternities" either. I'll comment on punishment, gehennah, the lake of fire, etc. later. YOUR ANALOGY To show that God cannot be held responsible for the orthodox hell-bound fate of the peoples of Africa, you used an analogy of a man snake-bit in the Everglades. You said that a snake-bit man in the Everglades could not hold a nearby medical center responsible for his death even if they did have at their disposal the antiserum that would have saved him. How is your analogy of a snake-bit man in the Everglades analogous to all the people of Africa (or China and the rest of the heathen world) who do not know God? If your analogy stands, then he doesn't even know who or what his savior is. And even if he does, he is hardly in any condition to get there by himself. Is it the responsibility of a dying man to accomplish the impossible, namely, to reach an unreachable Savior? Is it the Africans' responsibility to find a Savior they don't know or never even heard of? What logic is this? Or is this a case of "God helps those who help themselves?" No. Many Scriptures show that God helps those who can't possibly help themselves. Instead of inventing an analogy, why didn't you just use an analogy that is already in the Scriptures? You put this snake-bit man in the same predicament as the "lost sheep." Let me tell you why. Because the analogy of the "lost sheep" utterly destroys the fallacious point you are trying to make. Of course a snake-bit man couldn't hold a hospital (who had no knowledge of his tragedy) responsible for his own death. This analogy is a "straw man." There are no similarities between this analogy and God's responsibility toward His creatures for their eternal salvation. Is the snake-bit man "responsible" on his own to swim three miles and then crawl five miles on his belly to his savior (the hospital)? How, pray tell, can this man come to his savior by himself, by his own ability? He's dying. Look at your analogy: No one at the hospital had any knowledge of a man dying of a snake-bite or they would have come to his rescue. Do you doubt this for one second? Surely they would have used trucks, air boats, helicopters, or whatever it took to save him. Is God less responsible? Now, had they received word that this snake-bit man needed immediate medical assistance but refused to go to his aid, they would be considered criminally negligent. Is God just as negligent as they would have been? God is fully aware that His sheep are now lost:
"How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains [or the Everglades], and seeketh that which is gone astray? ... even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18: 12 & 14) When God almighty says something is His will or is not His will then that's the way it will be done (Mat. 6:10). In God's time and in God's way, ultimately, there will be NO lost sheep anywhere. It is the "will of your Father" that this is the way it will be done! Almighty God will not fail in His desire to accomplish all His Will. Notice Isa. 46:10-11:
But the shepherds (Pastors and Clergymen) of the world teach that God will never fulfill His own will and desires. They teach that most of the sheep will be lost. And worst than lost; they will supposedly be tortured in the fires of Hell for all eternity. You CONTRADICT God and His Word when you teach these things. Read Jer. 50:6 again, it is the "shepherds" that have led the sheep astray: "My people hath been lost sheep: their SHEPHERDS have CAUSED them to go astray ... " Maybe it's God's time to let the world know who these fraudulent shepherds are and how they are leading millions astray from God's truths. But God will bring them back safely (in case you doubted, God is a better shepherd than we). God will save ALL Israel (Rom. 11:26), and it is His delight to give Israel the Kingdom (Lk. 12:32), and God will perform ALL of His desires (Isa. 46:10-11). How can you doubt God's ability to perform His Own WILL? You attempt to diminish God's very Will into little more than a weak wish. If one cannot even believe the Scriptures, how can one teach them? Your theology is up-side-down, Dr. Kennedy. The shepherd (the Savior) goes after the lost sheep (the Africans or whoever). Since when is it up to the "lost sheep" to find the Shepherd? And what about "the ninety and nine?" Remember: "All we like sheep have gone astray" (Isa. 53:6). Were the "ninety and nine" shrewd enough, and strong enough, and clever enough by their own instincts to avoid all the jagged rocks, and holes, and cliffs, and ditches, and wolves, and foxes, till one by one they all saved themselves until they found the shepherd? If sheep could do all of those things by themselves, they wouldn't need a shepherd. Dr. Kennedy, learn something about analogies. Why does God Himself use the analogy of "sheep" to represent lost mankind? Because we have the same number of feet? God uses the analogy of "sheep" because sheep are totally unable to save themselves. They need a shepherd. Pastor Hagee says: "When one realizes just how helpless and dumb sheep really are, it's offensive that God calls us sheep." If that's how he feels, I don't know what he thinks of God's ultimate analogy of what man is (Isa. 64:8). This "straw man" analogy of yours is foolish, and any analogy that attempts to relieve God of His responsibility for the salvation of His creatures would be equally foolish. There is no analogy that can be used to demonstrate something that is false. You don't seem to understand that God is not trying to save all of His sheep in this lifetime. There are Scriptural reasons why God allows people to die without ever having known Him. They are not eternally lost, they are only "dead." And let's be completely honest here. When a person is "dead," how does God view that condition? As sleep (John 11:11). Are you suggesting that every night when your children go to bed that their eternal fate is sealed? I didn't say death is like sleep, but God Almighty has, many times. Do you believe God when He says death is "sleep?" Do you really believe that tired and overworked saints in Heaven go to sleep? Do you really believe that after a hard day at the furnace, people in Hell go to sleep? Why is it such a hard thing for you to just believe the Scriptures when God says death is like sleep? God awakens dead people out of sleep in resurrection. This is sensible and understandable: Your teaching is strange and ridiculous. You make it clear from your sermon that when a person dies you think his fate is eternally sealed. This, however, is also unscriptural. Death is an enemy, but not too formidable an enemy for God. Death cannot separate anyone from the love of God, be he sinner or saint (Rom. 8:36). More proof on this later. Besides, even death itself will be abolished (I Cor. 15:26). God abolishes death by vivifying everyone who is dead. The only way to abolish the darkness in a room is to turn on the light. The only way to abolish death is to make everyone alive. Look at the giant difference between God and a hospital. The hospital was ignorant of a man needing immediate help. But, not only did God know full well that this man was snake-bit and dying, it was God Himself who created the poisonous snake, and created the Everglades, and created the man. I think if you reconsider your premise, we will probably be agreed that had the hospital been called to help this man they would have responded quickly. But now look at the implications of your analogy. Sinful medics at a hospital, in the final analysis, are much, much more loving, concerned, caring, and responsible toward a perfect stranger than your God is toward one of His own sons! The use of an analogy presupposes that the one using the analogy already knows the truth of the subject being analogized, else how could he devise the right analogy to substantiate his premise? Why not just skip the analogy and tell us plainly that you believe billions and billions of Africans, Chinese, and most of the population of the entire world are doomed to eternal hell without ever being given an opportunity to know Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Why not just admit that you don't think God is the least bit "responsible" for this, the most tragic disaster in the history of the universe? If that's the way you feel, why not come out and admit it instead of hiding behind a man-made analogy. Let's look deeper into why your analogy doesn't work. I'll use the exact same "premise," but let's change the characters and their location. Let's change the snake-bit man into a five-year old girl, the snake into an alligator, and the medical center into the little girl's father. Next, let's move this alligator-attack on this little girl from the Everglades to the little girl's back yard. Let's place her father twelve feet away from her on the back porch. Now. Do you really think this analogy is going to work, Dr. Kennedy? You don't like my changes? Okay, let's use your analogy again. As I recall, the snake-bit man was apparently some miles from the Medical Center, correct? Would it still work if he were only one mile from