I just read an article about a Catholic bishop denying communion to an abortion supporting politician. God Bless the Catholic Bishop for standing for something!!!
The most remarkable thing in the article to me was the quote of a 20 year-old who said something like, "If he says he's a true Catholic who's to say he isn't?" This thinking is all too prevalent and is symptomatic of the mental disease of our day. This disease is manifested as a relativistic view of reality. As in, if you believe it, it's true for you. This has led to the absurd notion of not being able to ask children whether they are male or female because you can be whatever you believe you are. I know relativism is not true because I continue to believe people like this are not out there, but they continue to show up. They really are simply products of our educational system. We have taught them this nonsense.
There is no abbsolute truth, they will proclaim. Not even realizing that statement is a claim of absolute truth. Who indeed, can say this politician is not a Catholic? Just take the beliefs that define Catholicism and apply them to the man. If they don't apply, he's not a Catholic!! Even if saying so hurts his self-image.
We used to say if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a DUCK!! But now we say if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quack likes a duck, it's whatever it calls itself. May I suggest there are pictures of ducks in bird books, as there are pictures of boys and girls in biology books and there is a picture of a Catholic in the belief system that defines Catholicism. Marriage is defined in the scriptures and in cultural history along with the fact that only the combination of a man and a woman can perpetuate life. There is reality out there which is pretty obvious even to the casual observer. However, we have demonstrated over a generation just how powerful education is. They have learned what they have been taught. Whatever you say is true for you is true. The trouble is, that is a lie!!!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Invalidating the Word of God by Tradition
I have seen some thngs very close to me in a very different light of late. First, I got a glimpse of how me and others that I know who are diligently after God could have unknowingly slid into a teaching/preaching mode that gives nothing other than ear tickling messages. It seems I hear more today than ever, "well what do they want to hear."
Now with a little different twist the passage in Mark 7:9-13 has shown me how even those with a very "spiritual" intent can be sidetracked into relying more on their traditions than God's Word. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes because they were taking that which they could help their parents with and "giving it to God." Here it's easy to imagine that these guys were so zealous to serve God that they were giving everything to Him. What could be wrong with that? Jesus said that by doing so they were actually violating God's command to honor your Father and Mother. That's what's wrong. They decided over and above the authority of the scriptures what needed to be done. And it sounded pretty doggone holy!!!
It seems to me that we may have done that in this generation in the way we present the Gospel. Now the basic intent is to get people "saved". That's good!! However, in our fervency there has been established a methodology in the evangelical presentation that makes promises and assurances to people on non-Biblical grounds. For example, if you say this sinner's prayer you will go to heaven. On what grounds can we say that? If someone is repentant and believing God, they can say most any prayer and find relationship with Jesus, but we have made it sound as though there is some kind of special sure-fire incantation that when recited God must receive you into His kingdom.
Some have attached the extra instruction that once you've said this prayer it doesn't matter what you do you're saved!! This has left a lot of people who have never repented or believed in the Lord Jesus Christ , but simply said a prayer, wandering around our society with a hope, not in Jesus, but in a well-meaning Christian's words, that they are without a doubt destined for eternal life. And, now they are immuned to most anything you actually show them from the Bible because they have already received the final word on that when they said the sinner's prayer, which is not in the Bible.
We have a tradition. It is how we get people saved! The trouble is that salvation has one who can guarantee, and He never said that anybody that wants to can say the sinner's prayer and be saved. He said anyone who comes to him won't be rejected. And He said that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws Him. With a good intent, our methods have actually made the Word of God invalid in the thinking of those who have said the prayer. Let's look for true repentance and faith. Most of the time it is pretty evident.
Now with a little different twist the passage in Mark 7:9-13 has shown me how even those with a very "spiritual" intent can be sidetracked into relying more on their traditions than God's Word. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes because they were taking that which they could help their parents with and "giving it to God." Here it's easy to imagine that these guys were so zealous to serve God that they were giving everything to Him. What could be wrong with that? Jesus said that by doing so they were actually violating God's command to honor your Father and Mother. That's what's wrong. They decided over and above the authority of the scriptures what needed to be done. And it sounded pretty doggone holy!!!
It seems to me that we may have done that in this generation in the way we present the Gospel. Now the basic intent is to get people "saved". That's good!! However, in our fervency there has been established a methodology in the evangelical presentation that makes promises and assurances to people on non-Biblical grounds. For example, if you say this sinner's prayer you will go to heaven. On what grounds can we say that? If someone is repentant and believing God, they can say most any prayer and find relationship with Jesus, but we have made it sound as though there is some kind of special sure-fire incantation that when recited God must receive you into His kingdom.
Some have attached the extra instruction that once you've said this prayer it doesn't matter what you do you're saved!! This has left a lot of people who have never repented or believed in the Lord Jesus Christ , but simply said a prayer, wandering around our society with a hope, not in Jesus, but in a well-meaning Christian's words, that they are without a doubt destined for eternal life. And, now they are immuned to most anything you actually show them from the Bible because they have already received the final word on that when they said the sinner's prayer, which is not in the Bible.
We have a tradition. It is how we get people saved! The trouble is that salvation has one who can guarantee, and He never said that anybody that wants to can say the sinner's prayer and be saved. He said anyone who comes to him won't be rejected. And He said that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws Him. With a good intent, our methods have actually made the Word of God invalid in the thinking of those who have said the prayer. Let's look for true repentance and faith. Most of the time it is pretty evident.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Establishment of Religion Clause
I have just a quick note as it has come to my intention again the debate in our nation as to its Christian origins. When we study the Bible a primary rule of interpretation is what did it mean to those it was written to. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and some Supreme Court Justices such as James Wilson (who was one of only six men to sign both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) encouraged that in order to interpret our nation's founding documents it was imperative to discover the meaning of those who wrote them.
Taking that principle of interpretation into consideration let's look at the First amendment regarding the establishment of religion clause. George Mason (a member of the Constitutinal Convention and referred to as "The Father of the Bill of Rights") said, (quote from the book"Original Intent") "[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."
If you will note the first amendment was not established to give every religion, as we know them today, equal influence or expression in our form of government. It was established to keep any one expression of Christianity (as in denomination) from being established, by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, as the national expression of Christianity. State governments at the time of the founding of our nation could support a denomination (some states even gave money to denominations). The amendment was to keep the federal government out of the religious affairs of each state. Many State constitutions at the time of the Constitutional Convention had spiritual requirements for elected officials. You were not to be elected if you didn't believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, eternal rewards and punishments and one state required you to be protestant. (Since I'm writing this off the top of my head I can't remember which state but can get that information for any inquirer.) The constitutional convention convened with prayer (Christian Prayer). And the most irreligious, as in Benjamin Franklin, acknowledged the Providence of God in the establishment of the constitution, even quoting scripture as a part of his declaration. I've often said, our problem today is we don't have spiritual enough atheists or Deists like we did in those days.
My heart is really on the need for Christians to arise in these days. Not so much politically, but this kind of misinformation or lack of scholarship in the discussion of the history of our nation always seems to ruffle my feathers. Reference to the Treaty of Tripoli in which John Adams said our nation is not founded on the religion of Christianity is the one saving reference people who oppose the wealth of information about our Christian heritage and foundation rely on. Now they can add Obama's statement in Turkey to their references. Technically the federal government was not founded on the the religion of Christianity, especially as it was being expressed in Europe at the time, with its hatred toward the Muslims. But to say that it was not established on Christian principles or the foundation of the Bible is to neglect the enormous evidence in the statements of the founder's themselves. Even John Adams acknowledged that in other statements he made. The first chief justice of the supreme court John Jay declared we were a Christian nation and Congress approved the printing of the Bible for use in schools. That kind of knowledge needs to be considered when one examines the original intent of our founding documents.
Given all the Harvard graduates we have in positions of authority in our nation, our nation could be changed if those graduates simply held fast to the early mottos from Harvard itself, such as "For the Glory of Christ" and "For Christ and the Church." Christianity is woven through the framework of the foundation of this nation. If the abnegation of such heritage is the object of the present "Change" in this country then let it be said so, BUT it is a change. It is not our heritage as a nation!!
Taking that principle of interpretation into consideration let's look at the First amendment regarding the establishment of religion clause. George Mason (a member of the Constitutinal Convention and referred to as "The Father of the Bill of Rights") said, (quote from the book"Original Intent") "[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."
If you will note the first amendment was not established to give every religion, as we know them today, equal influence or expression in our form of government. It was established to keep any one expression of Christianity (as in denomination) from being established, by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, as the national expression of Christianity. State governments at the time of the founding of our nation could support a denomination (some states even gave money to denominations). The amendment was to keep the federal government out of the religious affairs of each state. Many State constitutions at the time of the Constitutional Convention had spiritual requirements for elected officials. You were not to be elected if you didn't believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, eternal rewards and punishments and one state required you to be protestant. (Since I'm writing this off the top of my head I can't remember which state but can get that information for any inquirer.) The constitutional convention convened with prayer (Christian Prayer). And the most irreligious, as in Benjamin Franklin, acknowledged the Providence of God in the establishment of the constitution, even quoting scripture as a part of his declaration. I've often said, our problem today is we don't have spiritual enough atheists or Deists like we did in those days.
My heart is really on the need for Christians to arise in these days. Not so much politically, but this kind of misinformation or lack of scholarship in the discussion of the history of our nation always seems to ruffle my feathers. Reference to the Treaty of Tripoli in which John Adams said our nation is not founded on the religion of Christianity is the one saving reference people who oppose the wealth of information about our Christian heritage and foundation rely on. Now they can add Obama's statement in Turkey to their references. Technically the federal government was not founded on the the religion of Christianity, especially as it was being expressed in Europe at the time, with its hatred toward the Muslims. But to say that it was not established on Christian principles or the foundation of the Bible is to neglect the enormous evidence in the statements of the founder's themselves. Even John Adams acknowledged that in other statements he made. The first chief justice of the supreme court John Jay declared we were a Christian nation and Congress approved the printing of the Bible for use in schools. That kind of knowledge needs to be considered when one examines the original intent of our founding documents.
Given all the Harvard graduates we have in positions of authority in our nation, our nation could be changed if those graduates simply held fast to the early mottos from Harvard itself, such as "For the Glory of Christ" and "For Christ and the Church." Christianity is woven through the framework of the foundation of this nation. If the abnegation of such heritage is the object of the present "Change" in this country then let it be said so, BUT it is a change. It is not our heritage as a nation!!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Cruise Ship or Battle Ship
If I am a little caustic today it's because I pulled out some old Keith Green music. It is amazing to me the audience that Keith was gaining at the time of his death. His approach was absolutely in your face. The first line to "O God Our Lord" is, "Who ya gonna throw in the lake of fire?" Some responses in the song to the question are, the devil and the man with the dark desire or the liar and the thief and the ones half ready. Keith also wrote, Jesus rose from the dead, you can't even get out of bed. You may think this is a little bit overboard, but I would contend that in this day of ecclesiastical sleeping the only way out of a deep sleep is to be startled. If you are really comfortable in a deep sleep you can be really be put out if someone tries to wake you up. Why is it that a message of severe judgment is so hard to stomach? Is it untrue Biblically? Do we not believe the Bible? Or, might it be that it might not sound very inviting to the hearer?
I like the idea of taking an Alaskan cruise. I would love to see the glaciers, a whale, the majestic scenery. There could be nothing much better than being on a cruise ship enjoying all that is good around you. Unless, you are in the middle of a war!! The cruise ship is ill-equipped to defend or protect you, and it certainly cannot destroy the enemy. Is the lake of fire a reality or imagination? Do we love our pleasure, sleep or comfort more than our family, friends, neighbors or God? The Bible says in the last days they would be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. What days are we in?
Awake O Sleeper!! People of God arise!! It is so good to serve Him with abandonment. It is even better than all the pleasures you can contrive and more profitable than a lifetime of deep sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump!! The ultimate reward is just around the corner.
I like the idea of taking an Alaskan cruise. I would love to see the glaciers, a whale, the majestic scenery. There could be nothing much better than being on a cruise ship enjoying all that is good around you. Unless, you are in the middle of a war!! The cruise ship is ill-equipped to defend or protect you, and it certainly cannot destroy the enemy. Is the lake of fire a reality or imagination? Do we love our pleasure, sleep or comfort more than our family, friends, neighbors or God? The Bible says in the last days they would be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. What days are we in?
Awake O Sleeper!! People of God arise!! It is so good to serve Him with abandonment. It is even better than all the pleasures you can contrive and more profitable than a lifetime of deep sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump!! The ultimate reward is just around the corner.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Ears Tickled
I just finished reading Heavenly Man for the second time. It is the book about the life of Brother Yun from China. I have been impacted greatly again. When I read his testimony it exposes the shallowness of Western Christianity. He says, "Multitudes of church members in the West are satisfied with giving their minimum to God, not their maximum." And, "I've seen people in the Western churches worshipping as if they're already in heaven. Then someone invariably brings a comforting message like, "My children, I love you. Don't be afraid, I'm with you." I'm not opposed to such words, but why is it that nobody seems to hear a Word from the Lord like, "My child, I want to send you to the slums of Asia or the darkness of Africa to be my messenger to people dying in their sin?" Why indeed?!?!
II Timothy 4:3 says, "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." My Christian life has been spent, generally, among people who have a fervent desire to serve the Lord. People who generally look at the above verse and see how it applies to the "status quo" church world, but would never apply to us who are filled with the Spirit, lovers of Jesus. But if it doesn't apply to us, why is it that we aren't hearing a call to give up everything for the sake of the gospel and take good news to the Muslims in the Middle East or lay your life on the line for Jesus in the slums of Africa or Asia? Is it because we love our lives too much? Are we like the rich young ruler who heard a similar message from Jesus and went away sad because that required him to give up that which had become precious to him?
I never thought when I gave my life to Jesus that the "ears tickled" crowd would have anything to do with me. The cross is a message of death to the flesh and it's desires. We seem to be placating the flesh in this generation. One last statement from Brother Yun that at least should make us ponder our consecration to this Royal King that we serve. At a conference, "The main speaker was a well-known American preacher. Every time he spoke it was about the love and goodness of God. During the prayer time everyone fell down on the floor and laughed. After I spoke I commanded people to kneel down at the foot of the cross of Jesus, and they wept! Tears always come first before the Lord truly moves. He will never pour out His blessing on unsanctified flesh."
We have run into a problem in these days as to how to explain to someone how they can have everything just the way they want it AND follow Jesus at the same time. It can't happen. I believe the present government in the U.S. is in place to awaken the church. The church in China doesn't sleep. It can't!!
Maybe Yun's assessment of the western church is extreme, but a man who spent over 7 years of the first 20 years of his marriage in prison for the gospel has earned at least a right to be heard on this matter. He has seen and endured extraordinary suffering and amazing miracles. He has embraced his sufferings for Christ as gifts of love to purify his heart from evil and selfish intentions. Paul did the same, and concluded when I am weak then I am strong, for His power is perfected in weakness. Who will go for the Lord? Who will stand without compromise even if it costs your job, reputation, etc. Pray for me that I would, and that I have not become so attached to this world that I can't let go. Maybe you want that too!
II Timothy 4:3 says, "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." My Christian life has been spent, generally, among people who have a fervent desire to serve the Lord. People who generally look at the above verse and see how it applies to the "status quo" church world, but would never apply to us who are filled with the Spirit, lovers of Jesus. But if it doesn't apply to us, why is it that we aren't hearing a call to give up everything for the sake of the gospel and take good news to the Muslims in the Middle East or lay your life on the line for Jesus in the slums of Africa or Asia? Is it because we love our lives too much? Are we like the rich young ruler who heard a similar message from Jesus and went away sad because that required him to give up that which had become precious to him?
I never thought when I gave my life to Jesus that the "ears tickled" crowd would have anything to do with me. The cross is a message of death to the flesh and it's desires. We seem to be placating the flesh in this generation. One last statement from Brother Yun that at least should make us ponder our consecration to this Royal King that we serve. At a conference, "The main speaker was a well-known American preacher. Every time he spoke it was about the love and goodness of God. During the prayer time everyone fell down on the floor and laughed. After I spoke I commanded people to kneel down at the foot of the cross of Jesus, and they wept! Tears always come first before the Lord truly moves. He will never pour out His blessing on unsanctified flesh."
We have run into a problem in these days as to how to explain to someone how they can have everything just the way they want it AND follow Jesus at the same time. It can't happen. I believe the present government in the U.S. is in place to awaken the church. The church in China doesn't sleep. It can't!!
