The "Jesus" the World Loves
McMahon, T.A.December 2, 2008
What do you think of Jesus? That's a question I've asked at times to engage non-Christians in conversation about Him for the purpose of witnessing. A fairly typical response used to be that He was a religious teacher who did a lot of good, said many good things, and they usually concluded with a belief that He was a very good man. I then could ask, "Did you know that He claimed to be God?" When looks of puzzlement followed, I would explain that He couldn't be a "very good man." In claiming to be God, He was either self-deluded or an outright fraud—that is, unless He was telling the truth. More often than not, that thought, raising the issue of being accountable to God, would bring our conversation to an awkward end. At least it had provided the opportunity to plant some seeds that I hoped would grow into conviction. Most people aren't comfortable with the truth about Jesus.
Those who profess to be Christians quite often have ideas about Jesus that are just as wrong as those people who are not Christians. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is a created god and that He is also Michael the Archangel. Mormons believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer and that He was married and had children. The followers of Christian Science and the Religious Science religions believe that Jesus was simply a man upon whom the "Christ empowerment" came. Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist can be transubstantiated, or changed, into the literal body and blood of Jesus, who is then ingested into one's stomach. Lutherans believe that Jesus is consubstantiated, or present, "in, with, and under" the bread and wine of communion. Such unbiblical beliefs are a mere handful among hundreds promoted by various Christian denominations and cults. Yet what is even more appalling is that an inquiry about Jesus today among those who call themselves evangelicals (Bible-believing Christians!) too often reveals "another Jesus" and a "false Christ." How does that happen?
Let's start with how one comes to a true knowledge of, and relationship with, Jesus Christ. It begins with a simple understanding of the gospel1 that Jesus is God,2 who became a Man3 in order to save mankind from everlasting separation from God4 that resulted from man's sin.5 Jesus satisfied the perfect justice of God6 by His once-and-for-all payment for the sins of humanity7 through His death on the Cross.8 His resurrection from the dead9 assures the salvation of all those who acknowledge before God their sin10 and their hopelessness in saving themselves,11 and who by grace through faith12 accept Christ's sacrifice on their behalf13 and His free gift of eternal life.14 This is how one is reconciled to God15 and born again spiritually.16 This is how one's relationship with the biblical Jesus Christ17 begins.
Although that relationship is supernatural in that every true believer in Christ is indwelt by God,18 it nevertheless progresses, as any good relationship does, by getting to know the person with whom one has a relationship.
The primary way a relationship with Jesus develops is by reading the revelation of Himself given in His Word. This is the only way to obtain specific information about Him that is objective and absolutely true. In addition, not only is the content of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit,19 but that same Spirit of Truth is given to believers to understand that content.20 How then could those who profess to follow God's Word come up with erroneous ideas about Jesus? Regrettably, many are getting their information about Jesus from sources outside the Bible or second hand from those who claim to be teaching what the Bible says about our Lord.
To demonstrate how ludicrous a relationship dependent upon such sources of knowledge is, consider what might happen to a husband and wife who try to form an intimate relationship with each other by relying on the insights of other people who claim to know them. That's a sure recipe for failure, yet Christians often run to extrabiblical sources for their knowledge of Jesus.
The amazing popularity of the book The Shack(TBC Q&A, 8/08 ) among evangelicals is just a recent example of someone depicting a Jesus who is foreign to the Bible and worse. What does the author think about Jesus? He characterizes Him in a way that may make some people feel more comfortable with Him, yet the Jesus of The Shack is clearly a false Christ. He's a "good old boy," who likes to fix things and takes "pleasure in cooking and gardening." He laughs at crude jokes, is a bit of a klutz, engages in trout fishing by chasing one down as He runs on water, carves a coffin for the body of a little girl, and enjoys kissing, hugging, and laughing with the two other members of the "Trinity." The book is filled with dialogue from the characters of God the Father (portrayed as an overweight Afro-American woman), the Holy Spirit (a petite Asian woman), and Jesus. All three speak as the "oracles of God," giving insights and explanations neither found in nor consistent with Scripture. Some enthusiastic readers say the words and interactions with the Godhead have comforted them, answered difficult questions about their faith, and made the person of the Lord seem all the more real to them.
The reality is that out of his own imagination the author has put his words into the mouths of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are then perceived by multitudes as "thus saith the Lord." This is not only a bogus secondhand source but the arrogance of false prophecy at least and blasphemy and idolatry at worst. It is man, making God in his own fallen image.
