I received this devo today and concur wholeheartedly. Too many people are believing what they hear instead of what they know. Some have no idea why they believe what they believe. Some believe because it suits their purposes. Some just go with the flow. I call it easy believism.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." Ephesians 4:14 (NIV).
by Tracie Miles I was thrilled to hear the good news. I had a bad case of winter blues, and the television weatherman had forecasted unusually warm spring-like days for the entire week. However, as I was driving to church that evening, I heard quite a different forecast on the radio. The announcer predicted cold days ahead; highs in the forties, and rain.What happened to the amazing forecast that the TV weatherman had predicted? I felt my spirit drop as I thought about yet another cold week to endure. Immediately I shared my disappointment with my husband and friends, even convincing them that the weather forecast had obviously changed.But as I watched TV later that evening, the weatherman was predicting sunny weather once again. Beautiful days, mid-seventies, with the possibility of breaking a record high.What?! I was so confused. I finally determined that the radio must have been playing the wrong forecast by accident. Somehow, I think the wrong buttons had been pushed, and the wrong information was sent out over the air for thousands of people to hear…if they had heard the television forecast too, they were surely as perplexed as I was.I had heard information that contradicted what I knew to be true, but since it seemed to be from a trustworthy source, I readily believed it. I even shared that information with friends and family, only later to realize that I had been misled and misinformed.In the same way, today's culture does an excellent job of sending us wrong information, misleading us about right and wrong, and convincing us that their opinion is accurate.Take tolerance, for example. The term "tolerance" seems to imply, by today's standards, that anything and everything is morally equivalent. Society tries to convince people that the truth is relative, open for interpretation, and apt to be changed if anyone wants it to be different.
I was thrilled to hear the good news. I had a bad case of winter blues, and the television weatherman had forecasted unusually warm spring-like days for the entire week. However, as I was driving to church that evening, I heard quite a different forecast on the radio. The announcer predicted cold days ahead; highs in the forties, and rain.What happened to the amazing forecast that the TV weatherman had predicted? I felt my spirit drop as I thought about yet another cold week to endure. Immediately I shared my disappointment with my husband and friends, even convincing them that the weather forecast had obviously changed.But as I watched TV later that evening, the weatherman was predicting sunny weather once again. Beautiful days, mid-seventies, with the possibility of breaking a record high.What?! I was so confused. I finally determined that the radio must have been playing the wrong forecast by accident. Somehow, I think the wrong buttons had been pushed, and the wrong information was sent out over the air for thousands of people to hear…if they had heard the television forecast too, they were surely as perplexed as I was.I had heard information that contradicted what I knew to be true, but since it seemed to be from a trustworthy source, I readily believed it. I even shared that information with friends and family, only later to realize that I had been misled and misinformed.In the same way, today's culture does an excellent job of sending us wrong information, misleading us about right and wrong, and convincing us that their opinion is accurate.Take tolerance, for example. The term "tolerance" seems to imply, by today's standards, that anything and everything is morally equivalent. Society tries to convince people that the truth is relative, open for interpretation, and apt to be changed if anyone wants it to be different.
With this in mind, and due to the fact that there is a smorgasbord of beliefs to choose from, it is imperative that Christians stay keenly aware of whether or not we are believing what we know, versus believing what we hear.The Bible clearly states that God set moral laws for His people, and the outline of what is right and wrong is written with great clarity. Knowing that, do we allow ourselves to be swayed by information that does not line up with God's Word? Do we follow the crowd, even when it is operating on inaccurate information? Do we act on questionable truths, just because it seems that everyone else believes it to be true?As believers, we have the incredible responsibility of being sure that we place what the Bible says over what well-intentioned (even trustworthy or respected) people may say. If we doubt that the Bible is the one absolute truth, what other source of truth are we looking to?1 Thessalonian 5:21 says, "Don't suppress the Spirit, and don't stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don't be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what's good. Throw out anything tainted with evil" (MSG). The thing that is good, is what is written in The Bible – the inspired Word of God.If you ever question whether or not something you hear is true, and before you share it with others who could be influenced by your statements, check it out against God's Word. The truth will be confirmed in the scriptures, and that is a source you can believe in.
Can't help you if you're not even willing to read the book. I can only tell you that you have nothing to fear from it. It will only enrich your understanding of the origins of Christianity.
I don't fear it. It's just that I've read this sort of thing tons over the years. Different angles but essentially the same. They can't accept the scriptures so they have to come up with another theory. The historical part of this book I'm sure will be ok but it's clear to see that he's all about disproving many biblical truths that have been held for centuries.