Maybe Yun's assessment of the western church is extreme, but a man who spent over 7 years of the first 20 years of his marriage in prison for the gospel has earned at least a right to be heard on this matter. He has seen and endured extraordinary suffering and amazing miracles. He has embraced his sufferings for Christ as gifts of love to purify his heart from evil and selfish intentions. Paul did the same, and concluded when I am weak then I am strong, for His power is perfected in weakness. Who will go for the Lord? Who will stand without compromise even if it costs your job, reputation, etc. Pray for me that I would, and that I have not become so attached to this world that I can't let go. Maybe you want that too!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
It's Scary Out There
I watched some of President Obama's speech yesterday from the U.N. and I thought I was watching a Left Behind movie. Does anyone get the same feelings I get when you see the direction things are going these days? It's world peace without Jesus. In fact, most of it is world peace in defiance of Jesus. It's been noted by many how our president was silent during the national day of prayer, but has been more vocal about Ramadan.
The mindset of government today is the same as my "encounter groups" (I always hated those) I had to attend in College for my Psychology and Sociology classes. Our President is a product of the liberal arts education classroom that has been training our youth for 40 years now. There was a strange mixture of Marxism and Christianity when I was attending school. This was Christianity as a value system not Christianity with a relationship to Jesus. Financial crisis and government intervention, in every aspect of life, including government youth training, sounds too much like Nazi Germany to not get a rise out of a student of history or even a casual observer of history such as myself.
Not too long ago I was questioned about my stand on social issues. Particularly that as a Christian there is too much attention given to the issues of abortion and homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins such as gossip, slander, anger, etc. I agree that the latter are sometimes neglected, but the other two are major social agendas and killing people is not just "another" issue, it is central.
Having said that I want to make a Biblical observation about a phenomenon that we are seeing in the homosexual culture. There is a strong "religious" tone even a claimed "Christian homosexual" movement. This should not be surprising given what the Bible says about the cultural progression of a society that accepts homosexuality. The NASB says in Romans 1:21 "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God." The next 7 or 8 verses describe the progression into homosexual behavior, men desiring men, etc. The beginning is these people knew God. There is a spiritual connect. The problem comes when they did not honor Him as God. You see, God tells us what to do, when we honor Him for Who He is. It should not be surprising that homosexual culture would have a significant religious element to it. They knew God, BUT did not honor Him and therefore were turned over to degrading passions and a depraved mind. So it is not the lack of "knowledge" of God that is most dangerous in this passage, but a knowledge of God without the corresponding honor that He deserves.
Pray that the Muslims gathering in D.C. would receive revelations of Jesus and that the 17 year old girl who fled her muslim home gain a voice of prominence in America.
He reigns and will soon exercise His power to display the truth of Who He is. There is always major crisis before God shows Himself so the world might know that "The Lord, He is God." Jesus is Lord!!!
I watched some of President Obama's speech yesterday from the U.N. and I thought I was watching a Left Behind movie. Does anyone get the same feelings I get when you see the direction things are going these days? It's world peace without Jesus. In fact, most of it is world peace in defiance of Jesus. It's been noted by many how our president was silent during the national day of prayer, but has been more vocal about Ramadan.
The mindset of government today is the same as my "encounter groups" (I always hated those) I had to attend in College for my Psychology and Sociology classes. Our President is a product of the liberal arts education classroom that has been training our youth for 40 years now. There was a strange mixture of Marxism and Christianity when I was attending school. This was Christianity as a value system not Christianity with a relationship to Jesus. Financial crisis and government intervention, in every aspect of life, including government youth training, sounds too much like Nazi Germany to not get a rise out of a student of history or even a casual observer of history such as myself.
Not too long ago I was questioned about my stand on social issues. Particularly that as a Christian there is too much attention given to the issues of abortion and homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins such as gossip, slander, anger, etc. I agree that the latter are sometimes neglected, but the other two are major social agendas and killing people is not just "another" issue, it is central.
Having said that I want to make a Biblical observation about a phenomenon that we are seeing in the homosexual culture. There is a strong "religious" tone even a claimed "Christian homosexual" movement. This should not be surprising given what the Bible says about the cultural progression of a society that accepts homosexuality. The NASB says in Romans 1:21 "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God." The next 7 or 8 verses describe the progression into homosexual behavior, men desiring men, etc. The beginning is these people knew God. There is a spiritual connect. The problem comes when they did not honor Him as God. You see, God tells us what to do, when we honor Him for Who He is. It should not be surprising that homosexual culture would have a significant religious element to it. They knew God, BUT did not honor Him and therefore were turned over to degrading passions and a depraved mind. So it is not the lack of "knowledge" of God that is most dangerous in this passage, but a knowledge of God without the corresponding honor that He deserves.
Pray that the Muslims gathering in D.C. would receive revelations of Jesus and that the 17 year old girl who fled her muslim home gain a voice of prominence in America.
He reigns and will soon exercise His power to display the truth of Who He is. There is always major crisis before God shows Himself so the world might know that "The Lord, He is God." Jesus is Lord!!!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
You're the Man!!
When Nathan the prophet said this to David, it didn't have the same feel as our common "you da man" statement of today. David had just heard a story by Nathan and made his judgment regarding justice for that situation. David thought he was passing judgment on someone else but in fact had just condemned himself.
There is another princple in scripture that I have used for years to evaluate my own heart and use as a barometer on other people's evaluations of situations. Romans 2:1 is summarized like this (Ed's version) that which you judge another of you are guilty of the same thing yourself. Judgment here is talking about declaring someone's motive which we cannot possibly know. This is different than saying you're an adulterer if you're having an affair with someone else's wife. That's just the truth. Stating the facts, but how often have we heard, "you're judging me!" Declaring a heart motive is different as in, "He just wants to get brownie points, that's why he's being nice." That probably means, that is why I would be nice in that situation.
I heard in the news today that former President Jimmy Carter accused Joe Wilson of being a racist, for shouting out, "you lie", to President Obama during his speech. You know, honestly,
racist motivation for that statement never crossed my mind. I know when I make judgments on someone's motivation behind a statement or action it is usually like the scripture says, because I am guilty of the same thing myself. In other words, I judge from my own personal history and perspective. When I think someone is secretly talking about me, it is usually because I have something against someone and have either been thinking about or talking about someone in an accusatory manner.
I have heard people say over the years that "so and so" is probably just doing that to get attention. What that often reveals is the secret condition of our own heart. Someone with "race" on the mind themselves will assume that everyone is thinking like that. And.... when we are being judgmental is usually when we think that everyone is judging us.
My suggestion is to use the principle of Romans 2:1 as a self-examination recipe. I found that it has often exposed my own attitudes to me when I thought I was just being very discerning about someone else. Try it! It's better to judge ourselves, as Paul said, so we do not incur the judgment of the world.
When Nathan the prophet said this to David, it didn't have the same feel as our common "you da man" statement of today. David had just heard a story by Nathan and made his judgment regarding justice for that situation. David thought he was passing judgment on someone else but in fact had just condemned himself.
There is another princple in scripture that I have used for years to evaluate my own heart and use as a barometer on other people's evaluations of situations. Romans 2:1 is summarized like this (Ed's version) that which you judge another of you are guilty of the same thing yourself. Judgment here is talking about declaring someone's motive which we cannot possibly know. This is different than saying you're an adulterer if you're having an affair with someone else's wife. That's just the truth. Stating the facts, but how often have we heard, "you're judging me!" Declaring a heart motive is different as in, "He just wants to get brownie points, that's why he's being nice." That probably means, that is why I would be nice in that situation.
I heard in the news today that former President Jimmy Carter accused Joe Wilson of being a racist, for shouting out, "you lie", to President Obama during his speech. You know, honestly,
racist motivation for that statement never crossed my mind. I know when I make judgments on someone's motivation behind a statement or action it is usually like the scripture says, because I am guilty of the same thing myself. In other words, I judge from my own personal history and perspective. When I think someone is secretly talking about me, it is usually because I have something against someone and have either been thinking about or talking about someone in an accusatory manner.
I have heard people say over the years that "so and so" is probably just doing that to get attention. What that often reveals is the secret condition of our own heart. Someone with "race" on the mind themselves will assume that everyone is thinking like that. And.... when we are being judgmental is usually when we think that everyone is judging us.
My suggestion is to use the principle of Romans 2:1 as a self-examination recipe. I found that it has often exposed my own attitudes to me when I thought I was just being very discerning about someone else. Try it! It's better to judge ourselves, as Paul said, so we do not incur the judgment of the world.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Whatever He tells you to do, do it!!
I've taken a Sabbatical from blogging while our friends Harrison and Josephine were here. It has been so busy and enjoyable. It has been fascinating to watch Harrison minister in such a wide variety of situations. The Lord told him that he, Harrison didn't know God's people but God did so he would tell him what to say in each different situation.
After all that he said, in the 20 or so messages I heard, I keep hearing the message he gave about Jesus at the wedding of Cana in John 2 and the instructions of Mary to the servants. Whatever he tells you to do, DO IT!!! It was the key to the miracle then and it is the key to our miracles now. Absolute obedience to what God is saying to us right now. That is what puts God at work in our lives.
It seems it is often easier to just do our favorite Christian activity when the Lord speaks. He says give everything that you have to that person, so we close our eyes tighter and lift our hands higher and try to look even more spiritual than we did a second earlier, but none of that is really worship if He just told us to do something else. If we truly worship Him we will do what he says when He says it. So if He says go apologize to your brother, giving a bigger offering is not obedience or worship. It's more like putting on a fig leaf to cover yourself, but the covering is insufficient because it is not born in obedience, but instead it is trying to cover our disobedience.
I have seen what happens a few times in my life when we step out in obedience and say or do something that is out of our comfort zone. When I went to Mt. Carmel last year with the strong impression of the word "epicenter", I said it not having any idea of what would happen about 6 weeks later. I was thinking spiritual epicenter in my mind which I still believe is true. But God emphasized the reality by a physical earthquake whose epicenter was very close to Jacob's Well in Mt. Carmel. I felt a little out on a breaking limb when I said it, but it became a powerful word when the earthquake came.
Mary had such wisdom just to tell the headwaiter, Whatever he tells you to do, do it! Blessings to you all as you follow Him!!
I've taken a Sabbatical from blogging while our friends Harrison and Josephine were here. It has been so busy and enjoyable. It has been fascinating to watch Harrison minister in such a wide variety of situations. The Lord told him that he, Harrison didn't know God's people but God did so he would tell him what to say in each different situation.
After all that he said, in the 20 or so messages I heard, I keep hearing the message he gave about Jesus at the wedding of Cana in John 2 and the instructions of Mary to the servants. Whatever he tells you to do, DO IT!!! It was the key to the miracle then and it is the key to our miracles now. Absolute obedience to what God is saying to us right now. That is what puts God at work in our lives.
It seems it is often easier to just do our favorite Christian activity when the Lord speaks. He says give everything that you have to that person, so we close our eyes tighter and lift our hands higher and try to look even more spiritual than we did a second earlier, but none of that is really worship if He just told us to do something else. If we truly worship Him we will do what he says when He says it. So if He says go apologize to your brother, giving a bigger offering is not obedience or worship. It's more like putting on a fig leaf to cover yourself, but the covering is insufficient because it is not born in obedience, but instead it is trying to cover our disobedience.
I have seen what happens a few times in my life when we step out in obedience and say or do something that is out of our comfort zone. When I went to Mt. Carmel last year with the strong impression of the word "epicenter", I said it not having any idea of what would happen about 6 weeks later. I was thinking spiritual epicenter in my mind which I still believe is true. But God emphasized the reality by a physical earthquake whose epicenter was very close to Jacob's Well in Mt. Carmel. I felt a little out on a breaking limb when I said it, but it became a powerful word when the earthquake came.
Mary had such wisdom just to tell the headwaiter, Whatever he tells you to do, do it! Blessings to you all as you follow Him!!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Just a law abiding citizen?
I must comment one more time on the possible prosecution of school officials for praying over a meal. I heard a short exchange on a news program between 2 people arguing for and against the ruling to bring criminal charges against these educators.
The one advocating criminal charges against them said since there was already a judicial warning (I don't know the particular name, injunction, whatever) against this school district that he sheds no tears over this ruling. They broke the law, and he, as a law abiding citizen, thought those who broke the law should be prosecuted.
There is a method Jesus used in answering questions and exposing flaws in ones argument and that was asking questions Himself. He did it when they asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar, when they asked whose authority He spoke in, etc. I wanted to pose a question to the man on T.V. In fact, I may have been talking to the T.V.
I would have liked to say, so you are a law abiding citizen and just think laws should be upheld, hey? A few decades ago in this country it was legal for a white person to own a black person as property, if you were under that law would your policy be to just uphold it and prosecute those who opposed it? I TROW NOT!! (I think trow is the right word, but if it isn't substitute think in its place). I'm sure he would not think that was appropriate. So the question is not simply upholding all law, but is that law good or righteous.
The possible jailing of school officials in America for offering a prayer over a meal in public is evidence that even though the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, they may have won the cold war. They have influenced the philosophies of America and some of those, who see themselves as intellectually elite and offering justice for all, who have been duped into being puppet propagators of a philosophical framework based on no ethical value or moral system, or atheistic morals and values if that is possible, and are truly clueless to the facts that the Christian moral and value system of this nation is what made it great. (Whew!!) (Don't let Miss Taylor, my high school composition instructor, see this sentence.)
The writings on the walls of our national monuments, the writings in our national documents and the records of the historical meetings of this nation all point to our reliance and acknowledgement of God and our dependence on His wisdom for our existence and success. Prayer has been our heritage in beginning legislative and legal sessions. And if you trace the prayers, it has not been prayers to just some god, it has been prayer offered to the Creator of all things revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
The first major Bible printing done in this nation was commissioned by Congress and the Bibles were printed for use in schools. Our law abiding citizen probably has no idea how to define right and wrong because he has no standard to base it on. It changes with the wind or at least with whoever is in power or has influence over the legal system of this nation. I'm sure he wouldn't think it right to own another person as property, or push an old lady into the middle of a busy street. Although that would be one less burden on our health care coverage expense, unless of course she just got maimed and not killed. But how do you know what's right, if you have no objective outside values to evaluate your laws by? After all, not all that many years ago it was against the law to kill babies in their mother's womb, now it's not. Did right and wrong change? I TROW NOT!!
I must comment one more time on the possible prosecution of school officials for praying over a meal. I heard a short exchange on a news program between 2 people arguing for and against the ruling to bring criminal charges against these educators.
The one advocating criminal charges against them said since there was already a judicial warning (I don't know the particular name, injunction, whatever) against this school district that he sheds no tears over this ruling. They broke the law, and he, as a law abiding citizen, thought those who broke the law should be prosecuted.
There is a method Jesus used in answering questions and exposing flaws in ones argument and that was asking questions Himself. He did it when they asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar, when they asked whose authority He spoke in, etc. I wanted to pose a question to the man on T.V. In fact, I may have been talking to the T.V.
I would have liked to say, so you are a law abiding citizen and just think laws should be upheld, hey? A few decades ago in this country it was legal for a white person to own a black person as property, if you were under that law would your policy be to just uphold it and prosecute those who opposed it? I TROW NOT!! (I think trow is the right word, but if it isn't substitute think in its place). I'm sure he would not think that was appropriate. So the question is not simply upholding all law, but is that law good or righteous.
The possible jailing of school officials in America for offering a prayer over a meal in public is evidence that even though the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, they may have won the cold war. They have influenced the philosophies of America and some of those, who see themselves as intellectually elite and offering justice for all, who have been duped into being puppet propagators of a philosophical framework based on no ethical value or moral system, or atheistic morals and values if that is possible, and are truly clueless to the facts that the Christian moral and value system of this nation is what made it great. (Whew!!) (Don't let Miss Taylor, my high school composition instructor, see this sentence.)
The writings on the walls of our national monuments, the writings in our national documents and the records of the historical meetings of this nation all point to our reliance and acknowledgement of God and our dependence on His wisdom for our existence and success. Prayer has been our heritage in beginning legislative and legal sessions. And if you trace the prayers, it has not been prayers to just some god, it has been prayer offered to the Creator of all things revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
The first major Bible printing done in this nation was commissioned by Congress and the Bibles were printed for use in schools. Our law abiding citizen probably has no idea how to define right and wrong because he has no standard to base it on. It changes with the wind or at least with whoever is in power or has influence over the legal system of this nation. I'm sure he wouldn't think it right to own another person as property, or push an old lady into the middle of a busy street. Although that would be one less burden on our health care coverage expense, unless of course she just got maimed and not killed. But how do you know what's right, if you have no objective outside values to evaluate your laws by? After all, not all that many years ago it was against the law to kill babies in their mother's womb, now it's not. Did right and wrong change? I TROW NOT!!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Illegal Prayer!!