the Center? What about a hundred yards? Let's try this. Let's say this man is thirty feet in front of the hospital moat with the Medics witnessing his snakebite through a window. Does your analogy still, work, Dr. Kennedy? It's the "distance" that makes the difference, isn't it? Did I put the "Savior" too close for comfort? If the father were just across the street, maybe he could be justified in not saving his daughter. What do you think? Or must we put him out of screaming distance, say two or three blocks away? That suits your analogy better doesn't it? If one doesn't know what's going on, he can't be held "responsible." Isn't that what your analogy really portends? If the "shepherd" is out of sight, out of town, or on vacation-nowhere to be found-then he is no longer responsible for saving the lost sheep. Is that correct, Dr. Kennedy? Or if the shepherd is sleeping on the job, I guess he wouldn't be responsible for saving the lost sheep, either. Do you think all those billions of unbelievers are being lost because God is out of town on an extended vacation? Or is He "sleeping on the job?" My question to you is: How far, Dr. Kennedy - how FAR must you "distance" God from Africa until "His hand is too short to redeem or save" (Isa. 50:2 & 59:1), and He can no longer see or hear or feel or be "responsible" for all these poor helpless people who you think are on a daily death march into the eternal doom of a Christian Hell? According to your absurd analogy, it takes only a few miles to disable God's ability to save. This characterization of God Almighty comes a whole lot closer to blasphemy than I think you want to be standing, Dr. Kennedy! All who are dead asleep in their graves will be resurrected from death to life (Ezek. 37:113-14). Christ will draw all men (including Africans) to Himself (Jn. 12:32). It is God's WILL that they come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved (Tim. 2:4). Every tongue in heaven and earth will, " ... ACCLAIM that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the Glory of God, the Father" (Phil. 2:11). God will not lose one single sheep (Matt. 18:14). God will save all Jews and all Gentiles (Rom. 11:32). So that God may " ... be ALL in ALL" (I Cor. 15:28). Distance is immaterial to God. Can "distance" separate God from His love for His African people? Rom. 8:35-39 plainly says "no!" " ... Not far from each one of us is He inherent, for in Him we are living and moving and are ... " (Acts 17:27). "Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you [the Gentiles], who once, are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:13). There is no partiality with God. You need to read these Scriptures and ponder them deeply. Your reasoning that lost sheep must find their own shepherd and unbelievers must find their own Savior or else be doomed reminds me of Lazarus' sister Mary who came to our Lord and said: "Lord, if Thou wert here, my brother would not have died!" (Jn. 11:32). Amazing what we humans think are insurmountable problems for God. But you see, Christ was not there and Lazarus did die. But then Christ did come and He did resurrect Lazarus from the dead. Did Christ resurrect Lazarus out of Hell fire? If He did, then Lazarus went to Hell by mistake. Did Christ resurrect Lazarus out of Heaven? If He did, then Christ lied eight chapters earlier when He said, "NO one has ascended into heaven ... " (Jn 3:13). Christ resurrected Lazarus out of the TOMB (Jn. 11:38-39). Because that's where Lazarus WAS-in the TOMB-dead ASLEEP. This historical example of Christ's resurrection powers was a foretaste of what Christ will do in the future resurrections. This is how it is done. Dead people (not just dead bodies) will be resurrected from the dead, not from life at some other geographical location (not heaven and not hell), but FROM THEIR GRAVES, wherever they may be. If it is essential that a man be saved before he dies, then God, indeed, would be derelict in His responsibility toward His creatures. But where does it say that a man's eternal fate is sealed at his death? Where? Nowhere! Please read the explanation of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in my rebuttal to Pastor Hagee. Absolutely nothing can separate man from the "Love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord!" (Rom. 8:31-38). And certainly not "death" (Ver. 38). TV ANALOGY Here is an analogy that is applicable and easy to understand: God's spirit gives life to the body. Only in life does a man have consciousness or sensation. When God takes back His spirit, the body and soul are dead. Picture a TV console as representing the human BODY with all its intricate circuitry and components. Now picture ELECTRICITY as the invisible, powerful force representing God's life-giving SPIRIT. Picture the blank PICTURE TUBE as representing the SOUL. Without the electricity (God's spirit), the TV and picture tube (body and soul) are dead. All the time I hear preachers talking about our souls and our spirits as if they were one and the same. Soul and spirit are not one and the same. Next plug in the electricity (God's spirit). The TV comes to life, and we see the picture tube (soul) animated. We see color, sound, dancing, singing, talking, intelligent conversations, all live via satellite. The dead TV becomes a living, visible, animated, intelligent entity-"Soul." But notice very carefully, the Soul (the animated picture in the TV tube) is not one of the original components. It is not a component in and by itself, but is rather the result of two other vital components, Body and Spirit (the TV console and electricity). At bedtime I sometimes tell my daughter to give the TV a rest. When one turns off the "on/off" switch the TV goes to "sleep." The power light is still on, but the TV is blank and silent. But now, pull the plug and take away the electricity (spirit) and what happens to the TV console (body)? It dies. It's just a box of circuits. Not even the power light is on anymore. If left unplugged it will, in time, decay and return to the dust of the ground. And what happens to the colorful animated picture on the screen (soul) when we take away the electricity (spirit)? Want the real answer? Ask a child. Let several children watch TV together, then pull the plug and ask them where the picture went? A child will shrug his shoulders or say "I don't know" or say "It disappeared." Guess what? He is Scripturally correct on all three counts. Without spirit there is no life and no consciousness. Without power a TV has no life and no animated picture. It's dead. If you were to ask an ancient Hebrew person what happens to the soul (the thinking, feeling, animated, sentient personality of a man) at death, he would shrug his shoulders or say "who knows" or just say "it disappears." That's what "Sheol" meant to the Hebrews. It was a question mark. And the Greeks had their word for the same idea (Hades-the UNSEEN, the IMPERCEPTIBLE), and hades and sheol are synonymous in Scripture (Acts 2:27). There is one more profound Scriptural truth that is also perfectly analogous to the operation of a TV, and that is this. Picture God's Throne as the Broadcast Headquarters. The TV picture Tube, by itself, is not the source or originator of the picture it portrays on the screen. It is a channel for the signal transmitted from the TV Station and Tower. It can only manifest and portray on its screen that which is sent from the source [God]. And often the source [God] uses intermediaries like satellites [Angels] to relay the signals. In Scripture, death is called a "return" [Heb. shub]. Before we were born we had no body, no soul, and no perception of any kind. At birth God gave us a body, implanted to us His spirit, which gives the body perception (through the brain and the five senses). At death, we [shub] RETURN. The reversal of what happened at birth. The spirit returns to God (Ecc. 12:7), the body returns to the dust (all the elements of man's body are found in the ground or earth) (Job 10:9, Ecc. 3:18-21), and the soul returns to no perception again (the imperceptible or unseen-hades) (Acts 2:27 and Psalm 49:15). This is what the Scriptures very plainly teach: where all that man "is" came from, that's where all that man "is" returns to. GOD'S LOVE FOR THE WICKED DEAD Let me show you some very easy to understand Scriptures in relation to the "wicked dead" and God's love for them: Israel committed the most wicked sins against their God. "But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, whether they went." (Ezek. 36:21). "And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them, and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." (Ezek. 36:23). Where do you suppose this takes place, Dr. Kennedy, Heaven or Hell? " ... I will take you from among the heathen ... bring you into your own land ... ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you ... a new heart will I give you ... a new spirit will I put within you ... and cause you to walk in my statues, and ye shall keep my judgments...and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." (Ezek. 36:24-28) " ... all Israel shall be saved ... " (Rom. 11:26). Notice that GOD CAUSES all of these things to happen. " ... the valley which was full of bones ... Son of man, can these bones live?... Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live ... and ye shall know that I am the Lord ... Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel ... Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves ... and ye shall know that I am the Lord ... And shall put my spirit in you and ye shall live ... then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it and performed it, saith the Lord" (Ezek.37:1-14). Does this take place in Heaven or Hell? "The whole house of Israel" who blasphemed God's name, who worshipped idols, who were filled with filthiness, and did not "know" the Lord are now pictured as dry bones in their graves. God raises them from their graves, puts His spirit in them, they live again, gives them a new heart, causes them to walk in His statutes, and blesses them in their own land and finally they know that God is the Lord that blesses them. Since God "opens their graves," and "brings you into your own land," just maybe, this takes place on this earth. What do you think? Here are wicked, sinful people who died in their sins not knowing the Lord. God will resurrect them (back to life from the dead) and bless them. What do you think? Are these Scriptures too hard to understand? Did you never read them? I'm not trying to be your judge. I'm trying to help you to see just how simple and consistent God's Word is. These Scriptures glorify God. They demonstrate God's character. " ... though He punishes, yet will He have mercy." Yes, even " ... the HEATHEN [Africans and Gentiles] shall know that I am the Lord." Next you turned to the Scriptures to attempt to relieve God of His responsibility toward His children. You show in Romans that man has "creation" to prove God's existence, and "conscience" to show him right from wrong. But you do err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power and love of God. True, the creation does prove a Creator, but without a revelation from that Creator, what would we know about the Christ? True, God has given man a conscience, but how can a man's conscience save him? Where in the Scriptures does it teach that if a person believes there is a God and has a clear conscience, it will save him? Where? Have you never read in the Scriptures that regardless of a man's belief in God and his conscience, nonetheless:
And here is their only salvation:
How could anyone have the audacity to suggest that Africans and Chinese by the billions are responsible for their own salvation through their "conscience" without any knowledge of God or Christ's blood and His sacrifice for them? If a person can be saved by his "conscience," then he doesn't need Jesus Christ. Do you really want to teach such a farce? Look at the twelve hand-picked Apostles. They walked and talked with Jesus day and night, seeing miracle after miracle for three and one-half years. Yet in Gethsemane they all forsook Him. Peter cursed His Savior three times in one night. And you would have us believe that man, in himself, has the ability to do right and walk the walk and qualify for salvation? You might respond: "But I never said that." Sure you did. You only say it's all of God and pretend to give God all the credit for salvation, but in the end, your teaching always holds man responsible for his own salvation. Why else did you invent your own analogy? According to modern Christian teaching, if the twelve Apostles had all been killed that night in the Garden by the Roman soldiers, they would have all gone to "Hell!" Theologians would say: "They had their chance." Well, if salvation is a thing of "chance" then I guess they had a better "chance" than most people. But they blew their "chance" didn't they? Why can't we learn from these simple Scriptures? These twelve Apostles lived closer and longer in an intimate relationship with our Lord than any other human beings in the history of the World, and yet, after three and one-half years they all rejected and forsook Him, all in one night. This Scripture doesn't require protracted study to understand - just plain read it.
Or are you telling us that if a man "by nature" does what the law demands, and has a "clear conscious" and "believes" there is a God, that then " ... it is in man ... to direct his steps?" No, Dr. Kennedy, it is "not in man" because God never put it there.
It just wasn't in the Apostles to "direct their own steps." Was it a good thing that the Apostles all forsook Christ in the Garden? I'll ask you another question: Was it a good thing that Joseph's brothers sold him for a slave to the Ishmealites? Not from the relative perspective. Joseph was frightened and disappointed in his brothers, his father was heartsick, and his brothers did evil from their hearts. That's the relative viewpoint. But what's the absolute? Who was behind this whole drama? Who caused it to happen by the "operating of all through the counsel of His Will?" Of course it was God. And He plainly says so: "Nor therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send you before me to preserve life." (Gen. 45:5). If only we could believe this simple Scripture. The evil that Joseph's brothers conceived and carried out (for which they will be held accountable in judgment) is the relative truth. That it was God who actually "did send me" is the absolute truth. But since God only occasionally tells us that it was He Who was behind a certain action, people think that it is only occasionally that God does such things. Maybe we should read it again until we really get it:
Our Lord was about to be crucified and resurrected. Then He would return to Heaven. The Apostles would no longer commune in the flesh daily with their Lord as they did for three and one-half years. What better way to show them their absolute inability and irresponsibility than to have them all reject Him in His hour of greatest need. You know they never forgot. Nor did they ever forsake Him again. Yes, they'll give an account of this in judgment, but they also will be saved, and they also will be in the Kingdom, and they also will sit on twelve thrones-it is written and it will be done. God knows what He is doing. And all will turn out perfect, because it's God Who is operating all, not men-they only think so, and for now God lets them wallow in their ignorance. Back to your sermon. The man asked a good question. You just didn't answer it. Listen to your tape. The man asked a legitimate question and you didn't answer it. You pretended to answer it. You set up a foolish straw man analogy. You quoted scriptures on conscience. But the best you could do was to suggest that there are "degrees of punishment in hell." What does that mean in the context of billions of people who have never heard the name of Christ (the only name), or never read the Scriptures, and never heard a missionary? Are all of these billions of peoples going to hell, albeit some of them to cooler sectors, because they had "good consciences?" By the way, the Scriptures know nothing of "degrees of punishment in hell." This is another man-made invention of the church. In Luke 12:47-48 where "many lashes" and "few lashes" are presented in a parable, it is the Jews, not the nations or the Africans, who are the subject. Christ is talking about "slaves of the lord" at His coming. This punishment is meted out at the Lord's coming not eternally in a place called Hell. Now, how could or would that same Lord take eternity in hell fire to administer just a few lashes? Eternity? ETERNITY? For a "few" lashes? And you have the audacity to tell us: "Hell is fair!" Dr. Kennedy, that statement is too absurd for comment. Christ taught the masses in parables so that they would not understand (Matt. 13:10-15). Well, I guess, not too much has changed there. This parable is about "the faithful and prudent administrator" (the Jews) whom He entrusts with His goods "to be giving them the measure of grain in season." This parable has nothing to do with the unbelieving nations that know not God. The more I think about your non-answer to the man's question, the more I believe you were very careful to avoid directness. I understand your predicament: your own unscriptural doctrines boxed you into a corner, where neither a misappropriated scripture nor a straw man analogy will get you off the hook. The fact is that the theology of Christendom has no place for the salvation of the billions of peoples who have never heard the Name of God. But, thanks be to God! And I really mean thanks be to GOD, that His Word provides for the salvation of all nations. There are literally dozens of Scriptures that tell us how and when God will save all nations, all peoples, and all creatures. Let's look at a Scripture regarding who God is calling and who God is not calling at this time:
Notice the categories of men that are not even called at this time. How can they be saved when they aren't even called? But He will call them all at a later time.
