Lamentations 1:21c-22 "Bring about the day of judgment that you promised so that they may end up like me! Let all their wickedness come before you; afflict them just as you have afflicted me because of all my acts of rebellion. For my groans are many, and my heart is sick with sorrow." (NET)

Lamentations 3:64-66 "Pay them back what they deserve, O Lord, according to what they have done. Give them a distraught heart; may your curse be on them! Pursue them in anger and eradicate them from under the Lord's heaven."

How do we reconcile these words with the words of Jesus in Matthew 5?

Matthew 5:43-44 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you"

What we understand from the nature of scripture is that it is inspired by God, so do we have a problem here?  Is there a contradiction?

What we see in Lamentations is Jeremiah emotionally pleading with the Lord to have mercy on the people.  He has moments when he realizes that Jerusalem has brought this on herself and also acknowledges that the Lord is just in his judgments (Lamentations 3:21-40).  He also has moments when he sins and curses his enemies as he blames them for the judgment caused by the sin of Israel.

At the writing of this book it appears that the Lord had gone silent (2:9) as his judgment of Jerusalem continued.  So we have the words of Jeremiah as he struggles with the wrath of God, and also trying to pray the wrath of God on those nations persecuting them.

The book of Lamentations being inspired does not exclude it from documenting truthfully the wrong thinking of Jeremiah.  The book of Lamentations is inspired scripture, Jeremiah was moved by the Spirit to write what God wanted written.  It is free from error and truthfully tells of Jeremiah's state experiencing God's judgment. 

But Jeremiah was still a sinner as were all the writers of scripture.  Remember Job and how he also accused the Lord of wrong doing?  We see a similar thing in Lamentations.  What is written is for our learning (2 Tim 3:16); Jeremiah had moments of failure when he suffered discipline from the Lord. 

May God give us the grace to respond to his discipline correctly and still love those who are used by God to discipline us.

As the scandal involving Ergun Caner continues (if you are unfamiliar with the situation then a quick Google search or this article (http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/ergun-mehmet-caner-another-ex-terrorist-exposed/) from an outside observer should fill you in) the damage being caused is growing.  What started as embellishments in Dr. Caner's testimony has grown into a network of lies and unconfessed sin and continues to cause harm to the body of Christ.

Pastor Tom Chantry (http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/) has raised valid concerns over the pulpit tactics of many evangelical churches where speakers share personal stories and exude a celebrity persona rather than faithfully exegete the text of Scripture.  We all have a responsibility not to promote this behaviour in Christian circles.
Dr. James White (http://aomin.org/) has raised valid concerns that Muslims witness this and see through the lies and attribute such tactics to Christianity in general.  He also stresses that truth and consistency is vital and I fully agree.
Pastor Wade Burleson (http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/) writes that this has tarnished Liberty University and he can no longer recommend students to attend there.

What has also struck me (and has been alluded to by others) is how renowned Christian apologists Norman Geisler (http://www.normangeisler.net/) and to a lesser extent John Ankerberg (http://ankerberg.com/) have defended the lies of Ergun Caner in opposition to a mountain of evidence.  Legal documents, video, and audio recordings all demonstrate Caner being caught in a web of lies concerning his past.

These two men have written many books and articles defending the Christian faith and demonstrating that the evidence supports Christian belief and does not contradict it.  But what we have in this case is both of these men wanting us to believe them contrary to clear, current and irrefutable evidence.  We can see that their bias and friendship is keeping them from seeing the evidence for what it so clearly shows.  What does this do to their reputation?  To their previous works defending the Christian truth claims?

What it does is call their past work into question.  If they can stare the facts in the face (assuming they have seen the evidence against Ergun Caner) and pass off the evidence as simple "misstatements" then how could they be trusted in dealing with evidence concerning other matters?  They can't.  Which leads to a number of problems.

To those people who are not Christian, this proves to them that Christians are dishonest with the facts.  Why believe the claim that evidence supports the resurrection of Christ, when they've been so blind to the evidence in this case?  To those who are Christian, how do we know that Dr. Geisler was dealing truthfully with Scripture when he wrote books like "Chosen But Free", was he blinded by his bias and unable to deal with Scripture accurately and consistently?

