A Wonderful Miracle in El Salvador

When it come to browsing through Facebook, indeed the current excess feed on Playbuzz personality quizzes, BBC News, How Stuff Works, post ads for Blogging Circle and I'm a Blogger, as well as Suggested Posts, all this can fill the wall with material which seems to be irrelevant to life in the real world. To add to this, an apparent lack of communion among friends, friends of friends, or even the public, often makes Facebook somewhat impersonal at times. Except for one particular video which appeared a couple of weeks ago.

It was a video posted to the Guardian newspaper about a church planting taking place at El Salvador, a small country in Central America with the highest murder rate in the world. Since the Civil War in the 1980's, two rival gangs began to spring up. One is MS-13, the other 18th Street (from those who fled to Los Angeles and were later deported back to El Salvador). Infinite numbers of teenagers in the 14-15 age realm had died as a result of not obeying their ringleaders. One particular area, Distrito Italia, in a provincial town of Apopa, became so dangerous that Government officials refuse to enter the area to provide services.

Then at an El Salvador prison, many of the inmates were converted to Christ as a result of a visiting preacher. The converts quickly realised that there are only three ways out of the gangland culture - violent street death, death in a hospital, or through faith in God, so one interviewee said.

The video shows a congregation of exclusively male prison inmates singing praises to God and testifying how having faith in Jesus Christ have totally changed their lives. Elsewhere, church-based centres were established, offering dormitory-style accommodation in exchange for domestic duties to ex-gang members who have found themselves homeless. At another location, a church had grown from the initial seventy members to that of 1,500. I would say that the majority of these converts bear tattoos from their former lifestyles, making them look very different from the traditional English middle class churchgoer.

In fact, they admit this themselves. As one pastor quoted: We are not the typical Christian - in a sense if referring to our perception of what a Christian should be. But all testify to a strong love and passion for Jesus and a strong commitment to each other.

It is while dwelling on these things when I began to speculate whether they believe in Eternal Security of the Believer. Actually, if I were to approach any of these converts or their pastors with such a question, the most likely response would be that they would shrug their shoulders as they try to work out what I'm talking about, then simply say they are devoted to God and express their determination not to yield to temptation, simply because of their love and devotion to Christ. The concept of Eternal Security, in all probability, would be unknown to them.

Therefore I consulted a website on the religious background of El Salvador as a nation. According to the statistics (with some minor variances) approximately half the population, around 48-52% are Roman Catholics, a further 28-30% are Protestants, and the remaining 20% or so are of other diverse faiths, including Judaism. Among the Protestants, the vast majority are of the Pentecostal denominations, along with sub-groups including the Assemblies of God, the Church of Christ, some Baptists, even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism making up a small minority, and there are others who have pagan or no religion at all.

If Britain can be regarded as a Western model to go by, chances are that the greater majority of El Salvador Protestants are from the respectable middle classes, worlds away from gangland culture. Their way of life are not much different from our own British Christians (except perhaps a little less reserved), well educated and with respectable careers allowing them to bring home an adequate income to support their families.

Although I cannot be cut and dried on these matters, chances are that these gangsters in general have a Catholic background. Having looked back at my own experiences, along with having spoken to nominal Catholics who were thoroughly hostile to their boyhood faith, together with watching their videos touching on such hostility towards their religious background, my assumption does not appear to look at all out of place. As a Catholic myself, I recall the Church teachings on infused righteousness, received at infant baptism, which means that if I commit a minor sin, then in the afterlife its some time spent in Purgatory, a temporary hell where such sins are purged out before entering Heaven. Then there is always that major or mortal sin knocking on the door, and to die with a mortal sin means Hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption. The trouble is, with no distinction between a "venial" sin and a "mortal" sin, no Catholic can be assured of Heaven after death. Instead, he must spend his whole life confessing to a priest, do penance, partake in the Sacraments, and to lead a sinless life to keep himself out of Hell. Little wonder that the God of the Catholic is either looked upon apathetically, or his existence denied. Or perceived as most feared, if not hated, for his truculence!

Basilica San Pietro, Rome. 

Therefore it comes to no surprise to learn that these dangerous gangs of El Salvador were most likely former Catholics. It was only after conversion when they learned that faith in Christ alone brings eternal life, and therefore able to love God with sincerity, rather than debating within their minds about their own fate in the afterlife. Hence the difference between infused and imputed righteousness. The first must be sustained by the believer, the second is being credited with the righteousness of Christ.

Oh, to be credited with the righteousness of Christ! That means God sees us in the same way he sees Jesus Christ. That is the meaning of the word Christian. It literally means Little Christ. Eternally Secure! No wonder I'm an advocate of such a wonderful doctrine. An adopted son of God, never to be disenfranchised. Born anew into God's eternal Kingdom. That is the meaning of Regeneration, the birth of the new man within me, one who is incapable of sin and has a desire for God's holiness.

As I sat at a Costa Coffee in Reading earlier this week, I felt my soul lift as I meditated on the love of Christ, and I expressed my longing for him to take me into his heart and be forever united with God. And by thanking him for my retirement, my wife and for all daily provisions. Even toward those who hate me, at that moment I felt no antagonism towards them. Instead, I felt wonderful peace and joy, an awareness of God's presence. My request is that I'll get closer and closer to God throughout the rest of my life. This is the fruit of Eternal Security. Knowing never to be lost again, ever. Is it this what those ex-gangsters are experiencing at El Salvador? After all, their love and commitment to God and to each other seem to reflect this.

The wonderful truth is that when a sinner turns to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, he is forever saved, whether he realises it or not. A Christian may not believe in Eternal Security, not too sure, or is unaware of it, but that does not change the facts. It's a bit like questioning whether my heart keeps on beating while I'm asleep. Despite my doubts, it still beats on as long as I remain alive.

And the problem of sin is why I have eternal security through the righteousness of Christ imputed into my account. James 2:10 says that if I keep the whole Law but stumble at just one point, then I'm guilty of breaking the whole law. Hence the massive problem facing Catholics. It takes just one sin committed and already he's in big trouble. Therefore Eternal Security as a result of a spiritual rebirth  in Christ can only in itself satisfy.

Therefore I can't help but pity those Christians who are convinced that salvation can be lost after believing. Known as Arminians, from the 16th Century Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, they are faced with a massive problem when confronting sin. Arminius taught that by turning from the faith or to commit a serious sin or a large number of sins, salvation can be forfeited and the person ends up in Hell. Here lies the problem. Nobody knows where the line is drawn when once crossed, it's past the point of no return. Yet the Bible teaches that just one minor sin is enough for disenfranchisement. After all, the sin committed by Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of a certain tree does not look very serious, yet it was enough to bring about the Fall, and death to all men thereafter.

This leads to a very perverse view of God, not unlike with those gangsters before their conversion. If God is seen as truculent, then the believer will behave the same way. One striking example of this occurred a few weeks ago. When I greeted this Arminian with a light body touch, he immediately turned to me and shouted that he does not want to know me and I should consult the elders, thus disgracing himself before anyone who might be watching. He is certainly not unique. I have come across this sort of anger among Arminians quite a number of times before. What amazes me about all this is that by such action he has already sinned against God, therefore according to his theological viewpoint he might have already lost his salvation.

What a contrast between all this and the attitude of these El Salvador converts! These ex-gangsters are unlikely to be aware of Eternal Security of the Believer yet they act as if they were aware. They revel in God's love with a lasting wish for further closeness with God and the willingness to testify of his salvation. Among them there is no debate on eternal security - a debate which they may be better off without.