More influential among evangelicals than The Shack is Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which became a huge box-office success, thanks mostly to evangelical support. Available now as a "definitive edition DVD," it features, for those who want the official Catholic theology of the film explained, a discussion with director Mel Gibson, along with a Catholic apologist and two Catholic priests who were the film's theological consultants. The movie has a false gospel, a false Christ, and is loaded with supposedly biblical scenes from the minds of Gibson and a Catholic nun given to mystical hallucinations (See Showtime for the Sheep?). Yet it continues to be used extensively by evangelical churches, especially during Lent and Easter week.
In response to "What do you think of Jesus?" millions who saw the movie now mistakenly believe that: He was confronted by Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane; He was thrown from a bridge by His captors and dangled from a chain; His image was captured for posterity on the veil of a woman named Veronica; as His cross began to fall, it levitated to keep Him from hitting the ground, and, most contradictory to the gospel, it was the merciless scourging He suffered that paid for the sins of humanity.
These are only a few of the unbiblical images that the world and many in the church have added to their perception of Jesus. Movies are today's most popular form of disseminating superficial information and misinformation. Feature films about Jesus and God have put erroneous ideas about them into the hearts and minds of the masses: Jesus Christ Superstar; The Last Temptation of Christ; Bruce Almighty; The Da Vinci Code; Judas; Oh God!;Oh God, Book II; Jesus of Nazareth, to name but a few.
What about "more biblically accurate" Bible movies—those that take the words directly from Scripture, for example? When you have an actor portraying Jesus who says only the words of Jesus that are found in the Bible, does that make the portrayal more accurate? More accurate than what? Does the actor actually look like Jesus, or talk like Jesus, or reflect the godly demeanor of Jesus? More critically, can he accurately imitate the God-Man, the Creator of the Universe, the One in whom all things consist? Even if he could, which is impossible, it would still be an imitation! Furthermore, he will leave millions, including believers, with an image of a false "Christ."
A few such movies are sincere attempts at communicating the content and stories of the Scriptures through visual media. Although sincere, they are doomed to failure regarding truth. Why? In addition to what was noted above, the Bible is an objective revelation from God given in words. All attempts at visually translating those words abandon objective revelation in favor of subjective interpretation. Take a passage of Scripture, for instance, and have five people give their understanding of the verse based upon the context, the grammatical structure, and the normal meaning of the words. More often than not, the interpretations will be quite similar. Should one of the five come up with something very different, it can be corrected by simply checking it out objectively against the context, grammar, and accepted definitions of the words in the passage. On the other hand, what if five artists were to translate the passage visually? The result would be five very subjective and quite different renderings. Even if only one artist visually translated the verse and four people tried to interpret the image, you would likely have four different views because the medium has no objective criteria comparable to that of words. Are you getting the "picture" here? Imagery is not the way to communicate objective truth.
God did not draw pictures on the tablets He gave to Moses. His continual command to him and to His other prophets was to write down His instructions. Visual imagery was at the heart of pagan worship used by people whose lives centered around idols—the chief by-product being unbridled superstition. The same was true of the medieval Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who fed their followers images rather than teaching them to read and write (as the Jews had done successfully from the time of Abraham). Even today, superstition continues to be rampant within those visually oriented religious systems.
Where does the world get its ideas about Jesus? Most non-Christians only know what they've picked up from sources they regard as Christian, although rarely is the content biblical. More than a billion Muslims, for example, hold a view of Jesus that Muhammad gleaned from questionable Christians. The Qur'an states that Isa (Jesus) is not the Son of God because Allah has no son. Isa's birth took place under a palm tree, and, while still a babe, he cried out from his cradle that he was a servant of Allah, who had given him a revelation and made him a prophet. He did not die upon the cross; someone took his place—all in contradiction to the Bible.
Many Jews put stock in the alleged Talmudic stories that oppose the gospel accounts. They have been taught that Jesus was an illegitimate child who was born to a harlot and a scoundrel. Declaring himself to be the Messiah, he performed healings by sorcery and consequently was stoned and then hung on a tree for his magic and blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.
Hindus have added Jesus as one more avatar, or god, among their 330 million gods. All of their gurus who have become popular in the West—from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to Rajneesh—preach their own "Jesus." Buddhists, such as the 14th Dalai Lama, regard Jesus as a bodhisattva, or enlightened god, among multitudes of gods reincarnated for the service of humanity.
