Before we discuss the author's educational background, vocation,
philosophy, hobbies, failures and sins, we should first ask a few questions.
Let us consider the third question first.
Most people will say that knowing who the author is may be the
most important factor in their decision to read or ignore his or her work.
This gives the answer to the second question: we will base our judgement of
what the author has written on knowledge of his or her person. Prejudice, in
other words. This will offer an answer to the first question: We have already
decided who we believe, and, who we believe may be more important than what we
believe. Or, perhaps we are only interested in reading things which confirm
what we have already chosen to believe.
This will invite another question: Is Truth determined by the character
of the writer?
Or, asked in other terms: Is the credibility of the message determined by
the messenger?
But, let us return to the consideration of the third question.
Is knowledge of the author important?
The answer to this question may depend on who the author is, and the subject
he or she is writing about. For example, consider a medical question. Would any
sensible Doctor follow the directions for an emergency appendectomy written by
a writer of funny page cartoons? Don't be ridiculous. Would a Judge pardon an
accused repeat murder-rapist of children based on an appeal written by a writer
of Mythology? We hope not; but, regretfully, Judges in the United States seem
to release criminals based on "Alice In Wonderland" logic.
We would expect scientists to reject, without a glance, an article
written by a convicted liar and imposter who claims to have discovered the
secret to perpetual motion, or cold fusion -- what ever that is.
We hope our family Doctor would reject an article written by a graduate
of the Humbug School of Acting which explains how to cure old age and hiccups
with an herbal tea brewed from Hemp leaf, Ginseng and Liberty Cap mushrooms.
We conclude, Yes, knowledge of the author is important. We base our
decision on the premise that a graduate of medical school will know little
of the practice of law, and a practicing attorney will have sense enough
to refrain from giving medical advice.
In regard to Science, Medicine, Law -- and other subjects of human
endeavor, such as gardening, cooking, sewing and auto mechanics -- this is
an eminently sensible method of sorting writings into categories, one of which
may well be "don't waste your time."
This leads to the point of the subject we are discussing. That is,
Christian Literature in general, or Bible Prophecy and Eschatology in
particular.
A Baptist will most likely reject the writing of a Jehovah's Witness, and
the reverse is also true. Most Christians of the premillennial persuasion will
reject the writings of Non-rapture writers, if for no other reason than they
have already made up their mind about what they believe.
So, In general, Catholics read only Catholic writers, and so on down the
list.
The question now is, Is this always a sensible practice for Christians?
We acknowledge it is a sensible practice concerning the fields of human
endeavor such as medicine and auto mechanics. Shall we, therefore, conclude we
should apply the same measure to Christian Literature?
We may ask, How do we decide who has the authority to tell us what to
believe? Do we examine the facts, and having verified the accuracy -- Truth --
then decide the writer is believable? Once we decide a writer is believable
about one subject, shall we, can we, safely conclude he or she is always
believable about everything they write?
To always believe everything a writer says about
anything may accurately be termed "gullibility." If that term is
repulsive, try Mental Laziness. True, we have a lot to do every day. With
grocery shopping, paying the bills and soccer practice, we find little time to
verify the details of everything we read. As an alternative to Gullibility or
Mental Laziness, perhaps we can pled a matter of Priority. After all, earning a
living does require a lot of time, and may be more important than verifying the
details of what we believe.
It needs to be emphatically stated here, that our salvation is not
based on what we believe; if, in fact, the One Thing we do believe is that
J'Shua is Messiah.
And, conversely, those who reject the Son of God are lost, regardless of what
else they believe. John 3:16, 6:51, 8:24, 11:25-26. To say the same thing in
other words: It is not Baptist or Methodist theology which saves our souls.
It is not "in what" we believe, but "In Whom" we believe that we find salvation.
And, to follow this line of logic to its conclusion; it is not necessary for you
to believe what this writer has written in order to be saved.
Why, then, read THE LITTLE BOOK? That is a question which you will need
to answer for yourself. Start with asking yourself why, and how, you came to
this page. Let us return to the subject.
