Author: Lyle Duell

Lyle Duell is a christian businessman, minister and author. He is the author of "From Jesus to Religion", which is available on Amazon.

Picking a Tulip or a Lily?

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Biblical doctrines, Religion, Salvation

Picking a Tulip or a Lily?

 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 1 John 5:11-12

Many believers are unaware that some of their beliefs many be built on the thinking and theology of two men, John Calvin (1509 to 1564) and Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).  The systems of theology that these men created are logical and consistent with their suppositions. However, they are totally opposite of one another and therefore both cannot be true. Moreover, many believers have been cherry picked certain points from both systems to their liking.  Now this is not logical nor is it honest if done knowingly.  It also leads to inconsistent and muddled headed theology that creates doubts and division.

Let me begin with Calvinism.  Calvinism is a systematic theology where each point is built on a certain presupposition and the preceding point. In other words, if A is true, B must be true and if A is false, B must be false, if A and B are truth C must be true. Calvin himself admitted that if any point of his theology is wrong then the whole thing was wrong.  This alone might be a call for you sleepers to wake up and smell the flowers to see if you have a tulip in the garden of your mind.

In a nut shell Calvin taught God’s sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by God’s sovereign will before the creation. This includes the salvation of individuals. Calvin’s system has been abbreviated with the acrostic “Tulip” which stands for the five major points of his system – total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

What do I think of Calvinism?  Not much, it is a very flawed system.  Its presumptions about the nature of God are based as much on philosophy as the scriptures. His system seems to image a God that is so big that He smothers mans free will. For the radical Calvinist, it completely destroys free will. However, there are some cherry-picking  Calvinists who seem to believe you have free will until you become a Christian and then some how you lose it.  I think the truth is that it would be very difficult to work any free will into any of Calvin’s five points without twisting his system and the scriptures.

There is one thing in its favor. If a person could really and totally believe it, which I doubt a person could, they could live a carefree life as a happy imbecile blaming God for everything in the world and sitting back and doing nothing to correct or improving the world.  You also could believe that you are heaven bound simply by accepting Jesus as your person savior even though you live like the devil.  This seems to be the case every year with millions of Americans being preached into heaven by their friendly minister.  If God is going to predestine people to heaven He could at least pick better people.   The problem with this belief is like all abstract beliefs; people cannot carry them into the real world for very long.  They are simply over powered by reality. Thank God!

After thinking a while (overnight) I realized that there is a group of people who really-really believe in absolute individual predestination.  In fact they not only believe it, they live it out, which is a sign of a true believer.  They’re called suicide bombers and they are Muslim, which believe in fate or absolute predestination.  In fact, some believe that John Calvin was influenced in his thinking by this extreme group.

I know some of you are thinking does the Bible teach that God predestined Christians to be saved? Right, He does. God predestined a lot of things.  First, he predestined all Christians to be free from the power of sin.  How are you doing in that area of salvation?  Then he predestined us to be free from death which would include the precursors of death, sickness and aging.  How are you doing on that one?  Now here is what the Bible teaches.  God has predestined everyone who is in Christ to be saved and conform to the image of His Son. What about conforming to the image of His Son, how are you doing on that one? The good news is that salvation has started in Christ and will be finalized in the resurrection when our adoption as sons is completed (Rom 8:23). In the resurrection, faith becomes reality. So, if you are not doing 100% in the above-mentioned  areas do not despair God is not done with you. The important question is, are you in Christ?

I know by now some of you are probably confused, so let me say a few more words about predestination. There is a lot of confusion in people’s minds on this subject, mainly for a very simple reason. The reason is that they look at it individualistic instead of corporately.  Much of the confusion disappears when a person begins to see election and predestination as God electing and predestinating  groups.  One way we could explain it is that God predestinated everyone who is in His Son[1] to go to heaven and for all those outside His Son to be lost (Rom 8:29-30). The elect are those that hear the gospel of His Son and are called out of the world into His Son (Eph 1:13).  We (those in Christ) who are predestined before the foundations of earth were laid in His Son. You see it was his Son, who was predestined; the question is, are you in him?  You see Gods grace is in His Son (2 Tim 1:9), salvation is in His Son (2 Tim 2:10), forgiveness of sin is in His Son, eternal life is in His Son; fullness is in Christ (Col 2:10).  In fact, all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph 1:3).  The question is not where you predestine, but rather are you in the Son.  If you are in the Son, you are going to heaven.  In fact, you are already there because you were raised with Christ (Eph 2:6).  That is if you believe in Christ, for everyone who trusts in Christ is put into Christ by their faith and baptism into Him (Rom 6:1-4, Gal 3:26, 27).

What does it mean to be in Christ?  It simply means everything; it means that Christ is all, and in all. Being in Christ is equivalent to being in the kingdom of Christ and being in his body, the church. It means to be in the family of God with Jesus being your big brother.  It means to be hidden in Christ from the principalities and powers.  It means to be protected by Gods divine power.  It means to be in relationship with God through Jesus Christ. In Christ means; to be in the place where all of God’s spiritual blessings are found.

Sounds like a great place to be, right?  Well, it is, You could say it is the place where the action is, that is God’s action.  How do you get into Christ?  You get into Christ through faiths-baptism (Rom 6: 1-5, Gal 3:26, 27)and by trusting in the God that raised him from the dead, and you abide in Him by that same saving faith.  But doesn’t the Bible say that when we were powerless, Christ died for us?  That is right; there was nothing we could do to save ourselves, which is why we had to simply trust God to do it.  Trusting God is not trusting ourselves, even our faith.  Faith itself would be a work of righteousness if you were to trust that it was through your great faith that you were saved.  Great faith is a gift of God’s grace and is different than saving faith that simply puts its trust in God’s grace and his word. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” (Eph 2:8a).

