1. OF FAMILIES & OUR FIRST LOVE

By now, I am sure that all of you know all about the killings that happened in Ft. Worth, Texas at Wedgewood Baptist Church earlier this month. I have no wish to rehash the event here. However, I do want to focus on an issue that is coming to light because of Wedgewood, Columbine, and other killings at least partially motivated by the Christian faith of the victims.

I heard on a local Christian radio station that some Christians, even some ministers, have started training their children to "keep quiet" in such an event - that "God will understand." Now, if such sentiments seem perfectly "ok" to you, then - by all means - pull up a chair. Such ideas are totally foreign to Scripture! There are many reasons why these parents are both self-deceived and are also misleading their children.

First, there is the rather obvious problem of denying Christ - that is (let us call it what it really is), disowning our Lord. Not that such could not be forgiven (Matt. 14:72; Luke 22:34,61), but it is certainly not the way we should be training believers! The Scriptures are not silent regarding the negative act of denying our Lord (Matt. 10:33; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 12:9; 2 Tim. 2:12). Likewise, the Scriptures also speak concerning the positive act of confessing Christ before men (Psalm 119:46; Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8/Rev. 3:5; 2 Tim. 1:8; Rev. 2:13; 3:8). Jesus died for us - if need be, we are already called to die for Him. Our spiritual ancestors (and many in other parts of the world today) expected persecution and the possibility of martyrdom (see THINKMAIL #16 - "Wake Up Call in Littleton, CO.").

Second, such sentiments are nothing more than thinly veiled idolatry. Jesus said that unless we "hate" even our children, that we could not be His disciple (Luke 14:26). After hearing about these parents, I have no doubt what Jesus meant - He must come first (Acts 20:24; Phil'p. 3:8; Rev. 12:11). F-I-R-S-T. We don't disown Christ to save our families, or ourselves. Think about it. Don't you think the millions of believers persecuted throughout history had families? Think of our father Abraham on the mountain with Isaac (Gen. 22:2-9). I wonder what he would think of such advice? No, no, no! We Americans are so self-centered and spoiled at times! Any parent giving such "advice" is not worthy of Jesus, according to His Own words (Matt. 10:37). May our confession be that of David: "Whom have I in heaven [but thee]? and [there is] none upon earth [that] I desire beside thee" (Psalm 73:25).

Thirdly, what an example for a child! "Now, honey ... if anyone comes into your school/church, and points a gun at you and asks if you're a Christian - 'just say no'. God will understand." I'll promise every parent reading this something right now. If you teach your child this, they will take you up on it - but perhaps not quite the way you intended. You see, children don't realize that such statements are faithless compromises veiled as "parental advice" and meant for only a particular situation. No, if you teach your children that it is "ok" to deny Christ in the face of death, then maybe, just maybe, it is "ok" to .... deny Him in other situations also. What a mockery of all that He has done for us. To teach our own children to love their own life is in direct violation of what Jesus asks of us all (John 12:25)! Such "parental advice" is not without its own consequences as well (Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2) - "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (see also Matt. 5:19).

The Church in China faces persecution every day. A two year old girl was interrogated and told to divulge the whereabouts of their house church. She stood her ground. The authorities forced her to stand for hours with her arms outstretched as if on a cross. She stood her ground. Her parents were in the same room. Who will dare say that those parents didn't love their daughter? Of course they did - but they loved Christ more. Not only that, but they had taught her to love Christ more as well. In doing so, they had a love for their daughter that many American parents may not understand.

Hear me! I love my eight year old daughter more than my own life, and I pray that God would spare her the experience faced by our brothers and sisters in China, those at Columbine, and those at Wedgewood Baptist Church. But if she ever finds herself in that situation, I pray that God will give her the strength and grace to confess Jesus Christ before men. I love my daughter - but more than Christ? No. I cannot, and I dare not. In fact, to love our children more than Christ is really to not love them at all.

Rachel Scott gave her life for Christ in the Columbine massacre. I heard a piece about her father, Darrell Scott, on the Decision Today radio program the other day. Of course he is devastated that his daughter is gone, but he made it quite obvious that he wouldn't change a thing. God is Sovereign and has a purpose for everything - good or bad (Rom. 8:28). Those who held the guns at Columbine meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. Who had ever heard of Rachel Scott before this? No one. Yet her funeral attracted more viewers than that of Princess Diana. Why? Precisely because youth see that these teens had something worth dying for. Rachel had hoped to graduate early and become a missionary. She did.