On top of their love and commitment to God, they were committed to each other as well as having concerns for the lost around them. And that has always been one of my concerns about unbelievers. Day by day I cross paths with other men, women, families, children. I watch television, listen to the radio, read newspapers, browse the Internet. To one blogger friend I have expressed my concern on her comments forum. In it I admitted my difficulty in praising God knowing that Hell exists and the lost are heading straight towards it. I think of my parents and my brother. My father has passed away a few years ago after admitting that he doesn't believe in the same way that I believe. My mother is still alive but suffering severe memory loss. My brother, once an atheist, might have second thoughts about God, especially after Dad died. Yet everyone who knows me, within the family circle and outside, are aware on where I stand in the faith.

My blogging friend's response was interesting. She wrote that since none of us are fit for Heaven, for a sinner to be saved is an even bigger question, with her explanation that entry into Heaven through the imputed righteousness of Christ is indeed worthy of praise. Such a response had altered my perception of God and his love. I guess I naturally take after my father, tending to see the glass as half empty. The grace of God is about the glass being half full, or better still, completely full. A sinner is saved because God loves him and is willing to show mercy. It's from this new perception that I have enjoyed the peace and joy of God whilst sitting alone at Costa Coffee.

And for his sake, not ours. I believed, received mercy and was saved for his sake. All the ex-gangsters at El Salvador were saved for his sake, not merely theirs. Really, I hope they all realise this and believe this. Because to know that we are all saved by grace for his sake and for the glory of God brings eternal security, and so the Bible tell us (for example: Ezekiel 36:22-28, Ephesians 1:3-14). We are saved for his sake. This truth is a good enough foundation for believing in Eternal Security of the Believer. 

I Don't Believe in 'IF' Anymore...

Yes I am aware that for readers approximating my age range, such readers would recognise the above title as that of a song written and sung by Roger Whittaker, released in 1977. But this little word, at least according to what I have experienced, have read about, and listened to, has proven catastrophic over two millennia of Christendom. This is actually a continuation of last week's blog, When I Question My Faith, and continue to examine what I believe in, why, and to try to analyse why atheists believe the way they do.

I can't help but feel sympathetic for the average atheist. Or for that matter, the agnostic too. The main difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the latter accepts the possibility of God's existence. In turn, the atheist denies his existence altogether. But neither would accept the revelation of God's divine creation as history. My late father was an agnostic. He believed in the existence of God. But he rebuked me, even to the point of teasing, for believing in a young-Earth creation as recent as six millennia in the past, together with the idea of a talking snake, and the thought of a shoreless ocean annihilating a whole race of men and air-breathing animals alike. Ahem. And not to mention a talking donkey rebuking a mad prophet who had dollar signs in his eyes! Not long after my conversion, and still living at home, Dad saw me read a Bible that was given to him by a Jehovah's Witness back in the 1950's. So indeed it was quite an old copy, a King James version with two columns of cross-references, one on both edges of each page. For up to twenty years this particular copy of the Bible sat at our bookshelf, totally undisturbed as it was squeezed between other books on both sides. But that particular day, after a few months reading it, Dad took the Bible out of my hands and with anger, literally tore it to shreds right in front of me.

Of course, I was horrified, and also suffered a terrible loss. Not long after, when our Catholic priest came round to have a talk to me, I agreed to attend his church on Sundays. So for a short while I started attending. This pleased both my parents and it seemed to bring peace to the household at last. But I did not feel at home in a Catholic church, and it was not long before I left, to attend a live Anglican Church in Brixton, South London, much to the disappointment of my parents. But the point is that such disagreement among Christian worshippers is fuel thrown to the fires of atheism. And to my confusion too, back in those days.

And this blog was written just a day after a terrorist incident at an Underground train in West London, where a bomb planted in one of the carriages was only partially detonated, and flash-burning every passenger who was unfortunate enough to be close to the bomb. The device failed to detonate properly. Had it, then there would have been a high number of deaths within the train, and for those further away, plenty more would have been seriously injured. I for one, am convinced that the failure of the bomb to detonate properly was from God's mercy, who imposed a "restriction" on what the device can do. Sure enough, any atheist would burst into laughter at my theory and ask why if God was able to restrict the explosion, then why not prevent it entirely? Really, was God's hand simply not long enough to have prevented the detonation altogether?

The Islamic terrorist, in turn would have asked the opposite question. After carrying out his duty so faithfully, why had Allah let him down so badly? Didn't his deity inspire his prophet Mohammed to have all unbelievers and apostates slain? Then further confusion arises, especially among the unchurched, that Yahweh and Allah is perceived as the one true merciful God, worshipped and adored by Christians and Muslims alike, according to the Vatican. Yet no matter how hard I try, I have found it to be impossible to reconcile Yahweh, who sent his Son to atone for our sins, with a son-less deity who is bent on murder, terrorism, and revenge. And yet despite such difficulty in reconciling the two entities, I can still conjure up an image of Jerusalem in my mind. A city I'm already very familiar with, having spent some time of my life there. The Old City is divided into three monotheistic religions - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian. Even the Christian section of the city is sub-divided, with the Armenians having their own Quarter, making four Quarters altogether. The other Christian Quarter has in it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic churches, along with a Lutheran church, and an Anglican church just inside Jaffa Gate. Among all of them, the concept of Eternal Security of the Believer is relatively unknown, even if both the Anglican and Lutheran churches are perceived to be closer to Biblical truth than the other churches, which tend to lean more on custom and traditions.    

And this I can testify. I attended services at Christ Church Anglican, close to the gate, on several occasions. Behind the pulpit, the twin tablets on which the Decalogue is displayed remains in full view. And they insist on the historicity of Holy Scripture. That was why I felt that I belonged there whilst I was living in Jerusalem, even if I didn't agree with everything they taught. Oh, how short the walk was along Souq David, from my hostel to the church, passing shops open for business, Arab shopkeepers constantly beckoning passing tourists, along with the banter of daily life. Yet as I saunter through the Medieval streets of the Old City, here was the one city which was home to three different monotheistic religions - all three teaching that faith without works is dead, and that the believer, whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian, must work to a greater or lesser degree to secure his salvation. Unfortunately for the Muslims, this entry into Paradise after death often involve jihad, or holy war, where many are slain to promote Allah and to convert to the writings of the Koran, which all Muslims believe to be written under Allah's inspiration, and therefore free from error.

Christ Church, Jerusalem - interior.

Exactly like we as Christians accept the Bible to be free from error. Then you as a Christian, reading this, how would you feel if I was to say that the Bible isn't free from error, but instead contains some inconsistencies? Yes, you read that right. Would you instantly click off from this page and go elsewhere, dismissing me as an apostate or liberal? Before you do, let me ask you to read on and consider these inconsistencies:

Such as Matthew 27:9-10. Here the apostle cites an Old Testament prophecy, and saying it was a quote from Jeremiah. But actually he was quoting from Zechariah 11:12. Then we have Mark declaring that Jesus was crucified "in the third hour" - that is nine o'clock in the morning (Mark 15:25), whilst Matthew writes that by the sixth hour, that is midday, Jesus was already on the cross, and it was then it began to get dark (Matthew 27:45), with Luke fully agreeing with Matthew's testimony (Luke 23:44). However, John has Jesus still standing in front of Pilate's judgement seat at midday (John 19:14). Where there might have been some collaboration between Matthew and Luke with Mark's testimony, yet it does seem rather stretching to believe that Jesus was already crucified by nine in the morning, especially if Luke records Pilate sending Jesus to Herod sometime in between. And only Luke records this visit to Herod's palace. Furthermore, we are not told how long Jesus stood before Herod. It could have been as long as an hour. Then considering the slow movement of the crowds, along with the bustling and confusion, allowing up to thirty minutes each way to make the journey across Jerusalem, which means there have, most likely, been a break in Pilate's judgement for up to two hours, making John's testimony of Jesus still standing before Pilate at midday more credible.

