Getting Understanding

Luke 1:5-17

2011-05-05T07:12:00.001-05:00

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:5-17)

The story of the parents of John the Baptist. They were barren, but remained faithful to God and each other, despite Zacharias being able to put Elisabeth aside for not being able to have children and that barrenness was a curse from God. As the Scripture says: “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” By this time they were “well stricken in years” so there was no hope of having a child either.

The description of Zacharias and Elisabeth are two people who are “waiting on the Lord”, not for any hope of specific temporal blessings, but in His will. They are serving Him and ready to serve Him more. Then He gives the signs for those who will see, the old lady past menopause and her old husband, both of them nice enough people, working about the Temple, but cursed by God without children. How many gossips ran their mouths about the “secret sin” of this couple? However, God was ready to move in a mighty way with this willing couple, both blessing them and making Himself known by marking out this child as something special.

God Has No "Plan B"

2011-04-25T14:06:00.003-05:00

Taken, rather loosely from a sermon preached by my pastor on 9 December 2007.

Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian. For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:1-7)

This begins with a continuation from the end of chapter 8 where it describes what is coming upon Syria and Israel, the Assyrians. There are many plots and plans going on in this time with the Syrians and Northern Kingdom of Israel attempting to subjugate Judah or force it to join with them against Assyria. Also, Ahaz, king of Judah, wanted to to call down the Assyrians, allying himself to them as a vassal to save him from this war instead of trusting in God.

In response the Lord prophesies through Isaiah that all of the counsels and plans of men would come to nothing and God would break the alliance against Judah, in fact, using Assyria to do so. Isaiah predicts that even though the darkness will come, those that pass through it remaining faithful to God through holding onto Him and the Scriptures would see a great light. In fact, those who don't have the Scriptures, and by implication faith in God, have no truth in them.

However, God not only promises that Judah will remain, but that there will come one day from the house of David One Who will be His salvation. It will break the yoke, stave and rod off oppression (sin) from His people. It will not come in confusions and blood as a war with a warrior, but it will come with fire and burning. The Child will be born and give Himself for us.

His character can be determined by His titles, the government will be on His shoulder, signifying that He alone is responsible and His Kingdom and Peace will expand without decrease. This is what God wills and plans.

Contrast this with the actions of the men in this. They are constantly making up “plan B” to deal with their problems. Israel could have returned to God, but instead chose to pursue military alliances for security. They fail because they set themselves against the will of God. They try to gain security and peace by their own actions and fail to do so, then don't know why.

Christ came because He knew He would have to. There isn't any need for a “plan B” with Him, the Fall was no surprise to Him. The failures of the Jews were known to Him, just as those who will seek His face are known to him. There is nothing impossible with God, although the actions of many prove their doubts about this when they take up “fall back” positions, just to “help God out”. Search for what He wants for you and while you search; work hard, dream big and then make due with what God gives you and to Him be the glory.

Are you doing all you do for His glory in whatever situation you find yourself?

Something New

2011-04-13T22:52:00.004-05:00

I'm starting something I promised that I would do. Yes, this blog is dead, but so what, this is as much for me as anyone else.

I've finally finished the notebook I keep sermon and study notes in. Since we are talking something I use once or twice a week, it is time to do something with these. So, I'm going to go through it page by page and on the weekdays start putting in the Scripture that came with each message and from my notes either teach the same lesson or review it the Scripture and create my own lesson from it.

For several reasons, I'm not going to list the names of the men who taught these, most importantly because there are still some antimasons who want to try to find my pastor and harass him. So, if you do read this and it looks like your stuff, all copyrights will still apply to the original author.

I'll start this up in the morning.

What is Vision?

2010-05-31T04:23:00.003-05:00

As used in Proverbs 29:18.

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (KJV)

Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law. (ESV)

Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint; But he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (ASV)

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law. (NIV)

Without revelation people run wild, but one who keeps the law will be happy. (HCSB)

The HCSB notes that "revelation" is literally "vision" and there are cross references to Isaiah 1:1 and Nahum 1:1 where the same word refers to the prophecies of those two prophets. Sorting through various commentaries, most take "vision" to mean the preaching and teaching of the Scriptures, with the Christians adding the New Testament while the Jews keep to the Old Testament.

This difference is critical to a church, ministry or mission. If "vision" simply means a purpose statement or other such business "trick" written about by management gurus, then there stands a good chance of there being a problem. Simply look towards the church growth/"seeker-sensitive/Emergent church/Purpose-Driven movement(s) which are following the writings of Peter Drucker. However, we do have a way to check on any "vision" given.

Really a very simple one. Check it against Scripture. See what it leads to. Being "seeker-sensitive" cripples preaching the Gospel, because it seeks to hide the "offensive" bits even though the Cross is an offense to the world! It is different than being contextual, it is throwing away the "inconvenient" bits of Scripture (in practice if not in theory) that "interfere".

Christian groups (using the "wherever three or more are gathered" rule) must fulfill all the tasks of a church as given in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4:11-16. For some idea of what is required: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Ephesians 4:11-12) To fulfill the vision (revelation) required by Proverbs 29:18, a Christian group must cover all of these areas, not simply run off after one or two of them and then claim it as a "vision". The pastor or group leader must lead those under his authority to fulfill all of these roles while remaining under his authority, using those that God has given him.

Duty to Discern

2010-05-26T22:05:00.004-05:00

An interesting post here on Titus 1.

NOTE: This is very key. Titus was not an apostle but, as he taught that which Paul laid down (apostolic doctrine), he spoke with the authority of God. Many people in church today find it easy to discount doctrinal teaching from a pastor…as simply “his interpretation” or “his opinion”…not realizing that as far as it relates to apostolic doctrine, it is more than a pastor’s opinion or interpretation…it is an authoritative Word from God. (So…we must be very careful not to too easily dismiss what our spiritual leaders in authority say).

I agree with Brother Aiken's note here. It is important to remember that this is referring to Christian doctrine based on Scripture, as Brother Aiken states. The other shoe drops in the next paragraph.

To summarize vv.5-16, we see the qualifications of elders (pastors/overseers) in a more concise list than in 1 Timothy. We recognize that the elder/pastor is a “steward” of God (v.7) overseeing what God has entrusted to him to lead. A characteristic of a pastor that is crucial is his ability to discern and teach theology and doctrine…since his adeptness at this is crucial to exhort (sound doctrine) and refute (those who teach wrong doctrine).

The qualifications are clear, but the last sentence I don't hold strictly to the pastor only for discernment. Discernment is a critical requirement for all Christians. Although they make errors in discernment as they are "younger", they must still continue to discern the best that they are able, like the Bereans did.

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Act 17:10-12) Emphasis added.

Note that they take the word given to them by the pastor (Paul and/or Silas) and then search the Word itself for support. This is a constant and ongoing process for any Christian. By blind acceptance of the "word" of false teachers, because they spoke with authority, apostasy and false teachings enter that and our churches.

The necessity is very apparent to Paul in Crete…since there are false religious teachers among the people who must be challenged, rebuked, and corrected. Many of them are of Jewish descent (v.10) who teach Judaism’s traditions and OTHER man-made traditions as necessary activities to the path of right standing with God (v.14).

Paul does not teach that we “live and let live;” rather, that these false teachers be confronted with “severe reproof” so that they might turn from their false teachings (v.13). Their false teaching is upsetting families and destroying the faith. To not confront, is to tacitly approve of their message and to be a co-conspirator in their destructive works.

Brother Aiken continues here correctly, but it is still much more than the duty of a pastor, it is the duty of every Christian, because if any person comes teaching false doctrines, even if he is (or claims to be) a pastor, the Word is clear on this.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2Jn 1:10-11) Emphasis added

Coddling these apostates simply encourages them. Those who support them, even while trying to be "fair" and not create a "stumbling block" on a "questionable subject" among their congregation may fall in this area. They can be busy, other things are distracting them and since it is "quiet", it is easy to ignore. It can even be ignored when sermons, even entire sermon series are being preached that totally undercut the "stumbling block" objection. Like a hammer, it chips away at the credibility of any man, especially one in authority, since it gives the appearance of working under a double standard.

Refuting Antimasonic Heresies

2010-05-12T15:26:00.004-05:00

For a while now I've been over at the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM) forums . I moved over there after I encountered the shunning at Rapture Ready.

The antimasonic bumbling around does not offend me as a Mason, I could care less. Their claiming to be Christian and then teaching heretical doctrines in support of their antimasonic beliefs represents a different matter, that evokes a Christian duty to correct error. The fact that their lies are now so widespread that some Christians I know who even disagree with the antimasons have counseled that Masonic membership is a "stumbling block" issue, so maybe Christians should avoid it.