Having admitted most Christians are likely to reject the literature of
a writer from a Church Organization other than his or her own, we should ask, Is
this a good idea? Why is this true? Does this reveals a lack of confidence in
our own ability to judge the Truth for ourself? Could it reveal a fear of
discovering what we believe is wrong? Would we rather go on believing what we
have always believed? Do we insist on believing what we choose, rather than
what we can prove -- by the Word of God -- to be true beyond a shadow of a
doubt?
This leads to another question: Can we tell the difference between the
Word of God and what we have been told is the Word of God? Or, can we recognize
the difference between what the Word of God teaches and what some person has
told us it teaches?
Should we, as did those of Berea, examine the Scripture daily to see if
these things be true? Acts 17:10-11
What is our measure of Truth? Is it the reputation of the writer? Is
it the Scripture, or is it what others have taught us the Scripture says. Do we
compare one doctrine to another, and choose the one we want to believe
without comparing both to the Only Measure of Truth?
By some process of selection men decide who will have authority over
them. People, by one process or another, choose who they will believe, or who
they will allow the authority to tell them what to believe.
Should we believe -- or reject -- a writer who claims to have received
revelation from God? Our gut reaction, a reflex as subconscious as blinking our
eye as a bug flies toward it, would be to reject such a writer. But, to do this
without thinking would eliminate the writings of both Daniel and John. How,
then, have we judged the work of Daniel and John to be dependable?
How are messengers of God chosen? Do men choose who God will use to
communicate with them? Did men choose Moses? Did men choose Isaiah or Jeremiah?
God chose them. Men do not choose to be a messenger, or a prophet of God.
How shall we judge a man or woman who, in these last days, claims to be
a messenger from God? Accepting him or her just because they claim to be from
God seems to be a sure path to hell. And, with the possible loss of our soul in
the balance, perhaps the safe decision is to reject them immediately.
On the other hand, is there any possibility that God might send a
messenger in these last days? The Book of Revelation tells us He will.
Revelation 11:3-11.
The Lord Himself told us that our enemy would send false prophets.
Matt. 7:15, 24:11, 24.
How can we recognize false prophets? Or, ask in different terms: How can
we recognize a True Prophet? Are all preachers, teachers and theologians from
one Theological Seminary true prophets, and all those with a diploma from
another untruthful? Is that how, according to the Word of God, we are to sort
the false from the True? No, we are told, if a prophet tells us something,
and it does not come, that is a false prophet. Deu. 18:18-24.
Jer. 8:29.
In other words, we are instructed -- by the Word of God -- to judge the prophet
by what he or she says (or writes), rather than judge the writing by the
writer.
We must conclude that the criteria for the selection, or credibility,
of Christian Literature is in no way comparable to writings about human
affairs.
We can not say, If a man is a fisherman or a Doctor rather than a theologian,
his article about Scripture is worthless. If we choose that measure, the letters
of John and Luke must be discarded. We can not declare, If a man is a sinner,
his work is garbage. If we choose that measure, we must throw out the writings
of Paul. This would also eliminate the writings of Luther, Calvin, Henry, Haley
and all warm blooded creatures who stand on two legs, since, according to
the Word of God all men are sinners.
It is not the qualifications and credentials of the writer which make
their writing believable. To insist the person of the writer makes their work
dependable would be to deny the Word of God, and must negate all literature
which claims authority from it while denying the measure and standard demanded
by it. We must abide by its every word, or throw it all out.
Now, to return our question: Since we are to judge the writer (or
prophet) by what he or she has written, it is indeed important to know something
about the writer: Namely, have the things the writer has written come to pass?
Or, Do the things the writer has written contradict the word of God? In order
to answer the first question, we need to know what the writer has said about
coming events, and we need to be a student of human events -- else how can we
judge the writer as instructed by the Word of God? To answer the second
question, we need to know what the writer has written, and we need to know
the Word of God, else how can we judge the writer according to the only
dependable measure of Truth?
 Home page
|
 �A story of Glenn's life
|
| [email protected] | |