But the rather wide inconsistency between Mark's testimony and that of John's testimony in the timing of the crucifixion still remains. Then again, I have little idea when exactly in the morning was Jesus escorted to Pilate's palace by the Jews. But all four seem to agree that it was early morning, most likely shortly after daybreak, which would have been sometime between six and seven o'clock. If that was the case, then Mark's testimony of a nine o'clock crucifixion does hold some plausibility. But that still does not explain the inconsistency between Mark and John.

Then there is another apparent inconsistency which can still baffle many to this day, and which I had difficulty in coping with. Consider these verses:

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? 
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples.
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.
Matthew 26:17-19, also Mark 14:12-17, and Luke 22:7-14.

Yet John says:

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early; and themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but they might eat the Passover.
Pilate then went out to them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
John 18:28-29. All quotes from the AV.

If I, who had read the Bible for over forty years, still find these conflicting verses difficult to grasp and reconcile, how would a new convert to the faith feel when he comes across such contradictions? And how would the atheist gloat, grinning from cheek to cheek with glee? Many church-goers don't seem to be aware of such contradictions, and if they are aware, they tend to sweep them under the carpet and pretend that's it's not a problem. But as I see it, where atheists are concerned, these contradictions present a massive problem for us who may want to witness to them and verify the historicity of Holy Scripture. And the trouble is, many of these atheists are not Biblical ignorant. They can open the Bible and read out these verses and we can only hide our blushes by cupping our faces in our hands.

The Bible is messy. It often does not appear so straightforward. Take another example of apparent contradiction. In Romans 8:38-39, Paul assures us that we are eternally secure in our salvation, and nothing can separate us from the love of God through Jesus Christ. And that is not only confined to man's persuasion to think otherwise, but not even demons, nor "powers in the air" nor height or depth, nor anything in the whole of creation can separate us from the love of God. Then flick through a couple of pages, and you see Paul's warning that we as non-Jews are likened to branches of a wild olive tree which were grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Then he warns us not to be conceited, or else we too will be broken off, just as the unbelieving Jews were (Romans 11:16-22). Here, in the very same letter, the apostle first reassures us that we are eternally secure in Christ, then afterwards we are to fear of becoming disenfranchised from God if we become too high minded. Then turn over some more pages until you come to Paul's letter to the church in Colossae. After discussing such glorious promises in partaking in the Resurrection of the just, Paul then concludes:

In the body of the flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.
Colossians 1:22-23.

And considering many more similar verses scattered across the whole New Testament, people has come up to me with the explanation that yes indeed, we as believers are eternally secure in Christ, and no one can take our salvation away from us, no, not even the spiritual realm of demonic powers in the air. But as long as you must yourself remain in the faith. According to them, you remain safe in Jesus Christ if you don't voluntarily walk away from the faith, or else it's hell after death. And they quote these and other similar Scriptures to prove their point.

I have looked upon history to see for myself the fruits of such a train of thinking. And all I could see was apostasy and the rise of iniquity among those who professed to have lived in a "Christian country". The Popes of Rome, for example, along with many of the Cardinals and of the clergy, were the most wicked men to have ever walked the earth! Cases of prostitution, adultery, paedophilia, murder, suppression, exorbitance, betrayal, conquest, the Inquisition with its many cases of physical torture, and many more crimes are forever etched into the history of the Roman Catholic Church spanning the centuries. And mainly, in my mind, due to the concept of the sinner "doing penitence" instead of just changing the mind about Jesus Christ being the risen Christ, the Son of God. Doing penance is the core of Catholic catechism. The process is to eradicate sin before the believer can be justified, and if sin is not eradicated, then there is little or no hope of heaven in the afterlife.

Church of St. Peter, the Vatican.

Yet despite of all this, the Bible is messy, and the atheist knows this. What I find by reading Holy Scriptures is that Prophecy, which is scattered throughout the entire Bible. By being extremely accurate in predicting events which took place even thousands of years after the prophecy was given, thus advocating the omniscience of God. And here is the crunch. If a "saved" person can simply walk away from the faith, then wouldn't the "omniscient God" be aware of this to begin with? Or to put it another way, would an all-knowing God make any effort to save a person if he already knows that that person will one day fall away? And what kind of gift is that apostate is to the one who suffered so painfully on a cross? A "naff" gift? Can't this all-knowing God choose properly? And to add to this, consider the spiritual realm. If a person "voluntary walks away" from the hand of Jesus Christ who is supposed to be holding him secure (John 10:28-30), then to walk away means that he must be going somewhere, no doubt to a more attractive location. And who is showing him that location? The Devil? If so, then the Adversary is stronger than God himself and it has also proved God to be a liar.

Questions, questions...

And yet, the Scriptures does look as if such contradictions exist in them. Free from error? There are times when I have pondered. Really, I have! I have to admit, even to myself, that I don't think that I could stand up against an atheist who knows the Bible well. Not unless I possess a Greater Power within who can not only take the knocks, but can deliver answers which would refute the atheist's every question, proving once and for all that this Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the risen Christ, and God manifest in the flesh.

And with such a manifestation of the Glory of God, in Christ I rest my case.

Mentoring? Yes, That is Good.

Without a shadow of of a doubt, the Internet has opened up a new world previously hidden from our private lives. And especially You-Tube. And after spending several years browsing through many of the website's numerous videos, by chance I came across one particular channel, and soon after, I became a subscriber of one young atheistic student with remarkable knowledge and insight for one still a teenager, despite that he still has yet to attend university. He has my head spinning despite him being young enough to be my grandson. Okay, his name is Alexander J. O'Connor, bearing the stage name of Cosmic Skeptic. 

Alexander J. O'Connor

Together with his high level of knowledge, whilst on air I found him to be reasonably humble. He does not slag off the ordinary Christian believer. Rather, he respects his beliefs. Rather he aims his guns at the "Big Shots" - the better-known evangelists and televangelists for debunking Science and advocating Supernatural Creationism, especially to a wide audience with their intention to "enslave the minds of young children to religious ignorance and from the wonders of Scientific facts." The "Scientific facts" referred to here are to do with Historical Geology and Darwinian Evolution, a rather small section of General Science, which also includes man-invented contrasts such as between civic engineering and watchmaking, along with chemistry, medicine, thermodynamics, computers, navigation, meteorology, astrology, magnetism, the elements (atoms, molecules, etc.), acoustics, optics, oceanography, volcanic and seismic sciences, plate tectonics, along with many other branches, all growing out of the three most important boughs of the Scientific tree-trunk - Physical Science, Life Science, and Earth Science. Even Physical Science itself has three branches - Physics, Chemistry, and Astronomy. Therefore in such a vast array, Darwinism occupies only a small branch, yet this small branch of science is taken to mean the whole of Science versus Divine Creation.

As a UK resident (Oxford, I believe) he had recently flown to California upon an invitation to make a thirty-minute presentation to an audience at a conference centre, followed by a further thirty minutes of questions from his listeners. And so there he was, a British teenager dressed in an open neck shirt without a tie, most likely the youngest presenter the centre has ever hosted. Yet possessing the knack and ability to challenge the older, more experienced, smart-suited televangelist whose motives sometimes comes over as more financial rather than spiritual or Gospel-centred. His presentation was about why he favoured science and atheism above creationism-based religion. And that includes all religions, not just fundamental Christianity.