Israel didn't comprehend their own Messiah-they killed Him! Why? Because "God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day." (Rom. 11:8). "But in their offense is salvation to the nations" (Ver. 11). "For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?" (Ver. 15). " ... for God is able to graft them in again." (Ver. 24). " ... that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering. And thus ALL Israel shall be saved ... Whenever I should be eliminating their sins." (Vers. 15, 24, 25-27). God blinds Israel until He finishes calling those of the nations. Then He recalls Israel and saves the nations: "For God locks up all [both Israel and Gentiles] together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all [Israel and Gentiles]. (Ver. 32). Then follows this marvelous verse:
I am trying to get you to think and really check the Scriptures thoroughly. Any other motive would be childish. So bear with me. If you really believe that God is only going to save a few of His billions of children, then please read on. I'll show you "good news" like you've never dreamed of. As for you, you can't have it both ways, Dr. Kennedy. You can't teach that "For in grace, through faith [the faith of Jesus Christ, not our faith-it is not our faith until God gives it to us], are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's GIFT, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting. For His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus ... " (Eph. 2:8-10) and then out of the other side of your mouth teach that man, "himself," is the main ingredient in his own salvation by being wise enough through his own so-called free will to make the right choice for God out of a clear conscience, in accord with his own responsibility, without which God cannot or will not save him. These two are diametrically opposed one to the other. The first is Scriptural; the latter is a man-made perversion of the love and sovereignty of God.
FREE WILL You mentioned "free will" in your sermon. People would rather have their arms and legs cut off and be thrown into a pit of snakes than to give up their "free will." Well guess what? They don't have to give it up. They never had such a thing in the first place! Even God Almighty is governed by the law of His own nature. "The One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will." (Eph. 1:11). But the buck stops at God's throne. He has not given us the same powers He possesses, that's for sure. But man, puny man, thinks he has "human free will" that is never caused or made to think or do anything. Man thinks himself sovereign in this assumed free will. The Scriptures know nothing of "human free will." This is just another case of human ignorance. Men do not possess free will, because free will does not exist. The reason that "free will" (the ability to make uncaused choices) does not exist is because it is a physiological impossibility! The first edict of the universe is "cause & effect." Nothing in heaven or earth can happen without a cause. For every effect there is a cause. There are no exceptions. No effect or happening of any kind in the universe, on earth, in our bodies, or in our minds can come into existence without a cause. And if something is caused, it cannot be free. That would be a total contradiction of words and logic. Humans do have wills. But wills are not free from causality. " ... for it is GOD Who is operating in you TO WILL as well as to work for the sake of His delight" (Phil. 2:13). This involves countless unperceived forces. Don't confuse "will" with "choice." Someone might say: "If our choices, are caused, then how can one call it a 'choice'-isn't that a contradiction?" Not at all. Free will demands that when someone makes a "free will" choice, no thing or no one made or forced him to do so. It was completely up to him-one way or the other. People simple confuse the meaning and definition of words. The word "choice" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the choice could have been avoided. A choice is merely what we prefer. Nowhere does the word "choice" carry with it the notion of "avoidability." When one makes a choice, one selects what one prefers most at that instant. Nevertheless, something still caused that choice, whether one sees or feels its presence or not. One can argue that one made a free choice because one desired to do so. It still doesn't matter-the desire caused the choice, and the desire, itself, was caused. There are no exceptions. One may suggest that one did or said something without a cause simply because one willed to do so. Fine. But then even you are admitting that the choice had a cause, namely your will. One's wills and desires are not free from the laws of God or the laws of physics. These demand a cause for every effect. Man is not a deity. Man's will is not independent from his Creator (Phil. 2:13). Read Mat. 7:18-23. Our Lord speaks of a large group of people (many), " ... in that day," who will justify their Christian walk by: "prophesying in Christ's name," "casting out demons," and "doing many wonderful works." (Ver. 22). Sounds pretty good to me. But there seems to be a problem when Christ says: " ... depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Ver. 23). "Iniquity" is not the proper translation here. The Greek word is anomon-UN-LAWness or LAWLESSNESS. Man thinks by nature he is above the law in that "free will" is, itself, lawless. Thinking himself equipped with "free will" man feels a certain equality with his Creator. "Human free will," therefore, becomes the epitome of man's lawlessness. Man thinks himself a potter. However, to man's chagrin, God says He is the Potter and man is the "pot" (Isa. 64:8). And God hates pride (Prov. 6:17, 16;18, 29:23), which is the bed-buddy of human "free will." Anyone who is so deluded as to think he possesses powers so great as to be able to thwart the very Will of God, is certainly disqualified from being a teacher of the Word of God! "Sin is lawlessness" (I Jn. 3:4). Free will is lawlessness. RESPONSIBILITY Not only are all the billions of heathens who never heard the gospel not responsible for their own salvation, but neither are we responsible for our salvation either. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God hold man responsible for anything. This is just another man-made doctrine that clashes with the Scriptures. We can use the word "responsible" in a relative sense, such as: "It is a man's responsibility to provide for his family." We all know what the word means. But even if this man doesn't provide for his family, God will hold him accountable not responsible. The problem with your sermon, Dr. Kennedy, is that you want to present God as a "fair" God. You know most men have lived and died never knowing God or even hearing His Name, so you try to relieve God of His responsibility for His creatures. You know that there is "no other name under Heaven by which man must be saved." You do know that, don't you? I'm betting that you do. But God doesn't need to be relieved of His responsibility. Knowing that billions of heathens have lived and died, never hearing that Name or knowing the true God, (and since you have all these man-made doctrines that clash with the Word of God), you try to "get God off the hook." And so you place the burden of responsibility for being saved on man's shoulders. God is not "on the hook." He doesn't need your help, my help, a missionary's help, or anybody else's help to save His children. God does use teachers, pastors, etc. to acquaint people with His Word. But this is a privilege for us, not a necessity for God. Remember the Scripture, that God can "raise up stones" if needed. The Scriptures tell us that all men everywhere are accountable to God, not responsible:
Even the King James Version, with its thousands of discrepancies, does not even once in its fifteen hundred pages, use the word "responsible" or "responsibility." Yet churches evolve whole doctrines around this word "responsibility." Things like: "you're responsible for going to hell" or "it's your responsibility to accept Christ" or "the age of responsibility" or "everyone is responsible for his or her deeds." Strange to make so big a deal of a word that does not even appear in Scripture. When a minor (a child) commits a crime, even the unjust courts of our land do not hold him responsible. Is his crime simply overlooked? No. He must give an account for his actions. He is accountable. He might be the victim of a broken home, with a drunkard father, a prostitute mother, drug-hooked sisters, and gang-member brothers. Thus, he is not considered responsible. Nonetheless, he is still accountable.
