Amazing Amputee Has One Foot in Heaven

Troy Schluechtermann has an amazing story. Troy has a rare blood disease and lacks two essential proteins, one that causes him to stop bleeding, and the other that prevents his blood from clotting. As a result, Troy has had over fifty-two surgeries in the past ten years—including roughly twenty bypasses. A couple years ago, Troy had to have his left leg amputated.

Until the past few years, Troy was bitter at God about all of the challenges life has thrown at him. However, a couple of years ago, Pastor Jason Holm from Northside Calvary Church talked to Troy about Christ. Troy forfeited his bitterness and trusted in Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
Troy's faith in Christ has sustained him through all of his surgeries since then and given him a reason to keep fighting. His faith seems to be contagious as he is sharing it with doctors, nurses, family members, and anybody that will listen.

His spiritual brothers and sisters at Northside have been praying faithfully for Troy throughout this whole ordeal. Interestingly, Troy does not ask for prayers to get well. He realizes he will never have his leg back in this lifetime. Although he looks forward to getting it back in the next. I guess he already has one foot in heaven. He simply wants God’s grace to sustain him through the challenges of life. He now realizes that it took losing his leg to bring him to the point he is spiritually; and admits it is worth it.

Over the past few years, Troy’s life has been transformed as he has trusted in Christ and sought guidance from God’s word by reading it regularly. Troy understands Doctor’s orders as he takes dozens of pills, so it is not so peculiar for him to live life the way the Bible prescribes.

The biblical precedent is that after a person trusts in Christ, they publicly show their faith by getting baptized. Originally, getting baptized was sort of like signing the declaration of independence—it showed what you were leaving behind (your old aimless way of life), what you were moving toward (a life of faith in Christ), and by doing it one jeopardized their life as the most powerful government in the world (Rome), might hunt down and kill you for it. Troy wanted to take this step of obedience to the Bible and get baptized to share with his family and friends what God had done in his life.


Troy doesn't let his amputation slow him down. Baptism in the early church and in many churches today has been done by immersing the person fully in water and lifting them back up. This symbolizes Jesus death for our sins, burial, and subsequent resurrection—which is what saves those who believe in Him.

Pastor Jason offered to sprinkle Troy since he would have to navigate a small maze of stairs to get into the baptistery, and then proceed to stand on one leg in waist high water as Pastor explained the significance of baptism. But Troy insisted on doing things the way everybody else has in the past.

Last Sunday, with many of his friends and family members present, Troy shared what God had done in his life. It was one of those moments that touched everybody to their souls as there wasn’t a dry eye in the entire church.

Following his testimony, Troy crawled up into the baptistery, and with several guys prepared behind the scenes in case something went wrong, and the pastoral intern helping stabilize him by lending him an arm, Pastor Jason baptized Troy in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Troy wants everybody to know that he was a bad and bitter person, but God has transformed him. The God who has saved and sustained Troy will do the same for you—whatever you are struggling with, and no matter how bad of a person you are. Read the Bible and see for yourself. If you have questions, stop by Northside Calvary Church some Sunday and ask Troy about it.