The problem of responding to these false teachers, for the Christian who is a Freemason, always hangs on the balance between Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5. Of course, Proverbs is a wisdom book, so it is a set of good guidance for everyone as far as I'm concerned, but I might be a bit biased.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. (Proverbs 26:4)

IMO, most Freemasons who answer these antimasons who claim to be Christian are pursuing the first verse. These antimasons are laying forth an edited argument using only such evidence they can twist to support their position and then launching into a screed based on emotion. The Masonic counters, although well done, simply point out the errors in their faked up "facts" and then appear to figure that is all they have to do. If people stop, think and research, then this approach will work, but it fails miserably against sound bite theology and factoids, the stock in trade of the antimason who claims to be Christian. Then nothing else remains with this approach but to point and yell, "Liar, Liar!", which boils down to what the antimason does to these kind of rebuttals from Masons. This is answering a fool according to his folly, in the sense of this verse. The best option is to remain silent, as Freemasons have done for centuries, but that allows the antimasons to run around shrieking that they have "won" because no Mason will demean himself to get down in the muck with them. Then the second verse comes into play.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. (Proverbs 26:5)

Remaining silent then has allowed this cottage industry of lies to flourish and I like the way Matthew Henry put it in his commentary on the Bible:

2. Yet, in other cases, a wise man will use his wisdom for the conviction of a fool, when, by taking notice of what he says, there may be hopes of doing good, or at least preventing further, mischief, either to himself or others. “If thou have reason to think that thy silence will be deemed an evidence of the weakness of thy cause, or of thy own weakness, in such a case answer him, and let it be an answer ad hominem - to the man, beat him at his own weapons, and that will be an answer ad rem - to the point, or as good as one. If he offer any thing that looks like an argument, an answer that, and suit thy answer to his case. If he think, because thou dost not answer him, that what he says is unanswerable, then give him an answer, lest he be wise in his own conceit and boast of a victory.”

Emphasis added. Wesley's commentary is more concise:

According - So as his folly needs and requires, convincing him strongly, reproving him sharply, and exposing him to just shame.

Emphasis added. That is why I take the approach I do in rebutting and exposing the antimasonic crowd for what they are from a Christian perspective.

As a Christian who is also a Freemason, I'm not making a Masonic apologetic, I'm simply exposing the false Christian doctrines of these antimasons and they lay themselves open to such by claiming to be Christian. It wasn't the way I always did it, but it is the way that I have learned after prayer and reading Scripture, but that is an entire testimony on how the Lord works in His own ways to make all things come together for good. It might be interesting to Christians, but is not so much for others, so I'll put it in another post. So I engage these antimasons who claim to be Christian over at CARM on Christian theological grounds, firmly rooted in Scripture and expose their falsehoods from there instead of disputing philosophical points from the perspective of Freemasonry. CARM merely keeps the forum open and moderated lightly, so unlike places like Rapture Ready so that when the antimasons are shown to be bearing false witness and possibly teaching heretical sounding doctrine, they cannot ban you for because the antimasons aren't the moderators.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that if I ever moderate a Christian forum, I'll make sure there is a "Cults/Groups" forum with a "Freemasonry" subforum. It keeps the antimasons who claim to be Christian corralled in one place and keeps them from disrupting threads in other forums as occurred to me on the Rapture Ready forums.

I started two threads on CARM, the first being Character Counts where the record of various antimasons who claim to be Christian can be exposed, I intend to keep this one up and eventually get to some of the regular Internet antimasons who post there. The second was The cult of antimasonry which came from a discussion of the false accusations of Freemasonry being a cult. It is based on CARM's listing of cult traits on their website and while it "proves" nothing, it does point out the similarities between practices of "Christian" antimasons and the fact that Freemasonry does not have the traits of a cult from a standard listing.

In the end, what do they have? Lately, we see one antimason to use as an example, Skip Sampson, quoting an entire paragraph from the Entered Apprentice (1st degree or EA) lecture, omitting the topic sentence (i.e. - the sentence that explains the rest of the paragraph generally) because that contradicts the claim he is making. He originally quoted it fully and correctly, but his subsequent posts show how he discards everything that doesn't fit his position. After requoting the first sentence and calling him on it, we get his defense in post #11?

Sorry, don't agree. The quote is accurate, in context, and perfectly clear.

So, cutting out parts of quotes, especially the sentence in the paragraph which defines what the paragraph is talking about is "accurate, in context, and perfectly clear" in the "Christian" antimason's worldview. I know what it makes perfectly clear.

When I called Skip Sampson again on his habit of snipping quotes out of context to make up his "proofs" his defense in the same post revealed the way of the antimasonic method:

Nope. It's called putting in quotes that prove the point. I stand by my conclusions.

Other ways to put this are known as (cherry) picking the data to fit the line or more fittingly for this crowd: "Don't confuse me with the facts because my mind is made up!" Unfortunately, it isn't just bad scholarship that is at issue.

Mr. Sampson was hailed as a hero by several of his fellow antimasonic travelers when he showed up to end the more than a month drought of antimasons over at CARM. Skip as his fellow antimasons before him had, showed that from a Christian perspective, he held a number of the same disturbing heretical beliefs and teachings I have found to be common among the "Christian" antimasonic crowd, since my attention was forcibly drawn to their filth.

Skip has managed to deny the inerrancy of Scripture openly twice in his posts, denied Christ, adds a work to grace, claims to be able to determine others heart condition (an ability of God only) and writes as if his (Skip's) authority is the equal of Scripture. These are all heretical teachings to a Christian and destroy the "Christian" antimasonic position.

It doesn't stop his ability to claim his own beliefs, but they become just that, his OWN beliefs, not those of orthodox Christianity like is claimed by the antimasonic mob. It fits the bill I think of beating them with their own weapons and exposing them to just shame quite well. I can only pray that it will convict some of them convincingly so they will cease teaching and believing in these heretical doctrines.

For my Christian brothers who are Masons, take due notice thereof.

John MacArthur preaches a false sermon

2010-03-13T20:22:00.008-06:00

John MacArthur has tossed his hat into the ring and as we will see, he will fair no better than any of the others. I actually had thought better of him, but unfortunately, from the format of some of his quotes and the sources of them I found online, he may be too trusting and have been deceived by some of the antimasonic charlatans out there.

The Iowa Quarterly Bulletin, way back in April of 1917, says this (and this is their own publication), quote: "Masonry is a Divinely appointed institution, designed to draw men nearer to God, to give them a clearer conception of their proper relationship to God as their Heavenly Father, to men as their brethren and the ultimate destiny of the human soul," end quote.

Now that is a religion. Anything that says it's a divinely appointed institution, designed to draw men nearer to God, to give them a clear conception of their proper relationship to God, to men and the ultimate destiny of their human soul—that's a religion. Masonry is a religion even though they don't want to admit it.

Oh well, I guess if somebody said it somewhere, then it must be so. So, I'm sure that John MacArthur is going to happily join in Christian brotherhood with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses? How about Jim Jones? Maybe David Duke? They all claim to be Christians and if they wrote down anything somewhere, then it just must be true for all Christians, right?. Sorry, I'm not going to drink that koolaid.

I'm not going to go any further with this quote, but there are several extremely pertinent questions to be asked about the context of this source in any scholarly discussion which John MacArthur fails to bring up, including actually citing page numbers for his quotes from M&D. As we will see, there is a good reason for this if one is being deceptive.

Albert Pike, who has been called by fellow Masons one of the most distinguished Masons the Western World has ever produced, has written one of their very important books called Morals and Dogmas. It's so important that it appears in their edition of the Bible. They have their own Bible known as the Hertel's Bible. And this is what he has written: "Masonry reverences all the great reformers. It sees in Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews, in Confucius and Zoraster, in Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Arabian Iconoclast, great teachers of morality, and eminent reformers, if no more, and allows every brother of the Order to assign to each such higher and even Divine Character as his Creed and Truth require. We do not undervalue the importance of any Truth. We utter no word that can be deemed irreverent by anyone of any faith. We do not tell the Moslem that it is only important for him to believe that there is but one God, and wholly unessential whether Mahomet was His prophet. We do not tell the Hebrew that the Messiah whom he expects was born in Bethlehem nearly two thousand years ago; and he is a heretic because he will not so believe. And as little do we tell the sincere Christian that Jesus of Nazareth was but a man like us, or His history but the unreal revival of an older legend. To do either is beyond our jurisdiction. Masonry, of no one age, belongs to all time; of no one religion, it finds its great truths in all. To every Mason, there is a God; One Supreme, Infinite in Goodness, Wisdom, Foresight, Justice, and Benevolence; Creator, Disposer, and Preserver of all things. How, or by what intermediates He creates and acts, and in what way He unfolds and manifests Himself, Masonry leaves to creeds and religions to inquire," end quote.