Incredibly, the above erroneous beliefs about Jesus are fostered within professing Christianity by a popular practice among Emerging Church fellowships. Some invite the followers of the world religions for "conversation" in order to learn more about Jesus from a pluralistic perspective. The goal seems to be to establish a Jesus who is acceptable to people of all faiths—or no faith. A common refrain heard from the Emergent communities is "We love Jesus but not His church." Certainly, as the church has compromised with the world, there is much not to like. Yet sadly, for many, it is neither the biblical Jesus whom they love nor the biblical church that they support. Some are under the delusion that Jesus is becoming more respected in our culture. That has never been the case for the Jesus revealed in Scripture.
It is hard for anyone who has a personal, intimate relationship with Jesus Christ to accept that the world hates Him, this One whom we love so much. It was difficult for me, and I still struggle with that. How could anyone reject the One who loves us more than we could ever comprehend, and whose sacrifice for those He created is so wonderfully unfathomable? Such hatred is often masked and develops progressively and by stealth. It is found in Satan's strategy that began with "Yea, hath God said...?" His dialogue with Eve provided a ripe opportunity to subvert the truth about God and His command. Eve bought the Adversary's lying alteration of God's character and his denial of the consequence of disobedience. Her offspring down through the ages have done likewise.
Yet that reality in the guise of condescension and mockery nearly moved me to despair as I reviewed a particular episode of Fox TV's The Family Guy. The program (presented by the same network that created "Fox Faith" to market movies to Christian families) featured a Jesus character who left heaven to get away from his "nit-picking, overbearing father"; who proves his "deity" by changing meals into ice cream sundaes and enlarging a woman's breasts; who walks on water to fetch a five-dollar bill; who appears on Jay Leno and an MTV award show; who goes Hollywood, gets drunk at a party, and lands in jail, and who comes to the conclusion that he's not mature enough yet to help the world. I immediately searched for protests from Christendom against this Fox TV top-rated program. There were found neither cries of outrage nor weeping for those who blasphemed and ridiculed the only One who could save them. Some Christians offered uneasy rationalizations that Jesus certainly must have a sense of humor. That's the Jesus the world wants.
My mind raced to the Garden of Gethsemane, thinking about our Savior on His knees in prayer before the Father, where in His anguish He sweat as it were great drops of blood. He would become sin for us. Our Creator would take our sins upon Himself and experience the eternal penalty due every soul. Although He would be triumphant in paying for the sins of mankind, He nevertheless cried out to the Father that if there was any other way to save humanity, to let this cup of separation pass. But there was no other way.
I thought of the Lord of Glory hanging upon the cross on Calvary's hill, with the mockers about Him. Yet He died for them—and for those who mock Him still.
Pray that we who truly know Him would not drift from Him because of "another Jesus" conjured up by the world, our own flesh, or the devil. Pray also that the Lord will enable us to reflect the true character of Christ in our words and deeds; that He will help us to show the world the true Jesus, who, being God, came in the likeness of man, was treated as though He were sin itself, and satisfied the divine justice of God by dying upon the Cross, thus providing salvation for all of mankind. TBC
Endnotes
1. Romans 1:16
5. Isaiah 59:2
6. 1 John 2:2
8. Hebrews 12:2
9. Romans 1:3-4
11. Romans 5:6
12. Ephesians 2:8
13. John 3:15
14. Romans 5:18
15. John 3:3
16. Galatians 2:20; 1 Peter 1:23
17. Colossians 1:27
20. John 16:13
In the name of your own soul and its own salvation, in the name of the adorable victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary, I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide sea of politics, there is another King, one Jesus; the safety of the state can be secured only in the way of humble and whole-souled loyalty to His person and of obedience to His law.
A. A. Hodge, 1887
The following Questions and Responses are from past (pre-1997) issues of The Berean Call. We decided to include them in this final issue of 2008 because they are still being asked of TBC today. We hope you will be blessed by Dave's answers to these timeless issues.
Question (composite of several): We can't seem to find a church in our area that has godly leadership and biblical preaching. We feel so alone and now just read the Bible and pray at home. What should we do? How do we find a "good" church?
Response: It is a sad commentary on the state of the church that we receive many such queries.