There at first seems to be a vast chasm between this lad and myself when I was his age. Where he had accumulated such knowledge for his age I cannot be sure, but one thing I am aware of. That is if I was born around the year 2000, give or take, and happen to live next door, he would be a towering giant in the intellectual sense by comparison to myself, a dwarf. Yet we both have very similar backgrounds. We both grew up as Roman Catholics and by the time we have reached teenage years, we both had become disillusioned with religion. Perhaps his definition of an atheist is more true to himself than it was for me. Because during my teenage years I actually hated God and everything to do with religion, namely the churches. And whether the same applies to O'Connor, that's not for me to say. But there is one area he himself had brought to attention: And that during his presentation, he admitted that he has a fear of Hell, after watching videos of lost souls of people being tormented by the Devil and his minions after their deaths, leaving him with the awareness of the possibility of its existence.

That is not a good position to be in. Such videos can strike fear into those who watch them, and does not generate admiration or worship to God at all. I strongly advice not to watch these videos at all because these videos does not edify, nor does it draw the one who is watching closer to God. In fact, I actually believe that he who watches such videos will doubt the love of God rather than emphasise it. I know. When prompts for such videos had appeared on You-Tube, out of curiosity I clicked to view - with regret. I was left trembling with fear myself, even if I was a true believer in Christ myself for many years. The cause of such fear? Several factors:

a) The awful truth that had it not been for the atonement itself made by Jesus Christ on the cross, then I'll end up in Hell myself, making every achievement accomplished completely pointless. This leads to,
b) Dread of my beloved wife suffering unending torment in Hell herself. I just could not bear such a thought.
c) The cruel reality of the creation of all mankind by God if his destiny is eternal torment after death.
d) Whenever I'm out and about, watching people going about their daily business, including families with babies and young children, then pondering on their eternal destiny.
e) Considering whether I was "lucky" to have been born in a "Christian Country". What chances of Heaven is there if I had been born in a non-Christian country, such as in Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, or other pagan lands? And what about those who are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or involved in some other para-faith heresy? And all showing devotion to their particular religion?

And so Alexander J. O'Connor and I have basically the same religious upbringing - adhesion to the Roman Catholic faith. And both of us put off by it. Of course, I cannot see into O'Connor's mind. But I can see into my own. And this is what I have seen:

That the Roman Catholic Church has based its soteriology on a bad translation of their Latin Vulgate Bible. Where I'm referring to is the Greek word for Repent, found in the New Testament. The actual Greek word is Metaneo - a change of mind. The Latin words for change of mind is Mutatio Animi. But the Latin Vulgate Bible, upon which the whole of Roman Catholic theology is built, instead has the Latin word Paenitentia, now translated Repent in the English New Testament. But this Latin word does not mean merely a change of mind. Rather it indicates a seeking for forgiveness of sin by means of specific works, including set prayers. The Church of Rome has a sacrament essential for this way of salvation - Penance.

So if the life of a devoted Catholic is to mind carefully not to sin, go to Mass every Sunday and holy days, confess to a priest at least once a year, and do the penance set by the priest - any trip up, a fall into sin - especially of a severe kind - then it is Hell. One can be a devoted Catholic for an entire life, but still end up in Hell after committing a last minute sin immediately before death. Then we wonder why we either devote ourselves to the Virgin Mary as intercessor between us and God, or to actually hate God or to deny his existence.

And at the age of twenty years of age was when I was told about salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone. It was then when I believed that I was "born from above" acquitted from all sin, a new creation, and became an adopted son of God. The entire transition from death to life was wholly forensic. That is, the act was carried out in the heavenly Court, without any works done on my part.

A forensic judgement of sin might have been made from above. That is a fact, but this does not necessarily mean the reality of it in day-to-day living. Rather, a confusion soon arose in my mind on why there seem to be a conflict between my new faith and that of my former faith. Then to add to the confusion, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses came to our door and started to debunk the genuineness of both Roman Catholicism and my new faith in Jesus Christ alone, with their insistence that unless I become one of them, I would not receive eternal life at all. What a confusion! However their denial of the reality of the Holy Trinity had quickly made me decide that I will never become one of them, but that did not stop the ongoing debate. Thus, so soon after conversion, I came to realise that there are different facets of Christianity, and all disagreeing with each other as well as each group insisting that they are the ones who are doing the will of God and they alone will inherit eternal life.

To believe in the free gift of eternal life given to the sinner by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone was incredibly difficult for one who grew up believing that salvation is to be earned. Believe me, it took years for me to undo everything I have learnt. And added to this was the idea that eternal life was something earned by holding specific doctrines and belonging to a specific group. There we go again. Eternal life earned, not giving freely as a gift. Hence the intensifying of the confusion, and drifting along a shoreless ocean like a rudderless ship. What I needed was a mentor. And a mentor I accepted. But not in person, for he lived across the Atlantic, but instead, through his writings.

Thus shortly after conversion, I became aware of a large Christian bookshop just opposite St. Paul's Cathedral in Central London. I began to go there every Saturday afternoon to look for anything that would build up my faith and to learn more about different faiths and why they believe their creeds. It was not long before I came across a rather thick book which bore the title: False Doctrines Answered from the Scriptures, by Dr. John R. Rice, D.D., Litt. D. (who died by the end of the 1970's). The very first multi-chapter section dealt with The Errors of Romanism, together with Jehovah's Witnesses and many other groups which had skewed from Biblical orthodoxy. Gradually the picture became clear. However, Dr Rice was an advocate of Eternal Security of the Believer, or as we now refer to as Once Saved Always Saved. Dr. Rice advocated this truth with a passion, something that would have beneficial effects for the rest of my life.

More than a decade later, I became acquainted with someone who had some books he no longer wanted. So he asked if I can have them, and he gave them to me freely. These books were each written by the late Dave Hunt, founder and former head of The Berean Society, whose aim was always to check teachings and sermons with Holy Scripture. I have four of his books, three of them had made an impact on my Christian life. They were:

1. How Close Are We? - Examines how the life of Jesus Christ here on Earth fulfilling Old Testament prophecy right up to the Crucifixion, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension. Therefore the author was able to focus of the imminent return of Jesus Christ without setting any dates.

2. The Cup of Trembling - Concerning the present city of Jerusalem and the ongoing fight for governance between the Jews, the Palestinians, and even by the Vatican. Details the Abrahamic Covenant and how this effects both the Jews and the Arabs and their ancestors.

3. A Woman Rides the Beast -  A detailed history, doctrines and customs of the Roman Catholic Church going back to Constantine and beyond.

These three books all had an impact on my Christian life, something which might have been the motive behind the vision I received in October 1992 to visit Jerusalem and to pray over the city, which I did in 1993. His fourth book, Global Peace, I did not find so inspiring, but that did not hold me back from accepting Dave Hunt as my second mentor. Hunt, like Rice, was also an advocate of Eternal Security of the Believer.