Many red flags were waving broadly when I went to his own site.
I was hoping to go to Barnes and Noble today but we had a washout this morning so I'll go another day...so don't worry I'll still peruse the book by sitting down in a nice comfy chair but I'm not about to purchase this.
I've been asked to read many books like this over the years. Basically they're all the same. After all you've seen one you've seen them all. REcently the big popular book around here is "The Shack." Somebody asked me to read it after they got a bad feeling about it. I didn't want to but since she purchased it and asked so nicely I did even though I'm not a fiction reader anymore. I found it to be just another book that discredits scripture in a fictional sort of way. But yet, it's a best seller and people are eating it up.
Did you take a minute to read the review from a Christian perspective? Do you know what "spiritual" background Tabor is coming from? I haven't checked into that yet.
Having read the book, I respectfully disagree. That's not it at all - the author didn't 'have' to do anything. He chose to pursue evidence of the factual, flesh and blood Jesus and of the historical context in which he lived and died. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your call, but assuming you've 'seen it before' is a tad presumptuous. I'd accept that assessment after you'd read something, but not before.
"Conviction was not enough. Someone had to be deluded. So what assured that that someone was someone *else*?" --The Thousandfold Thought
Therein lies the problem with accepting anything on authority based solely on conviction. My conviction tells me that global warming MUST be real, but without some definitive evidence both as to its cause as well as its slow-down/reversibility I can't advocate penalizing people for the sake of the environment.
The problem with religious conviction - and again liberalism/conservatism are included - is that it demands, at some point, that we accept a source that has no veracity beyond the fact that we believe in it.
The counter, of course, is what if a person can validate sex with children, slavery, etc through reason and logic? As Plato noted, sophistry can lead to any form of truth so long as it can be argued.
Is there a solution between denying conviction and leaning too much on rational arguments? Is society allowed to create laws for the common good without definitive empirical evidence of harm based on a well reasoned argument? Do we let the majority decide every question of justice? Or do we submit to an oligarchy on occasion because, as Madison pointed out, democracy must at times protect the minority from the majority will.
I would say that there are no easy answers, and that makes me appreciate the foundation stone of what the Founding Fathers did even more admirable.
Look at us Daiwa. I'm defending the bible (God's word) and you're defending this guy who wrote a book that runs contrary to scripture. Do you know what the exact middle of the bible is? Exact? Ps 118:8. Check it out.
it's not that I haven't read any of it. I told you I went to his site and I read excerpts of this book and the excerpts are so off the historical evidence that I've already researched thru the years that it runs contrary to what the writers in the 1st century wrote that it doesn't take Einstein to see which way this fellow is taking his evidence. I also told you as soon as I can I'll spend some time in the book and get back to you. (Painted the front door today so not a good day. )
I always say that it's only when you know the truth can you spot the lie when it comes up. The problem is we have to be very familiar with the truth because if not, we will be easy prey for the deceiver.
There's no "new" information out there that hasn't already been regurgitated somewhere along the way already. Over and over again. It's just a new generation of souls to take that makes the difference.
We are in a spiritual war. It's a war for the souls of men. God used his 40 men over a period of about 1500 years to put forth these scriptures that are bound together in one bible. Satan is still writing his books year after year after year for a fresh crop of new souls.
Depends on what you mean by 'contrary,' KFC. For some apparently, 'everything' but the precise language of the Bible is contrary. I prefer to consider such information as the substance of Tabor's book 'complimentary.'
I find it ironic that on the one hand you praise learning but then refuse to 'learn' anything you think might conflict with scripture. To assume there is only one source of 'truth' is your choice as a believer, but the evidence being developed and confirmed about the historical Jesus only lends more power to results of his mission. 'Least that's my opinion.
Well scripture is my plumbline. So of course, I use that to gauge the things of mankind to it rather than the other way around. So I go from there.
I don't believe God is going to reveal himself one way and then nix that and go in another direction. God is a God of order, not chaos. You saw the article by Christianity today right? They show how Tabor is trying to explain scripture away. So why would I choose to believe Tabor instead of scripture? As soon as I saw his site I knew exactly where he was coming from. Exactly. He's not complimenting scripture at all. He's adding to it changing it to fit his opinions.
But really I'm glad you brought this up and I am looking forward to some quiet time to check it out. I will....I PROMISE!
I'm not asking you to. Neither is Tabor. Which is my point. I've only suggested reading a book with some well-researched, fascinating information in it, not that you abandon your beliefs.