The first congressional session that ever convened in this land we live in, began with a prayer meeting. Now, however, school officials at Pace High School in Florida face criminal prosecution and possible jail time for praying before meals at the school.
I remember when I was growing up we used to talk about our arch enemy, the Soviet Union. They were controlled by the evil of Communism. We even talked about them in school. One of the worst evils of Communism was that it was Godless. They didn't allow the Bible in public and you certainly couldn't pray in public. As a nation we saw and realized how oppressive this regime was and how dangerous it was to the very fabric of what made up our great nation.
There was real evil in our nation such as racism, but historically in England and in the U.S., although many who called themselves Christians embraced racism, it was also true Christians are the ones, who led much of the resistance against it, most notably William Wilberforce in England as he fought against slavery and slave trade. So, I understand the nation was not in a state of euphoric perfection, but there were foundations that were endorsed and adhered to that had made this nation great. We had a Christian heritage. We actually prayed in schools back when I began my education. It was not illegal or oppressive it was the acknowledgement that we needed more than our own ingenuity to succeed. We needed the blessing of Almighty God and we asked for it. And you know what? He gave it!
Our students were some of the best in the world. We excelled in understanding, agriculture, science among many other things and became a world leader.
With the action being considered against these school officials in Florida the realization is now beginning to appear very clearly that we have become our enemy!!
The first congressional session that ever convened in this land we live in, began with a prayer meeting. Now, however, school officials at Pace High School in Florida face criminal prosecution and possible jail time for praying before meals at the school.
I remember when I was growing up we used to talk about our arch enemy, the Soviet Union. They were controlled by the evil of Communism. We even talked about them in school. One of the worst evils of Communism was that it was Godless. They didn't allow the Bible in public and you certainly couldn't pray in public. As a nation we saw and realized how oppressive this regime was and how dangerous it was to the very fabric of what made up our great nation.
There was real evil in our nation such as racism, but historically in England and in the U.S., although many who called themselves Christians embraced racism, it was also true Christians are the ones, who led much of the resistance against it, most notably William Wilberforce in England as he fought against slavery and slave trade. So, I understand the nation was not in a state of euphoric perfection, but there were foundations that were endorsed and adhered to that had made this nation great. We had a Christian heritage. We actually prayed in schools back when I began my education. It was not illegal or oppressive it was the acknowledgement that we needed more than our own ingenuity to succeed. We needed the blessing of Almighty God and we asked for it. And you know what? He gave it!
Our students were some of the best in the world. We excelled in understanding, agriculture, science among many other things and became a world leader.
With the action being considered against these school officials in Florida the realization is now beginning to appear very clearly that we have become our enemy!!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Spirit and the Word
We had a wonderful time this last weekend with a group of radical passionate young adults. The goal of the conference we attended was not to take away anything from the Holy Spirit passion of these followers of Jesus but rather to add a foundation in the Word of God to help them stand through all circumstances. Otherwise it is like being at the base of Mt. Sanai and you hear the thunder, see the lightning, feel the earthquake and leave saying let's do that again but you don't listen to the voice speaking to you from the midst of the cloud. Or, like the hyenas in the Lion King just wanting to hear someone say Mufasa one more time
Joshua led Israel boldly and without hesitation when the word of the Lord came to him to enter the land. Joshua was able to do that because he had spent so much time hanging out at the tent of meeting where the Lord's Presence rested. Spending time in His Presence should prepare us to obey anything He says. True humility means we follow His leading and obey His Word no matter where He takes us, to the Penthouse or to the outhouse, we just say yes, Lord.
With this in mind we had the opportunity to hear a brother share how the Lord has led him to give away everything, including his retirement fund. It was fascinating to hear that the Kingdom still operates the same way it did in Jesus' day. For anyone who gives up all, He promised to multiply back to them to take care of them as they walk in obedience. Most of us know very little about what is revealed when we follow Jesus without any reservations. There is a kingdom life that exceeds the natural reasoning mind, but one must dive into it with full faith.
The rich young ruler in the Bible was told to sell all give to the poor and follow Jesus, but couldn't, much like most of us. I would say the wisdom I heard years ago to use common sense unless you have a direct word from the Lord still stands. Common sense would not beckon one to give away his retirement account when in your 50's. But Jesus said your life does not consist in the accumulation of possessions. You don't get life from what you own, but from who owns you.
I remember launching off years ago giving up rights to all I owned to live in community with some other brothers. We made a lot of mistakes, but we also saw unmistakable Divine provision. I have been challenged by this weekend to pursue the Lord with more passion and to try to make sure my talk measures up with my walk. Total surrender means total peace and total provision. He said he would return 100 fold to his people. The condition was to give up ALL. May the Spirit of Jesus lead us all to our total surrender and entry into true Kingdom life.
We had a wonderful time this last weekend with a group of radical passionate young adults. The goal of the conference we attended was not to take away anything from the Holy Spirit passion of these followers of Jesus but rather to add a foundation in the Word of God to help them stand through all circumstances. Otherwise it is like being at the base of Mt. Sanai and you hear the thunder, see the lightning, feel the earthquake and leave saying let's do that again but you don't listen to the voice speaking to you from the midst of the cloud. Or, like the hyenas in the Lion King just wanting to hear someone say Mufasa one more time
Joshua led Israel boldly and without hesitation when the word of the Lord came to him to enter the land. Joshua was able to do that because he had spent so much time hanging out at the tent of meeting where the Lord's Presence rested. Spending time in His Presence should prepare us to obey anything He says. True humility means we follow His leading and obey His Word no matter where He takes us, to the Penthouse or to the outhouse, we just say yes, Lord.
With this in mind we had the opportunity to hear a brother share how the Lord has led him to give away everything, including his retirement fund. It was fascinating to hear that the Kingdom still operates the same way it did in Jesus' day. For anyone who gives up all, He promised to multiply back to them to take care of them as they walk in obedience. Most of us know very little about what is revealed when we follow Jesus without any reservations. There is a kingdom life that exceeds the natural reasoning mind, but one must dive into it with full faith.
The rich young ruler in the Bible was told to sell all give to the poor and follow Jesus, but couldn't, much like most of us. I would say the wisdom I heard years ago to use common sense unless you have a direct word from the Lord still stands. Common sense would not beckon one to give away his retirement account when in your 50's. But Jesus said your life does not consist in the accumulation of possessions. You don't get life from what you own, but from who owns you.
I remember launching off years ago giving up rights to all I owned to live in community with some other brothers. We made a lot of mistakes, but we also saw unmistakable Divine provision. I have been challenged by this weekend to pursue the Lord with more passion and to try to make sure my talk measures up with my walk. Total surrender means total peace and total provision. He said he would return 100 fold to his people. The condition was to give up ALL. May the Spirit of Jesus lead us all to our total surrender and entry into true Kingdom life.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Did God's Personality Change from Old to New Testament?
The simple answer is, no. However, I realize that as you read the OT and see the attacks the Lord orchestrates against certain people groups it does not seem consistent with Jesus' declaration about the blessing that comes to peacemakers, for instance.
We know that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. Jesus told Philip that since he had seen Him, he had seen the Father. When God declares His Name in Exodus 34:6, 7, He says He is compasssionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness and truth who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.
God is compassionate and full, or abounding in, lovingkindness. We know from the OT that He "delights in mercy". The last thing He mentions in the declaration of His Name is basically that He is pefectly just. The guilty cannot go unpunished. I was reading in Leviticus, today,and was just noticing all the things people were to be put to death for doing. There were a lot of situations where violation of that law was punished by death. Several of the situations, such as adultery, you can see how God would show no tolerance and this was a great deterrent to an expanding adultery problem. In contrast, our society today shows relatively little outrage, horror or even much concern over adultery. If you didn't notice it is spreading like wild fire. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. When the source is stopped so is the problem. In the OT several societies were destroyed on command from God because to allow them to continue on and curse the next generations with their sin was a worse alternative than to eliminate the source of the problem in that generation.
However, even in that, God was not without mercy, or hasty to bring punishment. Before Israel was allowed to go in and take their land, first the cup of iniquity of the Amorites had to be full. God waited for them, but there was no repentance. Jonah preached a message of judgment upon Nineveh. We are not told in the message that he even mentioned repentance, but when the city repented God had mercy.
We actually see the same thing taking place at the end of the age. When the sixth trumpet is blown there are horrendous calamities, but we read in Revelation 9:20, 21 that people will not repent. When people no longer repent God unleashes the seven bowls of wrath which are loosed when the seventh trumpet is sounded. Why? Because God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance. He waits to see if there is any repentance left before the final judgment is released. This is consistent with His actions OT or NT. When there is no longer any repentance there is nothing left , but wrath. This is OT and NT alike.
Since God is just He cannot, by His nature, just say, that's o.k., no big deal, you're forgiven. Every sin must be dealt with according to the rightful payment. It is with this in mind that we can somehow deal with Isaiah's prophecy about the Father's hand against his own Son when it says, "But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering." It "pleased" the Lord to crush him. What it did, was satisfy the necessary just payment, so that, in view of justice being rendered mercy could then be offered. Justice was dealt out, but wait, Who was it dealt upon? He himself provided the sacrifice. He paid for us. The sermon on the mount lifestyle is following this same pattern. Bless those who curse you, pray for your enemies is taking "the hit" ourselves, rather than returning eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is perfectly just. God took justice for us upon Himself and now leads us in a lifestyle that follows that pattern. He is abounding in "lovingkindness", or mercy. There comes a time where repentance is no longer going to come that it is better to end the source of the problem than to allow it to spread upon forthcoming generations. That is in God's hand to decide.
He brutally dealt with our sin problem at the cross. Our sin was not without consequence. It is now that by grace, He took the consequence Himself. God was pleased to satisfy the just requirements of the Law upon Jesus so that we could go free. Our sin was brutally dealt with just as OT sin was brutally dealt with. We were just fortunate to receive the payment on our behalf by faith.
The simple answer is, no. However, I realize that as you read the OT and see the attacks the Lord orchestrates against certain people groups it does not seem consistent with Jesus' declaration about the blessing that comes to peacemakers, for instance.
We know that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. Jesus told Philip that since he had seen Him, he had seen the Father. When God declares His Name in Exodus 34:6, 7, He says He is compasssionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness and truth who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.
God is compassionate and full, or abounding in, lovingkindness. We know from the OT that He "delights in mercy". The last thing He mentions in the declaration of His Name is basically that He is pefectly just. The guilty cannot go unpunished. I was reading in Leviticus, today,and was just noticing all the things people were to be put to death for doing. There were a lot of situations where violation of that law was punished by death. Several of the situations, such as adultery, you can see how God would show no tolerance and this was a great deterrent to an expanding adultery problem. In contrast, our society today shows relatively little outrage, horror or even much concern over adultery. If you didn't notice it is spreading like wild fire. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. When the source is stopped so is the problem. In the OT several societies were destroyed on command from God because to allow them to continue on and curse the next generations with their sin was a worse alternative than to eliminate the source of the problem in that generation.
However, even in that, God was not without mercy, or hasty to bring punishment. Before Israel was allowed to go in and take their land, first the cup of iniquity of the Amorites had to be full. God waited for them, but there was no repentance. Jonah preached a message of judgment upon Nineveh. We are not told in the message that he even mentioned repentance, but when the city repented God had mercy.
We actually see the same thing taking place at the end of the age. When the sixth trumpet is blown there are horrendous calamities, but we read in Revelation 9:20, 21 that people will not repent. When people no longer repent God unleashes the seven bowls of wrath which are loosed when the seventh trumpet is sounded. Why? Because God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance. He waits to see if there is any repentance left before the final judgment is released. This is consistent with His actions OT or NT. When there is no longer any repentance there is nothing left , but wrath. This is OT and NT alike.
Since God is just He cannot, by His nature, just say, that's o.k., no big deal, you're forgiven. Every sin must be dealt with according to the rightful payment. It is with this in mind that we can somehow deal with Isaiah's prophecy about the Father's hand against his own Son when it says, "But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering." It "pleased" the Lord to crush him. What it did, was satisfy the necessary just payment, so that, in view of justice being rendered mercy could then be offered. Justice was dealt out, but wait, Who was it dealt upon? He himself provided the sacrifice. He paid for us. The sermon on the mount lifestyle is following this same pattern. Bless those who curse you, pray for your enemies is taking "the hit" ourselves, rather than returning eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is perfectly just. God took justice for us upon Himself and now leads us in a lifestyle that follows that pattern. He is abounding in "lovingkindness", or mercy. There comes a time where repentance is no longer going to come that it is better to end the source of the problem than to allow it to spread upon forthcoming generations. That is in God's hand to decide.
He brutally dealt with our sin problem at the cross. Our sin was not without consequence. It is now that by grace, He took the consequence Himself. God was pleased to satisfy the just requirements of the Law upon Jesus so that we could go free. Our sin was brutally dealt with just as OT sin was brutally dealt with. We were just fortunate to receive the payment on our behalf by faith.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Greater Love
When Jesus gives His New Commandment in John 15:12, "that you love one another, just as I have loved you.", He follows that commandment by stating, vs. 13, "Greater love has no one than this that one lay down his life for his friends." With that powerful statement in mind, what should we call abortion? It is not laying down our lives, but taking lives for our convenience and economic well-being. Jesus warned of a time when the love of many would grow cold. Killing the most innocent and helpless humans on the planet sounds like love "gone cold."
"Raising that child will be too expensive, and will hinder my career or plans for my life." Yes, it will. But isn't that the nitty gritty of laying down one's life?
Often pictures of abortion have been banned from the public arena because they are too graphic. The pictures simply portray the reality of little body parts being cut up. The graphic nature of the pictures is simply a result of the horrifying reality of the process. I hear rumblings that it is getting harder to find medical professionals to do abortions because of the horrific reality that you are cutting little babies into pieces.
I believe that those who approve of this process should be required to hold the arms, legs and heads of the babies who are destroyed by abortion. If you move abortion into the ethereal realm of debate over rights it has a much cleaner, more sterile sound, than the reality of what actually takes place behind closed doors.
If we are so proud of the rights to abort may I suggest a business possibility for the stimulus money out there. Someone can design some picturesque glass jars in which we can preserve some of the aborted parts of these babies. We can then proudly display these preserved parts on our mantles in our homes, or we can let our kids have them on their bedroom shelves to assure them that if they ever are involved in an "unwanted pregnancy" that we will not punish them by making them have a baby, but they can simply have their own parts jar to show how much we respect their right to choose. Or, maybe, we should keep the process hidden, like it is, because it really is shameful!
We should, if abortion is simply a matter of rights, extend the rights to cover new borns, toddlers and even teen-agers. Otherwise the rights are being denied on the basis of age and that is discrimination. In fact, there should be extended a child's right to choose, since some would like to do away with inconvenient parents. And if their rights are denied that would also be discrimination on the basis of age. We need to establish a first come, first served policy when doing away with unwanted family members, parents to get rid of children or vice versa. I say this sarcastically now, but the mentality of selfishness is leading not too far off this path.
Maybe, those who subject babies to abortion should themselves be candidates for abortion
When Jesus gives His New Commandment in John 15:12, "that you love one another, just as I have loved you.", He follows that commandment by stating, vs. 13, "Greater love has no one than this that one lay down his life for his friends." With that powerful statement in mind, what should we call abortion? It is not laying down our lives, but taking lives for our convenience and economic well-being. Jesus warned of a time when the love of many would grow cold. Killing the most innocent and helpless humans on the planet sounds like love "gone cold."
"Raising that child will be too expensive, and will hinder my career or plans for my life." Yes, it will. But isn't that the nitty gritty of laying down one's life?
Often pictures of abortion have been banned from the public arena because they are too graphic. The pictures simply portray the reality of little body parts being cut up. The graphic nature of the pictures is simply a result of the horrifying reality of the process. I hear rumblings that it is getting harder to find medical professionals to do abortions because of the horrific reality that you are cutting little babies into pieces.
I believe that those who approve of this process should be required to hold the arms, legs and heads of the babies who are destroyed by abortion. If you move abortion into the ethereal realm of debate over rights it has a much cleaner, more sterile sound, than the reality of what actually takes place behind closed doors.
If we are so proud of the rights to abort may I suggest a business possibility for the stimulus money out there. Someone can design some picturesque glass jars in which we can preserve some of the aborted parts of these babies. We can then proudly display these preserved parts on our mantles in our homes, or we can let our kids have them on their bedroom shelves to assure them that if they ever are involved in an "unwanted pregnancy" that we will not punish them by making them have a baby, but they can simply have their own parts jar to show how much we respect their right to choose. Or, maybe, we should keep the process hidden, like it is, because it really is shameful!