Uh oh. There is something seriously wrong here. Several things in fact, so this one solid paragraph needs to be cut up to be addressed properly, but I wanted to show that this was one intact statement in MacArthur's lesson. I will point out here, that John MacArthur is using Pike without addressing the following sentence in the preface to Morals & Dogma (M&D): “Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound.”

FYI, failure to deal with the preface of M&D is an immediate red flag to the discerning that you'd better put your hip waders on because it is going to get deep.

Albert Pike, who has been called by fellow Masons one of the most distinguished Masons the Western World has ever produced, has written one of their very important books called Morals and Dogmas. It's so important that it appears in their edition of the Bible. They have their own Bible known as the Hertel's Bible.

I must assume on such skimpy information that this refers to the John A. Hertel publishing company who published a number of Bibles and religious books. It was bought out in 1948 by Devore and Sons, Inc. and produces a number of “heirloom” style Bibles for several different fraternal groups, unions and family Bibles. I happen to own both of their current products, which have been published in the same format for decades. They merely include some Masonic history and other trivia in the same binding with a standard KJV of the Bible. The text of the actual Scriptures varies not one jot or tittle from any other KJV Bible of the same sub-version. John MacArthur implies here by context that this special Bible is somehow different from an orthodox Christian Bible. I know I immediately thought of the JW version which differs substantially from an orthodox Christian Bible. This is deception by omission or in plain speaking, a lie.

And this is what he has written: "Masonry reverences all the great reformers. It sees in Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews, in Confucius and Zoraster, in Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Arabian Iconoclast, great teachers of morality, and eminent reformers, if no more, and allows every brother of the Order to assign to each such higher and even Divine Character as his Creed and Truth require. (M&D pg 525)

We do not undervalue the importance of any Truth. We utter no word that can be deemed irreverent by anyone of any faith. We do not tell the Moslem that it is only important for him to believe that there is but one God, and wholly unessential whether Mahomet was His prophet. We do not tell the Hebrew that the Messiah whom he expects was born in Bethlehem nearly two thousand years ago; and he is a heretic because he will not so believe. And as little do we tell the sincere Christian that Jesus of Nazareth was but a man like us, or His history but the unreal revival of an older legend. To do either is beyond our jurisdiction. Masonry, of no one age, belongs to all time; of no one religion, it finds its great truths in all. To every Mason, there is a God; One Supreme, Infinite in Goodness, Wisdom, Foresight, Justice, and Benevolence; Creator, Disposer, and Preserver of all things. How, or by what intermediates He creates and acts, and in what way He unfolds and manifests Himself, Masonry leaves to creeds and religions to inquire," end quote. (M&D pg 524)

I will note that there are some reasonable variation with the original text for clarity, for example, the first word in the first part is “It”, but that refers to Masonry, so the change to “Masonry” from “It” is reasonable.

However, then John MacArthur pulls a very strange thing. He runs two paragraphs together, normally not unreasonable for this purpose, but he puts the one on page 525 first and then appends the one on page 524 directly like it is one passage and skips all four of the intervening paragraphs. Why? It appears to be deceptive, especially without citations.

I underlined a few sentences to point out something Pike wrote in these two paragraphs and in the four intervening ones all repeating something Freemasons have been pointing out for centuries: that since it is not a religion (at least as John MacArthur and other antimasons must have it be to have any case at all) that claims any special revelation, it does not judge between special revelations as an organization, but allows each individual to follow his own conscience. You know, that whole freedom of religion thing.

In other words, they say they believe in God but you can decide who He is, what He wants, and how to get to Him.

So, who do we ask? John MacArthur? The Pope? Sanhedrin? The local Wiccans? Secular humanists? Communists? The next panhandler we meet? Who tells us these things? Who makes us believe them? Who decided for John MacArthur?

And then they claim all these secret words and they are told that when they come into Masonry they're not allowed to speak certain words. And if you've known a Mason you may have known the fact that he would not reveal those words but I would like to reveal them this morning.

Oh gee, we took an obligarion before God not to reveal them. So, I guess John MacArthur is inciting to sin, because to stand foresworn in such a case is taking the Name of the Lord in vain, at least for a Christian. So, Freemasons are “guilty” because they won't sin by breaking their obligation taken to God. Again, deception by omission, or a lie.

I'm going to skip over the discussion of the various words, not only because I'm going to honor my obligation taken before God, but it is some of the same old regurgitated stuff that antimasons who claim to be Christian have been peddling forever, also, there is something very disturbing in the next quote from M&D.

Pike in his Morals and Dogmas further says, "To achieve salvation the Mason must first attain a solid conviction founded upon reason, that he has within himself a spiritual nature, a soul that is not to die when the body is dissolved, but is to continue to exist and advance toward perfection through all the ages of eternity, and to see more and more clearly, as it draws nearer unto God, the light of the Divine Presence," end quote. (M&D pg 855)

This one is frightening. It also accounts for my belief that John MacArthur labors under a deceptive influence, mainly because of the sources of this modified quote from Pike. Notice that above, “Masonry” replaced “It” in a quote, which was legit and reasonable because the “It” in question was Masonry. In this quote, “it” has been replaced by “salvation”. Ok, fine, except in this case, the subject is NOT SALVATION!!!!

This is an outright lie preached by John MacArthur. Here is the preceding paragraph from M&D (pg 854-5) for context (emphasis in original): "Freemasonry is the subjugation of the Human that is in man by the Divine; the Conquest of the Appetites and Passions by the Moral Sense and the Reason; a continual effort, struggle, and warfare of the Spiritual against the Material and the Sensual. That victory, when it has been achieved and secured, and the conqueror my rest upon his shield and wear the well-earned laurels, is the true Holy Empire."

I'm not going to dissect that passage or its further context in philosophical terms, because that is not the purpose of this forum and I have read the preface to M&D, however it is not teaching salvation in any terms I'd acknowledge as a basis for discussion. It might fit into Proverbs 1:7 where “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge...”, but that is only the beginning, not the end of salvation.

And then Pike says: "At the Masonic altar, the Christian, the Hebrew, the Moslem, the Brahmin, and the followers of Confucius and Zoroaster, can assemble as brethren and unite in prayer to the one God. (M&D, pg 226) The chaplain of the Masonic Lodge who prays as the voice of the lodge, does not pray in the name of the Carpenter of Nazareth or the name of Jehovah or the name of Allah. He prays to the Grand Artificer or the Great Architect of the Universe. Under that title men of all faiths may find each other his own deity. Failure to mention any deity by name is not denial but merely the practice of a gracious courtesy, so that each man for whom prayer is offered can hear the name of his own deity in the all inclusive title of Great Architect," end quote. (STB 8-58)

I'm trying something different here. The above is one quote by John MacArthur, supposedly by Pike from M&D. However, such is not the case and another lie is exposed. The first part as far as I can find by searching online is the partial opening clause of a sentence that begins: “Masonry, around whose altars the Christian, ...” instead of “At the Masonic altar,”. Of course, this alteration in the actual text makes it a complete sentence for MacArthur to segue into his next sentence, supposedly from the same author, the same book and the same thought, but it was not.

It comes from a Short Talk Bulletin from August 1958 titled “Some Misconceptions about Freemasonry” (LOL!) and since Pike was dead decades before 1958, another author. So John MacArthur is caught out in a lie again.

I underlined a common Masonic point that all antimasons who claim to be Christian must avoid at all costs, that NO deities are mentioned by name as deities. Why? Simply because Freemasonry does not judge between special revelations, which means it cannot confirm or deny any of them as the one, true, living God.

Well, I think you understand, that's enough…that's enough, frankly, to sicken anyone because that's a Satanic false religion. It says, “Yes, we believe in the true God,” but it reduces Him to a wrong form. It worships Him in a wrong manner and with a wrong heart attitude. It is unacceptable. And there are myriads of such unacceptable kinds of worship. And destiny is determined by that. You may think you're worshipping God, but you're not.

Actually, I agree with John MacArthur here.

It is enough, because the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ does not need to be defended by lies or liars.

Scripture itself says that “no lie is of the truth” and tells us who the father of lies is.

John MacArthur, a man whose teaching I have respected for a number of years has been led into deception by a false spirit or has chosen to become a teacher of false doctrine.

John MacArthur, lies to “defend” God and Christianity told as a sermon during a worship service is worshiping Him in a wrong manner and with a wrong heart attitude. It is unacceptable.

John MacArthur has shown himself to be capable of practicing one of the myriads of unacceptable kinds of worship.

John MacArthur may think he is worshiping God by speaking lies, but he is not.