What marks a "healthy" church? Crucial to the answer is Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst...." Christ himself must be the central focus—not a pastor, gripping sermons, a strong missionary emphasis, exciting youth programs, compatible fellow members, or even agreeable doctrines, important as all these factors are. A fervent love for Christ and a heartfelt corporate worship of His Person must be the primary mark of a healthy church.
The early church was thus characterized. It met regularly on the first day of the week in remembrance of His death. That weekly outpouring of praise, worship, and thanksgiving had one purpose—to give God His due portion. It isn't primarily a matter of my need, my edification, my enjoyment or my spiritual satisfaction, but of His worth in my eyes and the eyes of the church.
As I see it, our secondary focus should be our opportunity for servanthood with a corporate body of believers. I give myself to a needy, imperfect people for whom I can pray, for whose needs I can concern myself in practical ways, to whom I can be an encourager and a minister of the Word, and among whom I can demonstrate and work out Christ's desire that His own "might be one." This fellowship is commanded: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" (Heb 10:25). Is it our joy to gather with God's people in intercessory prayer and study of the Word, or is Sunday-morning-only quite enough? A healthy church will not only gather unto Him, but with each other.
Lastly, I need to assess my own spiritual needs. The shepherds must provide the spiritual food that will nurture the flock, that it might be "throughly furnished unto all good works"(2 Tm 3:17). That's a big order and requires, of course, a teachable flock that loves the Word and is in willing subjection to it. The shepherds must also guard the flock of God by keeping out false and dangerous doctrines contrary to the truth. They must adhere to the pure Word of God as the only authority for faith
and morals.
You say, "Wonderful! Lead me to such a church." Remember, however, the order of priority: Worship (do you worship sincerely, wholeheartedly, and in a manner satisfying to the object of that worship?); Servanthood (do you serve, even as Christ gave us an example, with humility and with joy?); Personal needs (are you growing, maturing, taking on Christ's character?).
The final decision as to your church affiliation must be, prayerfully, yours. Is your personal worship of the Savior so joyful and satisfying a thing both to you and to Him that it supersedes other considerations? Do your opportunities for service render your fellowship sufficiently meaningful and significant? Or do doctrinal concerns or lack of biblical preaching and teaching cancel out the other two? You must seek the Lord for His answer. God's comforting assurance remains: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Question: We are in urgent need of information for our church family concerning the Bible paraphrase by Eugene Peterson: The Message published by NavPress....I do not believe that The Message is a good translation...yet it is promoted by Promise Keepers as well as other "big, trusted" names in the Christian world. We are many here in our town who hope to be able to obtain a brochure or a position paper concerning this paraphrase.
Response: Unfortunately, the errors in this paraphrase (it's not a translation) are numerous and serious. The Message cannot be relied upon to tell the truth and, in fact, is dangerously misleading. If Promise Keepers endorses it, that is one more mark against that organization.
Let me give you only a few examples. John 1:1 actually says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Message renders it, "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." That garbling is an improvement?! It is confusing at best and misleading at worst, changing the meaning. "In the beginning was the Word" is changed to "The Word was first." First before God? And what does "in readiness for God" mean? In verse 5, "the darkness comprehended it not" is rendered, "the darkness couldn't put it out," changing the meaning entirely.
In verse 14, "full of grace" becomes "Generous inside and out," while "truth" becomes "true from start to finish." "Generous" and "grace" do not mean the same, nor does "true from start to finish" convey the rich meaning of Christ being "full of truth." In verse 29, "which taketh away the sin of the world" becomes "He forgives the sins of the world." There is a world of difference between taking away the sin of the world by paying the debt mankind owed, and forgiving sins! In John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit" becomes, "unless a person submits to this original creation—the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life," again obscuring, complicating, and changing the true meaning. In 3:17, "but that the world through him might be saved" becomes "He came to help, to put the world right again," a destructive change in the meaning.
"Saved" means to be redeemed, rescued from the judgment we deserve for our sins; whereas "to help, to put the world right again" sounds like social or political reformation. In verse 36, "the wrath of God abideth on him" becomes, "All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that." How can anyone experience darkness from God, when 1 John 1:5 says of God, "in him is no darkness at all"? Serious error is added to serious error!