We should, if abortion is simply a matter of rights, extend the rights to cover new borns, toddlers and even teen-agers. Otherwise the rights are being denied on the basis of age and that is discrimination. In fact, there should be extended a child's right to choose, since some would like to do away with inconvenient parents. And if their rights are denied that would also be discrimination on the basis of age. We need to establish a first come, first served policy when doing away with unwanted family members, parents to get rid of children or vice versa. I say this sarcastically now, but the mentality of selfishness is leading not too far off this path.
Maybe, those who subject babies to abortion should themselves be candidates for abortion
if we vote them unwanted or a hindrance to our economy. That would qualify congress, the president and those that dress up in robes and call themselves Justices. They could be subjected to the same barbaric process that they approve of. We of course would not call this murder, killing or any such toxic word. We could simply call it post-fetal abortion. The way we label something helps us to change our thinking about it.
On the other hand, maybe it would be best to have a greater love and actually lay down our lives for those we conceive. Consider others as more important than ourselves. We are in deep need of a Spirit of repentance to return to America again. Blessings to you as you endeavor to be salt and light.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Individual Salvation Heresy?
I read today that the Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts said that the idea that someone can pray a prayer and be saved individually is heresy. I thought for just a second (that's about all it took) about whether that had any credibility or not. One of the first things to come to mind was the Philippian jailer in Acts crying out, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas didn't say, "You know that is simply heresy to think that you, an individual, could be saved." They had an answer for him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."
There were individuals saved in each of the cities Paul visited, some of whom became the elders of that city Church. So the statement is so ignorant of the simple flow of what happened in the Bible that we have probably already given more attention to the thought than it deserves.
However, she actually alluded to something that I agreed with later in the statements that I read by her. She was resisting the idea "that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus." Too many all around us today can tell you they got saved. How do they know? They said "the sinner's prayer." The prayer is often presented as the way to enter into a relationship with Jesus. It can be the vehicle to get you into a relationship with Jesus, but just like what Paul said to the jailer, the key is believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord = Master
Jesus = Jehovah saves/salvation (His name means basically I am salvation) Christ = Messiah (Anointed One of God) Believe in Him!! What happens in salvation is a revelation of and confrontation by the living God. No man comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him.
The sinner's prayer is not a sure fire formula for salvation. Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus is the entry into a saving relationship. Saved, comes from the Greek word, Sozo, which means, in essence, to make whole. Being saved isn't punching your ticket to heaven via any man's formula. It is being made alive by the Spirit of God. I've heard too many times someone say something like, you mean if I just say these words, I'll go to heaven? You know what often separates the true convert from the false? I found years ago when I asked someone if they loved Jesus and they with conviction said yes, they understood something essential about relationship with God. Salvation is not a recipe it truly is a relationship. Holy is the Lord!! The whole earth is full of His Glory!!!! Lovers of Jesus, Arise!!!
I read today that the Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts said that the idea that someone can pray a prayer and be saved individually is heresy. I thought for just a second (that's about all it took) about whether that had any credibility or not. One of the first things to come to mind was the Philippian jailer in Acts crying out, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas didn't say, "You know that is simply heresy to think that you, an individual, could be saved." They had an answer for him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."
There were individuals saved in each of the cities Paul visited, some of whom became the elders of that city Church. So the statement is so ignorant of the simple flow of what happened in the Bible that we have probably already given more attention to the thought than it deserves.
However, she actually alluded to something that I agreed with later in the statements that I read by her. She was resisting the idea "that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus." Too many all around us today can tell you they got saved. How do they know? They said "the sinner's prayer." The prayer is often presented as the way to enter into a relationship with Jesus. It can be the vehicle to get you into a relationship with Jesus, but just like what Paul said to the jailer, the key is believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord = Master
Jesus = Jehovah saves/salvation (His name means basically I am salvation) Christ = Messiah (Anointed One of God) Believe in Him!! What happens in salvation is a revelation of and confrontation by the living God. No man comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him.
The sinner's prayer is not a sure fire formula for salvation. Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus is the entry into a saving relationship. Saved, comes from the Greek word, Sozo, which means, in essence, to make whole. Being saved isn't punching your ticket to heaven via any man's formula. It is being made alive by the Spirit of God. I've heard too many times someone say something like, you mean if I just say these words, I'll go to heaven? You know what often separates the true convert from the false? I found years ago when I asked someone if they loved Jesus and they with conviction said yes, they understood something essential about relationship with God. Salvation is not a recipe it truly is a relationship. Holy is the Lord!! The whole earth is full of His Glory!!!! Lovers of Jesus, Arise!!!
Friday, July 3, 2009
How we got the Bible
I had a conversation this week with one of my younger friends (that's beginning to be everybody). He had been asked about how we got the scriptures and those asking apparently had some expertise of their own. However, it seems most of the knowledge of such things in the general public comes from verbal tradition, such as Uncle Bob once said.. or from movies and books. One that had a lot of impact on public information was the Davinci Code.
This book/movie took historical realities such as the Council of Nicea and attached a story to that occasion. It is very deceptive in this way because there really was a Council of Nicea, but it was not convened to come up with a Bible. It was concerned with orthodoxy, what we should believe, so authoritative Christian writings were an important issue but let's take a look at some of the development of the New Testament.
Most of the writings of the New Testament were complete by the late 60's A.D. By about 100 A.D. the last of what we have as our New Testament had been written. As early as the mid 100"s we hear reference from the Church fathers' writings regarding the books they read as authoritative. Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs which are a reference to what we know as the Gospels (you know the memoirs of Jesus, kinda neat, huh?) These were read regularly in the Church meetings. In about 150 A.D. there was a man named Marcion who was considered a heretic, who rejected all the apostolic writings except for 10 of Paul's letters and the Gospel of Luke. His reference to these let's us know that already in the Church there were several letters that were being regarded as authoritative. Some that he rejected.
The Gospels gained their authority from the fact that they recorded the sayings and message of Jesus. Irenaeus in the late 100's used the 4 gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, I Peter, I & II John and Revelation along with the Shepherd of Hermas (definitely a Book you should read sometime). The Shepherd of Hermas was used a lot in the early Church, but didn't have the same connection to the Apostles as the other writings.
Tertullian around 200 first used the term New Testament and accepted all current New Testament books except James, I Peter, 1-2 John, and Jude. Origen of Alexandria accepted a similar list in the early 200's. In all the Church the Books that were considered authoritative then are the ones we have now in our New Testament. The only additional Book in the early Church was The Shepherd of Hermas in some communitites.
In the early 300's when persecution began against the Church and the scriptures were being burned Christians had to decide which books were worth dying for. This began to crystalize in the Church which books should be finally recognized as the New Testament. In 367 Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of Books considered Divine which included our current 27 N.T. books along with the Old Testament. Jerome in 385 recognized the same and the Councils at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 officially accepted our current N.T. (Much of this information I am taking from the writings of David Hubbard.)
Popular thought espoused through The Davinci Code was some people got together in the 320"s for the Council of Nicea and "created" the Bible. That's just not the truth.
What the New Testament scriptures give us are the words of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles. The scriptures do not give us life. Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me." John 5:39 The Bible is not a book to be worshipped. It is revered as God's revelation to us. The greater revelation of God comes through meeting the One the scriptures bear witness of and that is Jesus. I love to read the Bible and can often feel the presence of the Lord as I read, because they are leading to that very One.
We don't have the very original letters written by the Apostles, but we have so many copies that as we look and compare you can find a very reliable source that has power in it to lead you to Jesus and that is the goal.
During the reformation period the scriptures of the New Testament were scrutinized again. Some of the leaders of the reformation, such as Luther, brought up the questions about some of the books that were not fully accepted by some during the early 200's and Luther also questioned Esther in the O.T. Esther it might be noted never mentions God, but if you didn't know that fact, it's hard to believe His Name is not in there when you read it.
Did men write the Bible? Yes, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament books are almost all connected to or written by Prophets who had incredible revelations of God. The New Testament books were accepted on the basis of Apostolic connection, with the possible exception of Hebrews whose authorship is not absolutely known. Everyone else was an Apostle or had direct connection with the Apostles.
One last note, the Apocrypha, which is a compilation of writings that are questionable as to their Divine authority for use in matters of doctrine, are included in some Bibles, including the 1611 King James Bible. These were included in many Bibles in the early Church not as part of the accepted scriptures, but as readings that could be edifying or helpful. The Maccabees for example provide some good history of the time between the 2 testaments.
I may come back to this topic. Got a question? Let me know.
I had a conversation this week with one of my younger friends (that's beginning to be everybody). He had been asked about how we got the scriptures and those asking apparently had some expertise of their own. However, it seems most of the knowledge of such things in the general public comes from verbal tradition, such as Uncle Bob once said.. or from movies and books. One that had a lot of impact on public information was the Davinci Code.
This book/movie took historical realities such as the Council of Nicea and attached a story to that occasion. It is very deceptive in this way because there really was a Council of Nicea, but it was not convened to come up with a Bible. It was concerned with orthodoxy, what we should believe, so authoritative Christian writings were an important issue but let's take a look at some of the development of the New Testament.
Most of the writings of the New Testament were complete by the late 60's A.D. By about 100 A.D. the last of what we have as our New Testament had been written. As early as the mid 100"s we hear reference from the Church fathers' writings regarding the books they read as authoritative. Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs which are a reference to what we know as the Gospels (you know the memoirs of Jesus, kinda neat, huh?) These were read regularly in the Church meetings. In about 150 A.D. there was a man named Marcion who was considered a heretic, who rejected all the apostolic writings except for 10 of Paul's letters and the Gospel of Luke. His reference to these let's us know that already in the Church there were several letters that were being regarded as authoritative. Some that he rejected.
The Gospels gained their authority from the fact that they recorded the sayings and message of Jesus. Irenaeus in the late 100's used the 4 gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, I Peter, I & II John and Revelation along with the Shepherd of Hermas (definitely a Book you should read sometime). The Shepherd of Hermas was used a lot in the early Church, but didn't have the same connection to the Apostles as the other writings.
Tertullian around 200 first used the term New Testament and accepted all current New Testament books except James, I Peter, 1-2 John, and Jude. Origen of Alexandria accepted a similar list in the early 200's. In all the Church the Books that were considered authoritative then are the ones we have now in our New Testament. The only additional Book in the early Church was The Shepherd of Hermas in some communitites.
In the early 300's when persecution began against the Church and the scriptures were being burned Christians had to decide which books were worth dying for. This began to crystalize in the Church which books should be finally recognized as the New Testament. In 367 Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of Books considered Divine which included our current 27 N.T. books along with the Old Testament. Jerome in 385 recognized the same and the Councils at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 officially accepted our current N.T. (Much of this information I am taking from the writings of David Hubbard.)
Popular thought espoused through The Davinci Code was some people got together in the 320"s for the Council of Nicea and "created" the Bible. That's just not the truth.
What the New Testament scriptures give us are the words of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles. The scriptures do not give us life. Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me." John 5:39 The Bible is not a book to be worshipped. It is revered as God's revelation to us. The greater revelation of God comes through meeting the One the scriptures bear witness of and that is Jesus. I love to read the Bible and can often feel the presence of the Lord as I read, because they are leading to that very One.
We don't have the very original letters written by the Apostles, but we have so many copies that as we look and compare you can find a very reliable source that has power in it to lead you to Jesus and that is the goal.
During the reformation period the scriptures of the New Testament were scrutinized again. Some of the leaders of the reformation, such as Luther, brought up the questions about some of the books that were not fully accepted by some during the early 200's and Luther also questioned Esther in the O.T. Esther it might be noted never mentions God, but if you didn't know that fact, it's hard to believe His Name is not in there when you read it.
Did men write the Bible? Yes, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament books are almost all connected to or written by Prophets who had incredible revelations of God. The New Testament books were accepted on the basis of Apostolic connection, with the possible exception of Hebrews whose authorship is not absolutely known. Everyone else was an Apostle or had direct connection with the Apostles.
One last note, the Apocrypha, which is a compilation of writings that are questionable as to their Divine authority for use in matters of doctrine, are included in some Bibles, including the 1611 King James Bible. These were included in many Bibles in the early Church not as part of the accepted scriptures, but as readings that could be edifying or helpful. The Maccabees for example provide some good history of the time between the 2 testaments.
I may come back to this topic. Got a question? Let me know.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Image Of God
I just read briefly on some news site about the 10 deadliest animals. In the comments that followed there were several comments about man being the deadliest, but was not even mentioned on the list. Some Christians had written in distinguishing between man and animals saying we were made in the image of God, which was amunition for those that were upset over the mixing of science and religion. They of course claimed that men are biologically animals. It is interesting that there is a blog site where people discuss our place in the animal kingdom trying to show that there is little distinction between man and animal, but they are doing it on a blog. Doesn't anyone see the irony of that?!?!
If man is simply another animal, where are the snake websites or hippo websites discussing why they should not be on the 10 deadliest list? Man is distinct and has dominion over the animals just as the Bible describes. Do we abuse it on occasions? I'm sure we do! However, a lot of that is interpretive. One of our biggest industries in America is devoted to slaughtering little microscopic creatures!! The industry is drug manufacturing and the creatures are bacteria. I'm sure there is an advocacy group for bacteria somewhere that is totally appalled by the government endorsed murder of these poor misunderstood creatures by murderous human beings. Sorry, I digress.
Anyway, some of the comments on the website about man being created in God's image were along the lines of God must be messed up because that is all that man seems to be able to do is mess things up. That's a fairly reasonable observation about man although perhaps a bit overstated. The problem with us being in God's image is that the image has now been marred by sin. So, what we see today is not a pure reflection of the God of this universe.
Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. He is, as a man, the restoration of the image of God in mankind. He is now our hope, as in , we can be transformed into His image and look like we were made to be in the first place. The goal of the redemptive process, in fact what we have been predestined to become as believers, is to be conformed into the image of the Son.
Humans are definitely unique because we were made in the image of God, but the image has been clouded by the corruption that sin has brought into the human race. On the other hand, some of the uniqueness of humans can be seen in the very fact that we are discussing our place in creation. You can check out the elephant blog or dolphin blog or even our supposed closest relatives (I heard once that one DNA protein in humans is most closely linked to the butter bean or some such thing) the ape blog and find very little that they are involved in regarding the defense or accusation of themselves or other creatures as being the deadliest animals.
We are definitely unique and we (mankind) are the ones responsible for the corruption of society. That's why Jesus came as a man to redeem all creation from the curse. All creation groans and is waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. When we finally become what Jesus died to make us, all creation will be freed from its slavery (see Romans 8).
If man is simply another animal, where are the snake websites or hippo websites discussing why they should not be on the 10 deadliest list? Man is distinct and has dominion over the animals just as the Bible describes. Do we abuse it on occasions? I'm sure we do! However, a lot of that is interpretive. One of our biggest industries in America is devoted to slaughtering little microscopic creatures!! The industry is drug manufacturing and the creatures are bacteria. I'm sure there is an advocacy group for bacteria somewhere that is totally appalled by the government endorsed murder of these poor misunderstood creatures by murderous human beings. Sorry, I digress.
Anyway, some of the comments on the website about man being created in God's image were along the lines of God must be messed up because that is all that man seems to be able to do is mess things up. That's a fairly reasonable observation about man although perhaps a bit overstated. The problem with us being in God's image is that the image has now been marred by sin. So, what we see today is not a pure reflection of the God of this universe.
Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. He is, as a man, the restoration of the image of God in mankind. He is now our hope, as in , we can be transformed into His image and look like we were made to be in the first place. The goal of the redemptive process, in fact what we have been predestined to become as believers, is to be conformed into the image of the Son.
Humans are definitely unique because we were made in the image of God, but the image has been clouded by the corruption that sin has brought into the human race. On the other hand, some of the uniqueness of humans can be seen in the very fact that we are discussing our place in creation. You can check out the elephant blog or dolphin blog or even our supposed closest relatives (I heard once that one DNA protein in humans is most closely linked to the butter bean or some such thing) the ape blog and find very little that they are involved in regarding the defense or accusation of themselves or other creatures as being the deadliest animals.
We are definitely unique and we (mankind) are the ones responsible for the corruption of society. That's why Jesus came as a man to redeem all creation from the curse. All creation groans and is waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. When we finally become what Jesus died to make us, all creation will be freed from its slavery (see Romans 8).