Why I Am Not King James Only

Original Languages
1. The Bible was written by apostles and prophets in Hebrew and Greek- not in 1611 by people speaking the King's English.
2. The original Greek and Hebrew versions are the standard against which all other copies and translations are to be analyzed (not the King James Version.)
3. As we do not have any of the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts (hand written versions) of the Bible, we have to analyze the oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available to see which ones probably read like the original. This process, called "textual criticism," methodically analyzes individual manuscripts to attempt to decipher which reading is most likely what the apostle or prophet wrote. Here are some of the criteria:
a. The earlier a manuscript was written the more likely it is to agree with the original as there are probably fewer copies between that manuscript and the original.
b. If many early manuscripts agree that reading is most likely correct.
c. If manuscripts written in several different geographic locations agree, that reading is most likely correct. (Greek manuscripts were primarily copied in 4 or 5 different areas- Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Byzantium, and perhaps Caesarea. As Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Caesarea were conquered by Islam, they ceased copying Greek texts. As Rome adopted Latin and the Catholic church standardized the Bible in Latin rather than Greek, they ceased copying Greek texts. Byzantium and the Eastern Orthodox church however kept Greek as their standard until the printing press, so there are many Byzantine Greek texts still in existence, far outnumbering the other texts.)
d. If the text varies, the scribes probably simplified a complex reading as opposed to making a simple text more complex- therefore the simpler reading is usually correct. This is just how humans tend to err.
e. If a variant reading is of a dramatically different style than the rest of the author's work, then it was probably added later on.
f. If a variant reading is not in any of the earliest manuscripts, it is probably not authentic.
4. Textual critics are 99.9% positive they have the entire original reading of the New Testament figured out. This text is the main reading of the United Bible Societies fourth Greek New Testament, or Nestle-Aland's 27th revised edition of the Greek New Testament. These both contain footnotes with alternative readings and charts of which early manuscripts support the variations allowing any Greek student to decide for themselves if their conclusions seem accurate.
5. This Greek text is the foundation for most of the modern English translations including the English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and a similar text is the basis for the New International Version.
6. The King James Version is based on the Greek New Testament published by Erasmus called the Textus Receptus. While modern Greek scholars analyzed nearly 5,000 Greek texts from all five text types and from the second to the fourteenth centuries (along with early translations to other languages) Erasmus only had a handful of texts- all from the Byzantine text type, the oldest version being from the ninth century.
7. Some defenders of the King James Version realize this problem, and have attempted to form a Greek text that agrees with the KJV. Their method for forming this text is simply by counting. The reading that is found in the most manuscripts is considered correct. The problem with this is that over time many of the earliest manuscripts have gotten destroyed, so we only have a few hundred manuscripts from the first five centuries. However, there are several thousand manuscripts written after the ninth century- nearly all of them in the Byzantine text type, and these are generally similar to Erasmus' Greek text. This text is called the Majority Text, and serves as the basis for the New King James version.
Conclusion: based on the best evidence available, it seems that the critical text upon which the modern English versions are based is in every way superior to the text that serves as the basis for the KJV or NKJV.

English Language
The goal of translating the Bible from the original languages to vernacular is to put the Bible in the language of the people. While the KJV did a great job of putting the best texts available into the language of those living in seventeenth century England, it is no longer sufficient as clear communication to the contemporary English speaking world. Pay attention: many KJV using teachers and preachers will spend up to 25% of their time translating from middle English to modern English. In fact, that language bites of insincere piety in the ears of many people today, hence it is used in the phrase, "holier than thou."

Refuting Convincing Pro-KJV Arguments
1. "The new versions take things out." If your standard is the KJV, then yes, the new versions appear to take things out of the Bible that are in the KJV. However, if your standard is the original Greek Text, it appears the KJV is based on Greek texts that added things to the original writings. The new versions are not guilty of subtracting, the KJV is inadvertently guilty of adding to scripture.
2. "To maintain order in Church there should be a standard." Most churches do well with several different versions. The only churches where Bible version seems to be a big deal are KJV only churches. And if the KJV is to be the standard, which edition of the King James Version should we use? (see point 4) It may be helpful for a pastor to consistently use one translation from the pulpit, but that should be up to his discretion.
3. "Most Greek manuscripts support the KJV." Textual criticism should be based on reason, not democracy. I could write ten thousand copies of Jude that add a verse saying I am nine feet tall but that would not mean it is correct. Although the most Greek texts may agree with the KJV, the best, earliest, and broader scope of texts agree with the modern versions.
4. "The translators of the KJV were inspired." Inspiration would be evidenced by inerrancy. The first King James Version was published in 1611. The spelling, grammar, and translation errors were revised regularly (I think twelve times) between 1611 and 1789 when the KJV Bible we know today was published. Why all the revisions if the translators were inspired?