Literally thousands of teenagers have bowed their knees and given their hearts to Jesus Christ because of Rachel's testimony - a testimony written with her own blood. Her father travels the country now, telling these kids about Jesus. Tertullian said it long ago: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." This is why the Church in China is growing faster than in any other part of the world.

People, we'd better get up to speed quickly. We live in a country on the downslide - it has been for some time now. Iniquity abounds, and our love is "waxing cold" (Matt. 24:12). God has spared the majority of Western believers from persecution. But don't think for one minute that it "can't" happen. It has happened throughout history, and happens now all over the world. I say we all adopt a "Pascal's wager" type of attitude: prepare for martyrdom by keeping Christ as your "first love" (Rev. 2:4), so much so that your love for others - even your own family - is like "hate" in comparison. As Steve Camp sings, "loving Him more than other loves" (in teh song "Cornerstone" on Abandoned to God).

So, what should we teach our children? Jesus said it: "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" (John 12:25). If we live out our whole life and never have to confess Christ to someone holding a gun to our head - let us be happy and thank God. We've lost nothing by loving Jesus most of all. And guess what? Neither will our children. Selah.

2. JOHN MACARTHUR & THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote a piece in THINKMAIL #14 entitled "'Eternal' Vs. 'Incarnational' Sonship." In the article, I confessed that I remained largely undecided, but expressed my leanings in the "Eternal Sonship" direction by offering some Biblical arguments for the position.

The "Eternal Sonship" position states that Christ's title "the Son of God" is an eternal title that expresses His Deity, and should not be pressed in a strict literal sense as implying inferiority. This has long been recognized as the strict orthodox view, and is represented as such in the Church Fathers, Ecumenical Creeds, Reformational Confessions, and nearly every Evangelical statement of faith since.

The "Incarnational Sonship" view holds that the title "Son of God" is to be understood as having reference only to the Word in Incarnation. Thus, while Jesus is Deity - the title "Son of God" does imply inferiority and does not denote that Deity, but rather His Humanity. There have been some prominent Bible teachers holding this view throughout Church history: Adam Clarke, Arthur Custance, Walter Martin, and others.

By far the most respected and well-known of those holding to the "Incarnational" view has been John MacArthur, Jr. MacArthur based his position primarily on Hebrews 1:5 - "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?' And again, 'I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?'" While leaning toward the "Eternal" view myself, MacArthur has remained one of my favorite Bible teachers via both his books and his radio programs.

A few weeks ago Bob L. Ross, owner of Pilgrim Publications and author of The Trinity & The Eternal Sonship of Christ, mailed out a notice reporting the fact that MacArthur had recently changed his position and now embraces the historically orthodox view that Christ is indeed "the Eternal Son."

MacArthur writes: " ... I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of 'incarnational sonship.' Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an _eternal_ Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ's sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation." <MacArthur, "Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ" - see BIBLIOGRAPHY>

Concerning his previous proof-text, he writes: "It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones ('_this day_ have I begotten thee'), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal." <ibid.>

I cannot help but have great respect for John MacArthur and his willingness to reexamine the issue, his humility in changing his view, and then his courage in publically announcing it. His brief article, "Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ," has also helped to solidify in my own heart and mind the Biblical arguments I brought forth in THINKMAIL #14.

Most importantly, MacArthur's attitude and action have set an example that I hope will be contagious among those who Shepherd our souls. We can all be wrong on things, but the real question is whether we are open to discovering our error. The intense criticism that has been leveled at MacArthur over this for the last 15 years could have easily led to increased pride and stubbornness on his part. Instead, he followed Christ and His Way. I pray that we may all do the same in our lives.

* Ralph Woodrow, The Babylon Connection (Paperback; privately published, 1997) -

<NOTE: I have asked Mark McNeil, a Roman-Catholic friend, to review this book for me. His review is written from a Catholic perspective, and does not necessarily reflect my views entirely. However, I am in agreement with Mark's positive review and reprint it here unedited.>