I hope you find it interesting when you get to it. Enjoy.
KFC WRITES:
Absolutely true.
Absolutely agree with statement and good probing question.
Again, we are in complete agreement.
And then you say...
This information you are giving that the Bible is the one absolute truth does not line up with God's written Word. I provided 1Timothy 3:15 as proof and answer to your question and then get accused of pushing the Catholic Chruch into this discussion. When in truth, KFC, it's Scripture itself that is, as you say, "pushing the CC".
The Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) as the sole source of divine Revelation and final authoruity for Christians is Protestant belief that was developed in the 15th century. Can't you see that here you are pushing Protestantism and I simply challenged that exactly as you recommend in your article as highlighted above?
Lula
The bible was here way before the Protestant Reformation and before the formation of the RCC.
I stand by what I said.
And I ask again. Please don't turn this into a Protestant/Catholic debate.
And since you are clearly Protestant and I am clearly Catholic, how do you expect us to debate when we disagree on something?
If you don't want me to bring up the Church, why do you keep making false accusations against it like this one?
Or your persistent claim above that the CC is just another Christian denomination when in truth, only the CC existed from the moment of the first Pentecost day as a fully organized society with the Apostles at its head..they who received St.Peter's words were baptized, and there were added in that day about 3,000. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the APostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers (Holy Eucharist in the Holy Mass) Acts 2:41-42 until the 15th century Protestant rebellion from it and then and only then were all the thousands of denominations and sects developed.
This statement of yours is simply not true. The Catholic Church and the one true faith existed before the Bible and that seems an elementary fact which no one can deny. If the Bible teaches anything plainly it is that Christ established a Church; one that started in His day and He would be with until the end of time. As the followers of the Mosaic Law under the OT formed one body, so too were the followers of Christ to be one body, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism Eph. 4:4-5. They must hear and obey, "He who hears you, hears Me, he who rejects you, rejects Me St.Luke 10:16. Christ compares His Church to a flock, a sheepfold, a city seated on a mountain, a kingdom, He calls it My Chruch, not churches or thousands of denominations or sects. Most fittingly then, does this kingdom of God merit the designation of St.Paul, "The Church of the living God in 1Tim. 3:15.
According to the Book of Acts, thousands of people came to the faith through the work of the Apostles and their successors by the laying on of hands. They believed the whole truth of God just as Catholics believe it now before they ever saw or read or could possibly see or read a single sentence of inspired Scripture of the NT, for the simple reason that such Scripture did not then exist. How did they become Christians? In the same way that the uneducated pagans or those who cannot read..by hearing the truth of God by Christ's missionaries.
Nothing was further from the minds of of those Apostles and disciples "sent out to teach all nations" than the idea that all the composed works would be compiled into one volume we know today as the Holy Bible. No one would have been more shocked than St.Paul himself at the idea of his letters usurping the place of the authoritative teacher--the Chruch. He said, "How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they preach unless they be sent? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (not written Word, but the oral Word).
KFC, even Protestant scholars of the highest standing admit that the living teaching of the Chruch was the means chosen by Christ for the spread of His Gospel and that the committing of it to writing was a later and secondary development.
It was the Catholic Chruch who collected the 46 OT Books and also composed, selected, and formed the 27 NT canon.
True..but that isn't what I challenged you on. You claim that the Bible is the one absolute truth and instead of defending your own statement, you come back protesting the Church.
Protestantism continues to be what its adherants call it today...a protest. A protest against Christ's divinely established teaching authority in the world...His Church built upon St.Peter, and the substitution of the Bible, interpreted by each individual reader, in the Church's place according to 1Tim. 3:15.
Amen.
?????
Lula, we can debate issues. This blog has nothing to do with either Protestantism or Catholicism.
You don't listen to much of what I say so now I have to ask myself....why bother? You, time and time again, bring up the same text over and over again. When I answer you and show you your error, you ignore it and then bring it up again as if I never answered you. You've brought 1 Timothy up how many times just on this site EVEN after I've answered you? I did defend my statement. You just choose not to respond to what I say and instead go in another direction to push the RCC. EVEN AFTER I'VE ASKED YOU NOT TO.
The only one who calls me a Protestant is you. I don't call myself that nor does anyone else. In fact the only time I hear the P word is from Catholics.
It's because they put themselves above all and it's a way to classify the "haves" from the "have nots."
So I will accept that I'm a "have not" if that makes you happy.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