Thursday, June 18, 2009
That It Might Go Well With You
I had a very telling and candid conversation with a lady in the park yesterday which exposed a common theological position that is held both in the Church in general and in the public. She was talking to me about when she lost her daughter to DCFS custody. Her comment implied that God took her daughter away from her, but in the midst of the conversation she explained that she had a drug problem at that time. I stopped her and told her God didn't take your daughter away, drugs took your daughter away.
I explained to her that God told us in the Bible how He wants us to live because if we live that way it will go well with us, we will prosper, have long life, etc. That is the consistent theme of Deuteronomy. He tells us that all of the commands that He commands are for our good (Deut. 10:13). God's intention is not to separate famlies, but giving ourselves to any area of disobedience opens the door for destruction. Her concept was if we do drugs it makes God really mad and then He takes our kids away. The continual exhortation in scripture is that God wants us to honor and fear Him by observing His instructions for life so that these judgments that are a result of disobedience are not released upon us. Otherwise stated, "There are consequences for sin."
Similar to what the Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote, the implication of the scripture is that when we live outside of God's will (Statutes, regulations, commands) we open ourselves up to the control of other forces and they are not in this thing for our good! The command to honor our parents carried with it the blessing of long life and that things would go well with us. It seems there should be forming honor your parents clubs, so that kids can have good lives. It just bothers me to see people walking around believing that every bad thing that happens in their lives is God looking to inflict harm on them. Rather than, God has given us a way to live so that in this world it may go well for us.
Here is the revelation of God in the scriptures. The glory falls in Solomon's temple and everyone starts saying He is good. Moses asks to see His glory and God says I will make all My goodness pass before you. Peter summarizes Jesus' life by saying you know of Jesus of Nazareth Who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil for God was with Him. God is offering a rescue from ourselves, our sin, and the god of this world, who keeps us in darkness.
On another note, President Obama's speech in Cairo has elicited a variety of responses. My main concern is his policy toward Israel and although he reaffirmed our commitment to Israel the rest of his words seemed to betray that position. The statement about no new settlements in Israel is the equivalent of saying, we (in the U.S.) can no longer build in the suburbs of New York because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is committed to destroying the U.S. needs to set up a community there. Things are being set in place to issue in the return of the Lord. When there is such talk of peace, such as let's all live together in Jerusalem Jews, Muslims and Christians, it will seem like we are against peace to say, you know, God gave that land to the Jews for them to inhabit. It's really up to them to decide who lives there and under what conditions. Pray in accord with Zechariah 12 when it declares that the eyes of the Jews will be opened and they will look upon "Me" (the Lord Himself) whom they have pierced. May they see their Messiah soon. Revelation of Yeshua to Israel will bring life to the world, an incredible revival to the Church. (See Romans 11:12, 15)
I had a very telling and candid conversation with a lady in the park yesterday which exposed a common theological position that is held both in the Church in general and in the public. She was talking to me about when she lost her daughter to DCFS custody. Her comment implied that God took her daughter away from her, but in the midst of the conversation she explained that she had a drug problem at that time. I stopped her and told her God didn't take your daughter away, drugs took your daughter away.
I explained to her that God told us in the Bible how He wants us to live because if we live that way it will go well with us, we will prosper, have long life, etc. That is the consistent theme of Deuteronomy. He tells us that all of the commands that He commands are for our good (Deut. 10:13). God's intention is not to separate famlies, but giving ourselves to any area of disobedience opens the door for destruction. Her concept was if we do drugs it makes God really mad and then He takes our kids away. The continual exhortation in scripture is that God wants us to honor and fear Him by observing His instructions for life so that these judgments that are a result of disobedience are not released upon us. Otherwise stated, "There are consequences for sin."
Similar to what the Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote, the implication of the scripture is that when we live outside of God's will (Statutes, regulations, commands) we open ourselves up to the control of other forces and they are not in this thing for our good! The command to honor our parents carried with it the blessing of long life and that things would go well with us. It seems there should be forming honor your parents clubs, so that kids can have good lives. It just bothers me to see people walking around believing that every bad thing that happens in their lives is God looking to inflict harm on them. Rather than, God has given us a way to live so that in this world it may go well for us.
Here is the revelation of God in the scriptures. The glory falls in Solomon's temple and everyone starts saying He is good. Moses asks to see His glory and God says I will make all My goodness pass before you. Peter summarizes Jesus' life by saying you know of Jesus of Nazareth Who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil for God was with Him. God is offering a rescue from ourselves, our sin, and the god of this world, who keeps us in darkness.
On another note, President Obama's speech in Cairo has elicited a variety of responses. My main concern is his policy toward Israel and although he reaffirmed our commitment to Israel the rest of his words seemed to betray that position. The statement about no new settlements in Israel is the equivalent of saying, we (in the U.S.) can no longer build in the suburbs of New York because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is committed to destroying the U.S. needs to set up a community there. Things are being set in place to issue in the return of the Lord. When there is such talk of peace, such as let's all live together in Jerusalem Jews, Muslims and Christians, it will seem like we are against peace to say, you know, God gave that land to the Jews for them to inhabit. It's really up to them to decide who lives there and under what conditions. Pray in accord with Zechariah 12 when it declares that the eyes of the Jews will be opened and they will look upon "Me" (the Lord Himself) whom they have pierced. May they see their Messiah soon. Revelation of Yeshua to Israel will bring life to the world, an incredible revival to the Church. (See Romans 11:12, 15)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Demonology in the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers
In 1984 as a part of a Graduate Course in Biblial Studies I took on a project in which I composed a paper that was a survey on what the Ante-Nicene (Before the Council of Nicea) church Fathers believed about demons. Perhaps some of their teachings leave us nothing more than another area of debate, but I believe their perception of the influence of demons on human behavior if not absolutely accurate does at least indicate what they thought regarding the cures for certain behaviors (conditions).
Just to let you know, all of the writers that addressed the subject of the origin of demons believed they were initially the offspring of the Sons of God and Daughters of men spoken about in Genesis 6. Those offspring were known as the men of renown and began the race of giants on the earth. The sons of God are seen as fallen angels. The same ones referred to in Jude 6 who abandoned their own domain and left their proper abode, who are already bound in chains because of that activity.
They concluded that when these offspring died since they were a mixed breed, their spirits would wander the earth looking for bodies to subvert (find pleasure through). I am not declaring my conclusions I am just reporting what was taught during this era. One of the more well-known fathers, Tertullian, believed demons even faked healings. First they would afflict someone then they would command the application of new remedies and when that was done they would withdraw their hurtful influence which then looked like a cure. Another writer said they would destroy the disease they had produced. That way they would get you to follow their methods. But here are a few things that they believed would help you resist demonic influence.
It was believed that immoderation gave opportunity to demons. As long as one partook of eat and drink in moderation the mercy of God did not give demons the liberty to enter man. But when immoderate "as if invited by the will and purpose of those who this neglect themselves," they received power because these thus partaking had broken the law of God. I believe it is very common for people to feel out of control when they have given themselves over to excess. The concept of Divine protection through Godly living under the commands of God, was a concept taught and understood in these writings. They attributed demons with causing madness of anger, excessive grief which leads to suicide and lust. Therefore one of the ways to resist demons was through abstinence and fasting.
Demons were not seen to have unlimited power, Origen stated that true Christians submitted to God and His word would suffer nothing from demons because that Christian is mightier than them. So who did they have influence on. Those who continue in sin, who practice immoderation and those who make no strong opposing effort for their own salvation. In a writing called The Recognitions of Clement it was written that the weakest Christian when submitted to God is stronger than the strongest demon, and there is a measure of faith which drives the demon from the soul, but that the demon remains "in the portion of infidelity." Soooooo... fudgin' on holiness and righteous living opens doors to demonic influence and control. If you love God you will keep his commands and if you keep His commands you close doors to possible demonic influence. There is great motivation and reward for holy living.
Exposing ourselves to the ungodly; porn, filthy movies, ungodly philosophy or rebellious sinful behavior makes one vulnerable to demons (as in I just couldn't control myself). I would say many marriages are destroyed through the exposure to porn and may I say the philosophies and depictions portrayed in your everyday soap operas. To the degree that we leave the Truth of God and His Word we expose ourselves to someone else's control.
Amazingly, it really is true what David declared in Psalm 19:9-11, that the judgments of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, sweeter than honey, by them we are warned, and in keeping them THERE IS GREAT REWARD!!
In 1984 as a part of a Graduate Course in Biblial Studies I took on a project in which I composed a paper that was a survey on what the Ante-Nicene (Before the Council of Nicea) church Fathers believed about demons. Perhaps some of their teachings leave us nothing more than another area of debate, but I believe their perception of the influence of demons on human behavior if not absolutely accurate does at least indicate what they thought regarding the cures for certain behaviors (conditions).
Just to let you know, all of the writers that addressed the subject of the origin of demons believed they were initially the offspring of the Sons of God and Daughters of men spoken about in Genesis 6. Those offspring were known as the men of renown and began the race of giants on the earth. The sons of God are seen as fallen angels. The same ones referred to in Jude 6 who abandoned their own domain and left their proper abode, who are already bound in chains because of that activity.
They concluded that when these offspring died since they were a mixed breed, their spirits would wander the earth looking for bodies to subvert (find pleasure through). I am not declaring my conclusions I am just reporting what was taught during this era. One of the more well-known fathers, Tertullian, believed demons even faked healings. First they would afflict someone then they would command the application of new remedies and when that was done they would withdraw their hurtful influence which then looked like a cure. Another writer said they would destroy the disease they had produced. That way they would get you to follow their methods. But here are a few things that they believed would help you resist demonic influence.
It was believed that immoderation gave opportunity to demons. As long as one partook of eat and drink in moderation the mercy of God did not give demons the liberty to enter man. But when immoderate "as if invited by the will and purpose of those who this neglect themselves," they received power because these thus partaking had broken the law of God. I believe it is very common for people to feel out of control when they have given themselves over to excess. The concept of Divine protection through Godly living under the commands of God, was a concept taught and understood in these writings. They attributed demons with causing madness of anger, excessive grief which leads to suicide and lust. Therefore one of the ways to resist demons was through abstinence and fasting.
Demons were not seen to have unlimited power, Origen stated that true Christians submitted to God and His word would suffer nothing from demons because that Christian is mightier than them. So who did they have influence on. Those who continue in sin, who practice immoderation and those who make no strong opposing effort for their own salvation. In a writing called The Recognitions of Clement it was written that the weakest Christian when submitted to God is stronger than the strongest demon, and there is a measure of faith which drives the demon from the soul, but that the demon remains "in the portion of infidelity." Soooooo... fudgin' on holiness and righteous living opens doors to demonic influence and control. If you love God you will keep his commands and if you keep His commands you close doors to possible demonic influence. There is great motivation and reward for holy living.
Exposing ourselves to the ungodly; porn, filthy movies, ungodly philosophy or rebellious sinful behavior makes one vulnerable to demons (as in I just couldn't control myself). I would say many marriages are destroyed through the exposure to porn and may I say the philosophies and depictions portrayed in your everyday soap operas. To the degree that we leave the Truth of God and His Word we expose ourselves to someone else's control.
Amazingly, it really is true what David declared in Psalm 19:9-11, that the judgments of the Lord are true, they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, sweeter than honey, by them we are warned, and in keeping them THERE IS GREAT REWARD!!
Friday, June 5, 2009
There are just a couple of things that struck me today that I felt a need to comment on. As I read the Bible especially in Zechariah it is evident to me that God is serious about his promise to Abraham that his descendants will dwell in the land. In fact the final conflict in Zechariah 14 is when Jerusalem has been surrounded by the enemy and is being ravaged that the Lord will set His foot on the Mt. of Olives (same place Jesus left from) and then He will fight as in the days of old. He will destroy the enemy that is trying to overthrow Jerusalem from Jewish control. God is establishing Jerusalem as the place from which He will reign for 1,000 years. (Read the rest of Zechariah to see about the throne , etc.)
I heard again today the talk by our President about a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. (We may need a two-state solution in this nation for those who believe we have a Christian heritage and those that do not). One thing that is not addressed is the fact that the Arabs that are pressing Israel to surrender more land do not want a two state solution. They want Israel out of the middle east, unless you consider the Mediterranean sea as the Middle east. One step towards peace in that area may be the recognition by the Arabs that Israel is a nation and that it has a right to exist. Now, I have not held in my hands a geography book from schools in the Palestinian area, but I have seen copies and heard several reports that in their books, the map of the Middle East does not even show Israel as a country. It is totally missing!! That would be a good start towards peace.
Islam proposes to take over Jerusalem so it can be the Caliphate of the Muslim world. The city from which Islam rules and the chief city of the Islamic world. The spirit behind the takeover in Israel is not one of share and share alike, but rather the elimination of any Jews that do not convert to Islam. They believe the prophet Jesus (Isa) will return as a devoted Muslim and will give the Jews a chance to convert or be executed (beheaded). (It's interesting that the Muslim Jesus has the same characteristics as the Biblical false prophet in the book of Revelation). Let's start the peace process by putting Israel on the map in the Arab nations.
The second thought I had is in regards to abortion. I heard a Catholic priest on Focus on the Family refer to recovery groups set up for Doctors who have performed abortions. If abortion is so good why do doctors have to recover from performing them? You don't hear of recovery groups for doctors who perform births. It is an absolute marvel to see a baby come into this world and a travesty to see the mutilated parts of a tiny human being extracted from the womb in which it was to be nurtured and protected. The truth is on our side. Abortions must either trouble the conscience or sear the conscience of the ones performing them. On the other hand to watch a birth is to participate in one of the ongoing wonders of this fascinating creation that we are a part of.
One last funny thing I heard today. A couple of older ladies were meeting and the one said to the other, "I don't know if I'm just not seeing good, or if I haven't seen you lately."
I heard again today the talk by our President about a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. (We may need a two-state solution in this nation for those who believe we have a Christian heritage and those that do not). One thing that is not addressed is the fact that the Arabs that are pressing Israel to surrender more land do not want a two state solution. They want Israel out of the middle east, unless you consider the Mediterranean sea as the Middle east. One step towards peace in that area may be the recognition by the Arabs that Israel is a nation and that it has a right to exist. Now, I have not held in my hands a geography book from schools in the Palestinian area, but I have seen copies and heard several reports that in their books, the map of the Middle East does not even show Israel as a country. It is totally missing!! That would be a good start towards peace.
Islam proposes to take over Jerusalem so it can be the Caliphate of the Muslim world. The city from which Islam rules and the chief city of the Islamic world. The spirit behind the takeover in Israel is not one of share and share alike, but rather the elimination of any Jews that do not convert to Islam. They believe the prophet Jesus (Isa) will return as a devoted Muslim and will give the Jews a chance to convert or be executed (beheaded). (It's interesting that the Muslim Jesus has the same characteristics as the Biblical false prophet in the book of Revelation). Let's start the peace process by putting Israel on the map in the Arab nations.
The second thought I had is in regards to abortion. I heard a Catholic priest on Focus on the Family refer to recovery groups set up for Doctors who have performed abortions. If abortion is so good why do doctors have to recover from performing them? You don't hear of recovery groups for doctors who perform births. It is an absolute marvel to see a baby come into this world and a travesty to see the mutilated parts of a tiny human being extracted from the womb in which it was to be nurtured and protected. The truth is on our side. Abortions must either trouble the conscience or sear the conscience of the ones performing them. On the other hand to watch a birth is to participate in one of the ongoing wonders of this fascinating creation that we are a part of.
One last funny thing I heard today. A couple of older ladies were meeting and the one said to the other, "I don't know if I'm just not seeing good, or if I haven't seen you lately."
Monday, June 1, 2009
Cultural Relevance?
I just spent a wonderful time in prayer. I know that anyone unfamiliar with the Presence of God would not understand what I have just experienced, but it is just the best thing we can know on earth, His Presence.
I just returned from a wonderful whirlwind vacation and saw some wonderful people and observed and thought and talked about a lot of things with people in ministry outside of my little community. I feel enriched. On top of that some of our friends gave me a teaching on cd that has just helped me to verbalize some feelings I have had about the present move toward cultural relevance in the Church.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus said that we are the salt of the earth in Matt. 5 and said that if we lose our saltiness we will good for nothing except to be trampled underfoot by men. In Luke 14:34, 35 Jesus says we will not be good for the dung hill or the soil but will need to be thrown out if we lost our saltiness. The dung hill sounds like being thrown out to me, but actually in the context of what Jesus was saying we are supposed to be useful for the dung hill. Salt in modern American society is thought to be useful for seasoning or preserving. However, salt in Jesus time was not just table salt. It was the salt that came from the dead sea. Some of it would be what we know as potash which was good for the soil to fertilize for growth. The other use was to throw on your excrement to kill the growth of things you did not want to grow. Soooooo... Jesus was talking about the usefulness of salt in helping good things to grow and bad things not to grow. If salt can't do that it is good for nothing but to be trampled.