Strange Events, Day Two

2010-02-01T10:23:00.002-06:00

The ongoing light show and fog effects still bother me, especially when the preacher was preaching with a low haze from the smoke makers drifting about the stage while he talked in two sessions. I don't know, I'll have to decide on that one. His messages were still excellent and I wish we could have fitted in time for a few more sessions with him so he could unpack some more. In fact, if he had had three extra session and spent them all on what was in the first session I think he would have still had more to teach.

Excellent job on the why teens are leaving independent session. I felt the brother teaching it had missed one connection. When the Church surrendered the authority to teach about "real things" and focus on "spiritual things", not only did it invalidate itself from kids who want to know about "real world things", but it also began to back away from teaching on "spiritual things" like doctrine and theology. I did talk to the brother about it and put a seed in him about adding that to his lesson plan. I cannot do any more.

Fortunately, I had a few minutes to get ready so I could let some passion slip into my words, which I don't get to do a lot. People don't realize this when they find me "cold", but with my disability I cannot afford unrestrained emotions, because finding myself on the floor unable to move is a distinct possiblity. I thank God for my temper and the procession of men: father, grandfather, uncles, coaches, teachers, preachers, etc. who taught me restraint, both for my temper and because in emergencies, panic kills. It made my life much easier after I started getting sick and I realized what was happening.

All in all, it was a great conference from a teaching point of view.

Strange Events

2010-01-29T22:39:00.004-06:00

Okay, here I am at a Men's conference and I noticed a few things that strike me as odd.

Ok, it is a big church, but that is to be expected. They have a good music group with a nice rocking beat. However, did I need to be blinded by whirling colored spots in some kind of light show that was crappier than the ones I used to see in bars a couple of decades ago? What was this need to produce "smoke" to drift over the pulpit area around the band, again a crappier effect than the one I saw in bars a couple of decades ago? Not a problem that they were bad, but this is a church! The praise and worship was great, except the cheap rock concert effects were distracting and annoying to me. Of course, the advances in video technology had produced a much sharper image of the breakout solos of the various instruments with the preening of the soloists. I'd have gotten by that until the music minister decides to announce that Jesus is in this place (Well, DUH!), then he (music minister) says that "Because I brought Him!", waits a few beats and then segues into the "where two or three are gathered..." (like I said, Well, DUH!).

Of course, then there was the special message from the pastor and his wife, pitching some weird kind of life insurance....

Now, the message we got was good. In fact, the biggest problem was that even though it ran over, the pastor could spend our two sessions tomorrow with him simply unpacking that one message. I was enjoying that message, but that life insurance pitch...

Maybe I just don't understand "big city" churches and the stresses of a pastor who deals with thousands of people in his pews, but a life insurance pitch? That was just too much. You know, when a Sunday school class gets too big, it should be split or break out another teacher or two and IMO, most megachurches and the wannabe lower echelon probably should have a rock thrown in them. I doubt the efficiency of anything they do over several small churches (except at maybe selling life insurance that not only keeps "tithing" for you after you are dead, but also sends a little check to the grandkids too) since it is much easier in a bigger church to go to sleep and "let George do it".

The problem I'd have: Does the pastor know about this issue with the music ministry playing failed rock concert guys? Does the pastor simply trust his music minister to keep things straight or what?

Gee, you wonder why some SBC members worry about whether or not the GCRTF will do anything worth the time and effort, don't you? After all, some of the leadership now were young Turks and players fifteen years ago when with either the blissful ignorance of (or active abetting of) the then CR leadership of the SBC accepted the tales of proven liars and their false witnessing over the contrary testimony of respected members. Of course, disappearing reports, thousands of documents going missing and changes in policy exceeding the mandate of the messengers by bureaucratic means have nothing to do with it. No, not at all.

In the meantime, there is much bruhaha about discernment and education of the Church. True, it is needed and I was calling for it before these bigwigs stepped in. Of course, there is my "little problem" which prevents me from being an official front line teacher. The sad thing is that my pastor is a busy man, earnestly working and striving, doing a great job of teaching the Word when he can. I'm still enjoying learning from him. Yet, my "little problem" which might be "offensive" or "questionable" to "some" in the church and could be a "stumbling block" to "some" remains totally 100% based on false witness, open lies, twisted Scripture, forgeries and shoddy scholarship. So, we could remove this "little problem" by actually doing some education in doctrines and discernment, but.....there is only one readily available teacher who is familiar and motivated with the subject matter and he.....has a "little problem".

This seems to be coming to a head, or I'm just needing to vent a little, because truthfully, the time and effort to actually educate people to that level of discernment would be wasteful even if I turned out to be the teacher from heaven, especially since there are some who would still believe what they heard from their brother's sister's mother's cousin was true. So they would just keep "viewing with alarm". That it makes my pastor look like something I don't believe he is (one of the "stealth" antimasons, who never says Freemasonry is wrong, but simply denies any Mason any responsible position) evidently just cannot be helped.

It is a small thing, but it would be a stand for truth instead of false witness, but in end results, this way is most expedient. There would be a price to be paid, because I know one person who has bought the lies hook, line and sinker. I feel it was my error not to directly confront and correct that brother on the spot, but I had work to do in the fellowship hall to finish setting up for a fund raiser and it was more expedient to let it go with my comment that it was bogus and an assurance that I would "watch out" for that pagan stuff that "trusted preachers" had said was in Freemasonry. So, I cannot very well go around talking about the mote in someone else's eye with the beam sticking out of mine.

Nicene Creed According to the Scriptures.

2009-11-20T06:04:00.006-06:00

Interesting post over at Extreme Theology. Yes, I stole the title.....

Being a member of the Southern Baptists, I've noticed resistance to creeds, confessions and catechisms. Of course, until recently I hadn't noticed a big deal about it. I mean, doesn't everyone know what the chief end of man is? Even if they don't believe it?

I shifted from Presbyterian (conservative orthodox branch) to Southern Baptist for one main reason. When I had some questions, I was quoted catechism by the Presbyterian pastor and shown from Scriptures by the Baptist pastor. Now, there was actually both answers were correct, but there was a tendency to emphasize catechism knowledge over direct Scripture knowledge on the part of the Presbyterians, at least of that time.

Of course, as I'm getting older, I'm finding balance in many things and so, if I was teaching a class to high school seniors or older, I'd use something like the post above to go through and examine why these extraScriptural documents were written.

John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel

2009-10-12T08:46:00.006-05:00

A short video.

My only comment would be that while denouncing the "prosperity gospel", "name it and claim it", "blab it and grab it", etc. heresy, that we do not ourselves violate Scripture by calling anyone who quotes the clear blessing verses of the Bible in context a "prosperity preacher". I've seen it more than once and had this accusation directed against myself. Why?

I'm a tither and if you tell me that you "cannot afford" to tithe, I will happily and swiftly tell you that when you "cannot afford to" is the time when you can least afford not to tithe. To the Pharisaical heretic hunters, that is enough, I'm guilty and should be put to the Inquisition with themselves as Inquistors of the Faith.

God has not blessed me with a BMW, but I have had blessings in my life. I don't run around in a fancy suit with a fat wallet, but I've never had need to go hungry or even do without many small luxuries. My checking account isn't huge, but everytime something "fun" happens that requires some money to fix, it is there. I may have to go out and work for that money, but right on time, the opportunity for the cash I needed is there.

For my recent trip to Africa, it looked like some extra cash would have to come out of the savings account, but <*pop*> in the last two days before I left came two decent sized donations that closed the loop. Right on time and right on expense as I found when I got back. Note that this doesn't count the money we had already committed out of pocket for the trip.

Of course, this didn't say that everything was cake and ice cream, simply that God takes care of His own children. I've felt the rod more than once and I'm probably going to feel it again before I'm done (or, if you prefer, He is done with me, same thing though).

Listen to entire sermon.

On Controversy

2009-10-12T08:36:00.003-05:00

Just a little something I found through J D Greear's blog on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's website that I found interesting reading. Enjoy.

New Horizons

On Controversy

John Newton

Editor's note: A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows:

Dear Sir,

As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul's, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the Word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method's sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

Consider Your Opponent

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.

But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! "He knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. "If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth." If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

Consider the Public

By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are preengaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer's spirit. They know that meekness, humility, and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The scriptural maxim, that "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God," is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth's sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who, being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God.

I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord.

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit.

Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

Consider Yourself

This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented.

And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made?

Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Reprinted from The Works of John Newton, Letter XIX "On Controversy." Reprinted from New Horizons, October 2002.
Return to Formatted Page

Copyright © 2009, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All Rights Reserved.

Back from Africa

2009-10-10T08:38:00.004-05:00

Well, I must say that it was an interesting event. I still cannot say much about the details except to praise the team for their hard work and dedication. There are many good things going on and many frustrations, but I hopefully have given them a technical boost in their operations.