Refuting Silly Pro-KJV Arguments
1. "Today's perVersions are based on a critical text. Why would anybody want to criticize the word of God?" This argument reveals complete ignorance of what textual criticism is.
2. "Westcot and Hort are corrupt people who compiled a corrupt text that serves as the foundation for corrupt translations." Westcot and Hort were scholars who compiled a critical text. This is not the foundation for today's versions. I do not know much about their personal lives, but we all have our weaknesses and sinful problems- that's why we're Christians. This type of argument contains at least two logical fallacies: poisoning the well, and non-sequiter. Poisoning the well is attempting to invalidate everything a person says or does by attacking their character. David was an adulterer and murderer, Moses and Paul were murderers, apply the same logic to them. Non-sequitur is when a conclusion does not flow from its premises. To draw the conclusion that new versions are corrupt because those two gentlemen may have been corrupt does not follow logically.
3. "The trinity knot on the NKJV is actually the mark of the beast." Symbols are used to represent things. The trinity knot was intended to represent the trinity. Upside down trinity knots are not the same thing as trinity knots, just like upside down crosses are not vertical crosses.
4. "Hell is taken out of the new versions." The new versions are more accurate. The place of the dead, the place of torment, and the place of burning are based on three different Greek words. Therefore, to show a distinction in English we have the words "Hell", "Hades," and "Sheol." A good Bible dictionary will help give more insight into these distinctions. Hell is still there and more accurately than it was before.

Conclusion
Don't just take my word on this. Look into the issues for yourself. The incredible way that God has preserved his word throughout history is fascinating study. Despite all of the world's attempts to invalidate and eliminate the word of God, it continues to persevere. Its transforming power in the lives of those who read it is evidence of the Holy God who inspired it and works through it.

Whatever version or versions you use, read your Bible regularly, and ask God to work through it to conform you more to his image. Even if you are KJV only, a person reading an NIV is better off than you are if you are not reading your Bible. Please read your Bible, spend time with God and let him work in your life.

My Manifesto on What's Emerging

So I just want everybody to know that I have spent most of my free time in the past couple of months reading about the Emerging Church and Postmodernity. I have a fairly solid understanding of what the Emerging Church is all about and am starting to grasp what in the world this thing called Postmodernity is all about. You can see from my survey that I am 68% Postmodern/ Emergent. I can perceive some positive elements of this movement (see, I am postmodern)- the emphasis on praxis, the importance of community, the validity of experience, the focus on being authentic, the call for humility concerning man's knowledge, the possibility that sometimes A can not be true but that does not necessarily make B true, and the need to understand our culture just to name a few.

However I cannot and will not become Emerging on the basis of the philosophy behind the movement being heretical. I cannot bring myself to reject man’s ability to know absolute truth (I know Him, He saved me, His name is Jesus), to view communication as nearly impossible (I talk way too much and listen more than I talk and hate the thought that I have wasted my entire life), to weaken the Bible’s authoritative claims (as I said, I know Truth, He knows me, and He says his Word is truth), to explain away the need for the gospel as Romans presents it (all of the world is guilty, sorry people, but we suck and we can only be justified by faith in Christ), or to place more trust in the philosophy of Derrida and the traditional creeds of the Church Fathers than in the Word of God. Once the authority of scripture is challenged, we are left questioning everything we thought we knew and thinking about every new idea with no foundation for evaluation besides what those around us think. I do not want to be like the emerging pastor I heard on the radio today who has (based on Derrida’s philosophy) almost rejected everything based on the authority of scripture (essentially the last 400 years of orthodoxy) and also (based on Derrida’s philosophy) openly reconsidered every heresy since the church Fathers wrote the great creeds and is left incapable of answering any question confidently even if God’s word is clear on the issue. Sorry, but the Word of God is living and active (Hebrews 4:12), it is not dead and open for any and every interpretation- each being equally valid.

I have the option as a person to place my trust in something- as a Christian I chose to trust in the God of the Bible. I could trust in something else- the brilliant philosophers who use words to tell me that words have no meaning for example. But I chose to trust in the Word (John 1:1) the ultimate meaning and source and sustainer and purpose over all of Creation (Colossians 1:15-20.) I fully understand that the Bible presents a metanarrative- it tells us where we came from (Genesis 1 &2), what we should be doing here (2 Peter 1:3, 1 Cor 10:31), where we are headed (Revelation), and what you need to do to properly fit within the metanarrative (Acts 16:31.) I understand that it is a narrow metanarrative (John 14:6) that oppresses those who do not fit within it (Revelation 21:27), and marginalizes those who disagree with it (Romans 3:4). (The postmodern may ask how what I am saying right now fits within her or his metanarrative which marginalizes those who have a metanarrative.) If there were no concrete basis for the Biblical metanarrative, it would be “intolerant,” but since it is the Word of God, it is truth (John 17:17.) And although it does demand people to conform to this metanarrative or else face condemnation, those who properly subscribe to it are not sent out to condemn, but to follow in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus (Luke 19:10) and to proclaim his message (Matthew 28:16-21) which can and will save these people from the condemnation that they are bringing upon themselves (Romans 1:18.) I understand that I do not know everything and I do not claim to know everything, and to do so would in fact be unbiblical (1 Corinthians 3:19.) However, I also know that God wrote the Bible so that we can learn from it (Romans 15:4), and that while every other thing written under the sun may be wrong regardless of how cunning it may sound, the Bible is different (2 Peter 1:21.) Since the word of God is truth (John 17:17) we can not treat it merely as another book. We must hear the voice of divine authority, seek a proper understanding of it, and live in obedience to it, or else face the consequences.