In this same sermon Jesus talked about the kingdom attitudes that we should have to actually be this salt that helps the good grow and prevents the bad from growing, we call them the beattitudes. Just before He tells us we are salt He tells us we are blessed if we suffer persecution for His sake. We will not be culturally accepted but should continue to be salt to the society by exhibiting a rejoicing grateful attitude even in the persecution. We will actually present an alternative to the culture of the day.
There is a present move in the Church to accept certain behaviors and activities so that we will be relevant to our culture. It seems that this movement would say we need to convert to the world so they can accept us, or at least compromise with the world so they will be more accepting. In Acts 5:13 the Church was so pure and powerful that unbelievers were afraid to join themselves to the Church. The Church was not a compromise with the world but an alternative to the world culture. John says to not love the world or things of the world or the love of the Father is not in us. The present move in the Church seems to accept compromise as a means to avoid persecution or gain acceptance. If the world accepts the church in its compromising how are we converting the unbeliever? It seems we are the ones being converted. We continue to lower standards until we look just like the world. Haven't we done plenty of that already? We freely accept remarriage in every and all situations anymore when Jesus said he who marries someone divorced commits adultery. But the Church now looks no different than the world in regards to marriage. We are under great pressure and some have given in to just accepting homosexual behavior as another way to live. To even accept expressions of it in the Church, such as homosexual hand holding as they enter into a place of worship. Where is the fear that was upon the unbelievers in Acts 5?
"Church meetings" in the book of Acts were times of worship, fellowship of believers, and remembering the Lord's sacrifice. It was worship. Homosexual hand holding is not an act of worship and should not be tolerated in worship anymore than any other sinful behavior. We would not allow a thief to continue to pilfer the majority of the offering each week so as to not be judgmental of his behavior. Nor should we tolerate fornication in the lobby and not be "judgmental" or someone intoxicated who wanders in with a whiskey bottle and sits and drinks in the front row as his act of worship. Tolerance of these behaviors as acts of worship is actually the slow deteriorating process that makes us lose our saltiness. They are not acts of worship. You cannot worship a Holy God with an offering of sinful behaviors. If the Church is not a place of worship, but just a social gathering to try to influence the world maybe all these things are all right. But when does God receive corporate praise, worship and adoration?
We should love all these people enough to help them see that their behaviors are destroying their lives now and for eternity. May the Lord restore us to a point that we behave in such a way that others would see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. The present movement toward cultural relevance is simply a move toward taking the saltiness right out of the salt of the earth. People will certainly join our groups, but will they be converts to Jesus? If the goal of the Church is to avoid the world's persecution, cultural relevance is a good track to take. We will receive a nice pat on the back from the analysts of religious activity, but where will the salt be? There must be an alternative to turn to. Conversion implies change. What will help the good stuff to grow and stop the bad stuff from affecting everything around it unless we accept the fact that following Jesus and living according to kingdom principles will inherently mean rejection from a culture that does not love God. How will people come to Jesus, you may ask. The same way they always have and the only way they can. The Spirit of God must draw them. Otherwise we have a group of people who have denied themselves in absolutely no way and therefore have taken up no cross and cannot possibly be following the Jesus of the Bible, but they love the fact that we are just like them. Conversion has taken place!! We have become like the world! Then we are no good except to be trampled under foot by media, I mean men. Maybe we have arrived. May God have mercy on us so that some of us may have a Church that is relevant to God.
It seems there are so many resources to read in these days that can help us be relevant that we study them diligently, but can easily lose perspective from not being immersed in His truth. Those that detect counterfeit bills do not give themselves to understanding all the counterfeits, but they study the genuine so that when a fake comes along they see how it varies from the true bills. May I challenge some of you to immerse yourselves more in the Word of God so you can detect when that which looks good is not really the truth. Just a nice imitation. Blessings to those who read may you understand His Truth!
I just spent a wonderful time in prayer. I know that anyone unfamiliar with the Presence of God would not understand what I have just experienced, but it is just the best thing we can know on earth, His Presence.
I just returned from a wonderful whirlwind vacation and saw some wonderful people and observed and thought and talked about a lot of things with people in ministry outside of my little community. I feel enriched. On top of that some of our friends gave me a teaching on cd that has just helped me to verbalize some feelings I have had about the present move toward cultural relevance in the Church.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus said that we are the salt of the earth in Matt. 5 and said that if we lose our saltiness we will good for nothing except to be trampled underfoot by men. In Luke 14:34, 35 Jesus says we will not be good for the dung hill or the soil but will need to be thrown out if we lost our saltiness. The dung hill sounds like being thrown out to me, but actually in the context of what Jesus was saying we are supposed to be useful for the dung hill. Salt in modern American society is thought to be useful for seasoning or preserving. However, salt in Jesus time was not just table salt. It was the salt that came from the dead sea. Some of it would be what we know as potash which was good for the soil to fertilize for growth. The other use was to throw on your excrement to kill the growth of things you did not want to grow. Soooooo... Jesus was talking about the usefulness of salt in helping good things to grow and bad things not to grow. If salt can't do that it is good for nothing but to be trampled.
In this same sermon Jesus talked about the kingdom attitudes that we should have to actually be this salt that helps the good grow and prevents the bad from growing, we call them the beattitudes. Just before He tells us we are salt He tells us we are blessed if we suffer persecution for His sake. We will not be culturally accepted but should continue to be salt to the society by exhibiting a rejoicing grateful attitude even in the persecution. We will actually present an alternative to the culture of the day.
There is a present move in the Church to accept certain behaviors and activities so that we will be relevant to our culture. It seems that this movement would say we need to convert to the world so they can accept us, or at least compromise with the world so they will be more accepting. In Acts 5:13 the Church was so pure and powerful that unbelievers were afraid to join themselves to the Church. The Church was not a compromise with the world but an alternative to the world culture. John says to not love the world or things of the world or the love of the Father is not in us. The present move in the Church seems to accept compromise as a means to avoid persecution or gain acceptance. If the world accepts the church in its compromising how are we converting the unbeliever? It seems we are the ones being converted. We continue to lower standards until we look just like the world. Haven't we done plenty of that already? We freely accept remarriage in every and all situations anymore when Jesus said he who marries someone divorced commits adultery. But the Church now looks no different than the world in regards to marriage. We are under great pressure and some have given in to just accepting homosexual behavior as another way to live. To even accept expressions of it in the Church, such as homosexual hand holding as they enter into a place of worship. Where is the fear that was upon the unbelievers in Acts 5?
"Church meetings" in the book of Acts were times of worship, fellowship of believers, and remembering the Lord's sacrifice. It was worship. Homosexual hand holding is not an act of worship and should not be tolerated in worship anymore than any other sinful behavior. We would not allow a thief to continue to pilfer the majority of the offering each week so as to not be judgmental of his behavior. Nor should we tolerate fornication in the lobby and not be "judgmental" or someone intoxicated who wanders in with a whiskey bottle and sits and drinks in the front row as his act of worship. Tolerance of these behaviors as acts of worship is actually the slow deteriorating process that makes us lose our saltiness. They are not acts of worship. You cannot worship a Holy God with an offering of sinful behaviors. If the Church is not a place of worship, but just a social gathering to try to influence the world maybe all these things are all right. But when does God receive corporate praise, worship and adoration?
We should love all these people enough to help them see that their behaviors are destroying their lives now and for eternity. May the Lord restore us to a point that we behave in such a way that others would see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. The present movement toward cultural relevance is simply a move toward taking the saltiness right out of the salt of the earth. People will certainly join our groups, but will they be converts to Jesus? If the goal of the Church is to avoid the world's persecution, cultural relevance is a good track to take. We will receive a nice pat on the back from the analysts of religious activity, but where will the salt be? There must be an alternative to turn to. Conversion implies change. What will help the good stuff to grow and stop the bad stuff from affecting everything around it unless we accept the fact that following Jesus and living according to kingdom principles will inherently mean rejection from a culture that does not love God. How will people come to Jesus, you may ask. The same way they always have and the only way they can. The Spirit of God must draw them. Otherwise we have a group of people who have denied themselves in absolutely no way and therefore have taken up no cross and cannot possibly be following the Jesus of the Bible, but they love the fact that we are just like them. Conversion has taken place!! We have become like the world! Then we are no good except to be trampled under foot by media, I mean men. Maybe we have arrived. May God have mercy on us so that some of us may have a Church that is relevant to God.
It seems there are so many resources to read in these days that can help us be relevant that we study them diligently, but can easily lose perspective from not being immersed in His truth. Those that detect counterfeit bills do not give themselves to understanding all the counterfeits, but they study the genuine so that when a fake comes along they see how it varies from the true bills. May I challenge some of you to immerse yourselves more in the Word of God so you can detect when that which looks good is not really the truth. Just a nice imitation. Blessings to those who read may you understand His Truth!
Friday, May 22, 2009
I just read that someone in the legislature was proposing that we have a year of the Bible. This has set off a lot of fiery reaction. It seems most of it revolves around the idea that someohow having a year of the Bible violates the establishment of religion clause. In Turkey President Obama stated that we are not a Christian nation we are not a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. "We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. " There is a strong move to disassociate our nation from Christianity. My question to Mr. Obama if he were listening would be, where do we get these ideals or set of values and what are they? What set is it that we follow? Our founders knew well where the values and ideals came from. If we say today that they come from our Constitution I would ask which Constitution? The one that allowed Bible reading in schools until 1962-63 or the one we have had since then. Our Constitution as a "Living Document" now means whatever, whoever is in power says it means is what it means. We do not have rights from our creator but now we have rights from our government. That is the foundation for tyranny.
Congress many years ago defined what the establishment of religion meant and although I don't have that decision in front of me since I am just blogging (blowing off a little steam). I recall that some of the criteria necessary for something to violate the establishment cause were there needed to be specific rewards and punishments for compliance or non-compliance and there needed to be people in charge of making sure the laws were being adhered to. Having a year of the Bible is not even close to that. Praying in schools, reading the Bible publicly or saying Jesus is not an establishment of religion. There are no mandated rewards or punishments for such things.
The original confederation of New England States had there own Constitution of sorts which began with this statement, "Whereas we all came to these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to injoy the liberties of the Gospell thereof with purities and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospell..." (I left some of their spelling in the quote). Now they had a set of values and they knew where they came from. Even Princeton had as one of its founding statements "Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." Go Princeton!!!! My point is this, "These legislators in Washington have no historical understanding and because of that are governing without a foundation and will eventually prove the well known fact that a house built on a faulty or shifting foundation will not stand for long.
When I was in Elementary school I remember people talking about the Soviet Union and how they were so bad you couldn't even read the Bible in their schools. They adhered to Godless atheism! They were our enemy. From my casual observation it seems to me that we have become our enemy.
Congress many years ago defined what the establishment of religion meant and although I don't have that decision in front of me since I am just blogging (blowing off a little steam). I recall that some of the criteria necessary for something to violate the establishment cause were there needed to be specific rewards and punishments for compliance or non-compliance and there needed to be people in charge of making sure the laws were being adhered to. Having a year of the Bible is not even close to that. Praying in schools, reading the Bible publicly or saying Jesus is not an establishment of religion. There are no mandated rewards or punishments for such things.
The original confederation of New England States had there own Constitution of sorts which began with this statement, "Whereas we all came to these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to injoy the liberties of the Gospell thereof with purities and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospell..." (I left some of their spelling in the quote). Now they had a set of values and they knew where they came from. Even Princeton had as one of its founding statements "Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." Go Princeton!!!! My point is this, "These legislators in Washington have no historical understanding and because of that are governing without a foundation and will eventually prove the well known fact that a house built on a faulty or shifting foundation will not stand for long.
When I was in Elementary school I remember people talking about the Soviet Union and how they were so bad you couldn't even read the Bible in their schools. They adhered to Godless atheism! They were our enemy. From my casual observation it seems to me that we have become our enemy.
Monday, May 18, 2009
II Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
Many believe that we are moving quickly toward the end of this age. This, I believe, is not only the sentiment of those who study and love the Bible, but we see it in the literature and movies of the day. There is a general sense that we are moving rapidly toward something but many don't know what that something might be. Can the world continue at this accelarated pace toward lawlessness, sensuality, perversion, violence and development of destructive weapons, or does there have to be an end to it all? I believe there is a general feeling of impending something, most likely doom.
As I have been reading the Book of the Revelation it has been amazing to me to see many things fall into place and many scrptures intricately knit together from various parts of the Bible to demonstrate this incredible flow to the Bible even with so many authors were invovled in writing it over such a long period of time.
The quote from above that says God is not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance recently came alive to me as I looked at the sequence of events during the seals, trumpets and bowls described in Revelation. At the sounding of the sixth trumpet there are 3 plagues that are released on the earth through which a third of mankind is killed. After these plagues in Revelation 9:20,21 we are told that the rest of mankind did not repent, once in verse 20 and once in verse 21. God is not willing that any should perish!! What I saw in this passage is that the seventh trump does not sound, which ushers in the kingdom of Jesus on the earth and the final wrath of God on the nations, until no one on earth wants to repent. Let me say it this way, God does not pour out His final wrath on the nations at the end of this age nor does He return to overthrow the kingdoms of this world until everyone that would want to repent repents! At the end, mankind simply refuses to repent. When all that are left refuse to repent then the final wrath will come. He wants all to come to repentance. The circumstances at the end bring enough crisis to the earth to reveal every heart for what is really in it, and at the end no one else will even want to repent. He does not want any to perish, if they don't want to!!
On a little different note, I remain concerned about popular end time theological teaching because it teaches us to believe in events that the scriptures specifically warns against. When Jesus talked about his return in Matthew 24:26, 27 He warned us not to believe anyone who would tell us that He will come in secret. He says His return will be seen by everyone, both here and in Revelation 1:7, and yet the most popular end-time teaching in American Christianity is that Jesus will snatch away a bunch of people secretly and everyone left will be saying what happened? That is taught even though Jesus said when He returns to catch His beleivers in the air (I Thess. 4 13-17) it will be with a trumpet and a shout and in these other references that it will be visible to everyone on earth. Of course popular teaching divides these scriptures into separate events, but why didn't Jesus tell us about these separate events when He taught about His own return. Also the first resurrection according to Rev 20:5 is when the dead are raised to rule and reign with Jesus. Note this is the first resurrection. I Thess. 4 tells us that the dead in Christ resurrect when Jesus retrns to catch up His believers in the clouds. Is this a resurrection before the first resurrection or is it the first resurrection when those raised begin to rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years. If there is a secret resurrection and catching away it would have to be before the first resurrection which would make the first resurrection the second resurrection or some such thing.
So the first resurrection is when the believer's are raised to rule for a thousand years with Christ. Nowhere does it say that there is a pre first resurrection 7 years before that when the dead in Christ rise. I Thess. 4 and Rev 20 must be describing the same event.
The second popular teaching is that the antichrist will not appear until the Church is taken out of the earth because the Church in the earth and the Holy Spirit in the Church are what is preventing the antichrist from being revealed. However, Paul instructs the Thessalonians to not believe that the Day of the Lord has come until they SEE the man of lawlessness revealed. Paul directly told the Thessalonians to not let anyone deceive you (II Thes. 2:3) that it will not come unless you see the antichrist appear. Not he will appear after you are taken away, but you will see him. If we are taken away and then he appears we will not see him. That is in direct contradiction to this passage. (If you read II Thess. the first chapter you will see that Paul explains to these gentile believers that when the Lord returns he will reward the righteous among them and punish the wicked who are opposing them. He does not say you will be taken out of the way to receive your reward so the antichrist can come and then 7 years later Jesus will return to punish the wicked. He talks of one return with both rewards and puishments.)
So two of the things the scriptures warns us not to be deceived about have actually become two of the pillars of the end-time teaching of our day. I guess the reason He warned us is because of the likelihood that we would be deceived in these two areas. Remember to read what the scriptures actually say and not cram your theory into a few proof texts to verify the conclusion you have reached because you like the idea. I once believed the teachings that I am renouncing today until I simply read the Bible for what it said. Someone simply said show me where it says the Church will be raptured before a 7 year tribulation. I read the Bible and could not find those statements anywhere. Matt. 24:29-31, "But immediately after the tribulation of those days...He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather His elect..."
Many believe that we are moving quickly toward the end of this age. This, I believe, is not only the sentiment of those who study and love the Bible, but we see it in the literature and movies of the day. There is a general sense that we are moving rapidly toward something but many don't know what that something might be. Can the world continue at this accelarated pace toward lawlessness, sensuality, perversion, violence and development of destructive weapons, or does there have to be an end to it all? I believe there is a general feeling of impending something, most likely doom.