If you abide in Christ, you will be saved and you will naturally grow and bear fruit. (John 15:1-8) How does one abide in Christ? The same way that you get in him, by grace, through faith. Grace comes to us through faith in two ways. Grace given for forgiveness and grace given as power to be set free from the dominance of sin.  In Scripture, salvation is salvation from sin and death.  No one can be saved and be a slave to sin.  How can anyone be saved from something and still have sin as their master (Rom 6:15-18)?  Paul said that we are not under the law therefore we do not sin, but he also said that we are not under sin.  I know some Christians that say they are not under the law, but they are still a slave to sin.  What is that all about?  God’s grace has freed us from both, not just one. So, if you abuse God’s grace, look out for the wrath of God that is to come upon the sons[2] of disobedience. (Eph 5:6-7).

Let me suggest that you get rid of the Tulip in your mind and replace it with the Lily of the Valley “Jesus.”  Fall in love with Jesus and you will not have to worry about growing in the Lord, losing your salvation or anything else. In fact, you will not need to believe in Tulip to know and have assurance that you are saved, (1 John 5:13)  You will know that you are saved because you are in Christ by grace, through faith, because your faith is being lived out in loving your brothers, which you were saved to do. (Read 1John)

[1] The expression “in Christ” is used in scriptures to denote his corporate body, i.e. all those who in his church by faith.

[2] Some versions read Children or on those that are disobedient, but the Greek text reads Sons. This misinterpretation shows the vast influence of Calvinistic teaching which would deny that any believer could be lost and under the wrath of God. The new international version of the Bible is very Calvinistic and distorts many passages of Scripture to make them support Calvinism.

The Roots of The New Atheist Movement

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism

The Roots of The New Atheist Movement

Where did the new atheist movement originate?  I may not have all the answers to this question but one thing I do know is that you cannot start and organize a movement around a non-belief as some of the new atheists would have people believe. To create a movement, you must have specific beliefs and the emotions that will fuel the movement. The energy of any movement comes from the emotions that drive it. Likewise, every movement is a bearer of particular beliefs and the emotions that are generated by the beliefs as they are put forth by forceful leaders of that movement. So, whatever is driving the new atheist movement is also spreading it. But what is it?

The belief that is driving the new movement is naturalism[1]. Naturalism is a belief system that believes nature is the whole show, and  there is nothing outside of it. Therefore atheists believe that everything must be explained by natural causes. In pure naturalism[2], there is no room for faith in a God or even the belief there might be something more than nature. The truthfulness of naturalism is not a question that science can answer. Therefore it falls into the area of metaphysics and is a question for philosophers and theologians[3].

What about the emotions driving this new movement? This writer believes that much of the new atheist movement has come out of a well of anger and hatred. It reflects the nihilism of the French and Russian Revolution. The movement exists for the main purpose of organizing atheists’ hatred of religion, good or bad. Of course, to the new atheist there is no such thing as good religion; there is only religion and it is bad. One of the marked differences between the new atheists and those of the French and Russian Revolutions comes in understanding the real reason for their anger. During the period that these Revolutions took place, the Catholic and orthodox churches had sided with the rich and were oppressing the poor, i.e., the poor had a reason to be angry. However, the new atheist seems to be made up of white, middle-class, college educated males who are part of the system that suppresses the poor. So, what are they angry about? Could it be that they are angry about a meaningless existence, which they have inherited from their secular education? An education that promised them utopia and that is failing.

Furthermore, it is not beyond belief to see the hand of the Communist Party of America behind a lot of the funding of the new atheist movement. The hard-core socialists still see religion, especially the Christian religion, as their chief enemy and would like to eradicate it around the world. You really need atheists in order to have communism and socialism because you need a people who believe in so-called scientific planning and who have the state as their ultimate concern. That is their benefactor and Savior. Of course, planning by the few, spells non-freedom for the many, for in the end there can only be one planner.

Another reason for this movement and many other deconstructionist movements[4] is rooted deep in our culture, a mega culture in which men have lost their identity and meaning. The old atheist types were not organized, because they had an identity and a strong belief in Western ideology and values. However, in recent decades Western academia has emptied these ideologies and values of any meaning. This has led to an increasing number of people in our culture empty of meaning and purpose. These people are easily attracted to movements, which give their existence meaning and structure. Hollowed out people are easy prey for any ideology and cultic belief. These movements are the devil’s workshop and the people who get involved are, as Lenin called them, “useful idiots” for cult leaders and dictators.

The only practical reason I can see for the new atheist movement is that it has afforded a number of shrewd men the opportunity to get wealthy and gain status in the eyes of their followers, which strangely is one of the things they charge religion with. Of course, when there is money and power to be had, there will always be men willing to spread hate to obtain it, men like Karl Marx and Stalin. Some new atheists will respond that they are not spreading hate or hurting anyone. I will grant you that if you steal a man’s faith that he doesn’t  value or have a need for; you have done little harm or hurt. However, if you destroy a person’s faith that has a weak faith, but needs it, you have done harm. Even some of the new atheists who have told their story of losing their faith, talk about the hurt and the negative emotions they experienced. Like many atheists, the new atheists have hardened their hearts to the pain of others and begin to think of their movement as a bitter pill that will cure people of the disease that is hurting them. That is, faith in God. Like all mass movements of true believers, they believe the end justifies the means.

However, are the new atheists really Angels of light as they claim, delivering a bitter pill or are they really Angels of darkness? I will let one of the old atheist types answer that question. An honest unbeliever, Dr. E. Wengraf, once confessed, “Every piece of anti-religious propaganda seems to me a crime.  I surely do not wish it to be prosecuted as a crime, but I consider it immoral and loathsome.  This is not because of zeal for my convictions, but because of the simple knowledge acquired through long experience, that, given the same circumstances, a religious man is happier than the irreligious.  In my indifference and skeptical attitude toward all positive faith, I have often envied other men to whom deep religiosity has given a strong support in all the storms of life.  To uproot the souls of such men is an abject deed.  I abhor any proselytizing.  But, still, I can understand why one who believes firmly in a saving faith tries to convert others.  But I cannot understand propaganda of unbelief.  We do not have the right to take away from a person his protecting shelter, be it even a shabby hut, if we are not sure, we can offer him a better, more beautiful house.  But to lure men from the inherited home of their souls, to make them err afterward in the wilderness of hypotheses and philosophical question marks, is either criminal fatalisms or criminal mindlessness.” Need I say more?