The dust jacket of my edition of The Two Babylons (1916) by Alexander Hislop claims the book is "one of the great books in the Christian literature of apologetics." Perhaps this description should be modified to be "one of the great books in the Fundamentalist literature of anti-Catholicism." The latter description certainly holds true if one relies on more popular literature attacking the Roman Catholic Church, especially the materials coming from Chick Publications and similar publications. One need not look very far to see frequent quotations of Hislop's work almost as if it were an encylopedia or first-hand source document. As the dust jacket goes on to summarize, Hislop's book "demonstrates that almost all of the practices of the Roman cult have been brought over from paganism." This claim of "demonstration" throughout the book is one of the most striking characteristics of Hislop's work. He did not humbly offer his book as a "possible" interpretation of the data of ancient religions but rather as a weighty argument rising to the level of "demonstration." Due to the difficulty of following Hislop's old-style book, Ralph Woodrow wrote a "popular" treatise expressing the basic notions found in The Two Babylons. Woodrow's book - Babylon, Mystery Religion (1966) - apparently rose to similar heights of authority among those advocating the kind of attack on Catholicism found in Hislop. My guess would be that it enjoyed a wider actual reading since it was much more accessible to the average person. Due to its similarity in content and ease of reading, it has not been uncommon in the past to see references to Woodrow immediately following those from Hislop in other sources.

Given the popularity of Woodrow's work, it was surprising to find out in recent months that the book was no longer available. It had not merely gone out of print but was withdrawn from circulation due to the fact that the author had reexamined the evidence offered in the book and found that it was significantly lacking in credibility. Woodrow had further written another book, The Babylon Connection? (1997), explaining why he made this choice.

Upon examining Woodrow's more recent work and having also read his prior work as well as that of Hislop, I would like to offer my recommendation of The Babylon Connection? to all who have an interest in the Protestant/Catholic controversy as well as all serious readers who would like to sharpen their reasoning skills. The goal of such sharpening, of course, is to ascertain the truth of the matter. If it is true that the end does not justify the means, we should discard bad arguments wherever they are found - even if they happen to support our personal position. That is clearly Woodrow's attitude in his book and for that we must commend him.

The following points are offered as specific examples supporting the above endorsement:

1. Honesty and Inegrity. A few years ago I wrote a letter to an author pointing out some serious factual and theological problems in a book he had written. He replied admitting his errors; even admitting that they were serious ones. Lacking, however, was any indication that he was going to do anything substantial about his proliferation of faulty material. The most impressive aspect of Woodrow's book is that it is a work flowing from honesty and integrity. Despite the finanical loss incurred by his refusal to make his old book available, Woodrow has stood by his convictions. This fact alone makes the book interesting reading since it flows from a very serious student of the Bible and related matters who is willing to follow truth wherever it might lead.

2. Good Introduction to Hislop. For those who want to understand the content of Hislop's book, Woodrow's new book is a very helpful summary along with criticisms. Going back and reading some of Hislop's book was a much more understandable experience with Woodrow's analysis in mind. As with most subjects, it's helpful to have something of a "big picture" in mind whenever one approaches a large topic. Hislop's book is small print and hundreds of pages. Much of its content is "foreign" to those not acquainted with ancient religions, cultures, mythology, etc. Anyone wanting to take Hislop seriously cannot do better than starting with the summary critique and evaluation found in The Babylon Connection?

3. Good Critical Analysis. Beyond its use as an introduction, Woodrow provides an excellent critical analysis of Hislop and, remarkably, he does so in a minimum amount of space. I am surprised at how much of Hislop's argumentation Woodrow was able to answer in the brief 120 pages of his book.

Additionally, Woodrow is able to give numerous practical examples of the fallacies present in Hislop's book. Not only does Woodrow point out various "historical" items for which there is no historical support or evidence, but he also shows the bad reasoning that is apparently present on every hand in Hislop.

Consider: "Hislop claims to find Cush in all kinds of names: Chaos or Chus; Cuth or Cuath; Chusorus, Khesha, Khesa; Bac-chus, Nar-kissos; and even in the name Zernebogus, a black ill-omened divinity!" (p. 45). Because Hislop sprinkles his book with such listings and supposed "connections" between the mythology of ancient cultures, the reader is often overwhelmed and assumes the accuracy of the connections made. Woodrow dispels such notions by reducing such argumentation to simple, but effective, parallels from data more familiar to the readers: "By dividing this name as Zer-Nebo-Gus, Hislop supposes it means 'The seed of the prophet Cush,' i.e. Nimrod! This is like dividing 'television' into Te-Levi-Sion, as some have done, providing the basis for a senseless teaching about Te (the symbol for tellurium, a chemical element), the tribe of Levi, and that area of Jerusalem called Sion! By this method, one could say that Tam-muz invented the Tam-bourin...or that the name Hislop means His-slop!"