As I have been reading the Book of the Revelation it has been amazing to me to see many things fall into place and many scrptures intricately knit together from various parts of the Bible to demonstrate this incredible flow to the Bible even with so many authors were invovled in writing it over such a long period of time.
The quote from above that says God is not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance recently came alive to me as I looked at the sequence of events during the seals, trumpets and bowls described in Revelation. At the sounding of the sixth trumpet there are 3 plagues that are released on the earth through which a third of mankind is killed. After these plagues in Revelation 9:20,21 we are told that the rest of mankind did not repent, once in verse 20 and once in verse 21. God is not willing that any should perish!! What I saw in this passage is that the seventh trump does not sound, which ushers in the kingdom of Jesus on the earth and the final wrath of God on the nations, until no one on earth wants to repent. Let me say it this way, God does not pour out His final wrath on the nations at the end of this age nor does He return to overthrow the kingdoms of this world until everyone that would want to repent repents! At the end, mankind simply refuses to repent. When all that are left refuse to repent then the final wrath will come. He wants all to come to repentance. The circumstances at the end bring enough crisis to the earth to reveal every heart for what is really in it, and at the end no one else will even want to repent. He does not want any to perish, if they don't want to!!
On a little different note, I remain concerned about popular end time theological teaching because it teaches us to believe in events that the scriptures specifically warns against. When Jesus talked about his return in Matthew 24:26, 27 He warned us not to believe anyone who would tell us that He will come in secret. He says His return will be seen by everyone, both here and in Revelation 1:7, and yet the most popular end-time teaching in American Christianity is that Jesus will snatch away a bunch of people secretly and everyone left will be saying what happened? That is taught even though Jesus said when He returns to catch His beleivers in the air (I Thess. 4 13-17) it will be with a trumpet and a shout and in these other references that it will be visible to everyone on earth. Of course popular teaching divides these scriptures into separate events, but why didn't Jesus tell us about these separate events when He taught about His own return. Also the first resurrection according to Rev 20:5 is when the dead are raised to rule and reign with Jesus. Note this is the first resurrection. I Thess. 4 tells us that the dead in Christ resurrect when Jesus retrns to catch up His believers in the clouds. Is this a resurrection before the first resurrection or is it the first resurrection when those raised begin to rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years. If there is a secret resurrection and catching away it would have to be before the first resurrection which would make the first resurrection the second resurrection or some such thing.
So the first resurrection is when the believer's are raised to rule for a thousand years with Christ. Nowhere does it say that there is a pre first resurrection 7 years before that when the dead in Christ rise. I Thess. 4 and Rev 20 must be describing the same event.
The second popular teaching is that the antichrist will not appear until the Church is taken out of the earth because the Church in the earth and the Holy Spirit in the Church are what is preventing the antichrist from being revealed. However, Paul instructs the Thessalonians to not believe that the Day of the Lord has come until they SEE the man of lawlessness revealed. Paul directly told the Thessalonians to not let anyone deceive you (II Thes. 2:3) that it will not come unless you see the antichrist appear. Not he will appear after you are taken away, but you will see him. If we are taken away and then he appears we will not see him. That is in direct contradiction to this passage. (If you read II Thess. the first chapter you will see that Paul explains to these gentile believers that when the Lord returns he will reward the righteous among them and punish the wicked who are opposing them. He does not say you will be taken out of the way to receive your reward so the antichrist can come and then 7 years later Jesus will return to punish the wicked. He talks of one return with both rewards and puishments.)
So two of the things the scriptures warns us not to be deceived about have actually become two of the pillars of the end-time teaching of our day. I guess the reason He warned us is because of the likelihood that we would be deceived in these two areas. Remember to read what the scriptures actually say and not cram your theory into a few proof texts to verify the conclusion you have reached because you like the idea. I once believed the teachings that I am renouncing today until I simply read the Bible for what it said. Someone simply said show me where it says the Church will be raptured before a 7 year tribulation. I read the Bible and could not find those statements anywhere. Matt. 24:29-31, "But immediately after the tribulation of those days...He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather His elect..."
Friday, May 15, 2009
I hear there are a lot of claims being thrown around that say Christianity is based on an ancient myth. That Jesus' resurrection is itself a resurrection of a myth espoused long before Jesus was born. Leaving the credibility of the prior resurrection stories to someone else, let's look at the reliability of the claims of Christianity. There could have certainly been prior myths or fables of a resurrected one just as there were prior claims of heavenly beings (gods) having relationship with women (Roman and Greek mythology, along with one view of Genesis 6). Does that in itself mean there could be no Virgin birth? The important point is not whether the idea that Jesus resurrected was the first time it hit the earth but rather is there reason to believe what is told is true on its own merit. There can certainly be foreshadowing or prophetic revelation to enhance the truth or demonic imitation to distract or discredit the genuine. So let's look at some of the claims of the Bible.
First, did Jesus exist, or in other words, is there a Historical Jesus? We have the gospel accounts. In addition there are other "non-Biblical" references to Jesus such as Josephus or Tacitus among others. The truth of Jesus of Nazareth's existence is easily verifiable if you believe any of the writings of antiquity. That His life was remarkable is noteworthy in that we still call this year in many parts of the world 2009 A.D. (Latin-Anno Domini- in the year of the Lord). Two thousand and nine years since he was born. He left quite an impression. The real question relates to His resurrection.
He was crucified under Roman supervision since the Jews were not allowed to execute anyone on their own authority at that time. To discount Christianity in that first century, which many wanted to do, all they had to do was produce the dead body of Jesus. The Romans should have been able to do this since they performed the execution and kept watch at the burial site. If someone claimed that John F. Kennedy, for example, rose after his assasination and is really the Messiah, even now 46 years after his death we are still close enough to the event to disprove it. The Jewish leaders at that time desparately wanted to discredit this new movement (Christianty). Producing the evidence of Jesus' body would have done the trick. It didn't happen.
The remarkable prophecies in Psalm 22:16, 17 and Psalm 69:21 among others regarding His death add credibility to His place in history and the passage in Hosea 6:2 seems to prophesy of His resurrection on the third day. Here the idea is spoken of well before Jesus was born. Does that mean He could not have risen or died that way? Maybe it means that all of history was pointing in some way to this momentous occasion and He was the fulfillment.
Not only were the authorities of that generation not able to refute the account of His resurrection, all of His disciples willingly gave up their lives as principal witnesses to the fact that He indeed did rise from the dead. In Acts 1, when a successor for Judas was chosen, the main purpose was to be a witness of His resurrection (Acts 1:22). Many people will die for something they think is true. We have seen people give up their lives for religious cult beliefs thinking they would obtain some special place in eternity. However, people do not give up their lives for something they know is false. The disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection. If they were not, they knew they were lying. If they knew they were lying they would not have died for a cause that they knew was false. They gave up their lives because they had seen Jesus risen from the dead, a remarkable event in history. Paul said if Jesus did not rise from the dead, eat and drink for tomorrow we die which being interpreted means, you might as well party because there is nothing but this life and so live it in whatever way you want. When you're dead you're dead!!
So these two facts, that the contemporaries of Jesus could not disprove his resurrection and the fact that His disciples confessed to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection and gave up their lives for that cause give incredible credence to the claims contained in the New Testament that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. And you know what? He's coming back in glory to take over the creation He redeemed through His death and resurrection.
Here's a random thought on the global warming controversy. When I went to school I was told there was an ice age (first I was told 3 and later told that most research would guess 1 now). And that during this time there were glaciers as far south as Wisconsin. I've been to Wisconsin. All the glaciers are gone!! Doesn't that mean that the globe has been warming even before cars and coal burning power plants? And I am actually glad Wisconsin glaciers are not to be found because the glaciers would not be conducive for cows to graze on and I really like Wisconsin Cheese. I'm sure there are fewer Polar Bears in Wisconsin, but the dairy industry really got a boost!!!
First, did Jesus exist, or in other words, is there a Historical Jesus? We have the gospel accounts. In addition there are other "non-Biblical" references to Jesus such as Josephus or Tacitus among others. The truth of Jesus of Nazareth's existence is easily verifiable if you believe any of the writings of antiquity. That His life was remarkable is noteworthy in that we still call this year in many parts of the world 2009 A.D. (Latin-Anno Domini- in the year of the Lord). Two thousand and nine years since he was born. He left quite an impression. The real question relates to His resurrection.
He was crucified under Roman supervision since the Jews were not allowed to execute anyone on their own authority at that time. To discount Christianity in that first century, which many wanted to do, all they had to do was produce the dead body of Jesus. The Romans should have been able to do this since they performed the execution and kept watch at the burial site. If someone claimed that John F. Kennedy, for example, rose after his assasination and is really the Messiah, even now 46 years after his death we are still close enough to the event to disprove it. The Jewish leaders at that time desparately wanted to discredit this new movement (Christianty). Producing the evidence of Jesus' body would have done the trick. It didn't happen.
The remarkable prophecies in Psalm 22:16, 17 and Psalm 69:21 among others regarding His death add credibility to His place in history and the passage in Hosea 6:2 seems to prophesy of His resurrection on the third day. Here the idea is spoken of well before Jesus was born. Does that mean He could not have risen or died that way? Maybe it means that all of history was pointing in some way to this momentous occasion and He was the fulfillment.
Not only were the authorities of that generation not able to refute the account of His resurrection, all of His disciples willingly gave up their lives as principal witnesses to the fact that He indeed did rise from the dead. In Acts 1, when a successor for Judas was chosen, the main purpose was to be a witness of His resurrection (Acts 1:22). Many people will die for something they think is true. We have seen people give up their lives for religious cult beliefs thinking they would obtain some special place in eternity. However, people do not give up their lives for something they know is false. The disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection. If they were not, they knew they were lying. If they knew they were lying they would not have died for a cause that they knew was false. They gave up their lives because they had seen Jesus risen from the dead, a remarkable event in history. Paul said if Jesus did not rise from the dead, eat and drink for tomorrow we die which being interpreted means, you might as well party because there is nothing but this life and so live it in whatever way you want. When you're dead you're dead!!
So these two facts, that the contemporaries of Jesus could not disprove his resurrection and the fact that His disciples confessed to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection and gave up their lives for that cause give incredible credence to the claims contained in the New Testament that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. And you know what? He's coming back in glory to take over the creation He redeemed through His death and resurrection.
Here's a random thought on the global warming controversy. When I went to school I was told there was an ice age (first I was told 3 and later told that most research would guess 1 now). And that during this time there were glaciers as far south as Wisconsin. I've been to Wisconsin. All the glaciers are gone!! Doesn't that mean that the globe has been warming even before cars and coal burning power plants? And I am actually glad Wisconsin glaciers are not to be found because the glaciers would not be conducive for cows to graze on and I really like Wisconsin Cheese. I'm sure there are fewer Polar Bears in Wisconsin, but the dairy industry really got a boost!!!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
There have been divergent views over the centuries concerning the immediate state of the soul after death. Some believe it to be in an unconscious state and others that the soul goes directly to heaven or hell. Some contend that in the days before Jesus death and resurrection that the soul went to a kind of holding tank (Sheol, Hades) which was divided into a place for the righteous and the other for the unrighteous.
There are scriptural reasons for both views so I will do my best to briefly touch on those and give you some scripture through which you can form your own conclusions. This is not an area that I have spent a lot of time on since I figure whether you are unconscious or directly into heaven or hell the next moment you remember either way is the eternal reality that you enter.
Psalm 115:17 (NASB) says "The dead do not praise the Lord Nor do any that go down into silence." Psalm 88:10-12 mentions similar things such as "Will the departed spirits praise Thee? ...Will Thy wonders be made known in the darkness? And Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" Psalm 6:5 says"For there is no mention of Thee in death; In Sheol who will give Thee thanks?" These verses and some others seem to indicate that death, (Sheol, Hades the grave) is a place of silence.
Resurrection is seen as bringing someone, body, soul and spirit, from a place of rest (unconsciousness) back to life, either for eternal reward or eternal punishment.
In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells a parable about a poor man named Lazarus and a rich man at whose gate he used to sit hoping to get some crumbs from the rich man's table. Jesus says that the poor man dies and is carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom and later the rich man dies and it says he is buried and finds himself in Hades and that he is in torment. So the poor man finds himself in peace and rest and is conscious having been taken away by the angels and the rich man finds himself in torment and thirsty wishing he could just get a drop of water. Although Jesus is telling this parable to make a point, I believe that his point is made in the context of reality. There really is a place we go immediately after death.
There is a very obscure passage in Ecclesiastes 12:6,7 that seems to say that at death the body returns to dust but the spirit returns to God. This would imply that there is a conscious state at the time of death. In the parable about Lazarus Jesus says that there is an immediate distinction at the time of death as to whether you will begin to experience eternal reward or punishment.
In II Corinthians 5:5-9 Paul talks about the relationship between the body and the spirit. He says to be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord and to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. Also in Philippians 1:23 he talks about dying in terms of leaving to be with Christ.
Personally I know of at least two people who had a death experience but their spirit was very much alive. One of my friends saw Jesus and was sent to finish her work, the other saw his body in the hospital room but saw writing on the wall telling him his work in this life was not finished. In both cases there was a conscious existence after the body had shut down. Heaven, being with Jesus, and Hell a place of torment appear to be those places where we go immediately after death. Hades (Hell) itself will actually be thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:14) at the Great White Throne judgment. This Lake of Fire is actually called the Second Death. So it makes sense that Hades (Hell) is a present temporary holding place for the dead awaiting the final judgment in which Hades itself will be thrown into the lake of fire. Most scriptural evidence leads me to believe that the body goes to the grave but the soul goes to either Paradise (Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise that day) or Hell (depending on your Bible translation).
There are scriptural reasons for both views so I will do my best to briefly touch on those and give you some scripture through which you can form your own conclusions. This is not an area that I have spent a lot of time on since I figure whether you are unconscious or directly into heaven or hell the next moment you remember either way is the eternal reality that you enter.
Psalm 115:17 (NASB) says "The dead do not praise the Lord Nor do any that go down into silence." Psalm 88:10-12 mentions similar things such as "Will the departed spirits praise Thee? ...Will Thy wonders be made known in the darkness? And Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" Psalm 6:5 says"For there is no mention of Thee in death; In Sheol who will give Thee thanks?" These verses and some others seem to indicate that death, (Sheol, Hades the grave) is a place of silence.
Resurrection is seen as bringing someone, body, soul and spirit, from a place of rest (unconsciousness) back to life, either for eternal reward or eternal punishment.
In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells a parable about a poor man named Lazarus and a rich man at whose gate he used to sit hoping to get some crumbs from the rich man's table. Jesus says that the poor man dies and is carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom and later the rich man dies and it says he is buried and finds himself in Hades and that he is in torment. So the poor man finds himself in peace and rest and is conscious having been taken away by the angels and the rich man finds himself in torment and thirsty wishing he could just get a drop of water. Although Jesus is telling this parable to make a point, I believe that his point is made in the context of reality. There really is a place we go immediately after death.
There is a very obscure passage in Ecclesiastes 12:6,7 that seems to say that at death the body returns to dust but the spirit returns to God. This would imply that there is a conscious state at the time of death. In the parable about Lazarus Jesus says that there is an immediate distinction at the time of death as to whether you will begin to experience eternal reward or punishment.
In II Corinthians 5:5-9 Paul talks about the relationship between the body and the spirit. He says to be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord and to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. Also in Philippians 1:23 he talks about dying in terms of leaving to be with Christ.
Personally I know of at least two people who had a death experience but their spirit was very much alive. One of my friends saw Jesus and was sent to finish her work, the other saw his body in the hospital room but saw writing on the wall telling him his work in this life was not finished. In both cases there was a conscious existence after the body had shut down. Heaven, being with Jesus, and Hell a place of torment appear to be those places where we go immediately after death. Hades (Hell) itself will actually be thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:14) at the Great White Throne judgment. This Lake of Fire is actually called the Second Death. So it makes sense that Hades (Hell) is a present temporary holding place for the dead awaiting the final judgment in which Hades itself will be thrown into the lake of fire. Most scriptural evidence leads me to believe that the body goes to the grave but the soul goes to either Paradise (Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise that day) or Hell (depending on your Bible translation).
