"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Atheism, Evolution, & Suicide

By Shane Kastler

While people and animals have some similar traits, they are not the same. In several places, the Bible affirms that people are more important than animals. God gave Adam dominion over the animals in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:26). Jesus likewise told His disciples, “Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” (Luke 12:6-7)

People and animals are alike in the sense that they are both a part of God's creation, and are thus dependent upon Him. They are both born. They both die. But people, who possess an eternal soul, are more important. Which means that modern day attacks on humanity, are not only incorrect, they are potentially dangerous.

Not all atheists believe in evolution; and not all evolutionists are atheists; but most are. Atheism teaches that there is no God and evolution teaches that man came about as a result of “accidental” chemical processes that eventually led from primordial ooze to humanity. Such nonsensical explanations for humanity and the world around us are simplistic answers, disguised as intellectualism. Believers are often mocked for being gullible and/or stupid. But the evidence for God is clearly seen in the creation which gives compelling evidence of intelligent design. Believing in God is not foolish. Rejecting obvious proof for His existence is.

One, potentially fatal byproduct of embracing a Godless worldview is the despair that it can lead to. If people are nothing more than evolved animals, and there is no God nor after life to consider; then what is the point of life? Many people embrace this fatalistic mindset and spiral into a life riddled with depression. This can, and sometimes does, lead to an over reliance on drug or alcohol use to lift the spirit and ease the pain. Which in turn sometimes leads to a chemical dependency with chilling, and even fatal results. It is no coincidence that the modern day increase in atheistic worldviews has coincided with skyrocketing depression and suicide rates.  Some suicides can be traced to specific events that sent a person reeling into a black hole.  But some suicides are "systemic suicides."  That is to say, they are the result of an atheistic educational system that tells people from day one that they are unimportant and that life has no meaning.  Over the course of time, some will sadly start to believe this lie.  And the results can be catastrophic.  If life has no point, then who cares what you do? Embrace all the sinful pleasures you can while you have breath. But if you were created for a purpose, then pursue that purpose and find the peace and joy that only the Lord can provide.

You are here for a reason. People were created to glorify God; and the only way to rightly do that is to embrace His son Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Life makes sense, when it is correctly oriented around your Creator. You are not a cosmic accident, and there is eternal purpose in your existence. Don't let the educated idiots of modern society tell you otherwise. Life does have purpose. And you should have hope. Reject the dark answers that Godless philosophies provide to life's ultimate questions. You were made to know and enjoy God. Get about doing what you were created to do.

The Miner From Mansfeld: Martin Luther’s Small-Town Brashness

By Shane Kastler

During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther was renowned for his courage….and for his coarseness.  When he first spoke out against the corruptions of Catholicism, he did so diplomatically.  He appealed to the pope and hoped for some reforms within the church.  What he got instead was excommunication.  Ultimately branded as an outlaw, he carried on the work of reforming the German church and recovering the gospel.  And his initial diplomacy transformed quickly into stinging, bombastic, and sometimes hilarious prose.   Luther referred to his opponents as pigs, dogs, and asses.  At times he mocked their foolishness and their pompous ways.  He complained of the snooty, wine-sipping aristocrats in Italy who made fun of the poor German beer-drinkers like himself.  Some might have thought his attacks were the result of class-consciousness and jealousy; but in fact he was driven by a desire to know and defend the truth.

One of Luther’s greatest antagonists was Desiderius Erasmus, who possessed a rare intellect and erudite pen.  Erasmus was considered the most prominent intellect of his day and he came out publicly against Luther.  But Luther found Erasmus’s theology to be lacking; and he compared Erasmus to a beautiful golden platter that carried piles of dung instead of food.  In other words, Erasmus’s words were flowery, but his theology stunk.  This was typical Luther; and in many ways this was typical of theological polemics at the time.  Some of the attacks against Luther were just as acerbic. Crude and descriptive metaphors that would be considered low-brow today, were much more common in the 16^th century.  In some ways, Luther was simply a man of his times.  But in other ways, he was unique.  He had a rare gift for explaining his position and for decimating his opponents.  Not all theologians from church history are entertaining to read, but Luther is.

At least one reason for Luther’s brash ways can be attributed to his upbringing.  Many of the intellectuals of Luther’s day grew up in the larger cities where they had access to the finer things in life; including libraries, schools, and Latin teachers.  Luther, on the other hand, grew up in Mansfeld, Germany; a small, dirty, mining town.  Luther’s father was himself a miner, who worked under the earth and eventually worked his way up to a place of semi-prominence within the community.  But the community was a tough one.

In her new book, Martin Luther: Renegade & Prophet, Oxford scholar Lyndal Roper examines the background and personality of Luther and tries to determine on some level, “what made him tick.”   And while not all of her conclusions will be embraced, she brings up some very interesting points.  In one sense, residents of Rome might have been appalled at Luther’s verbiage.  Just as some modern day ears are as well.  But if you want to know why Luther acted and talked the way that he did, you need to simply go back to Mansfeld; where you’ll find he pretty much talked just like everyone else in town.

One 16^th century Mansfeldian claimed you would be hard pressed to find two decent women in the whole town.  While this may be an exaggeration, it clearly shows the reputation that Mansfeld had.  Historical records show that on one occasion a local tavern brawl was broken up by a man named Hans Luther, who poured beer on the heads of both assailants and then "bloodied" them both himself.  Of course, Hans was Martin’s father; and in some ways the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree.  Hans Luther worked in the mines, but eventually he ran some of them.  And to make your way in that world you HAD to be brash, confrontational, and fearless.  The soft would be trampled.  The weak would be destroyed.  Which might explain some of Luther’s later brashness.  In some ways, he was simply the normal product of a small, rough mining town.