[1] Atheism in itself is not a belief. However, the naturalistic and the materialistic philosophy that support it are ideologies and represent worldviews. The minute an atheist starts arguing for his non-belief he has embraced a belief system of naturalism and materialism and the burden of proof shifts to them.

[2] In naturalist world view one could believe in a god, which existed inside nature and had evolved with the universe.

[3]  Werner Heisenberg physicist and Nobel prize winner for physics confirms  this, “If anyone wants to argue from the indubitable fact that the world exists to a cause of this existence, then this assumption does not contradict our scientific knowledge at a single point.  Scientists do not have a single argument or fact with which they would contradict such an assumption, even if it was about a cause which–how could it be otherwise– would evidently have to be sought outside our three-dimensional world” Wermer Heisenberg quoted by Hans Kung Pages 79-80 in “The beginning of All Things: Science and Religion”.

[4] Deconstructionist movements would include the radical gay rights movement, radical feminists, and radical socialism. All of these movements question the traditional moral and family structure of Western culture.

Spaghetti monsters, Unicorns, and God?

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism

Spaghetti monsters, Unicorns, and God?

Spaghetti monsters, unicorns, and hobgoblins. If you have ever talked to an atheist I’m sure you’re familiar with some of these fictional creatures that they compare belief in, to a belief in God. They say a belief is just a belief and cannot be proven or disproven unless you have tangible proof. But is this true or is it just some mumble jumble from someone wishing to win an argument?

Atheists say they do not believe in beliefs, but is that true? The truth is they believe in some beliefs and not in others. For example, they cannot see, touch, smell or hear their great, great, great, great grandparents however; they believe that they existed based on the fact that they themselves exist. This is  an inference based on causality; the existence of something that is seen now; can prove that something else (which cannot be seen) did or does exist. The causal inference is based on the law of cause and effect; we can infer some things by experiencing the existence of other things.

If we observe an effect, we know that there must be something equal to or greater than the effect and that cause cannot be just a belief, for beliefs without a corresponding reality can do nothing. The idea of a gun cannot shoot you, nor can an idea of a dog bite you. Yet there is something, so there had to be something to create it, not just an idea or belief. God is not just a belief. Therefore, the law of causality places the belief in God in a completely different order of beliefs than spaghetti monsters and unicorns which have no causality factor. Unless you give spaghetti monsters and unicorns causality power; i.e. the characteristics of God that is, all powerful, all knowing and eternal. Of course, if you did that you would simply be changing the name of God.

Atheists say they don’t believe in beliefs however they themselves believe the most unbelievable things that can be imagined, i.e. they believe that something came from nothing. People who believe that something could come from nothing; could also possibly believe in spaghetti monsters and unicorns. Those who believe in the law of cause and effect cannot believe such nonsense.  Do you know why they believe that something came from nothing? Because one atheistic scientist wrote a book claiming it happened.[1] If this is the kind of faith and gullibility required to be an atheist, then I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.

Subsequently, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of atheistic scientists and atheists who believe in a multi-verse of 11 dimensions without having one bit of objective evidence to support it. Are these people irrational? What about the atheist that believes in alien life forms? The truth is those atheists believe in all kinds of things that they’re not allergic to. I bet some of them believed in Santa Claus until someone told them that his real name was Saint Nick

I wonder if they believe that in one of those fairytale universes, that there might be flying spaghetti monsters and unicorns. If you can believe in fairytale universes, couldn’t you also believe in the magical creatures that populate those universes?

In reality atheists just want us to accept their opinion (beliefs) as concrete fact, even if they are nonsense. They have no facts; all they have is suppositions and assertions. They fail to see that their belief in materialism and naturalism is no different in kind from other people’s belief in God; the different is their opinions (beliefs) have not fulfilled the law of cause and effect[2]. Therefore, their beliefs in materialism and naturalism are equal to believing in spaghetti monsters and unicorns[3]. Moreover, if they are consistent with their world view (none are) their beliefs are nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain, which are determined by the law of cause and effect; a principle that they only believe in when it’s convenient and advantageous for their own arguments.

Consider for example, the beliefs of love and reason. You cannot see, touch, hear or taste love. Yet, most normal people and some atheists believe it is real, however, it is a belief that you cannot put under a microscope, so does that make it just an illusion or just a belief?  What about reason itself.  Is it real or just a belief?  There are some atheistic scientists like Sam Harris[4] who do not believe that love, reason or free will, really exist. He believes that they’re just beliefs or allusions. He says that we are just “biochemical puppets”. Yet, reason has taken him and others to the place that they can deny reason.

How do they know they’re right if they can’t trust reason? If atheists believe that we are biochemical puppets or soft machines why do they spend so much time arguing about their beliefs or lack of them? Are they simply programmed to be contentious and contrary? No, the truth is that their ideologies of materialism and naturalism have taken them into fallacious thinking, which has led them into denying the simplest truths of reality. This reminds me of the words of Aristotle. “For as bats’ eyes are to daylight so is our intellectual eye to those truths which are, in their own nature, the most obvious of all.”

 

[1] These atheistic scientists are brilliant men and they know that the law of cause and effect is devastating to their atheism. The idea that something came from nothing was created for the sole reason to skirt the law of cause and effect. Since the time of the big bang theory which basically says that the earth and the universe had a beginning some atheistic scientists have been trying to explain away the law of cause and effect and that the universe had a beginning. Their efforts have led to the nonsense of some claiming that there are multiverse’s and that something can come from nothing.

[2] Materialism and naturalism both have to believe that everything is eternal without begin or end and void of first cause or a prime mover. The only other explanation is that some came out of nothing spontaneously, again no first cause. Both of these ideas seem to contradict the consensus of science that the universe began in what is known as the big bang and deny the law of cause and effect.

[3] Believers have no problem meeting the demands of the law of cause and effect because they start with an uncreated consciousness which is the cause of all things. Spaghetti monsters and unicorns fit in the category of beliefs like, something coming from nothing, which s the spaghetti monster of atheism.

[4] Sam Harris is one of the guru’s of the new atheists’ movement.