But I did not want to be too reliant on my mentors to believe in Once Saved Always Saved, especially after facing challenges against it from fellow church members and itinerant preachers alike. And getting stuck into the Bible was what I needed. To let the Bible speak for itself. So by persisting reading of Holy Scripture, I have discovered for myself that of the three characteristics of God - Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent - all three revealed in Psalm 139 for example - Omniscience had struck me as the most supportive characteristic for Once Saved, even if the other two played a role as well. Other Old Testament chapters such as Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and Zechariah 11:12-13, along with a great many prophecies foretelling the life of Jesus Christ are such revelations of Omniscience! And concerning us believers, God first foreknew, then he predestined, then he called us, and we are yet to receive glory (Romans 8:29-39, Ephesians, chapters 1-2.) Jesus himself promised eternal security, especially in the Gospel of John chapters 6, 10, and 17. It is even "hidden" in some of the parables spoken by Jesus, for example, the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:24-32) - which indicates that although tares remain as tares, it is also true that wheat remain as wheat, which being a species in itself, does not turn into tares. Then following is the parable of the Yeast (v.33) where a woman mixes yeast into the unbaked dough which not only leavens the dough, but the yeast (which I believe represents the Holy Spirit) cannot be separated again. Hints of Eternal security.

However, reading prophecy - and there are tons of it in the Old Testament - not only from Isaiah to Malachi, but in the Psalms, and in other parts of the Old Testament too, not only foretells the coming of the Messiah but the restoration of Israel as a sovereign State after 2,500 years of none existence (the last of its sovereignty was wiped out with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC) yet around 700 BC, Isaiah asked, "Who has seen such things? Who has heard of such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be born at once?" (Isaiah 66:8).

Yes it can and it did. It took place on May 14th, 1948. That was the day the British Mandate lowered its flag, and the Israel flag was hoisted up in its place. It was the one day Israel once more became a sovereign nation, just as Isaiah prophesied! And I had the privilege to walk the streets of Jerusalem after Israel became a sovereign nation, and I was able to see for myself the revival of its Jewish customs. And like a young sapling of a tree, at first I needed a mentor just as the sapling needed a stick to help support it. But as the sapling puts down its roots deep into the ground, so likewise, as I rooted myself firmly into the Bible, I was no longer in need a mentor, neither does the tree. Instead, I'm ready to mentor somebody else, just as the tree is ready to bear its fruit.

Flag of Israel

The Bible may be a book of fables in the eyes of Alexander O'Connor, but with a large section of prophecy, many already fulfilled to startling accuracy, no other religious book can hold a candle to the verity of Holy Scripture.

What If - A Possible Alternative.

For the last couple of weeks we have been watching a BBC drama SS-GB, which is a series based on a novel with the same name written by Len Deighton. It depicts the scenes of London in particular as it might have looked if the German Nazis had won the War, with Britain falling victim to the German invasion. In addition to the presence of Nazi military personnel seen just about everywhere at their posts, we see flags bearing the Swastika icon displayed across the deserted city, and especially over the Houses of Parliament. We also see Buckingham Palace reduced to a bombed out derelict, with the King and his Royal Family imprisoned in the Tower of London. At the time of writing the series is still ongoing, and we as viewers are yet to watch the climax of the drama, still a few weeks away.

As the series depicts how Britain might have looked if Germany had won World War II - and that could have easily been the case - here I would like to be more on a personal level and depict on how things might have possibly turned out if I had not bumped into two rather insignificant-looking young men at the Strand in London one wet Saturday night of December 1972.

As I have written about before,* the year 1972 was a year of contrasts. It began with myself with a girlfriend named Sandra. Together we booked a holiday in Spain to be taken later that Summer. Also it was to be my first trip abroad without my parents, and as still a teenager, it was seen as a big turning point in my life. Then during Spring of that year, Sandra ended our year-long relationship. I was even dismissed from her parent's home in Wimbledon, after spending so much time there, even a few weekend sleepovers. Fortunately, when arriving at the home of a college friend in Southall, West London, literally in tears, he offered to take Sandra's place. So the Spanish trip with what was then package firm Cosmos was saved. But on the long term basis, my emotions over the split still hadn't recovered.

And thus I was a prime target and sitting duck for any passer-by to take advantage. As I walked along the Strand that evening feeling hopeless and looking rather like a drowned rat, the route taken was from the Lyceum Ballroom (now a theatre) where I was refused admission by two smartly-dressed bouncers, one of them looking like a burly wrestler. The venue was directly across the Strand from the start of Waterloo Bridge, and therefore a not-so-long walk across the River Thames from there to the terminus where the last train departure for home awaited.

It was whilst approaching Charing Cross Station where I was stopped by two young men in the street. They asked me what I thought about Jesus Christ. After taking on the conversation, I invited them to a pub located at an alleyway directly across the road. Inside the bar where it was warm and dry, which changed my mood for the better. Once in, I bought them drinks and once seated at table they took out a Bible. For the first time I believed, and it does look to me that from that moment in the pub, I experienced regeneration and became a child of God. Later that evening I actually paid their train fares as we, along with several others all singing and praising God whilst seated in the train out of Charing Cross Station, made the journey to their colony, which was set in a disused jam factory located just a couple of blocks from Bromley North terminus station, towards Kent. It was at this disused factory where I spent the whole of that night. What follows is now history.

But supposing that I had not met these two young men at the Strand that evening? How would things turn out? In which direction would I been heading? As a teenager I was an atheist, at least that was what I called myself. But was I really an atheist, believing that God doesn't exist? And if my own experience has any value, do I believe in the reality of atheism? Or to be more honest - a hatred for God but still with an awareness, even in the most remote corner of my mind, of his existence? I think there is just one issue which can turn a man against God or to disown his existence, and that is religion. I grew up as a Roman Catholic - a religion of Hell, Works, and Ritualism, with a lot of uncertainty thrown in. The result was believing that God does not, and cannot, love me because of all my shortcomings. As Mum used to say to me whenever I have done something amiss as a young child,

If you die now, you'll go straight to Hell.

This was endorsed by the Church in those days. A system of mortal sin, venial sin, Hell, Purgatory, Confession to a priest, Penance, the Act of Contrition, Hail Mary, the sacredness of Holy Communion, attendance to church dressed up in Sunday Best suit and tie, not daring to swear or say something out of place whilst in church, bowing to the Alter, getting wet with Holy Water, doing the Sign of the Cross - and so it goes on - no meat eaten on Friday, the necessity to say grace before meals (although at home we didn't do this, but had to at school), and of course, no contraception. All this was compounded by our rigorous school discipline, when corporal punishment was used, so it seemed, as a release of pent-up feelings in the administrator's heart. No wonder I grew up believing that God was perceived as a dissatisfied "big man" in the sky, ready to punish, and who would interpret any positive prayer as a snide way of attempting to gain his favour.  

And so, like quite a number of schoolboys of my age, we denied the existence of God, and I believe that the vast majority of those who call themselves atheist had similar experiences as I did. Considering Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris as examples, I don't believe in their true denial of God's existence. Rather, all three had an inkling of his existence within a corner of their minds. This is a fact endorsed in the Bible itself, which reveals that the light of Christ shines into every man born into the world (John 1:4, 9). This is backed up by what Paul has written to the church in Rome, that:

For although they knew God, they never glorified him as God nor gave him thanks, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts became darkened.

Romans 1:21.

In other words they suppress, or push away the truth, as Romans 1:18 says. Peter also says in his letter that there will be those who will deny the historicity of both supernatural Creation and the Flood, in favour of "everything continuing since the beginning of creation" (2 Peter 3:3-7). Or what we refer to as Darwinism and Uniformitarianism at present. If the Bible is true, then there is no such person who is a "true atheist". Everyone is born with an awareness of the existence of God, for it was God who has put this awareness there.

And so as a teenager I hated God and embraced Evolution. Actually I was quite a fanatic of the theory. But by the time I have reached my twentieth birthday in 1972, with having no more compulsion to dress up and attend church, and the rigorous school discipline confined to history, by then there was a dulling of my hatred of God. In other words, I began to accept his existence. But still I remained a staunch Evolutionist.