With all of that said, Luther was a highly educated man.  His father sent him to school and insisted that he too learn Latin and study to be a lawyer.  Hans did not want his son to work in the mines.  But then again, he did not want him to be a theologian either.  The story of Martin’s decision to become a monk is now legendary.  As he was walking back to college after visiting his parents, he got caught in a thunderstorm.  As the lightning struck all around him he cried out to St. Anna, promising to become a monk if his life was spared.  Martin was as good as his word, entering the monastery nine days later.  But Hans Luther was aghast at his son’s decision.  Eventually, over time, Hans accepted what his son did and even supported him to some degree.  And over time, Martin came to regret his entry into the monastery and subsequent priesthood, and declared his father to have been correct.  Once Martin saw the corruption of the church, he wanted no part of it.  And thus the Reformation.

Many things go into the making of a man.  God ordains our ways and our days; and as such we can rest assured that God directed the lightning bolt that changed the trajectory of Luther’s life.  God also ordained where Luther was raised, for the Bible says God has “determined our appointed times and the boundaries of our habitation.” (Acts 17:26) In some ways, we might see Luther as ill-equipped and too bombastic to lead something as important as the Reformation.  But in other ways, he was exactly the man God had appointed and equipped for the task. 

Luther had his faults, and most of them were in the open for all to see.  But Luther had his strong points as well.  In his story, we see the sin of man at its worst and the grace of God at its best.  We see a corrupt religious entity ruling peasants and we see a small town motor-mouth standing up to the corruption and defending the people.  Though, he became one of the most famous men in history, in many ways he was still the miner’s son from Mansfeld, and he embraced that.  While he could speak Latin and wax eloquent on grand theological topics, he could just as easily refer to the pope as the anti-Christ (which he did), and say to him: “You are an ignorant ass, and an ignorant ass you shall remain!”  Luther was one of a kind. And though he might offend you, it is also true that you just might deserve to be offended.

Martin Luther lived out most of his adult days in Wittenberg, another small town; not far from where he was raised.  Even today he remains arguably, the most influential man to ever arise in Europe and indeed the world.  None would have expected that the gruff copper-miner Hans Luther would have a gruff son who would be used of God to restore the gospel.  But this God did.  God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3).  He sometimes uses the elites, after He humbles them; and He sometimes takes those from very humble origins and elevates them against the elites.  All of his days, Luther remained the miner’s son from Mansfeld.  But the powers of Rome were shaken by his actions; and as Luther himself would one day write in song form, “A mighty fortress is our God; A bulwark never failing!”  Luther didn’t fail because God held him up.  And he knew it was God who held him up.  In his final written words, penned the night of his death, Martin referred to himself as a “beggar indeed.”  But he was a beggar who spoke his mind, stood for truth, and embraced the consequences.  He was a typical Mansfeldian unto the end.  And no doubt, both of his fathers (God and Hans) were well pleased. 

Believers Stop Believing Because They Aren't Really Believers

By Shane Kastler

Why do people leave churches? Why do children, who grow up in church, abandon the faith when they go off to college? Why do some adults who once embraced Christianity grow skeptical and eventually reject it? These are questions that modern church growth gurus and statisticians frequently try to answer. They poll apostates to find out why they left. They besmirch churches that “run people off” by relying on the Bible. And they attack God's Word, as the reason for why people leave. In numerous odd attempts to explain unbelief, the so-called experts of today miss the “elephant in the room.” Believers stop believing because they aren't really believers. In other words, the reason why some people grow up to reject the Christian faith they grew up being taught is because they were never true believers in the first place. "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)  Jesus said, “Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom.” (John 3:3) The problem with those who leave the church is not that they are dazzled by 21^st century arguments against Christianity. The problem is that they are “dead in their sins.” (Ephesians 2:1) And when the spiritually dead lose interest in the Christian faith it simply proves the reality of their spiritual deadness.

Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley, of North Point Community Church in Atlanta, doesn't see it this way. He considers the Bible to be the problem and has recently increased his attacks on Scripture as an authoritative voice for Christianity. In a recent message, Stanley said: “Perhaps you were taught, as I was taught, ‘Jesus love me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.’ That is where our trouble began.” This shocking statement is merely the latest salvo from Stanley in his attacks on Christianity. He goes on to argue that the Bible cannot be defended as historically accurate and therefore Christians should stop trying to do so. He argues that adults leave the faith because of a childish notion they were taught growing up that the Bible is God's Word. Once they become enlightened they realize the Bible is full of holes and they reject it. Stanley's solution, is to go along with their rejection and instead point them to “historical” Christianity. Of course the reality is we would know very little of “historical Christianity” apart from the Bible. In Stanley's worldview the idea of having faith in the unseen God is too simplistic for modern man to accept. To him, teaching a “God-inspired” and infallible Bible is a dead end for churches. To him, Christians who believe in the maxim “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so” are making a grave mistake. And to him, this reliance on the Bible is “is where our trouble began.” In an article refuting Stanley, Albert Mohler states that Stanley is pushing “an apologetic disaster that would leave Christians with no authoritative Scripture. Instead, we would be dependent upon historians (among others) to tell us what parts of both testaments we can still believe.”

Stanley's argument is eerily reminiscent of another opponent of God's Word from a bygone era. “Hath God said?” is an attack as old as the world itself. Satan tempted Eve by questioning God's Word and God's authority in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1). Stanley tempts modern believers with the exact same attack today. And therein lies the truth that these attacks on God's Word are old, stale, and common. Stanley's heresy is nothing more than a modern day version of the same theological liberalism that has plagued the church for eons. It's root lies in the oldest of rebellions against God, and it's father is the “father of lies.” Sadly, many will fall for Stanley's deception because of his fame, his name, and his church size. Many will gladly accept this attack on God's authority because they have no desire to live under God's authority. And they will salivate over a pastor who smugly tells them they don't need to. The Apostle's Paul's admonition to Timothy is prescient: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4 NASB) Truly that time has come.