One of my favorite pages of Woodrow's book is immediately following the preceding quote. I will not "spoil it" for the reader, though. Suffice it to say, the real question after it is all said and done is simply, How could so many people have been hoodwinked by Hislop's book for all this time? No one with half sense would fall for such argumentation if it was not cloaked in strange names, small print, jacket endorsements, bizarre pictures, and, perhaps most of all, advocating a theory many would like to believe is an accurate portrayal of the history and origins of Catholicism. Woodrow's book is then critical in an enjoyable way. One will find himself laughing along with wondering similar questions to that expressed above.

4. Good for Exposing Logical Fallacies. If we are going to engage in critiques and "debates" with forms of faith with which we differ, it seems that there must be some mode of communication and reasoning that will provide at least some common ground for critical analyses. If this is not the case, then "apologetics" seems to lose any intelligible meaning. Woodrow's book offers a fine opportunity to see such an analysis in progress.

As an example, I have noticed in another work by Woodrow, that he has come to see more clearly through his years of study that similarity does not imply origin. This is a common fallacy that is especially present in Hislop. Simply because two names sound alike does not mean they belong to the same person. Because one may list numerous similarities between Peter and Paul, for example, does not mean they are the same person. Arguments that fit into this kind of fallacy are usually persuasive the more distanced they are from the contemporary scene or from known facts. It is easy to see a "t" shape on some ancient painting from another country and assume it is some kind of cross. As Woodrow points out, this is no more an argument for identity of origin as the shape of a tie turned upside down proves such a shape originated in Egypt since obelisks bear the same shape.

Further, Woodrow makes it abundantly clear that arguing from such "parallels" or similarities between religions, myths, etc., is a harder pill to swallow than many suppose. Woodrow spends much time showing that many of Hislop's arguments can be applied to Scripture. One may then argue that the Bible itself is the product of pagan mythology, as many have done. To do such, however, is to perform the same tragic logical mistake that would be easily recognized in contemporary reasoning but strangely takes on influence when applied to ancient matters.

5. Understanding Precedes Refutation. Woodrow has shown a sincere effort to understand Catholicism in many of its aspects. This has led him to see substantial differences between what Catholicism is teaching and what the ancient pagans quoted by Hislop believed. Because their beliefs were (and are) substantially different, the better course of action is to first understand what is being said and then engage in a critique if one is still persuaded that there is something wrong with what someone teaches. In other words, I think Woodrow has learned a very valuable lesson: One should not criticize what he does not understand. This is different from offering a positive defense of what one does know while refraining from criticizing others that he simply does not understand.

Perhaps the most moving moment while reading Woodrow's work for me personally was when reaching page 77. When discussing the origin and meaning of the "monogram I.H.S.," Woodrow concludes, "More important than whether we use it--or do not use it--is that we don't bear false witness about something, simply because it may not be a common part of our belief system." Amen.

6. I must make a final point suggesting at least one area of criticism. This criticism is primarily with respect to the final chapter of the book in which Woodrow is seeking to show the way in which he will continue to argue against the Catholic faith. His position now appears to be that Catholicism has been misrepresented by Hislop and others but we should put away such bad argumentation and argue from Scripture primarily. This is fine but as he proceeds to present some of his criticisms I detected some few weaknesses in his research.

On page 115, for example, Woodrow cites The Encyclopedia Britannica to support the claim that the early church placed "no emphasis on Mary whatsoever." This, of course, is in the context of addressing the Marian teachings of the Catholic Church as one of the major areas of criticism and one of those areas of "excess baggage" that Catholicism carries.

One must be careful, however, with using sources like such encylopedias and refer more to specialized studies and, better yet, primary sources. If one does do such a study, it is clear that the early centuries of Christianity contained at least "some" emphasis on Mary the earliest example of which was the Eve-Mary correspondence that is found in both Ireneaus and Justin Martyr. The critical analysis of the four Gospels seems to reveal a similar developing interest in Mary when moving from Mark to Mathew to Luke to John. It is no wonder that Luke and John provide the primary texts used to support the Marian teachings not only found in Roman Catholicism but also Orthodoxy and even many of the Reformers themselves.

In conclusion, one has much reason to believe that Woodrow will continue in the very positive direction that his honesty and study have led him over these many years. I hope every reader will purchase his fine work and learn and laugh along with me with the insightful analysis, critical appraisal, and humorous and entertaining examples of the reasoning used by Hislop to support his "house built upon sand." I look forward to future works by Woodrow in his effective and pleasant syle.