So if I had not met those two guys at the Strand that evening in 1972 - maybe because despite my drowned rat appearance, I was still allowed entry into the ballroom. Or that I argued for a time with the bouncers and the two men had in the meantime stopped someone else in the street. Or they decided to go another direction, missing me entirely. Here I try to speculate what could have happened - or not happened - in the life which might have followed:

I would have carried on towards Trafalgar Square and turned North into Charing Cross Road towards Tottenham Court Road Underground Station located at the junction with Oxford Street. Just before arriving at the station entrance, I would have halted outside The Setting Sun Club and Discotheque. With more relaxed entry requirements, chances that I would have spent the evening there instead. The probability of finding another girlfriend would have remained very slim, but not an impossibility. Then a direct tube train ride for Waterloo Station from Tottenham Court Station for the last mainline train home.

The Strand, London. Approaching Trafalgar Square.

And instead of moving out, "flying the nest" so to speak, chances that I would have remained at home with my parents. This was much to do with the fact that when I actually started to attend church as a true believer, most young church-going men of my age had already flown the nest, and either were co-habiting with fellow graduates or undergraduates, living on their own in a rented apartment, or were married already and raising families. Therefore I considered myself an oddball by remaining at home during the 1970's. As a result of this way of thinking, I flew the nest in 1976, then aged 23. If I had not met these guys on that fateful night, chances that I would have been happier remaining at home.

But whilst at home, I very likely would have worked hard and saved up hard. And I might have set my heart on travel. Not the package deal to Spain with my college mate in 1972, but TRAVEL. This means backpacking in mainland Europe for considerably longer than the three to four weeks. As finding a job, even as an unskilled labourer, was not that difficult, as there were plenty of those sort of jobs going around in those days. In order to travel for longer periods, the need to terminate employment most likely would have been a necessity before departure. At first, travel would have been confined to Western Europe until I have earned my parents' confidence. Frequent sending of postcards, even an occasional full-blown letter telling them where I am and what I was doing would have most likely set their minds at rest.

Long-haul travel might have been the reality some time after a couple of more years in manual work whilst living at home. Then it's off to North America, possibly South Africa, and Australia. But not just for a few weeks but for several months at a time. For example, the maximum time a tourist can stay in the USA is three months. But there was always the possibility of applying for a Work Visa at the US Embassy in London beforehand, which could have allowed me to stay up to six months in America, working on the fields picking fruit or even on a building site as a labourer. These short-term contracts would have allowed me to explore the whole of the country without allowing my funds run low.

When I was actually staying at a hostel in Sydney in 1997, there was a poster advertising fruit picking work on offer to any long-term traveller. Had I not met these young men in 1972, there would have been a good chance of fruit-picking in Australia, prolonging my visit there to maybe up to six months before moving on to New Zealand. It would have been at these workplaces where I would be totally immune to any smut or teasing. This being the actual result of working in a furniture factory immediately after leaving school in 1968. It was here where I gradually became immune to the smutty talk which continued unabated throughout the five years I worked there. Therefore I might have been ready for any flak that might have come my way overseas. 

By contrast, if I had not met these two young men that night, chances that I would have remained as an agnostic rather than an outright atheist. Also my level of academic learning would not have progressed much since leaving school. Not only would the Bible remained a closed book, but my adherence to Darwinism would have remained intact. Of my travel experience, it would have been unlikely that I would have ever set foot in Israel, let alone visiting Jerusalem. I would have had no interest in religiously associated or spiritual destinations. To me, Jerusalem would have been nothing more than a reminiscence of those Religious Education lessons at school, and along with anything "churchy", I would most likely avoid at all costs. Affiliated with this, I would have never have studied history, both ancient and recent, especially which is connected with church history. Neither would I have ever looked into Geology, nor would have I gone far into Genome biology, unless there was a rise in personal interest in any of these subjects from purely a secular point of view.

I would have known nothing about the Bible, possibly not even being aware that the book is divided into the Old and New Testaments, let alone knowing any chapter and verse. Any attendance to church would remain specifically reserved for any weddings, perhaps funerals too, and always of course, smartly dressed, as I wouldn't have been able to think otherwise. Christmas and Easter holidays would have been spent at home, or even at the coast, but not at all in church. As for my personal I.Q. - this might have risen somewhat as I got older, but nothing of the rate it had risen as the result of Bible reading and familiarity with the Holy Scriptures. In short, experience has shown that regular Bible reading has raised my intelligence quotient to a considerably higher level. 

Then there would have also been the possibility that in a wider search for employment, I would have eventually had to fly the nest and settle elsewhere in the UK. This of course would have compromised my travelling experience unless I ended up sharing a house or apartment with other tenants, whether married, co-habiting, or single. In a case like this it would have still have been possible to work hard, save up hard, and travel hard. Assuming that I would have never heard the Gospel in the first place, I would have never set foot at Bracknell Baptist Church in 1975, neither would I ever set foot at Ascot Baptist Church in 1990, let alone knowing anyone who attends at present.

But there is always the possibility that I could have heard and responded to the Gospel later in life. Then yes, there is that chance that I would be attending Ascot Life Church as I do at present, if I remained in the Bracknell area. Otherwise there's that equal possibility that I could be living elsewhere and therefore attend some other church, maybe far away.

Instead, I was stopped by these two young men at the Strand on that wet and dismal December Saturday evening. Therefore, my knowledge of the Bible began to grow. Also allied with reading Holy Scripture, I learnt how to read Greek as a result of a clash with some Jehovah's Witnesses over some Greek words. I have studied some history as an aid to look into the origins of various theological issues. And geology was researched to understand better the mechanics of the Deluge. And because Creationism clashed with Evolution, this opened a door for me to look into the probability of the Genome and its natural evolution, a subject which I now find rather fascinating. 

And yes, talking about Jehovah's Witnesses, there is always that possibility that I could have become one of them. Then again, would I have been under pressure of personal conviction to keep on knocking on doors, only in the majority of cases having the door slammed shut at my face? Would I have found myself feeling enslaved to an American religious organisation in order to hold on to my hope of salvation, and even ending up committed to an institution, as reported that some Witnesses were actually committed to psychiatric wards? Indeed, ending up as a fully fledged Witness could have been a strong possibility.

Rather, everything has worked out exactly as God foreknew and planned. And I will forever thank him for allowing me to meet up with these two guys after being refused entry at an entertainment venue. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* To read the full account of my conversion as told in one of my archives: Frank's Christian Thoughts: 1973 And All That..., click here.

Magpies, Stars, and Terrorism.

I saw a cartoon printed on a newspaper page one day this week. It was divided into two frames: the one on the left featured a presenter on television asking the question to the viewer: How can we relieve ourselves from the fear and anxieties of our current affairs and situations? The frame on the right showed the smiling viewer having just turned off the television. Sometimes I feel that I'm with the viewer. Day in, day out, I can't escape the bombardment of the recent Paris atrocities spooned into us from the TV, radio, newspapers bought at a newsagents, or browsed online. Just when I need to get on with life, we remain constantly reminded.

Don't get me wrong, what happened on that fateful Friday has to be taken seriously. I feel full sympathy for all the families of those killed and those severely injured. Then again, the Paris bombing took place during the evening of Friday November 13th. Many consider Friday the 13th to be a very unlucky day, especially for traveling. So I can imagine myself boarding an airline that Friday morning, checking into a hotel by mid-to-late afternoon, then that evening set out "to paint the town red" - that is, to enjoy the diversity of entertainments on offer, and not to shed or spill blood!