The true hope for the church is the exact thing that Stanley rails against. Far from downplaying the importance of Scripture, the church needs to go back to the Bible to understand how God saves sinners. While God uses preachers and the proclamation of the gospel, it is not by man's clever manipulations that people are saved. Spitting on the Bible in a vain attempt to woo unbelievers is not the way God has seen fit to bring spiritual life to the spiritually dead. In fact, the Bible warns against the very type of evangelism that Stanley and so many modern gurus espouse: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1Corinthians 1:21) The world considers itself too intellectual to accept the “foolishness” of the gospel. But it is this “foolish” gospel and this “foolish” gospel alone that tells the sinner of salvation. Is it too simplistic of a message for people to believe? Is it too naive to expect modern man to embrace this message on the authority of the Bible? Stanley says yes. God says otherwise.

It is very telling that the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that he PURPOSELY avoided the very thing Stanley preaches: “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5) Does Stanley believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified? He says he does. But he arrogantly attacks the very place where this truth is taught. And he clearly rejects the means by which people come to understand this truth. Stanley wishes to sweet-talk the unbeliever into the kingdom, but you can't sweet-talk spiritual corpses. You lovingly tell them the truth, but only God can give them life.

Unbelievers don't continue on in their unbelief because of a need for modern methods that attack the eternal truth. And so-called believers don't grow up to drift away because of the insufficiency of the Bible. They drift away and reject the faith because they were never born again in the first place. “Claiming to be wise, they become fools.” (Romans 1:22) Sometimes those fools sit in the congregation. Sometimes those fools stand in the pulpit. In both cases, their assumed wisdom is nothing more than the evidence of their spiritual death.

The church needs to rediscover what Paul called, “a demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” The church needs to proclaim a God who is sovereign and a sinner who is helpless. The church doesn't need to jettison the Scriptures. The church needs to stand upon them and proclaim them and know the truth of what God has said. Believers stop believing because they aren't really believers. But TRUE believers persevere unto the end. TRUE believers trust in Christ and rest in His work. TRUE believers do more than profess the Lord with their lips, they also proclaim Him with their life. TRUE believers keep believing because the “work” that was done in them was an eternal work performed by God. Their faith is not undone by modern persuasive arguments. Their faith is not undone by secular attacks on the Scriptures. And their faith is not undone by false shepherds who boast of knowing God's hidden truth, while attacking God's revealed word.

 

Brother Saul & Brother Abdul

By Shane Kastler

Saul of Tarsus despised Christians; so much so that he terrorized the New Testament church. When the first recorded Christian martyrdom took place at the stoning of Stephen; Saul was there giving “hearty approval.” After that he became somewhat of a Christian bounty hunter, chasing believers from city to city so that he might persecute them. The Bible says, “Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2 NASB)

While on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians, Saul was confronted by the risen Christ and was converted by an act of God's sovereign grace. Being physically blinded, Saul was told to go to a specific house in Damascus where a man named Ananias would pray for him and he would regain his sight. Saul's reputation was so violent, that even when the Lord appeared to Ananias in a vision about Saul's conversion, Ananias hesitated. In fact, years after Saul's conversion the early Christian church remained fearful and skeptical. His past persecutions and reputation died hard. But his conversion was genuine as the remainder of his life would show.

When Ananias came to pray for Saul he addressed him by calling him, “Brother Saul.” (Acts 9:17) While this may seem insignificant when you consider that “Brother” is a common title in Christian circles, the fact that this was Saul of Tarsus who was now a “brother” is astounding. Christianity's fiercest opponent was now “preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” (Galatians 1:23) By an act of sheer divine grace, “Terrorist Saul” had become “Brother Saul.” And the world would never be the same again.

Saul's conversion could be likened unto a fierce Muslim terrorist being saved and becoming an outspoken preacher of the gospel. “Brother Saul” could just as easily be “Brother Abdul” or “Brother Muhammad.” In fact, such things have happened in the past and continue to happen today; not just within Islam but within all religions. God's sovereign grace calls sinners of every stripe and creed out of spiritual darkness and into the kingdom of His beloved son (Colossians 1:13). You might be hesitant to accept this, given the past history of persecution that some Muslims have been a part of. But God is bigger than any man or any religion. As the classic hymn "Jesus Paid It All" states, He can “change the leper's spots and melt the heart of stone.” In all honesty, Saul's conversion is no more miraculous than your own. Though you might not have been a persecutor of the church, you were a spiritually dead sinner just the same (Ephesians 2:1). And unless God opened your eyes to the truth, they would have remained forever sealed shut.

As Christians we should praise God for “Brother Saul.” We should also praise God anytime a “Brother Abdul” or “Brother Muhammad” comes into being. When this world passes away, there will be gathered around the throne of the Lamb in Heaven, those from every “tongue, tribe, people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9) Christians from every people group will be represented. Saul of Tarsus (better known as Paul the Apostle) will be there. Former Muslims will be there. Former Jews will be there. Former atheists will be there. All those who turned from sin in repentance and trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord will be there. It will be a worship service unlike any ever experienced on earth. It will be a sight to behold. Will you be there to see it?

Atheism is Unnatural, But So Is Christianity: Examining Atheism, Christianity, & Theistic Unbelief

By Shane Kastler

Atheism is unnatural.  But so is Christianity.  The only belief system that is truly “natural” is theistic unbelief.  In other words, it is normal to believe in the existence of a God that you don’t truly submit to.  The majority of people in the world today fall into this category. They believe God exists, but live like He doesn’t.  Or as Jesus said of the Pharisees, “This people honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.”  (Mark 7:6) Let me further explain.