- Mark A. McNeil

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." -- JOHN 10:17-18 (KJV)

WHO KILLED JESUS? Think about it. If you have never considered this "simple" question before, you may be surprised to discover that the answer is not at all of the "pat" variety. This is because Scripture actually - directly or indirectly - gives several different answers; and each one is correct from a particular perspective. Let's look at each answer.

1. JESUS WAS KILLED BY THE JEWS USING THE ROMAN SYSTEM - That this is the historical fact of the matter is without question. This is the natural conclusion based on the testimony of the Gospel records (Matt. 26:3; 27:1,20; Mark 15:11; Luke 23:18; John 18:40; 19:15 - cf. Acts 3:14). Further, Peter specifically points this out in Acts 2:23:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (cf. Acts 3:13; 4:10; 5:30; 13:27; 1 Cor. 2:8).

Stephen convicted the unbelieving Jews of that day of both betrayal and murder (Acts 7:52). Thus, while the Jews and Romans were ignorant of what they were really doing (Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17), nevertheless they are held responsible. This is exactly what the OT Scriptures foretold of Christ:

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed ... " (Psalm 2:1-2 - quoted in Acts 4:26-28).

2. JESUS WAS KILLED BY SATAN - Following from #1, Satan was behind the scenes, assuring that this Man Jesus was killed. We know this from John 8:44, where Jesus points to the leader of those who would later crucify Him: "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies." Later, the curtain gets pulled back, as we see Satan entering Judas for the betrayal (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). But Satan messed up ... and Jesus let him and all his angels know it: "And having spoiled principalities and powers, he [Jesus] made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Col. 2:15). The conflict between Jesus and Satan at Calvary was long ago foretold in Genesis 3:15, and is apocalyptically symbolized in Rev. 12:7-10.

3. JESUS WAS KILLED BY THE FATHER - Here is where it begins to go a bit deeper than the obvious. God the Father had planned for this moment from the foundation of creation (Gen. 3:15; Luke 24:44; John 19:24; 1 Cor. 2:7-8; 1 Pe. 1:20; Rev. 13:8). Let's take another look at Peter's words in Acts 2:23:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (cf. Acts 3:18).

Please note that neither the human authorities (#1) nor Satan (#2) are released from their responsibility by this fact (cf. Psalm 2:5; Matt. 26:24; Luke 22:22). The classic passage here is Isaiah 53, where Christ is "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted," (v. 4) and "it pleased the LORD to bruise him" (v. 10). As with the King of Assyria (Isa. 10), God used the wrath of man to fulfill His purpose (cf. Psalm 76:10; Dan. 4:35), bringing good out of evil (cp. Gen. 50:20). "[There is] no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD" (Pr. 21:30). Can you hear the Father's laughter (Psalm 2:4)?

4. JESUS WAS KILLED BY YOU & I - Now, we must ask why the Father planned such an event in the first place? Why did the Son lay aside His rights and priveleges as God and condescend to become man and die (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil'p. 2:6-8)? The answer to these questions is nothing less than the heart of the Gospel: "Christ died for us" (cf. Rom. 5:6,8; Gal. 3:13). Each one of us nailed Christ to that tree as surely as if we were driving the stakes ourselves. He bore our sins in His death (Isa. 53:5-6; 1 Pe. 2:24).

5. NO ONE KILLED JESUS IN THE STRICTEST SENSE - That's right, and it is here that we conclude with an awesome, though neglected, truth. There was no one in all the universe that could have taken Christ's life. No way. Like Adam before the fall, Christ was free from the taint of sin (John 14:30; Heb. 4:15; 9:14). Like Adam, Christ had no need of dying - although it was possible that he could. In other words, no sickness or accident or old age could have ever killed Jesus Christ - He was "the Second Man" (1 Cor. 15:47) and the "Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), the perfect and unfallen representation of humanity.

No one could take His life, yet He laid it down of His Own will. Look at our passage again (above):

"No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself."

When the time came, Jesus humbled Himself (Phil'p. 2:8) and gave His life for His sheep (Matt. 20:28; John 10:11,15; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:2; Titus 2:14), and dismissed His Own spirit (Luke 23:46). He layed down His life for us - His friends (John 15:13). Wow. This truth cannot be overemphasized.

Pause right now and thank God for His awesome sacrifice. Jesus did not have to die, yet He did - "while we were yet sinners." This is the greatest manifestation of pure love that the universe has ever known! God gave His Son (John 3:16), and Jesus gave Himself. Not for Himself (Dan. 9:26) - but for us. Amen.