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Just a final, final thought about the evolution thing. The question is, has evolution stopped? If it hasn't and it takes millions of years to develop all these new parts there should be parts of new organs, never been used before. and new limbs and body parts just hanging around waiting for their chance to get hooked up into the biological system. You know something waiting for its connection into the circulatory system and nervous system. My suggestion is a gland about halfway up the ribs that can shoot some good smelling stuff in your armpit when you lift your arm. Now that I have thought of that just sit around and wait a few million years and one of my ancestors should mutate it right into existence. This is gonna be great! Maybe it will be called the Edna gland, you know named after me Ed Ne- nonen.
Hey Jodie has set this site up to recieve moderated comments. I don't have it fully figured out what to do on my part just yet, but if you send in a comment that is publishable, I will do what I can to include it on this blog.
Someone sent a question about where people are presently that have died. So I will address that in the next day or so, if time permits. Also, we hope to include an article that I wrote years ago on Demonology in the Ante-Nicene Fathers which talks about the origin of demons their effects and what invites and resists their control. It's somewhat bizarre but it is a survey of the literature of the early Church Fathers, up to the Council of Nicea.
Hey Jodie has set this site up to recieve moderated comments. I don't have it fully figured out what to do on my part just yet, but if you send in a comment that is publishable, I will do what I can to include it on this blog.
Someone sent a question about where people are presently that have died. So I will address that in the next day or so, if time permits. Also, we hope to include an article that I wrote years ago on Demonology in the Ante-Nicene Fathers which talks about the origin of demons their effects and what invites and resists their control. It's somewhat bizarre but it is a survey of the literature of the early Church Fathers, up to the Council of Nicea.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Just a final thought on the science vs. non-thinking Christian debate. It is amazing to me how little logic is used in the evolution theory. I mean what is really supposed to happen. A one celled life form somehow develops from nothing, complete with all the millions of bits of information that are in each cell. That information is absolutely committed to replicating itself, but somehow it produces a multi-celled life form.
Next, so the life form somehow forms a muscle (just for argument's sake). The muscle just hangs around continuing to be produced for say millions of years waiting for something like a tendon to develop and of course attach itself arbitrarily to another body part that somehow formed. Well they need to attach to something so say somehow a bone forms (poof!) , But it turns out to be the jaw bone but this muscle always grows to the length of a leg. So these parts just float around in the life form for billions of years waiting for a chance meeting and a chance formation of thousands of other needed parts and for these parts to somehow all connect perfectly to make life easier.
So, say I decide I want to breathe through the top of my head because I like to swim and don't want to have to totally surface to breathe. Because I desire to do this somehow this triggers a process in me that begins to develop the needed parts. The problem is evolution says that this development is random (non-directional, chance mutations). If its not random then that means it has purpose or direction. that would imply there is inteliigence behind the process. So how did the one-celled life form decide it needed a leg. Like to the first life form what's a leg anyway and even if I decide I want one how do I change all the genetic programming in each cell (by chance) to form a leg and then somehow form other legs and appendages that I am not programmed to produce. And if evolution is depending on random changes, if in one generation I would produce offspring that somehow had more or less chromosomes than I have (How Does That Happen?) and is making progress toward having legs why wouldn't it in the next generation randomly change direction and become an arm instead of a leg, or maybe even a speg (that's a body part I just made up that hasn't been formed yet)? And for some life form that has never seen eyes (note the ironic use of language, seen eyes, get it), how does it go about forming them, reprogramming its genetic material over millions or how about billions of years to produce something that has never existed? If it continues to develop each needed part to develop an eye, that means there is purpose, intent, direction, may I say intelligence behind the design.
Those that say Christians deny science to believe that God created forget about the mathematical improbabilities of the development of these random body parts and their integration together in a fully functioning creature. If evolution is a slow process we should see billions of transitional forms all around us. In fact why would there even be specific kinds of plants or animals, we should all be in transitional stages. For instance we should see a reptile/bird that has a wing on one side and a leg on the other. Or feathers on one wing and hair on the other, you know real transitional forms.
Sometimes I like to think about how the blood vessels first formed and hung around for millions of years deciding how they would be able to reach every part of the body and then reconnect with the heart after of course the heart is formed. You know what blood vessels don't decide anything, they don't think! That would mean somehow the blood vessels were intelligently designing the body. There is no reasonable genetic reason for all the parts of the human body to develop randomly from mutations to form a system of organs that interrelate and work together. It is illogical to the highest degree. Every cell must be reprogrammed. Notice I use the word reprogram which in itself implies intelligence and purpose. Its hard to use another word to describe the systematic reorganization of genetic information for the purpose of reproducing something unlike yourself that can survive better than yourself.
If you want to take a giant leap of faith believe evolution. The theory is unique in that it was concluded by many scientists to be true before they could observe or specify how it took place. Usually you observe what takes place and form conclusions. With evolution we have the conclusion first, it is true, now we have to figure out a process by which it could have happened. Was it micro-evolution or punctuated equilibrium? We will stuff the evidence into our conclusion even if the evidence would tell us something different. So much for reason, logic or rational thinking. If a princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince we call it a fairy tale, but if a frog over billions of years becomes a prince that is somehow good science. A sound thinking 5 year old could probably straighten out the science world if they were able to listen to sound reason. You know, like, Hey The Emporer doesn't have any clothes on!! Or we can stand in our smug intellectualism and deny the obvious, all the while thinking ourselves to be quite wise.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools...Romans 1:22
Next, so the life form somehow forms a muscle (just for argument's sake). The muscle just hangs around continuing to be produced for say millions of years waiting for something like a tendon to develop and of course attach itself arbitrarily to another body part that somehow formed. Well they need to attach to something so say somehow a bone forms (poof!) , But it turns out to be the jaw bone but this muscle always grows to the length of a leg. So these parts just float around in the life form for billions of years waiting for a chance meeting and a chance formation of thousands of other needed parts and for these parts to somehow all connect perfectly to make life easier.
So, say I decide I want to breathe through the top of my head because I like to swim and don't want to have to totally surface to breathe. Because I desire to do this somehow this triggers a process in me that begins to develop the needed parts. The problem is evolution says that this development is random (non-directional, chance mutations). If its not random then that means it has purpose or direction. that would imply there is inteliigence behind the process. So how did the one-celled life form decide it needed a leg. Like to the first life form what's a leg anyway and even if I decide I want one how do I change all the genetic programming in each cell (by chance) to form a leg and then somehow form other legs and appendages that I am not programmed to produce. And if evolution is depending on random changes, if in one generation I would produce offspring that somehow had more or less chromosomes than I have (How Does That Happen?) and is making progress toward having legs why wouldn't it in the next generation randomly change direction and become an arm instead of a leg, or maybe even a speg (that's a body part I just made up that hasn't been formed yet)? And for some life form that has never seen eyes (note the ironic use of language, seen eyes, get it), how does it go about forming them, reprogramming its genetic material over millions or how about billions of years to produce something that has never existed? If it continues to develop each needed part to develop an eye, that means there is purpose, intent, direction, may I say intelligence behind the design.
Those that say Christians deny science to believe that God created forget about the mathematical improbabilities of the development of these random body parts and their integration together in a fully functioning creature. If evolution is a slow process we should see billions of transitional forms all around us. In fact why would there even be specific kinds of plants or animals, we should all be in transitional stages. For instance we should see a reptile/bird that has a wing on one side and a leg on the other. Or feathers on one wing and hair on the other, you know real transitional forms.
Sometimes I like to think about how the blood vessels first formed and hung around for millions of years deciding how they would be able to reach every part of the body and then reconnect with the heart after of course the heart is formed. You know what blood vessels don't decide anything, they don't think! That would mean somehow the blood vessels were intelligently designing the body. There is no reasonable genetic reason for all the parts of the human body to develop randomly from mutations to form a system of organs that interrelate and work together. It is illogical to the highest degree. Every cell must be reprogrammed. Notice I use the word reprogram which in itself implies intelligence and purpose. Its hard to use another word to describe the systematic reorganization of genetic information for the purpose of reproducing something unlike yourself that can survive better than yourself.
If you want to take a giant leap of faith believe evolution. The theory is unique in that it was concluded by many scientists to be true before they could observe or specify how it took place. Usually you observe what takes place and form conclusions. With evolution we have the conclusion first, it is true, now we have to figure out a process by which it could have happened. Was it micro-evolution or punctuated equilibrium? We will stuff the evidence into our conclusion even if the evidence would tell us something different. So much for reason, logic or rational thinking. If a princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince we call it a fairy tale, but if a frog over billions of years becomes a prince that is somehow good science. A sound thinking 5 year old could probably straighten out the science world if they were able to listen to sound reason. You know, like, Hey The Emporer doesn't have any clothes on!! Or we can stand in our smug intellectualism and deny the obvious, all the while thinking ourselves to be quite wise.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools...Romans 1:22
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Hey Folks, I'm starting a Blog. I've been stirred to do this by a few friends and members of my family. I'm looking for your topics of interest. However, I must certainly vent on occasions when I hear some of the insane arguments brought against Christians in these days.
Just today I heard some comments on talk radio implying that Christians don't believe in science. It either has to be science or the Bible. Some of the best science and logic I've seen recently was in the Truth Project. For myself I can concur with the Truth Project in that I have been to Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota 3 times. Never have I heard anyone declare regarding the faces of the Presidents in the side of the mountain, "Oh, look what wind, rain and erosion have done to the side of that mountain. That looks a lot like George Washington up there, etc. It's amazing what evolutionary processes have done to create such exact replicas of 4 U.S. Presidents." They are designed, and therefore we logically conclude that there was a designer. I've never known anyone by any logic to imagine those faces to have evolved and yet they are much less complex than any living thing.
There are so many simple questions regarding evolutionary logic that should be asked. What did the first thing that evolved eat since there was nothing else in existence? Which came first blood or blood vessels and how did they find each other? If the evolution of organs and body parts is arbitrary (without design), how did the eye find its location in front of the brain why not lodge in the belly button? How did all those nerves get connected in with the entire nervous system? How did finger nails find their way to the end of your fingers? Any question is legitimate if every development is mindless, purposeless evolution. In fact when I hear people discuss evolution they usually discuss it with purpose and thus imply that intellect was motivating the process. Such as a large mammal used to wander near the ocean until it began to wade in the water and it loved it so much that it became a whale. That is a summary of an old magazine article I read. Well that shows intent. Even with intent how can that happen? Humans are supposed to be the most highly evolved. Let's see you start breathing through the top of your head and grow fins. Oh, I forgot the old evolutionary trick. It takes too long to be observed. And then if you ask why the millions of transitional forms are not in the fossil record the excuse is that it changes too quickly to show up in the record. Evolution is a lot like Santa Claus. You know he's out there you just can never see him in action.
If we want to be a little more technological, how can we explain slow gradual development of cells when we see the principle of irreducible complexity that shows us that in order to function, at all, cells must have all of their components in place and functioning. You can't add a piece at a time because a cell won't function unless all its pieces are in place.
How did bones develop arbitrarily to have marrow inside that coordinates with the blood system or how did we get various types of skin such as lips with their sensitivity right where we needed them if all these things developed arbitrarily (without design)? All of these body parts and organs seem to be in place with a purpose.
Some evolutionists have at least been honest enough to say that the fossil record does not fit micro-evolutionary theory and have thus proposed punctuated equilibrium (formerly callled the hopeful monster theory, Really!). Thus we have gigantic leaps in the evolutionary process such as a bird laying an egg and out pops a reptile. The only problems with this is it has never been observed and there is no genetic reason for it to happen. It takes a gigantic leap of faith to believe that kind of speculative theory.
Here is what we do observe. Monkeys have monkeys, humans have humans and butter beans produce butter beans. This is consistent with what we would expect genetically and it happens to fit the Biblical description that each plant and animal was created with seed in it after its kind.
What is usually pawned off as evidence for evolution are changes within a kind of plant or animal such as the production of new species of dogs or changes in physical structures of bird's beaks or fruit flies. Here is the bottom line. We don't observe one kind of plant or animal producing another kind. Dogs do not produce cats or even dats, half dog and half cat. Dogs produce dogs birds produce birds and fruit flies produce fruit flies. Natural selection takes place in that there are adaptations within kinds of plants or animals to adjust to certain conditions within their available gene pool. Within a species plants that grow deeper roots in an arid environment would tend to become dominant. Why? Because the others die! That is truly natural selection. Survival of the fitest. It does not explain the beginnings of life or the change from one kind to another.
Well I'm done with this initial vent. In the future I may address such topics as the early Church Father's teaching on the origin of demons or how we believe today the very things the Bible warns us against regarding the end times.
I said I was done but here's one more vent. We get ridiculed for being unscientific and based only on faith, but have you heard of Directed Panspermia. This is a theory that has gained some credibility in the "Scientific circles" regarding the origin of life on this planet that basically says we were brought here in seed form by aliens and planted on this earth. Aliens brought us here! Now that's science!! It is amazing what people will believe as long as its not in the Bible.
Just today I heard some comments on talk radio implying that Christians don't believe in science. It either has to be science or the Bible. Some of the best science and logic I've seen recently was in the Truth Project. For myself I can concur with the Truth Project in that I have been to Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota 3 times. Never have I heard anyone declare regarding the faces of the Presidents in the side of the mountain, "Oh, look what wind, rain and erosion have done to the side of that mountain. That looks a lot like George Washington up there, etc. It's amazing what evolutionary processes have done to create such exact replicas of 4 U.S. Presidents." They are designed, and therefore we logically conclude that there was a designer. I've never known anyone by any logic to imagine those faces to have evolved and yet they are much less complex than any living thing.
There are so many simple questions regarding evolutionary logic that should be asked. What did the first thing that evolved eat since there was nothing else in existence? Which came first blood or blood vessels and how did they find each other? If the evolution of organs and body parts is arbitrary (without design), how did the eye find its location in front of the brain why not lodge in the belly button? How did all those nerves get connected in with the entire nervous system? How did finger nails find their way to the end of your fingers? Any question is legitimate if every development is mindless, purposeless evolution. In fact when I hear people discuss evolution they usually discuss it with purpose and thus imply that intellect was motivating the process. Such as a large mammal used to wander near the ocean until it began to wade in the water and it loved it so much that it became a whale. That is a summary of an old magazine article I read. Well that shows intent. Even with intent how can that happen? Humans are supposed to be the most highly evolved. Let's see you start breathing through the top of your head and grow fins. Oh, I forgot the old evolutionary trick. It takes too long to be observed. And then if you ask why the millions of transitional forms are not in the fossil record the excuse is that it changes too quickly to show up in the record. Evolution is a lot like Santa Claus. You know he's out there you just can never see him in action.
If we want to be a little more technological, how can we explain slow gradual development of cells when we see the principle of irreducible complexity that shows us that in order to function, at all, cells must have all of their components in place and functioning. You can't add a piece at a time because a cell won't function unless all its pieces are in place.
How did bones develop arbitrarily to have marrow inside that coordinates with the blood system or how did we get various types of skin such as lips with their sensitivity right where we needed them if all these things developed arbitrarily (without design)? All of these body parts and organs seem to be in place with a purpose.
Some evolutionists have at least been honest enough to say that the fossil record does not fit micro-evolutionary theory and have thus proposed punctuated equilibrium (formerly callled the hopeful monster theory, Really!). Thus we have gigantic leaps in the evolutionary process such as a bird laying an egg and out pops a reptile. The only problems with this is it has never been observed and there is no genetic reason for it to happen. It takes a gigantic leap of faith to believe that kind of speculative theory.
Here is what we do observe. Monkeys have monkeys, humans have humans and butter beans produce butter beans. This is consistent with what we would expect genetically and it happens to fit the Biblical description that each plant and animal was created with seed in it after its kind.
What is usually pawned off as evidence for evolution are changes within a kind of plant or animal such as the production of new species of dogs or changes in physical structures of bird's beaks or fruit flies. Here is the bottom line. We don't observe one kind of plant or animal producing another kind. Dogs do not produce cats or even dats, half dog and half cat. Dogs produce dogs birds produce birds and fruit flies produce fruit flies. Natural selection takes place in that there are adaptations within kinds of plants or animals to adjust to certain conditions within their available gene pool. Within a species plants that grow deeper roots in an arid environment would tend to become dominant. Why? Because the others die! That is truly natural selection. Survival of the fitest. It does not explain the beginnings of life or the change from one kind to another.
Well I'm done with this initial vent. In the future I may address such topics as the early Church Father's teaching on the origin of demons or how we believe today the very things the Bible warns us against regarding the end times.
I said I was done but here's one more vent. We get ridiculed for being unscientific and based only on faith, but have you heard of Directed Panspermia. This is a theory that has gained some credibility in the "Scientific circles" regarding the origin of life on this planet that basically says we were brought here in seed form by aliens and planted on this earth. Aliens brought us here! Now that's science!! It is amazing what people will believe as long as its not in the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