First of all, atheism is not natural because people are “hard-wired” to believe in God’s existence.  According to the Bible, atheism is inexcusable due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists in nature alone: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)

In other words, man, in his natural condition can see the rain falling and the crops growing and know there is a God.  Man’s conscience bothers him over what is morally right and wrong; and this conscience tells him there is a God.  Man knows, instinctively that he is in danger of judgement for the evils that he has committed and thought.  He knows instinctively that God will judge him one day.  But the most irrational of men and women will “suppress this truth in unrighteousness” and pretend that no such God exists. 

Ironically it is often the most educated who devolve into such irrationality.  They consider themselves too intellectual to believe in a God, in light of so many scientific discoveries.  Yet these repeated efforts of science to suppress God, only make His light shine that much brighter.  The amazing order of our world and solar system scream for the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful being who keeps the earth both spinning and rotating at a constant rate.  When atheists decry the evils of war, or crime, or poverty; they are making moral judgements which scream for a Creator who has declared what is right and wrong. What is moral and immoral.  Rightly has it been said, that an atheist cannot properly argue against God’s existence without using laws of logic, science, and nature that prove God DOES exist.  An atheistic world would be a world without order. A world where laws of any kind are irrelevant.  Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” cannot begin to explain the origins of life and the meticulous detail that exists in nature.  Only a fool would declare “God is dead.”  Which is why the Bible declares, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.” (Psalm 53:1) Atheism is illogical and unnatural.  No one is born an atheist.  It typically takes decades of suppressing the truth, with the help of highly educated fools, in the educational system, to convince one to embrace the folly of atheism.  Atheism is unnatural, but then again so is Christianity.

No one is born a Christian.  According to Jesus they are “born again” as a Christian.  So, interestingly enough, Christianity is also unnatural.  Being born “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) we have no natural inclination to submit to and follow the Triune God.  We naturally know He exists.  We know we are accountable to Him.  We see evidence for Him all over the place.  But will not follow Him in our natural condition.  The sin curse which was inflicted on Adam in the garden, mars each one of us. It has dealt a fatal blow to every aspect of our being.  Our mind, will, emotions, and even our bodies are affected by it.  The Bible rightly says that, “the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) Spiritually we are born dead.  And physically we shall one day die as well.  Christianity is not natural.  What it is…..is SUPERNATURAL!

True Christians have experienced an amazing gift of God’s grace, whereby they have spiritually come to life and thus know, love, and obey Jesus Christ.  This is why Jesus told the Jewish rabbi Nicodemus that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) The spiritual blindness is two-fold.  In one sense the unregenerate cannot “see” or perceive or understand the kingdom of God.  And in yet another sense, the unregenerate cannot “see” as in “entering” the kingdom of God.  Seeing Jesus for who He is and submitting to the Triune God requires a supernatural act of life granted BY GOD to the SINNER resulting in a newfound love and allegiance to the Son of God.  People simply do not do this “naturally.”  Only supernaturally. 

You might argue that you were taught the truths of Christianity all of your life and when you were older you accepted them.  Yet for every one person who accepts them, thousands were taught them and rejected them.  Hell is running over with people who grew up hearing the truths of Christianity and rejected them.  If you are a true believer, then it’s because of God’s supernatural grace bestowed upon you.  Christianity isn’t natural.  Its’s supernatural.  Atheism isn’t natural either. Its unnatural.  The only belief system that is natural is theistic unbelief.  To which I now turn.

All people know God is there.  And all people reject Him by nature.  The Bible says, “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 NASB) Apart from the Sprit granting life; and apart from the Spirit indwelling the Christian; we would know nothing of God.  Not only would we know nothing, we would reject the things about Him that are obvious, calling them “foolishness.”  The Apostle Paul echoes this same thought when he wrote, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.” (1 Corinthians 1:18) Non-Christians hear the story of a man getting nailed to a cross 2000 years ago and they cannot perceive how this has anything to do with their eternal standing.  The gospel seems foolish to the perishing.  And the reason for this is obvious.  It’s foolish to them because they are “dead in their sins” and thus have a natural hatred for God and His truth (see Colossians 1:21).  Something supernatural must happen for their defiance to change.  God must grant them life through regeneration.  Or at least, this is what Jesus taught.  Of course, Jesus also taught that all who came to Him, “he would surely not cast out.” (John 6:37) Which means if you have a desire to turn to Christ and follow Him with your life, He graciously beckons you to come.  You WON’T come unless God has granted the supernatural gift of regeneration.  But perhaps the very fact that you WANT to come is proof that God is working on you!  So I beckon every unbeliever to do something crazy and unnatural.  Come to Jesus and be saved!

As stated above, the only “natural” normal belief system is theistic unbelief.  That is, the belief in God’s existence, but a rebellion against His right to rule your life.  In this sense a person can be both a “believer” in that they acknowledge God is there.  And also an “unbeliever” in that they are not a follower of His.  And as stated above, this is the reality most people live with.  Some of them think they are justified because they believe in God’s existence.  But this won’t do, when the Son of God declares you “must be born again.”  Some of them adhere to a different God than the one of the Bible.  This won’t do either, and is in essence a subtle form of atheism.  They have embraced an idolatrous version of God that is no God at all.  And thus while they adhere to their conscience which screams to them that there is a God; they will not accept the God of the Bible.  Instead of coming to the fountain of living waters, they have hewn for themselves cisterns, “broken cisterns that can hold no water.”  (Jeremiah 2:13)

And there it is in a nutshell.  Three broad categories that tell us where everyone on the earth fits into.  Atheism is unnatural.  Christianity is supernatural.  And theistic unbelief is both natural and condemning.  If you, by God’s grace, have experienced the supernatural acceptance of Biblical Christianity then you should rejoice.  You’ve been saved from your sins.  You’ve been saved from God’s righteous wrath.  You’ve been saved from a life of endless futility, leading to death. 