Read the dozens of scriptures where we are likened not only to "children," but to "little children." God is dealing with mankind as minors. He holds them accountable, but nowhere does God hold man responsible. Show me one Scripture. The church can only see the relative in God's word. They fail to see that God is behind everything in the "absolute."
The only One in the universe Who is responsible [able to respond] is God And so, God takes full responsibility for everything even though He holds man accountable for his deeds. Man is accountable for his deeds, not because he could have done otherwise, but because he thinks he is responsible through his presumed free will. Because he actually did the things he did. However, the Scriptures tell us that, "not in all" is this knowledge. Puny man really thinks he is in control of his own destiny. He really thinks he is a "god unto himself." And the Christian Church hasn't done very much to educate him out of this dilemma. There's a poem that personifies man's "self-appointed inner deity". It's called INVICTUS, by William Ernest Benley. It appears in a book called: The Best Loved POEMS of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. I heard Oprah Winfrey comment once that this is her favorite poem. It goes like this:
Well, Dorothea Day wrote a rebuttal version of this same poem:
Wow! This girl should have been a theologian. One can go to church for many, many years, and not hear this much Scriptural truth.
But wait. I think I hear cries of protest from the Theological Peanut Gallery: "No! No! Christ can't 'conquer' your soul. It's not allowed. Not even God can tamper with man's 'free moral agency-will.' Everyone must come to Christ of this own 'free will.'"
"No! No! God doesn't sway the circumstances of life. Man 'brings about' his own circumstances. Man makes his own heaven or hell. It's all up to man!"
"No! No! It isn't 'rule by God' it really is 'chance.' And men get only one chance." (Well not really. According to Christendom the billions of Africans and Chinese who never heard the name of Christ don't even get one "chance"). And since when is salvation a thing of "chance?" Salvation through Christ's sacrifice is "sure!" Rom. 8:32-- "Surely" [Gk: ge, a particle indicating that no doubt is possible] ... "Surely, He Who spares not His own Son, but gives Him up for us all how shall He not together with Him also, be graciously granting us all?" It is worse than sin to relegate God's supreme sacrifice to a thing of "chance"!
"No! No! The punishments will never be 'cleared'-not in the next billion eons or the billions that follow, not ever, never! Punishment is eternal-why world renowned theologians tell us it will be a great part of our happiness, and God's happiness, to watch billions of boys and girls, men and women being burned and tortured, screaming with insanity for eon upon eon. Won't that be fun." Do you think they'll all get season tickets to this "Great Heavenly Coliseum of Eternal Torture?" This is sick!
"No! No!" shouts the peanut gallery. "Everyone's 'fate' is in his own hands. Why 'you send yourself to Hell' shouts Pastor Hagee."
"No! No! You are your own Captain. You have to find Christ, and if you live in Africa or China that may not be possible, but it doesn't matter because God gave them a 'conscience.' It won't save them, but they'll get 'fewer lashes' for all eternity. Christ is 'our little helper' in time of need, but never forget-you are your OWN captain." To some Christ would be at least their 2nd Lieutenant. I always thought that bumper sticker I see so often is one of the most blasphemous things anyone could ever think, let alone parade in public on their car bumpers: "God is my co-pilot" Yeah, right. That is if you "allow Him" I guess, the great high honor of being seated at your right hand. I wrote my own childish poem to personify the theologian's view of God:
You see, to the theological peanut galleries of the world, if God is responsible for everything in His creation, then He couldn't be justified in burning billions in eternal Hell fire! But if they can make man responsible, then it's his own doing. But for man to be responsible, God would have had to have given him much greater powers than even our Lord ever possessed. "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, The Son can not be doing anything of Himself ... " (John 5:19). Are we greater than our own Lord? Answer: " ... apart from Me you can do nothing." (Jn. 15:5). Well, there it is. God has given man no such powers. "It is not in man to direct his own steps" (Jer. 10:23). I know that this verse is shocking to contemplate. It is a real ego deflator. People do not want their self-esteem brought that low. They love to talk humble pie, but they won't eat it. If God tells us we can't even "direct our own steps," pray what can we do by ourselves? The true and Scriptural answer is just as shocking: " ... for apart from Me [Christ] you can do NOTHING" (John 15:5). I know this truth is too high for most. Most don't really meditate on such verses. They certainly would never preach a sermon on them. They wouldn't be able to take credit for their own salvation anymore (if they actually believed these Scriptures). They would be forced to get rid of all their self worth. They couldn't feel all puffed up like the King of Assyria if they acknowledged God's total Sovereignty in their lives. They don't have to believe it now. God isn't breaking anyone's arm to accept these thruths. But don't try to skillfully contradict these truths of the Scriptures, for that only makes you look silly. I'll let you in on a secret, Dr. Kennedy. It's not God that theologians are trying to protect from responsibility so much as it is their own ego. They will cling to freewill at the expense of "burning billions" in their eternal hell fire. If God is absolutely responsible for the salvation of all His creatures (and He absolutely is), then He is obligated to save them. He would have to save them. Their salvation would be assured. (Wouldn't that be a terrible thing for theologians and clergymen to contemplate?) In other words, since God is going to bring peace, happiness, and salvation to all of His creatures in Heaven and Earth, God is a real God. A God worthy of the name. A God to truly be GLORIFIED! Sadly, however, this is not the God of Christendom. This is not the God being presented to the nations. Instead they are presented with a god who is thwarted by the Adversary, thwarted by feeble demons, thwarted by self-appointed preachers and teachers, and ultimately, thwarted by most of his own children. And how does this god of Christendom respond to his failure in fulfilling the role of a true God? He TORTURES the vast majority of his creatures, without mercy, for ALL ETERNITY! And the "few" who were wise enough to get themselves saved from this eternal hellhole of sin, evil, and unspeakable torture, will supposedly worship this alien monster of a failed and foiled would-be god. This is not hyperbolic emotionalism; this is the ultimate goal of Christian theology; this is the "good news gospel" of Christendom. This, my friend, is sheer heresy, and this is how the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations today! Behind every relative truth there is an absolute truth. Because He is the Alpha and Omega, God knows the beginning from the end.. God is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). That's how God knows everything that is and will be. He makes (causes) everything to turn out the way He predetermined it must be. The Scriptures are full of statements and examples of how everything is operating according to God's predetermined intentions. Theologians just don't approve of it. They don't like it. They will allow for God to cause the sun to go up and go down every day, just as long as God hasn't determined when they get up and lie down every day. But, like it or not, God has determined not only when they get up and when they lie down, but also everything they will do in between. If the translators understood this grand truth they would never have dared to translate Rom. 8:26 as we find it in the Authorized Version. A proper translation of Rom. 8:26 is thus:
God has determined that even our prayers must be " ... to accord with WHAT MUST BE ... " "Accord" and "what must be" are in the original Greek manuscripts. God really did inspire Paul to write this Scripture. Our prayers must " ... accord with WHAT MUST BE ... " Rather than fight these grand declarations of God, we should glory in them and shout them from the rooftops:
GOOD AND EVIL God created good and evil (Isa. 45:7). That covers it all. God planted the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - not Satan. When God planted that tree He said everything (including this tree) was "good." People think that God never intended for man to eat of that tree. Of course He did. How else could man know "good?" He had to eat of that tree. "Good & Evil" are two separate things, but the "knowledge of good and evil" are not separate. One cannot have knowledge of good without knowledge of evil. It is impossible. And that's why they were both in the same tree. The same fruit. The first time I saw the truth of this verse, that both "good and evil" are in the same tree, I was shocked. I had never seen it before. Pastor Hagee said that it was God's intention that Adam and Eve walk with Him in the Garden and obey Him. So Adam apparently went against God's intention. Untrue and impossible. If true, then God made a mistake-He sinned! If true, then God doesn't "know all" - He lied! Then God had to go from plan "A" to plan "B." How absurd. Adam did not withstand God's intention. God did NOT make a mistake. God does not lie. God knows all. God did not go to plan B, but rather intended for Adam to sin. At this point in Adam's life, God made him a vessel of dishonor (Rom. 9:21). Religion and theologians have so clouded men's minds that many can't even think straight anymore. Most do not meditate at any length or depth on what they read in God's Word. If Adam and Eve had NOT eaten of the tree of the knowledge of "GOOD and evil," would they have had a realization that they had done a good thing by being obedient? No. They wouldn't. Why? Because they didn't have a knowledge of "good and evil." That knowledge is in the fruit of a tree that they wouldn't have eaten from. If Adam and Eve never obtained a "knowledge of GOOD and evil," how could they ever know ("knowledge") good? Since this tree contained not only the knowledge of evil, but of good also, why did God forbid them from eating it in the first place? Or, why didn't He plant another tree in the garden that contained ONLY the knowledge of "good?" Why not two trees: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good, and (2) the tree of the knowledge of evil. They could have eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good only, and rejected the tree of the knowledge of evil, and all of the suffering of the human race would have never came about, and we would all be living in a garden of happiness and bliss to this very day. Or would we? Why didn't God do it this way? Because God is intelligent and wise, not stupid and foolish like the people who come up with questions as these. God is good (Mark 10:18). God possesses a knowledge of "good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). God wants Sons (Eph. 1:5). Sons possess the attributes of their Father. There it is. One cannot know good without a knowledge of evil. That's why they are both in the same tree, in the same fruit. We cannot know one without a knowledge of the other. Eph. 2:10 says: "For His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works ... " What is an "achievement?" Webster's Dictionary says: "to do ... succeed ... accomplish ... to get ... to reach by trying hard ... gain ... victory ... by skill, work, courage, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary, p. 7. Do we think "achievement," "goodness," or "virtue," are things that fall out of the sky like rain, or grow wild on trees? Try to name ONE virtue that is not the direct result of overcoming some form of EVIL. If theologians insist that God never intended for man to sin or experience evil, then they are also saying, of necessity, that God never intended for man to have any virtue or to know good! Let's not delude ourselves. Under the same circumstances as Adam, I would have sinned, you would have sinned, everyone would have sinned. Yes, Adam and Eve "sinned" when they disobeyed and ate the fruit. But it was God who was behind it. He had already made provision for their salvation from sin. "The Lamb slain from the foundation [Gk: disruption] of the world" (Rev. 13:8). God wants sons. (Eph. 1:5). And God "designated us beforehand" for this purpose. God knows "good and evil" already (Gen. 3:22). Man has no knowledge apart from contrast. We can't know what light is unless we also know darkness. We can't appreciate health without having experienced sickness. And we cannot fully appreciate life without also experiencing death. And so God created all these in order to produce sons.
THE ORIGIN OF SATAN God did not sin when He created His own enemy-Satan. Satan was never "Lucifer." Note these verses: " ... from the beginning is the Adversary [Satan] sinning" (I Jn. 3:8). "I have created the waster to destroy" (Isa. 54:16). " ... His hand hath formed the crooked serpent" (Job 26:13). "You are of your father, the Adversary (Satan) ... He was a mankiller [murderer] from the beginning ... " (Jn. 8:44). Isa. 14:12-15 and Ezek. 28:1-19 are often used in desperation to prove that Satan was once a good Angel who went bad. The Authorized Version does a poor job in translating these verses. Even so, both are accounts of men and both men DIE. Neither of these two princes ever was Satan. If Satan was a Archangel or Cherub who "went bad," and God didn't plan for that to happen, then God made a mistake and sinned. But God never sins. God never makes a mistake. Whether they are aware of it or not, theologians accuse God of sin every time they make something take God by surprise. The only way Satan, evil, and sin can be justified is if God brought these things into existence for a grand purpose and that they will be discarded when that purpose is accomplished. And that is exactly what the Scriptures say will happen. Look at this verse: "For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary" (I Jn. 3:8). Notice it doesn't say He will be "punishing" Satan's acts, but literally "annulling" them. And this is the same word used in Jn. 10:35 stating that the Scriptures cannot be "annulled." This is a powerful Scripture. But does even one in a hundred thousand believe it? God is not running a damage control center from Heaven. God was, is, and always will be in total control of His creation. And seriously, would we ever want it any other way? Notice Heb. 9:26--" ... yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest." King James says: "put away." The Greek is athetesis [UN-PLACING]-- "repudiation!" The name "God" means "PLACER," and God is going to UN-PLACE SIN. Pretty powerful stuff, huh?