In 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" is perverted to read, "God didn't send me out to collect a following for myself but to preach the Message." It is important that Paul, a former rabbi, is a follower of Christ—The Message says "of God." The main point Paul makes is that baptism is not part of the gospel—The Message misses that completely. "Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect" is changed to "...lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words." There is a vast difference between the eternal effect of "the cross of Christ" as the Bible states it and "Christ on the Cross" as The Message puts it and Catholicism depicts it. Christ is not on the cross; the work is finished! In verse 30, "sanctification, and redemption" is changed to read "a clean slate and a fresh start"—both trivializing and misleading. In Hebrews 11:1, "the substance of things hoped for" becomes "the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living," a totally different meaning, with hope for eternity expunged. In verse 4, regarding the lamb, which speaks of Christ, the "more excellent sacrifice" offered by Abel, the comment is interjected, "It was what he believed, not what he brought, that made the difference." On the contrary, the sacrifice he brought was important to his belief, and without the proper sacrifice there could be no forgiveness no matter what was believed.
In verse 7, "became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" is changed to "became intimate with God," again an entirely different meaning which leaves out the vital phrase "righteousness which is by faith." In verse 16, "God is not ashamed to be called their God" is twisted into "God is so proud of them." Never! Attributing the human evil of pride to God is blasphemy and leaves the dangerous impression that if God is proud then it isn't so bad for man to be proud as well.
In verse 35, "that they might obtain a better resurrection" becomes "preferring something better: resurrection." Again the meaning is changed completely. It makes it sound as though resurrection is dependent upon good works. It was not a question of whether they would be resurrected, but of the reward they would receive in the Resurrection.
These are only a few among many errors, some extremely serious. It is appalling that any mere man would change or ignore the meaning of God's Word under the vain delusion that he could improve upon what God has said and the way He has said it! It is even more appalling that a leading evangelical publisher would publish this blasphemy, Christian bookstores would sell it, and Christian leaders would praise instead of denounce this perversion!
Question: Though I've read your excellent discussions on eternal security, I still need understanding of the following Scriptures: Romans 11:21-22, Colossians 1:22-23, Hebrews 3:6,14. Second Peter 2:20-22 speaks of those who have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord, and who were washed, being entangled again and overcome. Please explain these apparent contradictions.
Response: The New Testament contains frequent exhortations to godly living, to "continue in the faith" and to "hold fast the confidence firm unto the end" (Heb 3:6,14) and to "walk worthy of the Lord" (Eph 4:1; Col 1:10), and warns of being "cut off" (Rom 11:22). The exhortation is to two classes of people: (1) those who are false professors, in order to show them that their lives demonstrate that they do not truly know the Lord; and (2) Christians who are living in disobedience, to warn them that if they continue to dishonor their Lord He will severely discipline them. The latter could be "cut off" from fellowship with other believers, or from this life.
Peter completes his argument in the passage to which you refer (v. 22) with these words: "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." That seems to make it clear that he has been referring to those who claim to be Christians but are not. He is not referring to "sheep" who truly belong to the Good Shepherd, but to "dogs" and "pigs" who got in among the flock for a time but didn't belong and reverted to the behavior dictated by their unregenerate nature.
The Corinthian church was rife with division, disorder, debate, immorality, and sacrilege. Never is there a hint in Paul's epistles to them, however, that such sins had cost any of them their salvation. They were disciplined as Christians: "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth...for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" (Heb 12:6-8). Some who gorged themselves and became drunk at the Lord's table dishonored the Lord to such an extent, not "discerning the Lord's body," that they were cut off in death (1 Cor 11:27-34). The man who had "his father's wife"—a terrible sin—didn't lose his salvation thereby but as a brother in Christ was cut off from fellowship in discipline (1 Cor 5:1-13); then later he was restored (2 Cor 2:4-11).
OneNewsNow, 10/10/2008: The Discovery Institute says a group of Darwinists who are opposing efforts by the Texas State Board of Education to allow evolution to be debated in the classroom are clinging to 19th century science in the 21st century.
The group, which refers to itself as the 21st Century Science Coalition, opposes the teaching of scientific evidence that shows the weakness of prevailing evolutionary theory. They claim that teaching such scientific evidence would pave the way to the eventual teaching of religious ideas such as creationism. Casey Luskin with the Discovery Institute says despite the group's name, they are in fact clinging to outdated 19th century science:
"What [the group] wants to have taught in the classroom, is that evolution is an uncontroversial fact that is absolutely, 100 percent proven to be true and that there are no scientists who dissent from it. And they want students to basically not learn about any views that might have scientific dissent from modern neo-Darwinian theory."