If you have gone the route of atheism, you have embraced the most irrational of belief systems.  While your colleagues and your professor might praise your enlightenment; deep down you know better.  You know of the God who is there and you know you’ll one day give an account to Him.  And no doubt this makes you angry.  You’re angry at Him and you’re angry at me for telling you about Him.  Nevertheless it’s not too late for you either.  Repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

And if you fall into the category of theistic unbelief; then you are in the majority.  But just remember that Jesus said, “The wide road leads to Hell.” (Matthew 7:13-14) Come to Christ in repentant faith.  Believe on Him.  Trust in Him.  Forsake yourself and your life of sin.  Follow Him and be saved.

When this world ends, as it one day will.  The truth of what I’ve expressed today will be known to all.  Scoffers may scoff today.  One day soon the scoffing will end.  Christ will be seen for the glorious king that He is.  His followers will rejoice.  He rejecters will suffer.  But no one will have an excuse.  If you are reading these words, you’ve been warned.  And you’ve been told of the way that lead to life.  Take it now, while you still can.  Come to Christ and be saved.

Obama's Dilemma: Who To Blame? Muslims, Gays, or Guns

By Shane Kastler

The ISIS inspired Orlando massacre of gays creates quite a dilemma for Barack Obama because he has been a total tool for both groups.  After his second inauguration in 2012 he declared “gay rights” to be one of his top three priorities in his next term.  Even for a pro-gay president that seems astronomically high on a priority list that might have included a weak economy, a crumbling national infrastructure, out of control federal spending, and (dare I say it) the daily slaughter of innocent children through abortion.  But in Obama’s mind, all of these pale in importance to gay rights. OK?  So the president force feeds all things gay on the American people.  He lights the White House up in rainbow colors.  He panders to gays like no other group.  Except for maybe Muslims.  The other group Obama is so enamored with.  Of course his love for Muslims is rooted in the fact that he is one.  At least he was raised as one by both his natural father and his step-father.  This is not the fodder of conspiracy theorists, this is a well-known fact.  When he was being raised in Indonesia under the name Barry Sotero, he was a practicing Muslim.  Now he claims to be a Christian, but no one who has ever read the Bible would mistake him for a true believer.  He holds to virtually no theological positions that are Christian and he disdains what Christianity teaches as holy, while praising what Christianity teaches is sinful.  Regardless of what he may claim publicly, his sympathies clearly lie with Islam.  So what does he do when an ISIS Muslim slaughters 50 gays in Florida?  Rather than condemn Islam (which teaches homosexuality is an abomination), or condemn gays (as true Islamic teaching would demand); Obama will simply opt for door number three.  He will defend both groups, and blame the guns.  A lack of gun control will be Obama’s scapegoat here. But the presence of gun control might be partially to blame for the extent of the tragedy.  Let me explain.

If the Orlando shooter had pulled his stunt in a "Cowboy" bar instead of a "Gay" bar there would have probably been two shots fired. His initial shot, then the shot of a patron taking him out. Gays are typically liberal, which is to say ANTI-gun, which is to say pro-Obama. And Obama is clearly pro-Muslim. The gay community should wake up to the worthlessness of their president. And the anti-gun crowd should wake up to the deadly fallacy of gun control. The attack was by ISIS. Obama will blame guns. Obama is pathetic.  And Hillary will follow his lead and parrot the attack on inanimate guns, rather than condemn genuine, living, evil people.  Hillary is nothing more than a manlier version of Obama.  Which is intended to be a criticism of both of them (in case you missed it).

Furthermore, "Gun Free Zones" create mass congregations of sitting ducks for would be assassins.  Notice the ease with which the Orlando killer mowed down his victims.  Nor is the legality of fully automatic weapons the problem since making them illegal would mean nothing to a criminal mind anyway.  Guns will always be available to those who want them bad enough and it's a well known fact that tightening gun laws does nothing but prevent innocent people from protecting themselves.  Gun free zones and gun control laws have been a boon for murderers.  These laws have made their sinister job much easier. It is time to wake up to this fact.

I suspect the Orlando shooting will cause many in the homosexual community to give pause to their unquestioned support of Democrats.  Perhaps this painful episode will show them that robbing guns from the innocent does nothing to thwart the guilty.  And expecting law enforcement to protect you from every attack is completely unfeasible.  Average citizens must be armed if attacks like these are ever hoped to be averted.  Obama and Hillary stand directly in the way of protecting all citizens, gays included.  And even the gays should wake up to this fact.  I suspect some will and I suspect some will support Donald Trump, who has been the rare Republican candidate that hasn’t alienated the gay community.  He speaks tough against terrorism, but that might just appeal to the gay community after Orlando.  Obama and Hillary are worthless to them now.  They cannot and will not be able to protect them, because the greatest protection any person has is to arm themselves.  And this, the Democrats simply cannot stand.  It’s hard to control and cajole a people who are armed. 

The dirty, little secret in the Muslim community is that true Muslims hate homosexuals.  They see it as an abhorrent and unnatural practice.  They are right.  But they also see it as their divine right to execute them.  They are wrong.  For quite some time, I have wondered when the Islamic attacks would begin on gays.  It looks like it’s started now.  And so it begins.  And more will come.  ISIS claims credit for this one. What else may ISIS do to American citizens? What will Obama or Hillary do to stop them?  Apparently they feel that taking Alabama Bubba’s 12 gauge from him will curb the terrorism.  Excuse me for not seeing the connection there.

The truth is politicians don’t have solutions.  The best we can hope for from them is for them to stay out of the way and let us live our lives and protect ourselves as best we can.  The government doesn’t exist to protect us, but rather to protect our liberties.  And to the extent they fail in this endeavor, they are worthless.  Police play a role in protecting citizens, but they are not the first line of defense against domestic terrorism.  An armed populace is the first line of defense.  If someone walks into your place of business with guns blazing, you can call the cops and wait for them to come take you to the morgue. Or you can shoot the assailant and wait for the District Attorney to decide if he will harass you with charges for protecting yourself. This is America today.  And it needs to change.