I was there on a tech consult and the situation wasn't something where I could go around preaching or witnessing on the street. I did get a chance to try to strengthen one local fellow believer and I pray that my testimony helps him out. It wasn't a direct spiritual thing, the team there can handle that, but more of an outlook on life to be strived for.

I saw God move in His time more than once during my stay and now I must pray that He granted me the wisdom to allow the team to make the best decisions from my advice. He also managed to teach me a few things about meekness after I ran across a couple of situations that made me want to go through the roof, but after I inquired into the details, I saw even more reason for allowing things to move in His timing.

I will say I saw some beautiful souls there. I know that I did spend much time with one young worker there who I wish I could have been more like. He has avoided the staining with the world (and the price in pain that went with it) that I have gone through in my life and I love him for it. Of course, God works in His own way and my time spent turned away from God equipped me in many ways to do other things. I have no problem being the one who puts the axe to the brush and plows the ground so that men like those I met there can plant the seed and harvest it. If God wants that to be my lot, then I will be happy in it. I just hope He will direct my work so that it is pleasing to Him and helps His Glory shine before men.

Now, I will spend my time back here, using the talents God has given me to try to get these new brothers some material support for their work to see if I can help smooth their paths as they do their work. I know that sounds pompous, but between not being able to write details and trying to express everything, this is just the way it comes out.

A Case of Eisegesis

2009-09-15T21:28:00.006-05:00

UPDATE: 13 April 2011, once again NAMB decided to move their links around. Maybe if someone wants to ask about wasting money by the SBC, maybe they should check on this shuffling of what are supposed to be static pages.

If you go look here on one of the NAMB's websites, you find one of those most interesting relics of the dark side of the conservative resurgence. IMO, I think it comes from the unfortunate Dominionist elements involved and the political need for the other more orthodox conservatives to placate them. There is always a problem when expediency shows up in the church.

Other factors include heretic hunters (a.k.a. - wannabe "Inquistors of the Faith"), the gullible and those that want (despite the Baptist tradition) to suppress the priesthood of the believer.

This little "chart" uses eisegesis (the reading of something into Scripture or any other text to prove a certain point) based on several falsehoods to "make the point". Although there are the usual antimasonic problems that make them sound like they are lightweight antiChristians, that will be skipped mostly and I'm going to explore the direct problems with it.

The First Comparison: GOD

Well, since Freemasonry does not judge between any special revelation and has no "worship" of any deity, although respect and reverence are given to the Creator of creation. Again, this is the level of knowledge of God that all men have access to, known as the natural revelation. The rituals are morality plays set in different formats that are not "worship" in the sense the NAMB is trying to push here. Oh, somebody might be "offended". True, but it boggles my mind that a group claiming to be conservative Christian would prefer to use the liberal "thou shalt not give offense" method instead of education on the issues, especially since some of those names used for "pagan gods" that NAMB claims is glorifying are actually titles. Some of them were even used as titles for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Bottom Line: Freemasonry does not sanction worship of any specific deity, it is not a church. NAMB chooses a hierarchical type of approach by claiming evil and banning instead of educating.

The Second Comparison: OATHS

Christians should take all oaths seriously and not give any oaths rashly.

Well, this part NAMB got right, the problem is that they have not made the case that the obligations are "rash" oaths. They do claim they are excessive, but that is why this is a case of eisegesis since that is purely projection by the part of the interpreter here, there is no Scriptural line drawn. I do have to thank the NAMB for this subject though, because through it I learned a whole lot more about taking of oaths by Christians, including the fact that both Paul and Jesus swore oaths.

Bottom Line: Bogus call by the NAMB. The only way this accusation works is when you hold to the (incorrect!) position that no Christian should ever swear any sort of oath, which then condemns so many military, jurists, peace officers, etc. that it isn't even funny.

The Third Comparison: JESUS CHRIST

Amazingly enough, it seems that the NAMB figured out that Freemasonry isn't Christianity, then got upset about it. I'm beginning to wonder about the purpose. After all, when the Roman Catholic Church got upset about the loss of revenue and control, they started up the Knights of Columbus, so maybe the SBC should start up the Fraternal Order of Baptist Born Again Men. After all, that way you would actually have a Christian fraternity then that could be legitimately carped about over its interpretation of Jesus.

Yes, this falls into the trap of assuming that Freemasonry is more than it is. It also avoids the fact that all of these writings they natter on about are purely optional reading. A number of them do give pagan and occult concepts, but as information, which any Mason is free to disagree with and, in fact, should disagree with if it is contrary to his religious beliefs. While the NAMB is correct that Christianity does teach the uniqueness of Christ, the fact that the NAMB denies the evidence of messianic movements in many of the world's past and current religions and confuses the non-sectarian philosophical discussion by Pike with some kind of statement of beliefs undercuts their case yet again.

Bottom Line: Yet more stretching that falls short, woeful ignorance and again a retreat from the need to educate. The SBC wants a Great Commission Resurgence, but they still don't want to educate. Why? Are they trying to grow Christians or mushrooms?

The Fourth Comparison: SALVATION BY WORKS

Some religions require salvation by works, Christianity does not. However, the doing of works as a fruit of being saved is a strong thread in Christianity. As usual for the antimason, one book is conspicuously absent from the list of verses on the right side of the chart on the NAMB website:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:17-18)

Works don't save a Christian, but a Christian saved by grace will be doing works. Works as either a requirement or result of salvation cross all the major religions in one form or another. Well, I think Christianity is the only one that calls them a result, but I might be wrong about some of the karma/reincarnation religions. Of course, I'm not quite clear about the problem with the quote from Pike, at least the first portion. If you don't have faith in Christ, do not repent and do not show the signs of the Spirit re-forming you, then the Redeemer's (Christ's) death was for nothing, you are not saved. You must have that faith and repentance to benefit from His sacrifice and it will result in changing you.

Bottom Line: Weak, majorly so. Oh noes! "Some" may get some false hope from works, but I think the NAMB and SBC would be a bit better off looking for those that are being taught a works based theology in their own churches, no matter what lip service is being paid to grace. The saddest and most pitiful part of this point is that the NAMB is advocating, like all antimasons who claim to be Christian, adding a work to grace. The work of a Mason leaving Freemasonry for salvation. Sad.

The Fifth Comparison: INCLUSIVISM

Freemasonry teaches no way to salvation. Candidates and members are specifically and repeatedly told that since Masonry makes no distinctions between any special revelation (Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, etc.), their salvation depends on what their religious beliefs teach them, NOT Freemasonry. Which lets the air out of this one real fast.

Of course, once again Pike is cited (without dealing with the clear statement in his works and Hutchen's condensed version that these are all optional and anyone can disagree with them) and it is interpreted in the way the writer wants it to be. So, of course!, it is all about knowing the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the Testimony of the Holy Spirit! It just cannot be speaking of the intellectual level of thought where man in his finite wisdom can discern from the creation the nature of the Creator, can it? Why not? It is obviously how Pike intended it.

Bottom Line: Piled higher and deeper. You know why this is atheist sounding fodder? Because if you just assume that there is no God, there is no Christ, the Bible is errant, etc.; then regardless of any evidence to the contrary, you will force fit your interpretation into an antiChristian one. Which is exactly what this little "comparison" has done. Despite the railing about "blasphemous" comparisons of Christ with pagan messianic figures, what the NAMB has done is lower the level of rational scholarship to the point where if it was accepted anywhere but in their little pandering critiques of Freemasonry, it would mean that a honest person would have to accept the "pagan Christs" as reality when using the same standards of scholarship.

Why not just educate for real instead of worrying about propagandizing for agendas? While the SBC is trying on the GCR and I see much good in it, if the SBC fails to fix its education problem, then the GCR will just be another money and time wasting effort. If the SBC does choose to educate, then it will have its GCR, whether it wants it or not.

They are without excuse

2009-09-04T19:48:00.004-05:00

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalms 19:1-4a)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)

"The grave error in a technically directed cultural drive is that it sees its highest goal in the possibility of achieving an alteration of Nature. It hopes to set itself in the place of God, so that it may force upon the divine will some petty conventions of its dust-born mind.” Erwin Schrodinger

The destiny of mankind is not decided by material computation. When great causes are on the move in the world, stirring all men’s souls, drawing them from their firesides, casting aside comfort, wealth and the pursuit of happiness in response to impulses at once awe-striking and irresistible, we learn that we are spirits, not animals, and that something is going on in space and time, and beyond space and time, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. Winston Churchill, The Old Lion, Rochester, NY, 1941

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg

“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance.

We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” John Eccles

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:21-23)

Something I have never been able to understand was how people could deny that there is a Creator. Even when I was straying, the knowledge was there. I think here we see the greatest depravity of Mankind, that they would deny God and try to usurp Him. The greatest thinkers throughout history have always acknowledged a Creator, even if they were not Jewish or Christian. Even now, those that deny God by making a god of science must believe on totally blind faith that miraculous happenings for which the deniers have no proof happened in the past. Miracles so great that they make a six day creation a few thousand years ago by a Creator sound simpler. I don't know what I can do for them.