There is plenty of scientific evidence, according to Luskin, that questions leading evolutionary theory....Darwinists try to insulate their theories from criticisms [by relabeling] any criticisms as religious attack.
"But that is absolutely a false relabeling. In fact, there are over 700 scientists who dissent from neo-Darwinian evolution and have signed a statement of dissent that's on a list that can be found at DissentFromDarwin.org," Luskin points out. "And there are a large number of peer-reviewed, scientific articles that have come out in the last 10, 20, 30 years that challenge various key aspects of neo-Darwinian theory."
Dear Berean Call,
Thank you for the work, the research, and the willingness to say it as the Scriptures say it. Keep on. As a pastor, it is becoming more and more difficult—people don't really want the Bible truth [but] what they consider to be truth. Psychology has really taken over...and is coming into our church here....I have taken a stance against it, but I feel very alone. Thanks for the encouragement. CB (IN)
Dear TBC,
A fellow prisoner recently shared several issues of TBC newsletter with me. Wow! Having thoroughly read each one twice, I am led to write and let you know I appreciate your holy boldness....I assure you that your materials do not gather dust in here. They will be shared with many others besides me. Thanks again and keep earnestly contending for the Faith. GA (prisoner, NC)
TBC,
I have just read the first part of Mr. McMahon's article concerning Apostasy. I would simply like to add my utter agreement. This disease of Apostasy has become a virulent cancer that has infected the majority of churches here in UK....Recently I was answering criticism concerning our street preaching. I pointed out that John Wesley rode the length and breadth of this country preaching the same message that we do. The young Christian's response was, "Well, who was John Wesley anyway? He was just a man!" Please keep us in your prayers. JH (United Kingdom)
Dearest Dave,
I'm 65 years old...and have followed various ill-chosen pathways trying to find the Lord. [But] I've [also] spent many years keeping a heart toward Israel, praying for "the apple of the Lord's eye"....I currently finished your book Judgment Day....With all my heart, thank you! I wish I could do so much more—so much wasted time and a body that's been unwell. You've helped open my eyes....I've been to Dachau, I've known many Jews who were inmates. Thank you, Dave, for being so faithful and for standing up and telling it like it is. (email)
Dear Dave and Tom and TBC Staff,
I just listened to your program [Search the Scriptures Daily] on my little kitchen radio. Good thing I stayed up late to clean up! It's been too long since I listened to your always-updated, insightful, and scripturally sound perspectives. It's past midnight, and I wanted to be sure to thank you for your ministry....You both speak about current trends so clearly, concisely, and compassionately. There is no tone of self-sufficiency but rather you lay out the trends you are seeing amidst the backdrop of "peace" and "unity...." Thanks so much for all the time and effort...so that we all may come to the saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. GS (OR)
Dave and Tom,
[Re program aired 10/25/08], you two were talking about deceptive things that people are falling into....When you began judging Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, and others, I would say "beware!" The word says we will be judged in the same way we judge others: "Depart from me, I know you not...you had a form of godliness but denied the power."...I have followed some of these people's teaching and personally have felt the anointing and healing in my own body. The word says our spirit will identify with their spirit. I have served God with all my heart for fifty years. I am evangelical. To talk about these things is good but when you accuse people by name you are not joining with God's people for the great commission, you are destroying men of God with your mouth.... (email)
Dear Dave,
I'm nearly finished with [your book with Hans Kristian] To Russia with Love, and I have been blessed to the highest degree! I've always been interested in the people who risk their lives to get the gospel to those who would have no other way of becoming believers. I will reread my copy many times to receive the blessings all over again. FS (ME)
Dear Brothers,
I want to thank you for the most recent "Dave's Newsletter." Thank you all for your work, your love for the Lord and His truth, shown in the light of your work within dark places that Jesus warned about....It has become...evident through Scripture that Satan works with a tool called the "wedge," and all he needs is a small space to get in....and pollute it with seeds of weeds. SH (prisoner, MA)
Berean Call Staff,
We showed the DVD Psychology and the Church at our congregation. Of course it caused a stir, but many were blessed by it and encouraged to minister to the Body with the gifts that the Father has provided. D&MM (CA)
Dear Tom and Dave,
I am glad you are offering the new product The Truth About Mormonism....I really relate to KB (MO) in your "Letters" section from the Oct 08 newsletter. I, too, have had conversations, or tried to, with church members about biblically related topics or experiences I've had, only to [encounter] blank stares, or worse, indifference. ML (OH)
The Jesus I Love
As I worked on this month's article I found myself reflecting upon this 19th century, Augustus Toplady love song glorifying the biblical Jesus.