Out of the Box Thinking

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Christ and Culture, Nonsense

27c268b

Out of the Box Thinking

 Before you do what some call “out of box the thinking”, You might want to know something about box thinking and boxes. First, you must know what the box is that you are in and you must admit you are in it, and then you must be able to find or create a different or new box. For all thinking is done in one box or another. There are linguistic boxes, cultural boxes, ideology boxes and paradigm boxes. However, no thinking is done outside of all boxes. In other words, there is no such thing as a free thinker or out of the box thinker.  To think otherwise is to think in the worst box of all ” the stupid box.”

Now there are some huge problems to overcome for those who fancy themselves out of the box thinkers. One is that there are few, if any human beings, who are able to create a completely new box. The limitations of box building seemed to be understood just a few decades ago, when people seemed to sense that only intellectuals of the highest degree could think about box building. However, because of are fantastic education system and our love for pure knowledge, we can now all build boxes. Maybe, each of us can have our own box? The truth is, that very few are able to know the box that they are in much less create a new one. Box makers are few and far between; they are men like Moses, Plato and Jesus. In fact, most boxes are not made by individual, but by complete cultures over a long period of time with a lot of hard work.

What most people mean by “out of the box thinking” is thinking without a foundation of any authority, which in the end simply means giving your own option on a subject with no appeal to an authority outside and other than yourself. One thing that could be said for out of the box thinkers is that in appealing to themselves as the only authority needed, they have saved themselves a lot of laborious study, which is usually required for box building.

I should be careful, for if I say too much, some in the educated class might get the idea to hire these out of the box thinkers to teach everyone to build these easy self created boxes. We could even standardize the boxes, We Westerners are good at that, and then our university could mass-produce out of the box thinkers. We could have the loony bin box, the chaos box and the confused box and in this, we could all be different and the same, at the same time. The America dream comes true, everyone in their own box.

Searching For God

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Science

Searching For God

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, We are his offspring.’  “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. Acts 17:24-30

In mans search for God, one of the big questions is, where do we start? Traditionally we start with God and our discussion would center on God or religion. But is God really where we should begin? Wouldn’t it  be more logical to look at the material which we know best? And is not that material, humanity?

If we start with God, we end up judging God by human standards and man’s reasoning, as though we ourselves were gods or as though we believe we have enough knowledge to make a sound judgment of Him. In this, we are saying that God’s existence depends on him  yielding to our criteria. Therefore, the biggest problem by starting with God is that as soon as we put him on trial, we have implied a number of  assumptions. We have assumed that we have the right to judge the creator, which infers that we have the authority, power and knowledge to do so.  We also assume that our reasoning is accurate enough to make a judgment on God. However, when human reason is put on trial, we will likely find her to be a sick lady; sick with finiteness and sin. So, what does she have to say of God that cannot be questioned?

Then again, if we start with man, there are two hypotheses that we can begin with. The first one is;  man is a creature that is purely an accident and the result of natural causes. Who over time has evolved into the creature that we know today. Then there is the theistic hypothesis; that man was somehow created by a deity, then something happened to the experiment and it went awry.

In this article, we are going to assume that the Christian or God hypothesis is correct, which would mean that man was created by a deity and something went awry. In tradition theology this is referred to as the fall of man. If this hypothesis is true, our attention should turn away from judging God, to cross-examining and judging mankind. In this view, humanity should be put on trial and be held accountable for its beliefs and its unbelief.

Now, if the Christian hypothesis is true, what should we expect to see? To begin with we should expect to see a creation (beginning) of all things, including man.  It also seems logical to think that we should see in a humanity created by God, an  intimate awareness of God, which would include a universal knowledge to some degree of good and evil.  It would mean that man as the image bearer of God would have a consciousness that was capable of choosing good or evil. It would also entail God creating a universe that is orderly and predictable based on laws, which a finite being like man could trust, in conducting and ordering his life.

Let us start with the latter quality, the habitat of man must be orderly, predictable and based on law in order for man to survive. When we look at the earth and universe that is exactly what we find. Now, if there were no God and the earth was an accident would we expect to find order or would we expect to find chaos?  However, when we look at the universe we do not find chaos or disorder. We find the laws of nature, which are immutable, giving man a perfect habitat to live in. These laws infer a law giver. The law and order of the universe is exactly what one would expect to find if a consciousness had created the universe.  It is this law and order in the universe that allows us to do science or philosophy. Without the consistency of the laws of nature reason would not work.

What about the hypothesis that mankind has an innate awareness of God? To begin with the Christian hypothesis proclaims beyond question that mankind as a whole has been given an awareness of the uncreated God. The apostle Paul says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles” (Rom 1:19-23). The text infers that when men rejected this revelation of God’s existence that their reasoning and behavior become corrupted. The scripture does not reveal how their reasoning was corrupted, nor to what extent, it simply says that it happens when men reject God. However, it does seem that the text is pointing more to a corporate occurrence, rather than an individual one.

Is there secular evidence to support a universal revelation or consciousness of a higher power or cosmic order?  In actuality there is, however without any evidence it seems to be a self-evident truth that mankind in general is homo-religious, i.e. by his very nature he seems to be religious[1].  Religion is simply an outward symbol of a belief or an awareness of something that transcends this dimension[2]. The universal presence of religion is  strong evidence that God has revealed himself to all men, and that mankind has often neglected, rejected it or corrupted it. The scripture says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt. They do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.” (Psalms 14:1) In this passage the writer put everyone who does wicked deeds in the category of being an atheist.

In biblical times being an atheist had more to do with behavior than beliefs. Very few would have denied the existence of God or the gods in the ancient world. Modern atheism arose out of modern mans rebellion against the catholic Church and it misuse of power. It took its organized form in humanism and later in liberalism. Both philosophies are centered in rejecting any authority of man or God. The roots go deep into anarchy and rebellion against authority.

In addition, there is also a study done by Oxford University Psychologist Dr. Olivera Petrovich,  who demonstrates that children around the world are hardwired to believe in God as creator.  One of her conclusions is that “Atheism is definitely an acquired position.” Petrovich research is keeping with Steven Pinker’s study of human nature, in which he confirms that human beings are not born as a blank slate, but rather are hard wired in a number of ways[3].