Later that evening, several gunmen burst into the club I happen to be in and shoots, taking many casualties. Friday 13th has struck full time. Fortunately I escape, and make my way back to the airport several days later, trembling from head to foot, deciding never to travel on Friday 13th again. Superstition, yes - to you maybe and perhaps for me as well, just silly superstition. Or was it? Were the terrorists aware of our extra caution taken on Friday 13th? Was our superstition known to them? After all, Friday 13th was also a title of a successful big-screen movie released in 1980, with eleven more installments until the latest version was released in 2009, the 12th so far. Even if the movie was banned from being shown in the Middle East, surely it would have been impossible for it to be shown across the Western world without somehow attracting their attention.

Superstition is based on fear, the fear that something bad might happen in the near future. Like the apprehension I feel about magpies. By walking or cycling, but never driving, (I don't have a licence) if I see a single magpie, alone and without a companion, tension arises. I then tend to recite something like, It's only a bird, created by God, in whom I trust. If I see two magpies, (as I often do) then I tend to feel a sense of relief that something good will happen. But even then, I remind myself that God is sovereign, and all good things comes from him, and not from the two birds. Just in case you are unfamiliar with the magpie superstition, here in the UK we use to have a ditty: 

One for Sorrow, Two for Joy. Three for a Girl, Four for a Boy. Ma-a-a-a-agpie!

And this song was the theme for a children's programme of the same title broadcast on TV during the 1960's, at the peak of my schooldays, and it was ITV's rival to the more popular BBC show Blue Peter. But by becoming familiar with the song, an awareness about the bird began to develop which wouldn't have done otherwise. But any reasonable person can blow holes through the superstition. Sure enough, I have seen three magpies together, and I have three daughters. But I have also seen four of the birds together, but I still have no sons. But what about if I see five or more together? Does that mean anything? Or supposing I pass by just one bird, but turn a corner and behold, there is another. What would be in for me? Sorrow or Joy? And what about one or two pigeons, robins, or for that matter, a hawk, night owl, or eagle? Don't they have any superstitious powers? What of a variety of these birds together at a certain area? Would the one magpie among a flock of seagulls bring sorrow? Or would two magpies among pigeons bring me joy?

Perhaps the same with astrology. The stars column appears in all newspapers and magazines, or at least it used to anyway. These daily or weekly personal predictions are very generalised, and can mean a host of happenings. I have once read that they are mainly computer-generated, a long list of data stored in memory, and each for the twelve signs of the zodiac is taken from the database at random. Normally the devotee does not notice that his day's reading had already appeared under another sign some months previously. But I have also heard stories of these predictions coming true to those who believe in them. One of these stories included a church leader in America who wanted to demonstrate to his congregation that astrology is nonsense. So he began to read them each day to prove his point. To his horror, his readings began to come true. He had no alternative but to drop to his knees and confess his sin to God before he was set free from its power.

But is there a common link between superstition and religion-inspired terrorism? I think there is, and it's fear. Fear of the future, fear of Hell, the want of salvation. The attacks, of course, could also be revenge for the bombings and military action in the Middle East, and also for the support in the West for the State of Israel. But aside of these things, I believe that the want of salvation is the bedrock for not only Islam, but for all religions.

It had the same effect on Christianity over the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church had its Inquisition, when those who disagree with its teachings were branded "heretics" and were tortured on the Rack and other dreadful instruments. We can't deny that the Church of Rome has blood on its hands. One notable example was the execution of Bishops Ridley and Latimer, both burnt alive at a stake in Oxford on October 16th, 1555. They were just two among multiple thousands of men, women and children who were executed for posing a threat to Roman theology. When Martin Luther first believed in Justification by Faith alone, taken from Romans 1:17, the Catholic Church was up in arms, and called for the Council of Trent during the mid 1550's to reaffirm that salvation is infused into the sinner by the grace of God, and must be sustained by human effort, including participation in Church ritual and catechism. This "salvation by works" combined with the denial of the Cross, along with the fear of Hellfire, has been the basic cause for relentless persecution over the centuries, including warring conflict between Catholics and Muslims throughout the Crusader days of the 11th Century. Really, coming to think of it, men of faith has always suffered persecution by those who think they can make their own way to God. From the time when Cain murdered Abel, all the way through to the stoning of Stephen by the Jews, the killing of the apostles and many other believers, right through to the present day.

The Church of St Peter, Vatican City

And as the bloodshed by the Catholic Church recede into history, I see people of the present throwing up their arms at the horror of the recent massacre in Paris, carried out by the Islamic State. Cries that this terrorist group is posing a threat to our national security and calling for the Syrian refugees not to be let into the UK, I believe, will not solve the problem. As long that there are people who believe that salvation can be earned, then I think that social unrest and persecution will continue. Also I believe bombing the Islamic State to oblivion will only cause the rise of other groups to carry out revenge attacks in the future, with their belief that their acts will earn them a place in Heaven.

This may seem odd to you as one reading this, and you may not even agree, but my awareness of the magpie, the popularity of astronomy, and the practice of religion (not just Islam) all boils down to fear and insecurity. Whether its fear of what might happen tomorrow in this life or what eternity holds for us after death, fear holds sway in them all. I also believe that this same fear can rise among true believers in Jesus Christ as well. Thoughts such as, Did I believe the right way? or Did God really save me when I asked Jesus into my heart? or If I'm truly saved, then why am I still committing sins? or even Can I sin myself out of my salvation?

Lately, I have been reading posts and blogs posted by those who have an inkling for Universal Salvation. I have to admit, I find these blogs incredibly edifying, even causing me to think, Wow! If only this is true, that God was in Christ, reconciling the whole world to himself, not counting their sins against them (2 Corinthians 5:19). God being seen as so loving to helpless mankind that although the first Adam brought sin and death to many, how much more has the second Adam brought eternal life to many? (Romans 5:12-21) This gives the impression that if the work of the first Adam brought death to "the many" - by asking how much more has the second Adam brought life to "the many" - that the work of Christ exceeded that of Adam on a quantitative scale, a basis for Universal Salvation. Really, I wish that the idea of a fiery Hell could be eradicated from our minds, to love and serve a wonderful God totally without fear or apprehension. It is thought by them that if the second "all men" - found  in verse 18 - and if the second "the many" - found in verse 19 - are not the same as the first "all men" - found in verse 18 nor the first "the many" - found in verse 19, this must mean that each of these two sets of the same words have different meanings. 

But wonderful is the idea of Universal Salvation looks to be, I do find problems with it, and that could be the reason why the apostle adds a condition found in verse 17 where it says, "those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness" seem to indicate true believers only. But there is more to this. When I consider the evil these terrorists have done - alongside the acts of pedophiles, impatient drivers, fraudsters, thieves emptying your bank account, burglars invading and wrecking your home, those who committed murder, and even snobbish people, isn't it true that the thought of them going to Heaven after death seem insulting to the spirit? Would you rather see them get their comeuppance instead?

But here is where I believe the wisdom of God is different from ours and much greater. His desire is to bring these people to himself, and he has given us believers the privilege of such a commission. There are times that I wish that I could enter a room filled with these terrorists, ready to go out to kill every non-Muslim, and to tell them that the difference between Jesus Christ and Mohammed is that it was Jesus Christ who laid down his own life to atone for our sins, was buried, and on the third day rose bodily from the dead, and he is now sitting fully alive at his Father's throne in Heaven. Mohammed did not die for your sins, but died like any other man, and his bones are with us to this day, buried in Medina. This is a full denial to the popular belief that Mohammed rode to heaven on a horse from Jerusalem. By repenting (changing their minds about Jesus Christ and accepting him as their Saviour and therefore, God) they too can receive eternal life and enjoy totally changed hearts.