I can do what He has told me to do in Scriptures, but I also know I cannot do anything for them, only He can. How to make them see? Have I gone too far in my search for growth? I know that even if I am deluded as to my salvation and He judges me unworthy and a false follower that He will know not, that His judgement will be just and my condemnation will be fitting. Of course, my knowing that bases itself on knowing that He is my Lord and Savior and that I am nothing without Him to guide me.

But I fail so much. I try so much and let distractions interfere with me.

Part of this came from rereading an old favorite science fiction book and remembering how much people want to believe in those fantasies. Those who believe them will stay lost, because they believe in that bright and shining future, even though it is flawed by human failures and faults. Logically, if they believe in that, then Christianity is lost to them, because for those futures to occur as they have been written in stories, then Christianity would have to be false. These believers still dream and hope, as I did once, for the outward reach and growth of these fantasies.

They cannot see as I have seen, the turning inward, inward of all human cultures and societies in the last decades. The retreat had started before the pinnacle of the outreach was accomplished. By the time we had reached the Moon, our culture was turning away. Some of the later writers knew that and postulated wildcat entrepreneurs who forced Mankind back into space, but there are none like that. Even the hard science stories are disappearing as over the years more and more shelf space in the book stores' "Science Fiction & Fantasy" section have been taken up by escapist science and romantic fantasies.

I see the symptoms of this throughout our Western culture as people put their faith in all kinds of idols and refuse to turn to Him who is their salvation.

Lord help them.

Lord help us.

Lord help me.

How Do You Fight the Lies...

2009-08-26T13:00:00.006-05:00

...from those who claim to be Christian? As can be noted in the brief study I did on Bearing False Witness, breaking this particular commandment is linked to a number of other problems. It looks like this can be said of other commandments also, but when we look at the fruits of those who claim to be Christian (our only standard to discern a true Brother in Christ), if this one pops up, then I've seen that the others will follow. After all, I could make the case for the key commandment being the first one, but how can I tell if someone has some other god before God? Only by their fruits.

I was reading some of John Piper's work after seeing a missions video on youtube that was linked to his quote about missions: "Go, Send or Disobey." While exploring his website, I did what I do from time to time when I find a new preacher, I searched for "Freemasonry" and "Masonry". There was only one hit on the entire site which from my research indicates there is probably something from someone else. I've found that solid, orthodox, reformed preachers tend to have nothing or one item from someone else. For some reason, Freemasonry isn't on their radar screens.

So we find here. My search only found one document from July 21, 1989(!) with the following quote:

33. Ron Carlson, an expert in cults, ate lunch with me and others one day and spoke of the amazing inroads of the Masonic Lodge in America. He has made a tape exposing the cultic, Eastern, counter-Christian elements of the Lodge. Fifteen thousand men have left the Lodge because of this tape. Ron has been threatened. He said 40 percent of Southern Baptist pastors belong to the Lodge. The whole elder board at a well-known Twin Cities Presbyterian church belonged to the Masons at one time recently. When you join you must take an oath that you will slit your throat before revealing the secrets of the Lodge. The IRS investigated recently and discovered that none of the money raised by the circuses went for the children’s hospitals. The red Fez with the Islamic sword and crescent is based on the bloody slaughter of 10,000 Christians by Muslims in the city of Fez. Norman Vincent Peale, who is high up in the Masonic order, told Ron that Masonry is the most important thing in his life. One board chairman in the Twin Cities who railed at Ron answered his question of why he should be accepted into heaven by saying, “I guess I’ll say I was a good Mason.” How vigilant we must be about the subtlety of sin and error.

So, what do we really have here?

The source is "Ron Carlson, an expert in cults." Ok, the first line would be that since Freemasonry isn't a cult, he doesn't know jack about it. Unfortunately, as we will see, it may sound like a snippy joke, but it is actually the just the simple truth.
Next we have "amazing inroads of the Masonic Lodge in America". Uh, like every single other secular fraternal organization in America, we have a steadily declining membership. Even when I've seen a local "boom" in new members, it is merely a slowing of the rate of decrease.
Next, "He (Carlson) has made a tape exposing...". I've heard recordings of Mr. Carlson's presentations at conferences. He is called on to speak against Freemasonry. Within a few minutes, despite this talk supposedly being the "real deal" about Masonry, Mr. Carlson will be telling people about "resources" available for sale on the back table. I gues this would qualify this tape as being the "real real deal".
"cultic": Not by any definition either ancient or modern. The only basis for this remains the constant stretch by these antimasons who claim to be Christians that Freemasonry is a religion. This despite the massive witness of centuries of Masons that Masonry is NOT a religion. Oh, we are all just Satanists anyway, right?
"Eastern": Oh wow. Care to comment on the Oriental nature of the people that produced the Bible? Now, if this is a "modern" pop definition of Eastern (i.e. slant eyed folks), then it is a laugh. I don't think you will find the corporate group state mentality in Freemasonry that you will find there, or even in the Bible where one Man was chosen to die for the good of the state.
"counter-Christian": How is it "counter"? I know of nothing in Masonry that is against ("counter") Christianity. Unless it is the fact that this secular fraternity chooses not to whole-heartedly endorse Christianity as the one, true faith. Of course, then it wouldn't be secular, would it? It wouldn't be Freemasonry either.
"15,000 men have left the Lodge because of this tape". Really? Does Mr. Carlson have this in writing? I doubt it. Of course, having worked the phones to call older brothers who are about to lose their membership for not paying their dues (wait, isn't this a cult, you know, HARD to get out of?), I'm quite aware of one problem among my older Masonic brethren, especially if they are also my Christian brethren. When I call and let them know that if they are in distress economically that we can provide for them, I find them politely thanking me and requesting that we don't. Why? Is this the Great Carlson AntiMasonic Tape at work!?! Maybe. The reason these older Christian and Masonic brothers are letting their dues lapse is that they are old, no longer active and are tired of being harassed by their kids and preachers who are listening to Mr. Carlson's or Mr. Ankerberg's lies. Remember what I said about bearing false witness leading to other sins? Here, the idea of honoring they father and mother or respect for the elder ones in the church go >poof!<
"Ron had been threatened." By who? The last time you had a case of that was the Morgan Affair in the early 1800s. Oh wait, bearing false witness and dividing the church? Scripture has somewhat to say about that, but I don't think it is a mere threat.
"40% of SB preachers/Presbyterian Church". The first is a known lie, pushed by Dr. Holly among all his other ones. As for the other, if true, so what?
"take an oath to slit your throat". Old lie, I did not do so, have not heard of anyone else doing so and after sitting in many jurisdictions both in the USA and overseas for degrees, I've not observed any oath calling for slitting your own throat.
IRS and the Shrine. I'm not aware of anything back then, but I am aware, even though I'm no longer a Shriner, that an internal investigation is ongoing into some abuses by members of a subgroup of Shriners. If this is true (and it looks like it is), then the Shriners involved will probably end up no longer Masons as well as no longer Shriners.
The Red Fez lie: I'll only cover the first fact on this one. The city of Fez was founded by the Muslim sultan who conquered the area from pagans (although there may have been some Christians there) and the hat known as the "fez" for the city didn't exist until the next sultan built up the city of Fez to attract more commerce to it. Oops! BTW, the currently fashionable number and the one I've always heard was 50,000 Christians, not the mere 10,000 of Mr. Carlson's myth.
Norman Vincent Peale: Oh, this is a personal testimony (how about two or three witnesses?) by Mr. Carlson.
"I was a good Mason." See #13 above.
"How vigilant we must be about the subtlety of sin and error." Amen Brother Piper, Amen. I suggest you start with Mr. Carlson. Over half of the points above are lies, the rest appear to have no evidence except for Mr. Carlson's personal testimony and Mr. Carlson appears to use his conference appearances as live infomercials for his products. I find his fruit to be a bit dubious.

Fortunately, Mr. Piper most definitely appears to be only guilty of trusting someone who is supposed to be of good report.

Going to Africa

2009-08-26T07:02:00.003-05:00

I've known it for a while now, but it is been getting more official: I'm going to Africa on a mission trip. I'm not going to say exactly where since it fits on the IMB's list of countries that you aren't supposed to talk about. While I'm going to be there doing what the missionary requires, the primary requirement is to improve the quality of the local food production. Since part of what I do around my place is sustainable agriculture and livestock, I am able to fit a specific need.