Closely connected with an innate awareness of God, we should expect an innate sense of right and wrong if God created everything. What’s more, when we turn to the world that is exactly what we find. We find a sense of right and wrong everywhere. Of course, the naturalist will argue that morality is a creation of human reason and evolved over time.  However, in saying this they cannot produce one bit of evidence to prove their hypothesis, for they were not there to witness it.

What we have to work with today is our own experience that morality is universal and does not depend on reason alone.  Remember that Germany under the Nazis was the most intellectual culture of its day and yet it was the most barbaric.  Reason in itself does not lead to morality.   Reason needs a cornerstone from which it may lay its foundation on, to be able to reason from.

Our hypothesis infers that we should be able to pin point a beginning, or a creation where God made all things, including man in his image[4]. Well, when we turn to science it tells us that the universe had a beginning.  Scientists referred to this beginning as the ‘big bang’. The big-bang theory actually postulates that the universe came into existence out of nothing and this is exactly what you would expect if God created the heavens and earth as Genesis 1:1 teaches.  Prior to the Big-Bang theory, science taught us that the universe was steady and fixed i.e. eternal without beginning or end.

I admit that the above does not prove the existence of God, but it does show that the world in which we live is the kind of world, which we would expect to find if there was a God.

 

[1] Talcott Parsons, served on the faculty of Harvard University from 1927 to 1973. says “The view that belief in the supernatural is universal has been completely confirmed by modern anthropology. Religion is as much a human universal as language or an incest taboo, which is to say a kinship system. Any conception of ‘natural man’ who is not encumbered by such ‘cultural baggage’ belongs to fictional picture of prehistory, for which there is no solid evidence for the human, socially organized stage. The view that such ‘baggage’ ought to be dispensed with and that rational man should ‘face reality’ without any ‘superstition’ is a product of sophisticated culture, in no way true of the original human condition. Quoted in “An Interpretation of Religion by John Hick, page 21.

[2] William James speaks of this experience in his book “Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature”.

[3] The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker.

[4] Here for are study, it does not matter how he did it, fast or slow.

Letter to a Young Atheist, a Leap of Faith

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Faith

 Letter to a Young Atheist, a Leap of Faith

 You can doubt everything and everyone. You can even make a scientific argment that we do not exist and everything is an illusion (The Matrix). Sometimes, to believe in God we must first believe in people or at least a person. In some matters, we must trust the word and the experience of others. We all need to remember that our knowledge and experiences are finite; we personally cannot know and experience everything. Because we have not found or experienced something does not mean that, it does not exist; it simply means that I have not experienced it. I personally believe in many things that I have not experienced. I believe in them because I trust that someone else has experienced them and I trust that person’s word or testimony. The big question is whom can we trust and who should we listen to. After surveying a huge number of men living now and throughout history, I believe that Jesus can be trusted. In fact, I have trusted him with my life and eternity. However, it is not just Jesus; the greatest and most loving men I know are followers of Jesus Christ or had great respect for him and his teachings.

The following is a short article I wrote about faith, in the story Jesus is the old man. “In many cases, faith is the most reasonable thing you can embrace.  Let’s say that you were climbing a large mountain and it grew dark.  Now suppose that because of the difficulty of the climb, it would be impossible to retreat off the peak at night.  The problem worsens when you learn from your radio that a storm is coming, which would make the conditions hopeless to survive the night.  As you huddle on the mountain waiting for death, you remember a story told by an old man in the camp the week before.  He had mentioned that there was a hidden outcropping of rocks, which forms a small ledge just below the summit and off the ledge was a small cave that one could go into to escape the weather.  He said it was marked by a small pile of rocks just a short distance below the summit.  However, to reach it you must jump down about ten feet to the outcropping below, which is a large first step.  Now here is the problem.  It is pitch dark, and you have found the marker, but you cannot see the ledge below because it is so dark.  The jump requires a leap of faith-based upon the testimony of the old man.”

In view of the conditions, is the leap reasonable or is more rational to be pessimistic and doubtful, and do nothing?  Would it be logical not to make a choice?  It seems that to both the pessimist (atheist) and the indecisive (agnostic), a leap of faith is not the reasonable thing to do.  Both would have to choose to die on the mountain.  In this case, not to choose is to choose.  It is to choose death over the possibility of life.  What I am saying is that in some circumstances, the reasonable thing to do is to act on faith.  Sometimes reason tells us that it is not time to use reason.  In some cases, moving forward in faith is the most reasonable thing you can do.

Once the disciples of Jesus were listening to the Master, and when they turned around the crowd was walking away murmuring that they just could not believe what the Teacher was saying.  When the Teacher saw the despair on the faces of the disciples, He asked them, “Are you going to leave too?”

Their answer was their leap of faith in the midst of despair.  “Where shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life.”

Who Has The Burden of Proof Atheists or believers?

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics

The Burden of Proof

I have read a number of articles written by atheists, claiming that the burden of proof about the existence of God lies on the believer. That is believers have the responsibility of  proving the existing of a God. That may be true if the belief in God was a new doctrine that had not been accepted by billions. But, belief in a God is still the predominant world view in the west with atheism being held by a minority.  When a minority says the majority is incorrect, it seems this would shift the burden proof on those making the charge that the majority is wrong. Was the burden of proof in atheistic Russia and China placed on the atheists because unbelief was the acceptable ideology?

When the first Christian missionaries went into the non-Christian world, they seemed to accept that the burden of truth was on them and not on the pagans. Paganism was the established faith and Christians understood that they must prove it false and offer something more to the people. Atheism has failed to do either.

I think the real reason for atheists trying to shift the burden of proof to believers is that they have no evidence or proof for God’s nonexistence. When a man has no evidence against something, he has few options. (1) He can completely ignore the subject and act, as though he is above it and refuse to engage in any debate. (2) He can listen to his opponent and try picking apart his arguments, without ever offering any evidence for his own position. In this, his augments are based and directed at attacking the man’s arguments and the subject is somewhat ignored. (3) He can cleverly build a straw man and change the subject. The later is a favorite of  atheists; they change the debate over the existence of God, to how religion is so bad and corrupt. The constant chatter of atheists about the burden of truth belonging to believers is nothing more than a diversion away from the existence of God debate, to the subject of religion, and this diversion is a clear indication that atheists have no evidence, only quibbles, assertions and suppositions.