That is the true solution to all the world's problems, including fear and terrorism, along with false religions. The turning of the human heart towards God our Saviour through faith in Jesus Christ.

And appreciating his creation, including the magpie. 

Is God Like A Computer?

I remember when I first became involved with the Internet and e-mailing. It was the beginning of an exciting chapter of my life, one like a foreign land waiting to be explored. With this, I started to email my friends who were a lot more experienced with technology, and I was amazed on how quickly the message arrived at the other end, even if it was halfway round the world.

Then not long after, I tried to send an email to someone living just a few miles away. About ten minutes later a report came back to me announcing that the message failed to reach its recipient and was returned to me. A visitor came round and I showed him the failed email. Apparently, although the recipient lived locally, the visitor showed me that the email completed a journey as far away as Germany before returning to my computer. When I spoke to the recipient in person a week later, it dawned on me that I left out a dot in his email address!

A tiny dot missing and the message endured a trip through the cables across Europe, then back to me, instead of arriving at a terminal locally. And according to forty years of my Christian experience, I tend to think that God is a bit like that when it comes to salvation and how to receive it.

What do I mean by this? I once read in a Christian booklet about how one author believed on what other churches were thinking:
We are the people. We are hearing from God. We are obeying God. We are doing his will.
So churches of all different denominations, according to the author, were at competition with each other on who was most pleasing to God. He then went on to stress that he and his group were the ones living and preaching what the Early Church practised under the Apostles.

I have seen this many times over the decades. As a young Christian, I have gotten involved with both Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, each insisting that they, and they alone, were the true followers of God as patterned by the first church in Jerusalem. Puzzled and should I say, rather confused, in the early to mid 1970s I visited a Christian bookshop in London (right next to St. Paul's Cathedral, the city's most famous landmark) and bought and studied books on this subject. These pieces of literature revealed many more groups: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Christian Science, Unitarianism, Christadelphians, Theosophy, to name a few. Each insisting that they are right while all others were wrong and of the devil. Then on top of this, the more "orthodox" denominations: Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, United Reformed - Wheeee! The list seems endless. Little wonder I was confused, after debating with Jehovah's Witnesses who insisted that they were in God's will while all other churches and groups were followers of the Devil and will be destroyed.

When I was in my twenties, as a result, I had developed an idea what the Last Judgement may be like, with all members of every group standing at the Throne, each group carefully arrayed, a bit like that of blades of a fan or propeller radiating from the Throne. Then God says, "The group who has done my will and receives eternal life is...that one." So this one group marches into Heaven while all the rest gets pushed into Hell, shouting, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? In which the reply from the Throne would be, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
That was how I perceived the Last Judgement to be like back in the 1970s.



The Last Judgement


So among this plethora of different faiths and beliefs came the reasoning that God would only respond and grant eternal life if I came to him in the right way, then attend a church which taught exactly the right things and conducted exactly the right form of service, or else God would shut the door on me. A bit like the email. Minus the dot and it doesn't reach its destination.
Of course, by now I have grown out of this mentality. Yet in browsing the Internet, the debate among believers rages on, and supposedly mature Christian writers and preachers denouncing the other as "devilish doctrine." I felt myself getting sucked in once again towards the 1970s mentality. But before I continue with this article, I was thinking over the past week - does the average reader understand some of the terms I use so readily in my other blogs? It's a bit like a doctor telling me that I have gastroenteritis.
"Er, what?" I asked.
"A stomach bug."

Therefore I shall give the meaning of the terms I have used so readily in my other blogs, so that the uninitiated reader will understand my jargon a lot easier (I hope!)

Eternal Security of the Believer, also Once Saved Always Saved, Calvinism.
The belief that once a person has been declared righteous by God, he is forever saved and is eternally adopted into God's family. He cannot lose his salvation regardless how much or little he falls into sin. This was highlighted by John Calvin.

Arminian, Arminianism, Arminius.
James Arminius disputed John Calvin's emphasis on the Sovereignty of God and divine grace in favour of human choice. The end result was that by human choice salvation can be lost by the believer if he either let his sins accumulate and/or turns from his faith. The conclusion from this that after believing, a Christian can still end up in Hell.

Imputed Grace
A sinner declared righteous by God without the sinner needing to first reform himself. This righteousness is a declared verdict pronounced by God the Judge in the Heavenly Court from the moment a sinner believes. It was the central truth of the Protestant Reformation.

Infused Grace
A supernatural power given by God for the sinner to reform himself to an acceptable standard of behaviour before God can declare him righteous. Committing a serious sin forfeits this power, making the believer in danger of Hell unless he undergoes penance. A central Roman Catholic teaching.

Having given a brief glossary of definitions, as a Calvinist myself, I have in the past week been reading some Internet websites, particularly by Calvinist writers. I felt my heart fall rather than feeling assured or edified. The reason being is that these writers on Eternal Security sees God like a computer, accepting those who hold certain doctrines and denouncing or rejecting those who don't. One writer denounced all Arminians as holding on to a false gospel and are heading for Hell. To be honest, I too have called forfeitable salvation a false gospel. Why was this? Because any human work done to either achieve salvation or to keep it is a denial of imputed grace. Salvation is a free gift given by God to a sinner through faith without prior reforming of himself to modify his behaviour.

But I believe that God is far more merciful than what these Calvinist writers allow. For example, in my younger days I thought that I had to believe in the Holy Trinity before I could be saved. But take a read of Acts chapter 2, and there is nothing about the Trinity in Peter's discourse to the Jews. In fact, this doctrine was vertically unknown, yet it is the central doctrine of the Christian faith.

What Peter exhorted his listeners to do was to believe in the Resurrection of the One they had crucified, this Jesus. His resurrection proved that Jesus is indeed the Christ and forgiveness of sin was available if one changed his mind (repent) and believed this truth. Paul in Romans 10:9-10 says exactly the same thing, that whoever confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in his heart that God has raised him from the dead, he will be saved. That's it. First the heart belief that God raised him from the dead. This trusting belief will cause the person to declare, "Yes, Jesus Christ is Lord." And God in Heaven declares him righteous from that moment on.

Faith in the truth of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what saves a person. Knowledge of the Trinity comes afterwards, when he learns that the Holy Spirit is also God, in the lifelong process of sanctification, which means to modify the believer's heart after salvation. The same applies to eternal security. That is realised after one is saved. But one may be taught not to believe in eternal security. The person is still saved.

I sincerely believe that many Arminians are truly saved. Also, a proportion of Roman Catholics, despite what they are taught to believe, had enough faith for God to save them. In fact, the idea that the entire population of France, Italy and the Iberian Peninsula are totally lost without hope because of Catholicism, I find to be ludicrous. Surely, among the multitudes who attend church, there must be hearts who believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and had fully trusted in this truth. Would God really leave such a huge multitude spiritually blind, after giving of his Son to atone for their sin?

Faith here, I'm talking about trusting, not merely intellectual belief. For example, world renowned atheist Richard Dawkins is fully aware of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But he ridicules it as a fancy story, an opiate for people unenlightened by science. Dawkins believes intellectually, but he has no faith, and remains an atheist.


Richard Dawkins

Calvinist writers have no right to pass judgement upon those who don't agree with them. Nor for that matter, Arminian writers passing judgement on Calvinists. God is not a computer. Rather, he accepts anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ as saviour, regardless of background, status, dot or no dot.