Even if we grant that they haven't looked closely at the evidence against Ergun Caner, how can we suppose they've looked closely at the evidence concerning their apologetic works?  Maybe they missed evidence crucial to their topic?

While we do not want to invalidate their past works by this one incident, it does force us to be more critical then normal when dealing with their past works.  Perhaps not even consulting them at all but instead consulting others who have a better track record of being a more reliable source.

We all have a bias, no doubt about it; but the task of someone dealing with evidence is to try and understand their own bias so we can interpret the evidence as truthfully as possible.  The ability to do this is necessary for an apologist.  I'm afraid that in this case Normal Geisler and John Ankerberg have shown that their bias can get the better of them and blind them of the truth.

Truth in all areas of life is the Christian way, and repentance must follow when we sin.  Many Christians and non-Christians are watching this ordeal and I'm afraid as the sin of one man festers, Christendom as a whole suffers.

This weekend there are a series of Christian-Muslim debates in Dearborn Michigan.  In light of this, I figured a post about Islam would be appropriate.

Not too long ago I was asked this by a Muslim friend of mine: "Is it possible that the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him) was an Messenger  from Allah and why or why not?"

My response was as follows:

• True prophets are protected from error when delivering God's message. (Deut 18:22) If there is one error, that is enough to disqualify someone as a prophet.  This includes predictions of the future and also historical events.  One example: In terms of history one aya (4:157) in the Quran stands on its own testifying against many historical facts about Jesus' crucifixion on a cross.
• True prophets do not contradict existing revelation.  The New Testament contains approximately 225 direct quotations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) or 280 if you count paraphrases.  The New Testament writers were extremely familiar with the Old Testament and the revelation of Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies (which is why there are so many references).  This shows the continuity of God's revelation and how the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are supplementary and not contradictory.  The Quran has contradictions (most notably about who Jesus Christ is and what he did) and a discontinuity compared to God's former revelations.
• The Bible is sufficient, there is no need for further revelation.  The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 "you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."  There is nothing else we need besides the Scriptures given to us in the time of Jesus.  They are able to give us wisdom leading to salvation and make us complete for every good work.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

With words like 'any' and 'all', we have to look at the context because with words like 'any' and 'all' there is usually a qualifier. I did a search for all the places in the NT referring to "all men" and in each case the context dictates what is meant by all men. For some examples of this we'll quickly go through some other verses with 'all men' in them.

John 1:7 "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." Everyone (except for a universalist) knows that 'all men' is qualified to all types of men. Jew, Greek, rich, poor, all men believe through Christ.  One God for all men.

John 3:26 "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him."  Did every single person go to John? No, but all types of men, all kinds.

Romans 5:18 "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." We aren't universalists, so all men is qualified. Jew, Greek, master, slave, rich, poor... all men.

2 Corinthians 3:2 "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men."   Does he mean every single person?

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."  Again, we aren't universalists, so we qualify the 'all men', specifically those who believe.

'All men' must be considered carefully from a grammatical viewpoint and also from a historical viewpoint.  Realizing that there was much enmity between Jew and Greek, master and slave, etc.

Both camps, Calvinists or non-Calvinists qualify 'all men', 'any', 'world', etc... What I want to show is that the context in 1 Timothy 2 dictates that all men means all kinds/types of men.

Lets read verse 1 to 6 to get the immediate context. Now in verse one Paul exhorts the church to pray for all men. Is this 'all men' every single person? Every living person? (since we don't pray for the dead). Verse 2 gives us the context, Paul lists some types of men, kings and those in authority. Paul wants them to pray for all kinds of men and not to ignore certain types of people who we think are not deserving of prayer. In this case those in authority were persecuting, jailing and killing Christians, but Paul exhorts them to pray. Knowing that if they are saved, it will lead a quite and peaceable life.

He continues in verse 3, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God". God wants us to pray for those in authority, and wants all men to be saved. (verse 4) Again the context here is praying for those in authority that they might be saved. God does not discriminate between position, race or status.

Verse 5 continues the same thought explaining that there is one God and one mediator. No matter who you are, king or not, there is one God for all. Who gave himself a ransom for all (verse 6). The 'alls' in this context is referring to all kinds of men, we aren't to be discriminate in our prayers, there is the same God and mediator for us as there is for the king. "For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:11)