I personally believe that faith in God is a positive affirmation, which to a believer is a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths need no evidence, they just are. Does a person have to prove scientifically that the sky is blue? If they did, they could not. The sky being blue is just a part of our human understanding at one level of awareness of reality, i.e. self-evident truth. A person does not have the responsibility or the burden of proof  to justify such beliefs, as though they were in a courtroom and the only evidence which was acceptable, is science. If so, you would need a courtroom to put common sense on trial to determine what constitutes common sense and is not common sense our collective reason? So, in the end reason itself must be put on trial and how would reason defends itself?

Moreover, science itself would have to be put on trial to prove what makes up true science and to prove that it has the ultimate authority to judge. There are many things that science will never have an answer to, like why was the universe created? Why is there something and not nothing? Why some things are the way they are and not some other way. Science alone can never be the final judge of reality. When it claims finality and that its knowledge is absolute, it ceases to be science and becomes something else.

What it comes down to it, if you question what the majority considers to be self-evident truth, you should be prepared to accept the burden of proof.  To expect otherwise is pure folly.

“If You Need Religion to Be Good You Are Not Good”

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Religion

“If You Need Religion to Be Good You Are Not Good”

The statement “if you need religion to be good you are not good” is one of the many convoluted quibbles that the irreligious use to justify themselves, which borders on insanity. It is a meaningless statement and is totally ambiguous. First, because it does not define religion and secondly, because it does not define what goodness is.

The statement also infers that a good person always does the good which they know they ought to do, and that humans know from instinct what is good. Every truly good person knows that they do not always do, what they know is the right thing to do. Every thinking person, who is not allergic to religion, knows that humans learn good from their culture and some kind of religion is a part of every culture.

The quibble assumes that the reader knows the definition of religion; most people do not. This includes the new atheists who fancy themselves as intellectuals. What happens when you define religion as practicing virtue? Let’s replace the word ‘religion’ in the quibble with ‘virtue’, “If you need to practice virtue to be good, you are not good.” It makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

Consequently the quibble doesn’t define what it means to be good either, and it assumes that everyone knows what constitutes good.  The statement assumes that at the very least, some people are inherently good without any training from culture; or  devoid of outside instruction and limits being placed on them. In other words, some must be born good and some must be born bad, or all are born good and go bad, or all are born bad and some get better. I do wish that a little quibble could solve this paradox. Alas, it cannot for it is nonsense.

The truth is that if you are self-righteous, you do not need religion to feel righteous  because you assume you are righteous (the new atheist). In other words, you lie to yourself, or you have the moral standard of a cockroach.

The statement, “If You Need Religion to Be Good You Are Not Good” is a statement  from a self-righteous person making a fallacious underhanded moral judgment on religion and those that practice it. Did I say moral judgment? I thought the biggest sin of the left (atheism being the furthest left you can go) is to make a moral judgment. However, many of them that I know are very judgmental people. They often are a mirror image of the far right fundamentalist that they despise.

Good religion, honesty and reason would teach a person that they are not as good as they think they are. God did not give humanity religion to make men good; he gave it to show us that we are not as good as we think we are. This may be why there are so many self-righteous atheists, because they lack good religion, honest self-awareness and an enlightened moral reasoning. Good religion will always teach people that they are imperfect and in need of improvement.

In this, I am not saying that atheists are not moral people. In fact, the majority that I know seem to be quite moral. However, I don’t know any that were made moral by their atheism. Most inherited their values from their culture as most people do. In contrast, I have seen a number of people who were not moral, become so, through the help of good religion. I have seen huge numbers of people overcome addictions with the help of faith and good religion. I must sadly admit that I have also seen some fairly good people, become very evil through bad religion.

The God Moloch and Abortion

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Christ and Culture

The God Moloch and Abortion

The god Moloch was an ancient pagan god that was worshipped in the Mediterranean area in ancient times. The worship of this god consisted of a number of typical acts of worship, but there was one that set them apart from most other pagan gods, and that was infanticide, i.e. the killing of babies by burning them alive as an offering to god. There was also some evidence that they practiced all kinds of sexual perversion, even bestiality. This culture was so disgusting to the God of the Jews that he order the Israelites to totally destroy them.

Now let me share the rest of the story. The god Moloch was just one of the many forms that the god mammon (money) has taken throughout the history of humanity [i]. This observation led me to the question, what was the real reason for killing their children? Was it religious or economic? In actuality, I believe it was both. Ancient people were not as ignorant as we moderns would like to believe. They knew, or at least believed, that their resources were limited and that they had to manage the number of people in the tribe. So, they simply killed their children, however, it is not easy to get a mother to kill her off spring purely for economic reason, so religion was used by the leaders to justify the killing. The killing was then actually turned into a virtue and the mother could then actually think they were honoring god by killing their children.

The same god of mammon (money) was appealed to in the 60s to justify killing of the unborn in the U.S.  The world was over populated and abortion was a way of controlling the population[ii]. In the same manner, someone would have to be sacrificed for the tribe to exist. Some would have to be burned alive for the tribe. The difference between us and them is now we have the technology for witch doctors to burn the babies alive in the womb before birth with an incendiary salt solution which can burn the fetus alive. Of course, for the left the witch doctors, and those that help him in this human sacrifice, are considered virtuous and even martyrs by the tribe of the left, because they are saving the tribe from starvation and extinction. Needless to say, the tribe survived and everybody makes money and we are civilized and they were barbarians

[i] Matt 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” NKJV

[ii] A new form of ethics was created to justify abortion called life boat ethics. The earth was imaged as a life boat floating out in space and those in the lifeboat had the right to refuse others the right to get into the boat for there wasn’t enough food for an unlimited number. This ethic actually made those, who are kept people out of the lifeboat, heroes.

Conflicting Visions of the Second Coming

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Eschatology (Last Things), Jesus

Conflicting Visions of the Second Coming

There are two basic visions of eschatology or the second coming of Christ. They are the ‘thief in the night’ vision and the ‘sign seeking’ vision. Both visions have been with the church since her beginning and will be with her to some degree until her consummation. However, the question is which version is Biblical?

