You will notice how Obama takes Bible quotes out of context (and, doesn't even bother to use any Bible verse references). Notice how he mis-characterizes, misrepresents, and incorrectly uses the story of Abraham and Isaac in such a shameful and non-biblical way.
Those who do not know the Bible (like "Inbasul" below) can be easily fooled by Obama's rhetoric. However, it's just astounding to those of us who read and study the Bible, that a politician could get away with such gross errors in front of a church congregation - and not be called out for it!
Those of us who read, study, and know the proper exegesis and application of the Bible in our everyday lives can spot a false teacher like him quite easily.
The question remains, how do we guide those who are not able to "rightly divide the word of truth" (see 2 Timothy 2:15) and are hopelessly being highly deceived and mislead by the likes of Obama? I think that Koukl's article is a major help in this area.
Obama claims to be a Christian, but Greg Koukl's excellent essay points out how far from true Christian faith Obama's ideology truly is.
Take a look at the comments at the YouTube site. Many atheists are applauding Obama's speech! What does that tell you?
The most ironic comment has to be the one from someone who gave themselves the screen name of "Inbasul." How apropos! The name sounds just like what he obviously is - an imbecile!
Quote:
Inbasul (1 week ago) You see, America? This so-called "muslim socialist" knows more about the bible and American history than a lot of the activists do. Man, It feels good having a president who can give a speech and know what he's talking about.
Commenters? You could seriously have a field day with that quote! LOL
Be sure to read Koukl's article in it's entirety. I guarantee that it will help you in your apologetics ministry.
Greg points out some really good talking points:
• From the beginning God has been narrow in His demands; He alone is to be worshipped and served.
• The source of salvation has always been the unmerited mercy of God. The ground of salvation has always been redemption secured by Christ. The means of salvation has always been active trust in God’s mercy by faith.
• What is the appropriate object of faith now in the New Covenant period? Since Pentecost, the object of faith and the ground of salvation are one and the same: Jesus.
• The story of Cornelius in Acts 10 refutes the idea of inclusivism. He had responded faithfully to all the revelation given to him, yet he was still lost. It was necessary for his salvation for Peter to preach the gospel to him.
• As followers of Christ, we should be careful to preach the narrow way that Jesus said leads to life, even if it means we are accused of being narrow minded and exclusivist.
Keep the following point in mind when people object to us preaching the narrow way that Jesus said leads to life:
“If people following false religions are recipients of God’s grace, why does Scripture say they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie?”
Greg concludes:
And I will give you one final reason to be faithful to it.
PASCHAL REDUX
I have a last thought for any who may still be tempted to sit on the fence on this issue. Blaise Paschal, the 17th century French scientist and Christian sage, once offered a famous wager to his detractors. Based merely on a kind of cost/benefit risk assessment, Paschal argued it is smart to “bet” on God. If the Christian is right, he gains eternal life. If wrong, he passes into non-existence, nothing lost.
The atheist, on the other hand, gains nothing if correct, and if incorrect suffers eternally for his errors.
I think the wisdom of Paschal’s wager applies to inclusivism. If we preach the message of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church – that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation – and we are wrong, what is the downside? If we proclaim that those separated from the Gospel are also separated from Christ and have no hope and are without God in the world (Eph. 2:12), yet we are mistaken, Heaven will be more crowded than we thought. If we erroneously preach exclusivism, the upshot is good news, not bad.
However, what if we take the side of inclusivism and err? What if we are wrong when we teach that the person who has heard the Gospel of Christ does not have to answer it’s challenge by humbling himself before the cross? What if we say that sincere people will be accepted by God in the pursuit of their own religious convictions? What if we discourage other Christians from “forcing” their views on “good” Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. What if we do any of these things and it turns out their rejection of Christ – either active or passive – seals their fate: judgment and an eternity of suffering for their crimes against God. What is the downside then? only that we have given false hope to the lost, and have prevented them from seriously considering the only salvation available to them. If you are an inclusivist and you are wrong, that is very bad news.
It seems we have a simple choice. We can be broad-minded and advance the broad way, a path Jesus said leads to destruction. Or we can suffer the charge of “narrow-minded” and preach the narrow way, the only path that Jesus said leads to life. I would not want to be on the wrong side of this issue.
For the truth,
Gregory Koukl,
President, Stand to reason