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.
While I draw this fleeting breath,
When mine eyes shall close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.
Executive Director
T.A. McMahon
Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust
Short selections from Chapter Five: The Coming World Government
A ruthless, vicious, totalitarian government, saying all of the right things about peace, love, and brotherhood, will soon take control of planet Earth. Nothing can stop it. The United States, after its sudden and mysterious collapse, will be powerless, a mere pawn in the process. Will this be something that the fabled Trilateralists will bring about? No, the conspiracy is much larger than that and far too powerful for the Trilateralists to control.
Much of the alarmist nature has been rumored about a conspiracy among top political leaders in Washington to betray America's national interest. These men, all members or former members of the Trilateral Commission and/or Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), are said to be working hand in glove with certain highly placed Communist leaders in an international conspiracy to bring about a world government....There is no doubt some truth in such reports. However, the Trilateralists and CFR people are invariably referred to with exaggerations that seem to attribute omniscience and omnipotence to the "internationalists."
It is a fact that members of several elite political organizations here and abroad are part of an international conspiracy to establish a world government. However, is that so bad? How else can there be a just and lasting worldwide peace? Surely a world government should not be considered evil, but the best hope for preventing a nuclear holocaust. Yet many object that it could only be established at the cost of freedoms that Westerners hold dear....
In several of his books, H. G. Wells seems to have anticipated with uncanny accuracy the steps leading to the coming world government. While proposing a worldwide benevolent socialism, he had no illusions about Communism, which he rejected with these words:
Instead, he predicted that the new world order would be in the hands of "an elite of intelligent religious-minded people." The religion of these sincere conspirators, as Wells laid it out and confessed it to be his own, was exactly what the Bible describes as the religion of the coming Antichrist! Few people will notice this, however, so intent will they be upon saving the world from nuclear holocaust. Their goals will be so sincere and seem so logical: that a lasting, genuine peace can only come through worldwide control over the nationalistic interests that otherwise compete for territories, resources, wealth, and power, and that create wars in the process....
Raised to be an evangelical by his mother, Wells became an apostate enemy of Christianity. A close friend of T. H. Huxley, Wells was an avid evolutionist and an atheist. Yet he had a religion, a belief that an elite of Godlike men would evolve in due time, "take the world in hand and create a sane order." The world would be transformed through his apostate religion. It is doubtful that Wells realized that he was prophesying the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy: "Let no one in any way deceive you, for...the apostasy comes first..., and [then] the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." ...Wells, however, seemed to know that it would not come in his generation, but probably in the next:
The idea of a world government has been around for a long time. What is new today is the fact that almost everyone is coming to the same conclusion, and in the desperation of the hour millions of people are doing something about it....As H. G. Wells predicted, the "conspiracy" has now become an open movement involving hundreds of millions of "believers." Most of these "open conspirators," as Wells prophesied, have in mind a worldwide unity that will be built less upon government than the internationalists intend, and more upon a fundamental people-to-people relationship. That this could very well happen is being demonstrated by networks of thousands of groups of ordinary citizens already working together around the world in the new and powerful peace movement. Again it seems to have been anticipated by Wells, who wrote: "What we work toward is synthesis, and this communal effort is the adventure of humanity."
Something important is taking shape—a huge, growing, grass-roots movement that is not so much political as it is religious, though not in the ordinary sense. It is a new spirituality, a mysticism that is too big to be confined within the narrow limits of any religion.
Dr. [Fritjov] Capra, brilliant University of California at Berkeley research physicist, declared:
It is interesting that when H. G. Wells wrote of the "open conspiracy" that would eventually establish the new world order, he declared: "This is my religion...the truth and the way of salvation....It is astir already in many intelligences...an immense and hopeful revolution in human affairs...."
There is overwhelming evidence that what Wells predicted is happening at last, that it is not a chance phenomenon, and that it is already much too big for the Trilateralists to control....
We face not only a coming world government, but also a coming world religion. In the space age, it must have the endorsement of science. What could this religion be? It takes no great genius to realize that if the Bible calls its leader the Antichrist, then this religion must be antichristian. However, Jesus Himself warned that this man would pretend to be the Christ, and that his masquerade would be so clever and convincing that it would "mislead, if possible, even the elect."