The most important thing in determining if a view is Biblical or not is to determine what rules of hermeneutics one will adhere to in their study of the text. Hermeneutics is the study or science of interpretation and like all true science, it has rules and laws that it follows to guides its study of a text. We can use these rules to help us critique the two versions of the second coming of the Lord.

To begin with we need to study what each view teaches and what is the biblical basis for their interpretation. Let’s start with the ‘sign seeking’ vision.

This version holds to the view that God has given a number of signs that point to the time of the second coming. These signs constitute the fulfillment of current events that align with the prophecies. This school of thought uses a  standard referred to by scholars as to the pesher hermeneutic or method of interpretation.[1] This method is not new and was practiced even in the days of Christ by the Essenes and other groups. It basically interprets all prophecy as being fulfilled in the lifetime of the reader. Therefore, the question of whom the author was originally speaking to is not a priority in this version or its hermeneutic. God is speaking to them personally and anything happening in scripture or history is happening specifically to them.  They really don’t care to whom it was originally intended for. You might call this interpretation the ‘me’ interpretation of the Bible for its adherence believes that every prophecy must be fulfilled in their lifetime and God is talking to them personally.

The scriptural basis for this ‘sign seeking’ vision is taken from a number of places in the Old Testament most of which are highly figurative. Scripture such as the book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 and also the book of Revelation. However, for the most part, this version is heavily dependent on Matthew 24  and without Matthew 24 this vision would have a hard time surviving.

On the other hand, the ‘thief in the night’ vision believes that there are no specific signs for the coming of the Lord. This vision emphasizes that Christians should be prepared at all times for the second coming of their Lord, “Look he stands at the door”. Scripture demonstrates that the Bible is simply teaching us that the Lord’s return is likened to a ‘thief in the night’ when people are not expecting him. It also corresponds to the latter section of Matthew 24 starting with verse 36 to the end of the chapter for its proof text, along with a number of lesser texts.

In view of the importance of Matthew 24 to both visions, it would seem logical that it should be the place that we begin to put these two versions to the litmus test of truth.

To do this we need to look at the immediate context of the signs and predictions made in Matthew 24. We would draw this from the verses preceding Matthew 24 and those following immediately after the signs section, which is Matthew 24:1-36

After that, we need to look at the overall context of the entire book of Matthew to see if it lines up with our interpretation of chapter 24.

Now let’s turn to the immediate context of Matthew 24, which is the latter section of Matthew 23. In Matthew 23 we find Jesus giving a scalding criticism of the leaders of the Jewish nation by reminding them of their father’s sins against God and man, but especially against God’s prophets. In verse 32 he said, “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.”  In this he was saying that the generation presently living would complete their rebellion against God by rejecting God’s son and killing him, i.e. they will kill the greatest prophet of all, the Son of God.

Jesus goes on to say in verses 35 and 36 that the generation presently living would receive the retribution for their sins and sins of their fathers’ “so that on you may come all the righteous bloodshed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation”. (Mt 23:35-36).

After that, in verse 37 Jesus turned his criticism from the leaders of Israel to the city of Jerusalem, as the city which kills the prophets. He says to the city in verse 38 “See, your house is left to you desolate.” We are given some help in understanding this in Luke’s gospel, chapter 21:20-24 which is a parallel passage of Matthew 24. There it is clear that the thing that causes the abomination of desolation is the army of Rome laying siege to the city of Jerusalem and then finally destroying it in A.D. 70.

Next in Matthew 24, as Jesus  walked away,  his disciples pointed to the temple and basically  asked: “how can this be, for God’s house is in Jerusalem?” In essence, they were questioning his prophecy on the city and the nation.  How could God destroy the city of David and his own temple?

In response, Jesus points to the temple and says in Matthew 24:2 “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” They then ask Jesus for signs, which would lead up to this destruction of the temple. Jesus answers their questions about the Temple in verses 2-34 of Matthew 24.

From  Matthew 23 we see that Jesus, in the context of Matthew 24, is talking to his disciples about a judgment which was coming on the nation of Israel in the city of Jerusalem, for their sins. In this prophecy Jesus placed it in the time frame of that generation presently living, “I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. (Mt 23:36)

As we move into Matthew 24 the disciples ask Jesus three questions. “As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt 24:3) Their first question is when will these things happen?  What are the “these things” that the disciples are asking about? Well, they are the things he just told them in Matthew 23. The second question is what will be the sign (singular) of his coming, and the third question is when will the end of the age, or the world, happen.

One of the problems with understanding Matthew 24 is how Jesus answered these questions. He uses a code language called apocalyptic literature to veil what he was saying from the outsiders. In other words, he was trying to confuse those that did not understand the Jewish culture and the highly figurative language used by them during turbulent periods of their history. This language is often used to cloak or shroud a message of destruction on the outsiders and the enemies of God. In this case, it was the Romans.

In verse 33 of chapter 24, Jesus answered the disciple’s question about the coming judgment and the signs of the destruction of the temple. “So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.” In this verse, Jesus plainly tells them that what he just told them in verse 4-32, were the signs and he clearly tells them that they would see all these signs fulfilled. In fact, he goes on to set a time limit on there for fulfillment. “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Mt 24:34).

Then in verse 35, which we might call the transition text, Jesus moves from talking about the destruction of the temple to the end of the age or world “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”.  He then contrasts this event with the previous one; the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. The first has numerous and obvious signs and the latter has none. The reason being no one knows when it is going to happen “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (Mt 24:36).  This statement would make no sense if Jesus was still talking about the same event of verses 4-35 where he gives a host of signs. If you assume Matthew 24 to be talking about one event then you must take the position that Jesus contradicts himself and is a false prophet.

Jesus then makes three comparisons of his second coming and the end of age or world, with other events Matthew 24 verses 37-44. It will be like the days of Noah, like a normal workday and like a thief coming in the night. In other, words nothing out of ordinary will be happening.