Actually, this might be something more than just what I'm going for. I'm not sure, but along with the minor stuff, once I get on the ground and see what the locals have, I might be able to work on getting more to them. They have very little to no electricity, but these days everyone thinks "modern". How much electricity do you need for refrigeration if you use an old fashioned ice box? A few hours of generator power once a week to hard freeze ~50 lbs of ice, which should give the locals some extra food storage, especially for something like making cheese. Even a little bit of cold box extends your options on holding food.

This would give them the option of culling their goat flocks harder to get higher productivity since it won't go to waste in the heat. There would be the ability to hold excess products until enough was on hand to process for long term storage. For example, if they need to consume most fruit as part of their daily diet, but there is a little bit left over, then it could be accumulated in the cold for a few days until there was enough to cook down and can in jars for later. It is amazing how much just a little bit of ice can do. However, that is for the next time I go.

So, please, I'd like your prayers and if you feel like you need to you can send a donation through the online giving link here, I'm sure there is someway you can list it as "for Kamatu's Africa Trip" or something like that. You will probably confuse everyone except my pastor. It takes some kind of registration, so that is up to you, but I would thank all of you who pray that He will make this trip a success.

Why Apologetics?

2009-08-24T09:08:00.002-05:00

Back in February I did a short post on the core of apologetics, this expands on it some. I was sorting out my documents since I've disposed of my baby (first day at school!) and I'm waiting for the washer to finish so I can hang some clothes up on the line.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Anyone familiar with this one? For a believer, it is at the bottom line, the simple truth. However, for those in the world, it is a bit simplistic and they don’t know how you got from where they are to where you are.

1 Peter 3:15 - "...and always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

2 Timothy 2:15 - “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.”

This is the verse translated in the King James as “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

Apologetics:
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

What Apologetics is Not

Apologetics is not designed to prove the word of God, but to provide an intellectual basis for faith.

The objective of apologetics is not to convince a person to become a Christian contrary to his will. The objective, "strives at laying the evidence for the Christian gospel before men in an intelligent fashion, so that they can make a meaningful commitment under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit." "The heart cannot delight in what the mind rejects as false." (Charles Pinnock, member Evangelical Theological Society)
Apologetics does not diminish the importance of faith. Apologetics defends the reasonableness of faith in God and his Word. When non-Christians ask tough questions about the Christian faith, will you be able to give a solid and logical response? If not, there is an opportunity lost to spread God's Word. Worse, the Christian who has a weak foundation for his faith can be easily shaken by the doubts of non-believers.

Is Faith Reasonable? What is Faith?

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

John 10:38 - “But if I am doing them and you don’t believe Me, believe the works. This way you will know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Father.”

Mark Twain states the current popular definition of religious (especially Christian) faith, however, with apologetics, the true meaning of faith becomes clear: ”Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” The trust comes from evidence, a closer way of thinking of a Christian’s faith in God is the faith we all have that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. There is no evidence we can use to prove today that it will, but we have seen it come up every day of our lives and so have faith that it will again tomorrow. This is the kind of faith a Christian should gain as they mature.

What kind of questions get asked?

You may not hear any of these, but our kids going to college will. This is not a huge memory work project to memorize defenses to these, but you have to know that there are defenses, usually that end up showing that the question is a bit silly. I don’t know the specific detailed answers to all of these myself, but they can be looked up. You will hear them from people who have advanced college degrees, even if they are stupid statements. It’s not that they are stupid, but they are ignorant and amusingly enough, they are often taking the garbage they have heard about Christianity and the Bible on blind faith of the sort Mark Twain wrote about.

The prophecy about the virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14) really translates as a “young woman” not a virgin.
Don’t you know that all agricultural societies have a dying and rising god?
Don’t you know that Jesus is really modeled on mythological deity X?
If Jesus was supposed to be the model for Christians and He was “meek”, why did he dispute with the Pharisees so much?
If Jesus is God, how did He hear prayer when He was a baby?
Well if you don’t believe in abortion and want them to stop, why aren’t you out there adopting babies?
Are you saved by faith or by works? You know the Bible contradicts itself, don’t you?
Since we only have copies of copies of copies of the Bible, how can we trust it?
Don’t you know the Bible is full of contradictions?
Jesus lived a long, long time ago and how can we really know if He was real or that we know what He really said and did?
Jesus couldn’t have really been raised from the dead, He either swooned and woke up, the disciples stole His body, the disciples went to the wrong tomb or it was all some kind of mass hallucination/vision.
Jesus was just a good moral teacher or prophet.
Jesus never claimed to be God.
The Bible states that X horrible thing happened and I just couldn’t ever believe in a God who would do such a horrible thing. (Argument by Outrage)
You know about group X that calls themselves Christians that do some horrible or strange thing Y, don’t you? Aren’t they Christians? They aren’t? What gives you the right to judge? Maybe you are wrong, aren’t you?
Do you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God? Do you hold to a literal interpretation? So, you believe that mountains can skip, don’t you?
Do you eat bacon? Doesn’t the Bible literally say that pork cannot be eaten? Well, real Bible believing Christians wouldn’t eat pork, would they? So you must not be one.

What can apologetics give you? Increased Conviction

I can only speak from personal experience, but studying apologetics, I can state a few things if I’m confronted by these, at least in general. For example, I’ve studied supposed Biblical “contradictions” and I’ve always found that they all fall into the category of being out of context, in the literary, cultural or historical sense, so I can easily answer a critic.

Take for a simple example Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:. Now, I can claim this is in the Bible, so it is Scripture (true) and that these are the words of Jesus (true) which all Christians should agree with (true). Oh no! Have you been wrong all this time Christians? Did Christ advocate that kind of action? Well, no.

What has been done is taking the verse out of context, let's put it back: Matthew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: (39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (It goes on down to the end of the chapter at verse 48.) As you can see, the verse has been lifted out to attempt to twist it into something the Scripture doesn't say.

Greater understanding also comes, which increases faith. Take “meekness” which the world defines as overly submissive, docile, of little courage, wimpy, low spirited or compliant. How many Christians of today do you think agree with this definition of meekness?

Consider one definition from Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary: “a calm temper of mind, not easily provoked”. From the Handbook of Biblical Social Values: “gentleness, coupled with non-violence that is followed not because of any revulsion to violence, but because the meek person CAN use violence but has enough confidence and ability not to threaten or challenge others, and whose opponent is unworthy or too weak -- in other words, he's not strong enough or right enough for you to bother with.”

Something every Christian should realize, that for 2000 years now, people have been trying to find that magic bullet to kill Christianity. Don’t you think that if there was one someone would have found it by now? There really is “nothing new under the sun”, so pretty much, anything that a skeptic throws up as an objection has been dealt with long ago.

Verses that support contending for the faith with knowledge

Jude 1:3
Psalm 25:9
Proverbs 10:17
Proverbs 12:1
Proverbs 13:18
Proverbs 15:12
Proverbs 15:31
Proverbs 15:32
Proverbs 22:19
Proverbs 27:5
Proverbs 28:23
Proverbs 29:1
Ecclesiastes 7:5
Matthew 5:10-19
Matthew 22:29
Mark 12:24, 26-8 22:29
Luke 17:3
John 14:23-24
Acts 19:8-10
1 Corinthians 15:58
1 Timothy 4:1-16
1 Timothy 5:20
1 Timothy 6:2-4
2 Timothy 2:22-26
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Timothy 4:2
Titus 1:13-16
Titus 2:15
1 Peter 2:19
1 Peter 3:13-17
1 Peter 4:12-19
1 Peter 5:8-10
2 Peter 2:1-3
2 John 1:9
James 5:19-20

Bearing False Witness

2009-08-04T22:25:00.002-05:00

This is not an exhaustive study, merely one that can be replicated by using an electronic or study Bible, intended as an overview. Any references made to the other commandments are informational only since I have not done the same level of research on them, so I will not be defending the comments made about them. Enjoy. I did and found it very instructive.

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Deu 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

One little commandment, with huge implications to believers throughout Scripture. As given here, it could simply refer to perjury in legal matters, but it goes much further. Perjury would also include taking the Name of the Lord in vain (some say that this and false professions of faith are the major thrust of the third commandment, not directly swearing). Bearing false witness could also include violations of the sixth (killing) and eighth (stealing) commandments.

It is interesting that this is not a simple prohibition against lying as some choose to interpret it, but then it can be necessary to lie when that lie covers a greater sin. A classic Scriptural example would be in Exodus 1, when the Hebrew midwives reported to Pharaoh that Hebrew women were giving birth before the midwives could get there. They prevented the murder of innocents by being less than truthful, but is this bearing false witness? No. As we will see, false witness covers the area of lying to do injury to others and/or to try to make oneself seem more important or righteous in the eyes of men. Not only can this be done in court, but in everyday life. Loving your neighbor as yourself includes wanting to maintain his good reputation even as you maintain your own.