Obama has been an 8-year disaster on countless fronts, including individual liberties.  He has ruled like a dictator and flung executive orders at us with constancy.  Hillary will do the same.  Those who want your guns, want your freedom.  And those who want your freedom want control of every aspect of your life.  The gay community had better wake up and realize the pro-Muslim Democrats are not their friends.  They may seem nice when they are bullying the rest of the country into accepting their lifestyle.  But they don’t have the spine to stand up to the Muslims.  They simply blame the guns and pay little attention to the Muslim who just pulled the trigger of that gun and left you in a pool of blood.  All sides should unite for liberty, especially as it pertains to our right to protect ourselves by bearing arms.  America will be safer.  Gays will be safer.  Everyone will be safer.  Except the miscreants who seek to do harm.  They have the upper hand now.  Obama has given it to them; and Hillary promises to keep giving it to them.  The American people can rot.  This is the Obama way.  But now, it’s affecting one of his prize constituencies.  Here’s to hoping America wakes up, before it is too late.

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

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

My Twitter Debate with an Atheist Over Moral Absolutes

By Shane Kastler  (Twitter: @sekastler)

This past week I had a short debate on Twitter with an atheist over moral absolutes. This is one area in which atheists will often show their hypocrisy and prove beyond doubt that atheism is irrational. The debate began over an article I wrote defending Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, for some comments he made in a prayer meeting. Robertson basically gave a hypothetical scenario of an atheist's home being invaded and the atheist's wife and children being harmed. Robertson stated, that while a Christian would look at these acts and rightly call them evil; the atheist would have no grounds for determining what is “good” or “evil” since he rejects the very notion of God and thus a moral authority on which to stand. I agreed with Phil, and pointed out further that the atheist will proudly declare certain things to be “good” or “evil” or “right” or “wrong.” The atheist contradicts his own worldview in doing this. So, without further ado, here is the debate between “Bantha” the atheist and me over moral absolutes. Keep in mind, on Twitter you are limited to 120 CHARACTERS per response. For the sake of further explanation I have added some of my additional commentary in parenthesis. As an additional note, I assume “Bantha” is a made up name. According to his Twitter bio he teaches high school and lives in San Jose, CA.

Bantha: Something doesn't need to be "evil" to be objectionable. Most mammals value family connections and defend their mates/young.

(My Commentary: Bantha bristles at my referring to the atheist's family being tortured as an act of “evil.” He declares that while the behavior would be “objectionable” it is not evil. To prove his point he goes to the animal kingdom where we have examples of animals protecting their young. Incidentally, I would note that if you have to go to the animal kingdom to justify your beliefs and actions you are already regressing and moving the wrong direction on the intellectual “food chain” so to speak).

Shane: Yes. But some objectionable things are evil. We need ability to define evil. Some mammals care for young. Some eat them.

Bantha: Why do we "need" ability to define evil? I don't believe in a concrete "good" but live a very moral life. Charity, moderation, care for my community.

(My Commentary: This is a GLARING contradiction on “Bantha's” part. He says that he does not believe in a “concrete good.” Then he immediately tells me that HE HIMSELF is “good” though he instead uses the word “moral.” Aside from the fact that he, nor anyone else is truly good (see Romans 3:10); what basis does he have for determing anyone or any deed as being “good” or “bad”? He just said that he did not believe in “good” (nor evil for that matter). While mocking my faith, he contradicts his own worldview and proves that atheism contradicts it's own claims).

Shane: Maybe you do. But everyone doesn't. Evil must be defined in a moral society.Phil Robertson was giving a clear example of it.

(My Commentary: Rather than pointing out his hypocrisy and chasing the “I'm good” rabbit; I chose to stick to the issue. That even though he considers himself “good” (i.e, a law-abiding citizen), there are others who are not. We cannot simply float through life claiming no moral absolutes. Evil must be defined. This is what Phil Robertson was doing in his example).

Bantha: No, he was trotting out the "morality requires religion" fallacy. No one needs Christianity to abhor child rape & murder.

Shane: Not to abhor it. But to define it as evil you do. You may know its wrong. But what makes your standard right? Christianity has an answer. Atheism does not.

(My Commentary: In this exchange Bantha makes the claim that he can abhor something that is evil (child rape and murder). Yet he has already confessed to me that he does not believe “good” exists. Nor does he believe “evil” exists. He said things might be “objectionable” but not “evil.” He is self-contradictory and for an obvious reason. Deep down inside, he knows the truth, but he has “supressed it in unrighteousness” (see Romans 1:18). He knows that things are “good” and “evil” but his dogged determination to cling to atheism will not let him admit it. What standard shall he point to that would define for us “rape” or “murder” as being evil? I point to God and the Bible. Notice in the following exchanges what he points to).

Bantha: Look to nature. What we call "altruism" and "morality" has clear parallels in other social primates. Read "Bonobo & the Atheist."

Shane: We're not talking about good, but evil. Monkeys may be nice. But how can an atheist define evil? This is my point. What is your answer?

(My Commentary: Bantha again moves the wrong direction down the intellectual food chain to justify his belief. His claim is that since monkeys are nice to each other and they don't have religion; then religion must not be necessary for “morality.” This is a 'red herring' on his part, since, according to his worldview there is no morality. Now he claims monkey's act in “moral” ways though he refuses to define it as “moral” only “natural.” I again try to get him to stay on track. I don't care about monkeys. I want him to tell me how an atheist can define evil. Notice, he cannot do it so he frequenlty dodges the question and eventually gives up).

Bantha: Chimpanzees aren't "nice." “Good" and "evil" are human constructs. They act in socially beneficial ways.

Shane: What about when they DON'T act in socially beneficial ways? What about when they act in ways that only benefit them? Rape, for example, benefits the rapist. How can an atheist tell him this is “wrong”?