Then Jesus tells three longer parables in a row about his second coming. The first one is the parable of the wise servant, verses 45-51, where he warned that the master could come at any time, “So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Mt 24:44). The second parable of the ten virgins warns that it could be sooner than we think (Mt 24:50). The third parable of the talents Matthew 25:14-30 warns it could be later than we think (Mt 25:5). In these parables Jesus covered all the bases: his coming could be sooner, it could be later. The overarching message is that Jesus “will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” In other words as a thief in the night.

Which version and interpretation of Matthew 24 squares best with the overall context of the gospel of Matthew? The Gospel of Matthew is a book showing the unfolding of Gods plan to bring the good news of Christ to the world. This unfolding or revelation shows how and why Gods focus changed from the nation of Israel to the man Jesus and then to a new nation made up of true Israelites assembled out of a people from every nation of the earth (John 3:1-5, 2 Peter 2:9, Daniel 7:13-14).

At the very beginning of his story, Matthew tells of the birth of Jesus and puts it in the context of the leaders of Israel rejecting Christ and attempting to kill him. On the other hand, the wise men of the east which symbolizes the world were seeking him and embraced him as the new king. This story of wise men set much of the storyline of the book and history of the Christian movement which we read about in the Book of Acts.

In Matthew’s recording of Jesus returning from exile in Egypt, Matthew sees the return and restoration of the true Israel to the land and the destruction of children in Ramah as the judgment on unfaithful Israel who is left childless[2].  This theme continues in the fourth chapter with the new Israel (Jesus) entering the wilderness to be tested as did the first Israel, with the marked difference that the physical nation was unfaithful and the latter was true to his calling.

John Sets the Stage

In the third chapter of his Gospel, Matthew has John the Baptist coming on the stage with a twofold message; one of blessing for those who embrace the Christ and one of judgment on those who do evil and reject him.

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree, therefore, that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”(Mt 3:7-12)

The point cannot be missed, the Messiah is coming soon not just to bless the nation of Israel but to judge it and purify it. In fact, the judgment has already started (The ax has already begun its work) as seen in the Ministry of John. The interpretation of this section of scripture has been grossly misinterpreted by associating it with the tongues of fire that appeared over the heads of the apostles on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts two. The two sections have only one thing in common and that is the word fire. The passage in Acts two does not explain the event which was experienced by the apostles in acts two. If anything, they represent the phenomena that took place in the Old Testament when the Temple was dedicated. This would be exactly what we would expect to see on the day of Pentecost in as recorded in Acts 2 seeing that the Lord had come to dwell in his new temple, the Church.

The Parables Tell the Story

The parables in the gospel of Matthew, tell the same story of God coming to his people, then rejecting him and the retribution that follows. The first is the parable of the tenants found in Matthew 21:33-46. In this parable, Jesus tells a story that parallels what the leaders and the nation of Israel were doing in rejecting him. In essence, they were rejecting the creator God who had made them a nation and had given them the land as represented by the vineyard. In verse 41 he tells them the owner (God) responds to their final and complete rejection of God’s rule through rejecting his son. “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and  rent the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” The miserable death would be the desertion of Jerusalem.  Then in verses 43-46, Jesus gives his explanation of the parable. “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but to the one on whom it falls, they will be crushed.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet”.

It is obvious that the Jewish leaders who heard Jesus tell this parable understood that it was spoken about them and not a generation of people that would exist 2000 years later.

The second is the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14. In this parable, the Lord likens the rule of God or kingdom of God to a King throwing a party for his son’s wedding and sending out his servants to invite people to the party, however, the people he invited began to make excuses, seized some of the messengers and killed the others. Now, we need to remember that in that culture to say no to the Kings’ invitation was unthinkable. It would be a horrendous offense worthy of death. This is exactly what we see in the parable. The King took offense and was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city, (Mt 22:7) Note that there are two groups of people who were slated for judgment by the King; those that were indifferent to the message of the King and those who had killed the messengers of the King. i.e. those that do not accept the invitation offered through his son.

It becomes obvious when we consider the overall context of the book of Matthew that the sign seeking version is not the best interpretation of Matthew 24. Those that use the sign seeking version to interpret this section of Scripture must ignore the basic law of hermeneutics, which says you must consider the context of the passage. The context would include who Jesus was speaking to when he said: “all these things shall come upon this generation”.

My conclusion is that Matthew 24 does not support the sign seeking version:  rather in the first section of the chapter verses 1-34 it points to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, with the last section of the chapter pointing to and confirming the thief in the night version. If the sign seeking version is to be established by the Bible it must be done by some other section of Scripture other than Matthew 24. It was the thief in the night version and interpretation of Matthew 24 which seem to be shared by the early church Father Tertullian who clearly was making reference to Matthew 24 when he spoke of the overthrow of Jerusalem and the temple[3].

[1] Why do Westerners seem convinced that Christ will come on our watch? The truth is, we aren’t the first. The Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of Old Testament books discovered near Qumran, the commune of the Essenes on the rim of the Dead Sea. This reclusive group of Jews from Jesus’ day had several peculiarities. One of the lesser-known was a method of biblical interpretation that scholars often call pesher. This method of interpretation requires two presuppositions. First, it assumes a verse of Scripture is referring to the end of time, even if it doesn’t originally appear to be…..Second-and this is the most important ingredient-the pesher exegete interprets his or her current time as the eschaton. Thus, step one is assuming a given passage is actually about the end of time; step two is assuming that time is now.  E. Randolph Richards; Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Kindle Locations 2276-2284). Kindle Edition.

[2] The new Adam has come It is no longer the seed of Abraham it has become the seed of Christ. One greater than Abraham and Moses has come.

[3] Jesus was questioned by His disciples concerning when those things were to come to pass that He had said about the destruction of the temple. So He first spoke to them about the order of Jewish events until the overthrow of Jerusalem. Then, he spoke about the things that will concern all nations— up to the very end of the world. . . . Therefore, although there is presently a sprouting in the acknowledgment of all this mystery, yet it is only in the actual presence of the Lord that the flower will be developed and the fruit will be borne. . . . Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in a manner similar to how the apostles saw Him ascend?. . . . Up to the present moment, no one has smitten their breasts, tribe by tribe, looking on Him whom they pierced. No one has yet fallen in with Elijah. No one has yet escaped from the Antichrist. No one has yet had to bewail the downfall of Babylon. Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.561).