FREE WILL VS. GOD'S INTENTION Until we come to believe that God Almighty is sovereign and " ... is operating all according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11), we will never fully understand the Scriptures or appreciate the marvelous works of God. To say that man has a "free will" and absolutely nothing "causes" it to accept or reject God, and then say, "But God already knows who will and who won't and how many," is not only unscriptural, but defies all logic. To say, "But God knows all" will not solve your dilemma. Because if nothing causes man to choose as he does, then that knowledge does not even exist until the choice is actually made. Yet you yourself insist that one could have chosen good when he chose evil. If God does not cause people's choices, then even God would have to wait until the choice is actually made before knowing the choice. You might postulate that God sees and knows all things so God can deduce from "this event" or "that event" or "a condition over here" or "a circumstance over there" or "some other thing" that a man will make the choice that God knows he will make. Okay, I'll accept that. Only one problem for your position, however. If this is your reasoning, you just threw your own "free will" theory out the window. This is, in the main, how our choices actually work. Something over here or other there, this event or that event, a word spoken here or there, the condition of our stomach or the condition of our bank account, etc., are the very things that daily cause us to make the choices that we make. And God controls and operates all of these unseen, unknown circumstances that then "influence" (just a softer way of saying "cause") our every thought. But your position contradicts hundreds of plain declarations of Scripture. God does know all and God causes all. All is of God, and God is operating all according to the Counsel of His will. Besides, why is it then that none choose "good?" Why did our Lord say that even He could do nothing except by the Father? And didn't our Lord plainly state that we, of ourselves, can also do nothing? You know that verse is in the Bible. You know it is true. But it upsets theologians like you when people like me actually believe it. Your problem is not just one of logic, but of disbelief of the Scriptures. And "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." It is a sin to teach these unscriptural doctrines of men. And from what I see in the Scriptures, it is a vastly more destructive sin than those sins of the flesh that preachers on TBN love to epitomize as the greatest evils on planet Earth. Read Matthew 23 if you want to know which sins God considers most grievous. It's easy for clergymen to condemn parishioners for lusting after "wine, women, and song," but oh how careful the clergy are to disguise their own lusts for power, fame, fortune, recognition, status, and praise, just to name a few. God's "grace" is more than a pious sounding word. It is a great power. It is not by laws, the threat of punishment, or the wranglings of self-appointed preachers that men's lives are changed, but by the powerful, miracle-working, heart-changing grace of God. When will men start giving God the credit He is due in our lives? "Yet, in the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace, which is in me, did not come to be for naught, but more exceedingly than all of them toil I - yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me" (I Cor. 15:10). The great and marvelous works of Paul were certainly not of himself or by himself, but, rather, through him, by the grace of God. Dr. Kennedy, it's neither hard nor complicated to believe that all is of God. But it sure does burst the great balloon of human pride. You mean we have to rely on God for everything? Yes! Isn't that marvelous? You're a smart man, Dr. Kennedy, so use your brain and think these things through to a logical and just conclusion. But always think Scripturally. Theologians view the Scriptures in the same way little children view a marionette show. Like little children, they suppose that the marionettes are "truth." They suppose that what they see is the absolute truth. These marionettes really do walk and talk "by themselves;" they really do sing and dance "by themselves." Certainly to the immature and the uninitiated, they have that power within themselves. But, they haven't a clue as to what is happening behind the curtain. They haven't a clue as to how these little marionettes do what they do! They haven't even considered that there may be a higher power "operating" these marionettes. In this, theologians are like little children. Theologians don't want to know what's going on behind the curtain. They are perfectly happy in their ignorance. They are entertained by their own false delusions, and ever so proud of their independence from God! And why is it that little children are deceived by marionettes' lifelike behavior? Because the strings are very thin and the operators are hid behind the curtain. They can see them perform with their own eyes. They can hear them singing with their own ears. Surely that is proof enough for a little child. And what more proof do you have that humans "perform" independent from the One Who is operating all (Eph. 11:1)? None. God doesn't need thinner strings to fool us-God operates by Spirit. God doesn't need to hide behind a curtain-God is invisible (II Cor. 4:4). Just as surely as children are fooled into believing that marionettes perform by their own powers, theologians and the wise of this world are fooled into thinking that man too can operate, in and by himself, independently of his own Creator. Theologians teach this falsehood because they live by sight not by faith. Like little children, they don't perceive any strings nor the Operator, which are both invisible. So with them, as with children, they assume there are no operating forces in their lives-they are "free." Hence they refuse to believe even the Scriptural declarations that God is Operating all according to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 11:1), and that apart from Christ they can do nothing (Jn 15:5). We are witnessing a worldwide Christian movement where the blind are leading the blind. They are like a Hollywood horror film where renegade marionettes band together and try to cut off the controlling strings, never to be operated against their wills by their Creator again. They want to have powers beyond what their Maker built into them. Everyone wants to be a Potter, when in reality, he is just a pot. "And now, Lord, Thou art our Father. And we are the clay. Thou art our Former, and the doing of Thy hand are we all" (Isa. 64:8). It is an interesting point that of all mankind, Adam only, was formed directly from clay. But the original Hebrew of Isa. 64:8 says that "we all" are "the doing of Thy hand." God didn't form mankind and then wind him up like a clock to proceed through life all on his own power. No. We "are," (present tense) "the doing of Thy hand." I know it's humbling, but then again, the Truth of God has that effect on those who believe His Word. If you think I'm crazy, then accuse God's Word of being crazy, because that's where I'm reading this from. Someone might retort: "Mr. Smith, are you saying that I can't even move my little finger unless it is God's intention that I do so?" That is exactly what I am saying. Because that is exactly what God is saying: " ... not far from each one of us is He [God] inherent, for in Him we are living and moving [our little finger] and are [exist] ... " (Acts 17:28). I'm sorry that there are people who are not happy with this arrangement; I am. It gives me confidence and hope to know that God is controlling everything to a perfect conclusion. Man only thinks he has independent free will from God, and look where this world is headed. Imagine the state of affairs if man actually did have free will. Free will or independence from our Creator God is just an illusion. It is, nonetheless, a marvelous illusion. The genius of God is overwhelming. It is this very illusion that enables mankind to actually believe he is the master of his own fate. And God helps bolster this illusion by actually giving men a certain amount of success in their quest for power, fame, and fortune. But just like the King of Assyria, Pharaoh, and others, all, one day, will realize and appreciate the fact that it was God " ... operating all ... " These inspired words of the Apostle Paul are so clear that one has to be downright stubborn as to the truth, not to believe them:
God said He raised Pharaoh up for the express purpose of displaying His power in him (Ver. 17). It is an historical and Scriptural fact that God did this to Pharaoh. Ver. 18 then states that, consequently then, God is either "merciful," or "hardens" anyone He wants to. And whosoever they are have nothing to say about God's doing so. Well, of course, if one is hostile against God and His word, his retort to this statement of Paul's would then be: "WHY, THEN, IS HE STILL BLAMING?" (Ver. 19) How can God hold people accountable for their sins when it was "He" [God] who brought about their condition? At least Paul's detractors had the sense to realize that if what Paul was saying is true, then they are solely at God's mercy (not their own ability) to ever change their condition, because their next statement is: " ... for who has WITHSTOOD HIS INTENTION?" (Ver. 19). God intends for men to go against His will (that's how men become lost so that God can then save them), but no one, absolutely NO ONE, has ever gone against God's INTENTION! Hey, don't get angry with me - I'm just quoting the Scriptures. Notice that Paul does not even deign to answer such carnal questioning of God's wisdom. His response is: "O MAN! WHO ARE YOU, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded WILL NOT protest to the molder, 'Why do YOU MAKE me thus? (Ver. 20). God is GOD, and He does what He pleases. God "pleases" to have many Sons. God "pleases" to save ALL humanity and ALL in the heavens (Eph. 11:10-11, Col. 1:20, I Cor. 15:22, 28). Who are we to question God's process? Since God is both loving and wise and also possesses all power, why should anyone question God's ability to accomplish His own Will? Theologians are audacious. They not only question God's ability to accomplish His own will; they flat out teach the whole world that the Great Creator God will NEVER accomplish His Own Will. Paul told Timothy:
Theologians the world over say: "IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!" They try to make God out a liar. They are the liars, deceivers, hypocrites, and blasphemers! One thing is certain; God's greatest enemies are not qualified to be great teachers of His Word. Maybe it's time we pulled back the curtain of tradition, ignorance, and immaturity and acknowledge Who is really "pulling the strings" of the universe. But wait. I think I hear the Theological Peanut Gallery objecting already: "Are you saying that people are mere 'marionettes'?" Or "robots?" No. But what if there are certain similarities between robots and humans? Is that a "sin" on God's part? Certainly the human brain is many times more complex than all the computers in the world, but nonetheless, the human is still not independent of God. I understand these things, but I don't go around all day feeling like a mechanical robot. We are highly complex creatures, with powerful emotions, brain power, and physical dexterity. For all these I thank God. Every day we go places, do things, feel things, and make hundreds of choices. And God is not going to force you, against your will, to eat cherry pie for desert at lunch when what you are really craving is apple pie. But, nonetheless, it is God's operation of circumstances that will cause you to desire and choose the apple pie. Lest you think God is not concerned with tiny details, remember the story of the war that was lost because one nail came out of a horse's hoof. Don't think that this is Eastern Fatalism. This is not "blind chance" or "whatever will be, will be." This is perfect foreknowledge and design of the Great Creator God Who is "operating all according to the counsel of His will." It doesn't just happen. There is perfect design behind all that God does. This is not fatalism. God causes it all. RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone. A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was." And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20) Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance: "Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28) "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48) "How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34) "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13) Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers: " ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27). Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3) This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true. So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:
One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature. Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute." Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute." Even theologians admit that their free will theory is limited. So they have invented "limited free will." They use analogies like a cow on a tether or a fly in a jar or a lion in a cage. Their freedom is limited to the confines of their restraints, but within those confines they are nonetheless, free. Is this true? Is there such a thing as "limited" free will? Or is this just more theological double-talk? Only in religion do simple words lose their meaning. Let's look at Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary: Page 963, "limited, a. Restricted." Page 682, "free, a. without restriction." So here then is what theologians want us to believe: Man has a will that is restricted without restriction. Man does not have "limited" free will. Otherwise God would have "limited" sovereignty. Man has no free will and God has total sovereignty. Theologians try to make high what is low and try to bring low what is high. These teachings do not glorify God. Somebody has been taking William James too seriously. God is not sitting around waiting to see what man will do through his "free will" so that He can then figure out what to do about it. Rather than conclude from the "wisdom of the world" that man has a free will (and thus deny the sovereignty of God), we must conclude that since God is sovereign, man can not and does not have a free will. This is logical, sensible, and lawful. It is Scriptural and it glorifies God. Theologians condemn scientists for their inability to see beyond the "relative" in our universe. Surely these scientists must see that a God must be behind everything. However, except for rare persons like Dr. Einstein, they can't. THEOLOGY OF EINSTEIN Permit me to interject a little justifiable sarcasm, Dr. Kennedy. Dr. Einstein was recently named "The Person of the Century." Dr. Einstein studied the physical universe by means of laws (cause and effect), and attempted to explain these laws by mathematical equations. Never, to my knowledge, did Dr. Einstein ever discover something happening (an effect) in the universe that he was convinced HAD NO CAUSE (as in your human "free will")! If you could prove that human will, thoughts, desires, and actions are "free," that is, NOT caused or made to transpire, (thus contradicting physical science and the laws of the universe), you might well be in line for "Person of the Twenty First Century." Dr. Einstein was a better theologian than most who sport the title. According to Christian teaching, man has a "free will." Some people are good; others are bad. A few will be saved; most will be damned. Some start off good in life and turn bad. Others start off bad in life and turn to do good. It's a "chancy" thing. God does NOT (according to this theology) guide, control, or bring about a happy ending for all His creatures. It is, admittedly, a thing of chance. And we are plainly told by Christian teachers that everyone gets only ONE CHANCE! This Christian teaching sounds more chancy than the tables in Las Vegas. But here's my punch line. Here's where Dr. Einstein outshines the masters of theology. After a lifetime of studying the marvelous workings of the universe on a level most of us can't even imagine, Dr. Einstein said something more profound than a thousand volumes by theologians. Dr. Einstein said: "GOD IS NOT PLAYING DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE!" Almighty God is NOT going to "win some; lose some." God is NOT gambling with the eternal fate of humanity. God is NOT a God of chance. God will surely succeed.
Theologians condemn evolutionists for their inability to tie creation to a Creator. Yet theologians become practical "theistic evolutionists" by tracing human thoughts back to man's "free will" and not to God's causal force. Hypocrites! It's one or the other. There is no third alternative. Either the great almighty God is in control of everything, or He is out of control. |