(My Commentary: Bantha attempts to define “good” as that which is “socially beneficial” and he claims that people and animals do this “naturally.” Yet if you've lived in this sinful world for even 5 minutes, you know this isn't true. While people (and animals) might be trained to benefit one another, they also frequently do that which beneifts them alone. And often do this by clearly violating the person or property of another. Rape, murder, theft, and assault are all clear examples of this.

Bantha I don't disagree that it "benefits" him or her, but that doesn't make it beneficial for the community.

Shane: What if he lives in community of rapists? The “community” might consider it beneficial then.

(My commentary: Again I am trying to point out the logical inconsistencey of his worldview. He basically believes that whatever benefits society at large is “good.” This is a common notion in athiestic circles. But it is a philosophical fatal flaw to atheism. The reason is that what particular societies value as “good” varies between different groups and at differnt times. There was a time when the majority of Americans believed slavery was acceptable. Does this make it so? What if the hypothetical rapist lived in a community that sees nothing wrong with rape? Then according to the atheist's definition, rape would be a “good” thing since society deems it so).

Bantha: Come on man, what healthy human would consider a "community of rapists" not abnormal? How do we need religion to tell us that?

Shane: Many male-dominated societies accept rape. And woman have no rights. Is this wrong? I say yes, because of Biblical teaching. Atheism has no answer.

(My commentary: At this point Bantha thinks I'm crazy. My hypotheical world where rape is acceptable seems absurd to him (as it should). Yet there are many societes where rape is considered acceptable. Perhaps Bantha needs to watch the news a little bit more. But an even deeper issue is this: How can he call rape “evil” when he has already told me he doesn't accept the existence of good and evil? He believes these are “human constructs.” Nevertheless he knows rape is bad. He just can't tell me why. And at this point, he ends the converstation out of frustation. My hope and prayer is that our discussion caused him to question why he believes what he believes and that by God's grace he would see the illogical absurdity of his worldview). Notice our last exchange.

Bantha: I recognize that you view the world differently, and I'm just going to drop it. Keep defending Phil Robertson, its hurting Christianity more.

Shane: Nice talking with you. Have a blessed evening.

(My commentary: Bantha is correct in saying that he and I view the world differently. Not only is this because I'm a Christian and he is an athiest. But also because my worldview is logically coherent and his is not. Christian faith is not at odds with logic. In all honesty, atheism is at odds with logic. For all of their claims of being “rational” the atheist cannot defend his worldview from an intellectual perspective. His reasoning is full of holes and our job as Christians is to lovingly point that out. This is what I attempted to do. And thus I ended the conversation on a polite note. Hopefully he could tell that I was attempting to speak the truth in love. Or perhaps the kindness made him angrier. Either way, we are called to “give an answer for the hope that is within us with gentleness and reverance” (1 Peter 3:15) and leave the results to God.

 

CONCLUSION: There are many ways to engage unbelievers in general, and atheists in particular in evangelism. We could point to a whole host of things that give evidence for the existence of God. What I did in this conversation was go beyond evidence to the very foundation of belief. Rather than arguing about what is moral I questioned him on how he can even define “moral” at all, since he rejects the very existence of God. In the world of Christian apologetics (the study of defending the faith) this is known as “Presuppositional Apologetics.” And I believe, it cuts the “intellectual legs” out from under the atheist. With no basis for morality he has no leg to stand on in his argument against the Christian.

NOTE: To study this more in-depth, listen to my 14-part sermon series entitled "Expositional Apologetics" on Sermon Audio by clicking here.

 

The Day God Died

By Shane Kastler

Recently, a movie was released entitled, “God's Not Dead.”  The phrase comes as a refutation to a famous statement made by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche  who declared “God is dead.”  Nietzsche was referring to his belief that God's existence had been so clearly “disproven” that we could declare him to be dead.  Nietzsche was a fool. (see Psalm 14:1 ) Yet, with that said, there was a day on which God died.  And then he rose again.
    The Bible teaches us that God is “triune” in nature.  While there is one God; he exists in three eternal, constant forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The gospel teaches us that Jesus Christ (who is God the Son) became a person and lived on earth.  Being fully God and fully man, he lived a life of sinless perfection.  Then died a death of atoning sacrifice to pay for the sins of those who trust in him.  In a thought that could very well stagger our minds, there was a day in which God died.  A popular Christian song has this line:  “On the cross, as Jesus died; the wrath of God was satisfied.”  So in the death of God the Son; God the Father punished Jesus in the place of sinners who rightfully deserved it.  
    Of course in order for God to die, it has to be God's idea.  Jesus said, “No one takes my life, but I lay it down willingly.” (John 10:18)  Then after three days, Jesus took it up again.  He arose from the grave as proof of who he was; and as a proclamation that his death was satisfactory to the Father.  Death was defeated by the work of Christ.  God died, so that we might live.
    But this sacrificial death does not apply to everyone's account.  Have you turned from your sin in repentance and trusted in Christ as Lord?  Does your life give evidence of love and obedience unto Jesus?  Examine yourself and see if you are truly in the faith. (2 Cor. 13:5)  Ponder these spiritual realities that deal with sin and Christ's atoning work.  Understand and embrace the truth of God's death.  Not as the worldling Nietzche did.  But as God himself declares it.  Indeed God's not dead.  But thankfully there was a day in which he did die.  And then he rose again.

Jesus & The Minimum Wage: Why a Baptist and an Atheist Agree on Economics

By Shane Kastler

In the ongoing debate concerning minimum wage laws, a Christian might be prone to ask the question: “What would Jesus do?” or “What DID Jesus do?” or perhaps most importantly “What did Jesus SAY for US to do?” Of course the answer would be “nothing.” At least nothing directly. So to try and arrive at a Christian position on the issue would require us taking a full-orbed look at his overall teaching and find principles that might lead us to where we should stand on the minimum wage.

