Joe Castillo, former student of Houston Baptist University Professor Jerry Walls, has recently advanced on “America’s Got Talent!” Be watching as Joe heads to the Big Apple!
Apologetics. Art. Houston Baptist University.
MJ
For more info about Joe Castillo, check out: sandstory.com
Like oil and water, so are Christianity and The Secret. Recently, Rhonda Byrne created what is now being called The Secret. “If you follow its philosophy, which is based on the “law of attraction,” you can create the life you want-whether that means getting out of debt, finding a more fulfilling job or even falling in love.”[1] The philosophy suggests that “everything that happens to you -good or bad- you attract to yourself.”[2] Ultimately, it is saying that all of us can control our own destinies from our power within. “The Secret is a New Age version of the prosperity gospel.”[3]
Sadly, many advocates are placing The Secret, within the Christian faith, however there is a vast difference between the two. Christianity, is not man centered it is God centered, it is not about wealth on earth, but treasures in heaven and it is not about happiness it is about holiness.
The Secret, implies that your desires are going to make your life happy and peaceful and this can be obtained through positive thinking. The truth is that mans problem in life is sin, not his inability to think positively. Christianity states “Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord” and “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick’ who can understand it: I, the Lord search the heart (Jeremiah. 17:9).” It is only through Christ who has sent the Holy Spirit to guide his people that believers can enjoy wisdom, peace and love, but it does not come without trials and tribulation and it does not promise wealth.
Christianity can define success as knowing God through Jesus Christ. “What aim should we set ourselves in life: To know God”[4] not get rich or fulfill every pleasure of self. Jesus said “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” This does not mean that you will not have blessings in your life, however it does mean that the riches of this life are fleeting and far from the goal that God desires for His people.
God desires His people to be holy in order that we may glorify Him. Many of His disciples have been poor or martyred in life and yet they did not pray for wealth or a girlfriend. Were they unable to think positive enough to attract good things? No, Jesus said, “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). James tells us to count it all joy when we face trials because it is testing our faith and developing maturity.
Self fulfillment, wealth and happiness are just the surface areas of great importance regarding the differences in The Secret and Christianity. We have not even touched on the fact that The Secret rests on the foundation of the Gnostic gospels mixed in with Christianity, as well as the issues of taking Scripture entirely out of context. At any rate, this philosophy is a lie and must be exposed by the truth of the Bible.
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (through the Bible). Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil” (Romans 16:17-19).
Deanna
[1]http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200702/tows_past_20070208.jhtml
[2] Ibid
[3] Swan, James, www.aomin.org
[4] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
I could not help but post on this latest stunt of the Rational Response Squad (RRS), because of the impact it appears to have had on so many people. The challenge itself is based in logically fallacious thinking which makes me concerned for why so many people find this challenge so “cool,” …especially if the promoting organization using “rational” in their name.
First, let me explain the premise of the challenge. The RRS has set a challenge for people to commit the “unpardonable sin” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is to deny his existence. It is based on the Scripture from Matthew 12:31. The first 1001 people to upload a You Tube video denying the Holy Spirit get a free DVD of “The God Who Wasn’t There.” There’s more to unpack here, but even the very premise of the challenge, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence, shows a lack of attention to and knowledge about Christian theology.
Christians discuss, and conflict, on what constitutes this blasphemy. None of them, however, say it is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit (at least to my knowledge). Conversely, here’s one explanation of this Scripture from R.C. Sproul:
If the Holy Spirit has opened your eyes and caused you to see that Jesus is the Christ, and then, after knowing by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Son of God, you accuse Jesus of being satanic, you have now committed the unforgivable sin.
Sproul states that this explanation would mean that the sin is theoretically committed by a believer in God, not an unbeliever. Whoa! Talk about getting your stunt mixed up. Sproul backs this potential explanation up with the context of the previous verses, which involves Jesus healing a demon-oppressed man and afterward being accused by the religious leaders of doing so through the power of Satan. So, the passage is not technically addressing atheists. And before anyone gets theologically spicy with me, even Sproul states that this is only a theoretical situation described by the unpardonable sin when he exegetes the passage (check it out in the full article). He further acknowledges the theological doctrines that would be affected if a genuine believer could indeed commit an unpardonable sin. So again, this is not the only historic theological explanation, but I think it’s a good place to start an investigation. The basic point here is to demonstrate the faulty thinking behind the blasphemy challenge that failed to consider how Christians have historically interpreted the passage (and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy).