So what should I as a Christian do with postmodernity? I need to continue to seek a better understanding of it (as a missionary would in another culture.) I can accept the elements that do not contradict scripture, but I can not defer authority to postmodernism or its tenets over scripture. I will judge postmodernity according to scripture rather than view scripture through the lens of postmodernity. I need to be able to present the gospel to a postmodern culture in a way that they will understand it. The postmodern culture has pulled on the church and those who have accepted it have swung like a pendulum too far in that direction. Most likely those who do not fully accept postmodernity will fully reject the emerging church and everything that resembles it and will swing too far in the opposite direction as the church historically does with every new movement and idea.

I want to remain true to the Bible while also being relevant in a postmodern culture. This may involve presenting the experience of Christianity while evangelizing and living that experience to its fullest, but it cannot change the content of the gospel by removing man’s depravity or the exclusive claims of Christ. This must involve emphasizing orthopraxy, but only if it is based on orthodoxy, or else it is worthless. This may include stressing the importance of community — not to determine community truth, but to be united based on the commands of absolute truth. Believers should be involved with social justice but that is not the ultimate purpose of the church. While there are positive elements of the emerging church, there are too many negatives to be reconciled with the truth of God’s word. Many of their complaints raised by the emerging church concerning the traditional church are valid and need to be addressed. But the alternative that the emerging church presents is worse than the status quo. For now, I am better off not being a part of the emerging church in its present form and will continue to strive to bring the traditional church into closer alignment with the truth of God’s word.

Satisfaction

In talking with many of my peers, most have told me that true satisfaction comes from having proper relationships. When they are right with God, family, friends, and others, they feel true satisfaction. All of them specifically mentioned being right with God, focused on God, or serving God when talking about the time they have been most satisfied. It would make sense that God is the source of satisfaction, since He commands believers to relate to Him throughout the entire Bible and offers joy and satisfaction to His followers.

Interestingly, none of the people I asked have told me that they felt satisfied from entertainment, health, money, education, possessions, or themselves. A few have even told me that they have never been satisfied with life. This also makes sense because the world's system is based on lust and pride.

C.S. Lewis described lust as, "an ever increasing desire for an ever decreasing satisfaction." Lust allows you take another step towards supposed satisfaction, but never allows you to get there. Whatever it is that you enjoy his no limit to how much you can get involved with it. There are always stronger drugs to take, stronger drinks to drink, finer foods to taste, higher mountains to climb, longer papers to write, and more prestigious goals to set. You can buy something new, but there will always be something newer or better. You can get into better shape, but you won't be satisfied because you can still tighten this or shrink that or bulge something else. You can earn another degree, but there is still more out there left to learn.

Pride is perhpas more destructive than lust. Lust is from without, pride is from within. Pride looks within a person for satisfaction, and leaves that person feeling inadequate every time. Pride is what drives skinny people to starve themselves because they are not skinny enough. Pride is what drives people to desparate measures for fame, and popularity. Pride puts itself before any other person in order to make itself greater. Yet the more a person looks withing himself, the more he will realize his inadequacies, and the more he will have to push himself to meet his own standards. Similar to lust, you can never arrive to where you want to be, there is always another level to push yourself to.

My question to the world is this: why do we expend so many of our resources in attempts of finding satisfaction with the things that do not satisfy? Why don't we put our efforts into finding satisfaction with God?