A recent debate at Loyola University, on minimum wage laws, was absolutely dripping with irony for a man like me. Dr. Walter Block, an economist and an atheist argued against minimum wage laws, while Christian theologian Dr. Boyd Blundell argued in favor of them. The first irony for me was that I (an ordained Baptist minister) was in full agreement with Block, the atheist, on this issue. Where it gets complex, from my theological/analytical perspective, is that Block uses his brilliant mind, along with laws of logic that govern his thought processes to analyze economic realities that are also quite “law like” to come to a conclusion, which I believe is correct. Minimum wage laws should be abolished because they don't really help the poor that they claim to help. Block's use of logic and universal laws very much suggest a certain order which exists in our world. And such beautiful, consistent, unfailing laws of order seem to suggest someone behind it all who has established said order. Atheism cannot account for such pristine examples of order; for in atheism everything is random and up for grabs. Yet atheists, like Dr. Block, gladly use the incredible intellect (given by God) and the laws of logic, economics, or science (established by God), to come to conclusions that are accurate. We should thank God that Block uses God's gifts to come to such prescient conclusions; while marveling that he denies this very God even exists. But back to Christian economics.

Would Jesus demand a government enforced minimum wage? Of course the arguments for this come from the fact that Jesus' told his followers to care for the poor. Certainly providing for the less fortunate is a Christian principle. While no Christian would deny this; the sticking point is how Jesus would envision us engaging in our benevolence. Would the government be in charge of this? Or more to the point, would the government be involved at all? Let us not forget that Jesus' relationship with the government of his day was somewhat (shall we say) strained. He was crucified you know; by the Roman government (state) on the firm recommendation of the Jewish Sanhedrin (local). All governing authorities aligned against the Lord and he was executed as a criminal of the state. So now, are we to believe that Jesus would expect this same world system (albeit a different nation and a different century) should be charged with caring for the poor?

One major fly in this ointment is that Jesus was calling his followers (not the government) to show mercy to the poor. And for it to be true mercy, it must be an act performed from a pure, loving, and un-coerced heart. The old axiom is very true: “If I reach in my pocket and give you money for food it's charity. But if someone else reaches in my pocket and gives you money for food it's thievery.” From a Christian perspective, the government cannot force benevolence upon us because forced benevolence ceases to be benevolence once the force is inflicted. Forced benevolence is coercion. And I promise you Jesus was not teaching and promoting coercion. Minimum wage laws, like all other forms of government intrusion into economic matters, involves coercion. Blame it on Washington. Blame it on Congress. Blame it on the President. But don't blame it on Jesus.

Minimum wage laws further drift from Christian principles in that they allow a third party to dictate the terms of a two party agreement. If I, as an employee, am satisfied with the wage offered; and the government steps in and insists that it must be higher; they insult me. They suggest I'm too stupid or weak to handle my own financial affairs. As an employer, if the government steps in demanding I pay more, they equally insult me by implying that I'm unfair. But if the boss is happy and the worker is happy; what right has the government to step in with insulting behavior? Is there anything remotely Christian about that? Not at all.

One final thought. While statistics might be legitimately used or slyly manipulated to prove either side of the issue; common sense and observation tells us that by forcing companies to raise wages, some jobs get eliminated. If an employee is paid more than they earn for the company they are parasitic and will not last. That worker will have to go; or that position will have to go; but something's got to give. The poor go from $10/hr to zero because their job is gone. Is this what Jesus would have us do to the poor? Eliminate their jobs all together?

So we come full circle in our irony and back to the Block-Blundell debate. I, as a Baptist theologian, using the Bible, conclude through my “Christianized” logic that the atheist Walter Block is indeed correct in his stance that minimum wage laws should be abolished. The government has no business setting wages and to do so is harmful to the poor; and to everyone else as well. And I conclude that Dr. Boyd Blundell, the Christian, is wrong. Jesus, in his earthly days, was not pushing for minimum wage laws. And would not encourage us to do so today. They don't help the poor, they hurt the poor. They insult both the employer and the employee. And they involve coerced benevolence which is no benevolence at all. If a Baptist like me; and an atheist like Walter Block can figure these things out; then maybe there's hope for the rest of America as well. Maybe. But I doubt it.

Everybody Knows God, Yet Nobody Knows God

By Shane Kastler

There is a sense in which everyone knows God. There is also a very real sense in which no one knows Him at all. The sense in which He is known is in terms of his existence. The first chapter of Romans teaches us that all people know God “through what has been made, so they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) That is to say that the creation itself gives overwhelming evidence to God's existence; and though some may deny His reality, deep down they know better. Romans goes on to tell us that the unbeliever “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:18) Though they know God is there they will not submit to Him, which leads me to the other kind of knowledge.

Though everyone knows God is there, no one “bows the knee” to Him, at least initially, because of their sin nature. The sin curse is universal and because of it we are described in scripture as being “dead in our sins” (Ephesians 2:1) We cannot please God. We cannot know Him in a saving way. We do not even wish to; by our very nature as sinners. Indeed all people are sold into bondage to sin and all people would remain in bondage and perish in Hell. Unless God were to do something. And thanks be to God, He did do something.

God sent His very own son, Jesus, into the world to live a perfect life and to die a sacrificial death. Those who repent and believe in Jesus are forgiven of their sins and granted eternal life. Sinners who know God exists, yet run from Him and deny Him; can be reconciled to Him and know Him in a saving way by grace. Have you experienced this in your life?

You can deny God all you want. But you still know he's there. And though it might anger you to hear me say that, it doesn't change reality. The person who denies the obvious and claims there's no tornado, when a massive tornado is bearing down on them will eventually perish by the very wind they said didn't exist. The same is true of God. The Bible says “it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:31) On that day it will be too late for reconciliation, but on this day you have been warned. Believe in Jesus and submit to him today. You know God in terms of His existence. Know Him as well, in a saving way by trusting in Christ.