Second, let me explain a further logical problem of this challenge. A person is supposed to deny the existence of that which they already believe does not exist. So, the atheist is making a claim that is very close to, if not the same as, a tautological claim, such as “an atheist is an atheist.” Tautologies do not provide any new information between the subject and predicate of a sentence, so they don’t really say anything.
The statement of “I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit” can, in effect, be a statement of the denial of God’s existence when it’s in accordance with Trinitarian Monotheism. The Holy Spirit is the third person of God, one in essence with God. Due to this theological commitment, to deny the Spirit’s existence is to deny God’s existence…if, again, we are dealing with actual Christian Trinitarianism. So, again, the challenge in light of Christian Trinitarianism amounts to atheists denying the existence of God. Therefore, the premise of this challenge seems to be to publicly verbalize that “An atheist is an atheist.” Or, perhaps, more specifically, the challenge amounts to an identity statement of “I, an atheist, deny the existence of God.”
Third, The Blasphemy Challenge seems to be a media stunt for those who already agree with the RRS, leading an emotionally-charged public condemnation of Christianity towards building a certain kind of atheist camaraderie (not all atheists would condone or engage in this kind of activity). One thing I noticed is that the RRS is not challenging people to blaspheme any of the other religious ideas of god or gods. This challenge is specifically targeting Christian Trinitarian Monotheism. [1] Perhaps, targeting religious minority groups in our society would be viewed as grossly, or negligently, intolerant, bringing too much undesired heat to the challenge. So the organization might be purposefully avoiding condemning those beliefs about God. Lacking a fuller philosophical spectrum of denouncement of belief in God, or gods, this challenge seems more gimmicky, giving a sort of fan-service to the internet new atheist.
Finally, as C.S. Lewis stated, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” Though the RRS is attempting to do something splashy to get people to think rationally about belief in God, it appears that they have really done the opposite through the use of logical fallacy. A person cannot blaspheme that which they deny. A straw-man theology of Christianity doesn’t communicate anything true about it. A tautological statement is not helpful in thinking through beliefs. And finally, in taking the challenge, people commit to the premise that their denial means something, which implies their belief in the reality of God…and I’m guessing that’s not the desired outcome.
MJ
______________________
[1] Someone will inevitably say, “But Christianity is the only one claiming the ‘unpardonable sin,’ and so that’s why it’s the only religion addressed. My response is two-fold: 1) that seems theologically and philosophically lazy or disingenuous, because 2) other religions have statements that could be similarly utilized as ‘tests’ for true believers, as well as punishments or consequences for disbelievers and/or sin (even if also pulled out-of-context). Further, it is culturally fashionable and acceptable, at this time, to denigrate the Christian religion (and possibly some forms of atheism), but not necessarily other belief systems.
During this Christmas season many people around the world will spend much of their time trying to convince and persuade children to believe in Santa. They will go to malls and take pictures with a stranger in a red suit persuading their children this is the man who leaves gifts at their house each year. They will watch movies telling young ones to “make sure you are good” enough to make it on the good list in order to receive great things under the Christmas Tree. They will even go as far as setting out milk and cookies the night of Christmas Eve for this man in a red suit. This man will receive much praise this Christmas season because children are told that he leaves them gifts under the tree.
However, I would argue that there is one greater than the man in the red suit who really deserves the recognition for Christmas. This is a man of truth and not a man of a fabricated story.
Have you ever sought for the truth? What do you believe about truth? Is there really truth out there or do we need to live in a land of fairytales?
Yes, there is real truth and there is evidence of truth? Yes, there is a man of truth named Jesus and He is much greater than a myth. Take a look at some of the evidence.
· Thousands of years ago this man’s birth was announced before He was born.
· The exact place where He was born was given before it happened.
· It was told that He would save the people
· It was written that He was the one who would pay for the things they did wrong.
There is no evidence for Santa? There is no evidence for his eight tiny reindeer and yet, many will spend time trying to convince others that he is real. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence that Jesus is the truth. Which one will you seek this Christmas?
“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The words of Jesus from an eye witness account of John
Deanna