Slander, spreading rumors, equivocating, gossiping, telling partial truths, remaining silent while others bear false witness and all other forms of lying come under this prohibition and in some ways they can be considered worse than perjury since there is no appeal or formal way to refute this form of false witness. The lies can simply be repeated over and over again. Even worse, the slanderers and rumormongers can tell their tales and claim to be pious while doing so, think of those who “share” too much information in a prayer request so that one can “pray more effectively”. Look at the scribes and the Pharisees in the NT as they attack Jesus and the apostles while claiming to be righteous. In this way, so do those claiming to be Christian also indulge themselves while claiming to be righteous.

Exo 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

Exo 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

Notice the expansion beyond a purely legal court sense to cover a wider area. Slander, going along with the crowd and “the end justifies the means” thinking are addressed here. One comment I read implies that 23:1a include receiving a false report, we may hear it, but we should reject it.

Exo 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Keeping far from a false matter goes along well with the concept of rejecting the false.

Lev 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

Lev 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

Notice how false witness twist into violations of the other commandments mentioned above. Also, gossip and rumors are also covered.

Psa 15:1 LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

Psa 15:2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

Psa 15:3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

This Psalm gives indicators of how you can identify the righteous, firstly by their walk, work and speech. Notice that in answer to the questions in verse 1, the lack of false witness is mentioned twice in both a positive and negative manner to reinforce it. Again, the implication is here that other commandments are violated by the one bears false witness.

Psa 36:3 The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good.

This appears to be formerly godly man who has become wicked as he has left being wise and doing good, but the false tongue again shows itself among the other markers.

Psa 40:4 Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

This seems to refer more to the “lies” of earthly things, positions and power although flattery and pandering to the “better” people appears to apply also.

Psa 50:19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.

Psa 50:20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.

This portion of the Psalm (vv. 16-21) is addressed to those who sit in the congregation claiming to be faithful and righteous, but again, the bearing of false witness in its many forms give an indicator of their walk. Even those they should have closest of relationships with will be attacked by them

Psa 52:1 Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually.

Psa 52:2 Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.

Psa 52:3 Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah.

Psa 52:4 Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue.

Psa 52:5 God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.

Here David is rebuking one who lied to Saul, provoking Saul into killing the priests of the Lord. Jealous and hating David, Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul in such a way as to make Saul think that the priests were in rebellion against them, when they were simply helping the trusted servant of the king.

Psa 58:1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The question of speaking the truth (righteousness) also includes remaining in silence while hearing gossip and slander. It is also noted that even infants lie before they can speak (as any parent can testify), which makes lying closely related to our fallen state and may be considered a good indicator for the validity of a profession of faith. It must remain only an indicator and not a positive sign one way or the other since most of us are not instantly transformed, but must renew our minds and work out our salvation with fear and trembling as we grow in Christ.

Psa 62:4 They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. Selah.

In context, the false witnesses seek to destroy the righteous, loving both the gossip behind the back and false flattery to the face.

Psa 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

Psa 101:4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.

Psa 101:5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.

The rules of the king as ruler. All sorts of evil and evildoers will be shunned and banned from the court. It also applies to anyone in relation to those they turn to for counsel. Notice that slander is prominently mentioned as a specific trait of those to be removed.

References: Proverbs 10:16-18; 12:17; 14:5, 25; 19:5,9,28; 21:28, 24:28, 25:16

These are short snips again confirming that the Lord is against the false witness.

References: Proverbs 11:1; 16:11

These are about true scales and measure which refer to false witnessing in combination with stealing.

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

Pro 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

The references are easily read and need no comment, but this one passage is quite interesting. Here seven things are listed that are abominations to the Lord and four of them directly involve bearing false witness and the other three are possibly connected to it by being related in the other passages with lying as a strong indicator of a false witness or professor of the faith.

Isa 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.

Isa 59:4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

A catalog of sins that keep prayers from reaching the Lord, i.e. signifying the unrighteousness of the one praying. Notice the multiple references to false speech.

Jer 9:3 And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.

Jer 9:4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.

Jer 9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.

Jer 9:6 Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.

Jer 9:7 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people?

Jer 9:8 Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait.

The Lord speaks of why He will judge Judah, again, repeated references to the various ways of bearing false witness along with hints of other issues such as theft and coveting. Notice that they “weary themselves” or work at it. Again the use of false witness as an indicator of true righteousness.

Eze 13:8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD.

Against false prophets who claim to have a “word from god” and deceive the people with their lies.

Zec 8:16 These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates:

Zec 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

Speaking to the returned exiles about what they have to do to restore Jerusalem and their nation. Notice what the Lord requires them to do. Real simple stuff, but which again points strongly to the indicator of bearing false witness as an outward sign of the unrighteous.

Ok, that was just a bunch of OT stuff, what about the NT?

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Ananias and Sapphira’s lies brought instant punishment, for the crime of lying to God. Notice that it wasn’t the keeping of part of the money that was the sin, it was the attempt to puff up their reputation by keeping part back while claiming to give all the money. Notice also the link between false speaking and stealing again.

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Notice how many variations of speaking falsely make up this list of traits along with some that usually include sins.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:

Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Again, a listing of traits, with multiple mentions of false witnessing.

Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Snips from these passages about those who convert to Christianity, again with multiple references to the various forms of bearing false witness. James 3 is also instructive about this.

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

The description of the new Jerusalem, with those that make lies specifically prohibited from entry. Other translations say “does what is vile or false” and “practices falsehood”, which along with “maketh a lie” implies those who bear false witness in all its forms deliberately.

As is shown above, those who bear false witness tend to freely break other commandments, cloak themselves with righteousness and cause disruption in the congregation. We should steer clear of them and examine ourselves since we must also purge ourselves of these old tendencies to destroy others, cause discord and puff up ourselves vainly by our own words. Those that cannot be faithful in a few things, cannot be trusted with many, so to from this study it becomes clear that those who bear tales, slander and gossip should be looked at very carefully, because from Scripture the evidence is strong that they are just professors and not true believers, wolves in sheep’s clothing. Like those of Berea, we must study to find the truth of matters. They did not simply study Scripture, they studied Scripture (here the OT) to compare it to what Paul and Silas were teaching them that was outside the Old Testament.

Wait, am I being too legalistic here? A bit on the Pharisee side? I don’t think so.

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

However, let’s make it clear. What did Christ Himself say about this matter of bearing false witness?

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Argue with Him.

Election

2009-07-29T06:10:00.005-05:00

This is something from C. H. Spurgeon's Morning & Evening devotionals for the evening of 29 July.

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” - John 6:37

This declaration involves the doctrine of election: there are some whom the Father gave to Christ. It involves the doctrine of effectual calling: these who are given must and shall come; however stoutly they may set themselves against it, yet they shall be brought out of darkness into God’s marvellous light. It teaches us the indispensable necessity of faith; for even those who are given to Christ are not saved except they come to Jesus. Even they must come, for there is no other way to heaven but by the door, Christ Jesus. All that the Father gives to our Redeemer must come to him, therefore none can come to heaven except they come to Christ.
Oh! the power and majesty which rest in the words “shall come.” He does not say they have power to come, nor they may come if they will, but they “shall come.” The Lord Jesus doth by his messengers, his word, and his Spirit, sweetly and graciously compel men to come in that they may eat of his marriage supper; and this he does, not by any violation of the free agency of man, but by the power of his grace. I may exercise power over another man’s will, and yet that other man’s will may be perfectly free, because the constraint is exercised in a manner accordant with the laws of the human mind. Jehovah Jesus knows how, by irresistible arguments addressed to the understanding, by mighty reasons appealing to the affections, and by the mysterious influence of his Holy Spirit operating upon all the powers and passions of the soul, so to subdue the whole man, that whereas he was once rebellious, he yields cheerfully to his government, subdued by sovereign love. But how shall those be known whom God hath chosen? By this result: that they do willingly and joyfully accept Christ, and come to him with simple and unfeigned faith, resting upon him as all their salvation and all their desire. Reader, have you thus come to Jesus?

From Scripture: Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. (Luke 14:16-24)

Yes, we have a choice, but can we choose without the Spirit working on us? No, we cannot. Wait, isn't this unfair, that some are chosen and some are not? No, because God in His sovereign knowledge knows those who will fulfill His purposes and those who will not and does all things according to His glory and for His purposes.

What to do?

2009-04-22T23:24:00.002-05:00

I just noticed on a forum I used to frequent, that this got posted a few days ago.

Message Board Mission Statement

There are the simple goals that the board wishes to achieve:

• Providing a forum for Christians to gather under one fellowship.
• Strengthening believers in evangelism, discipleship, and edification for personal growth.
• Promoting awareness within the Christian community of current world events; predicted in scripture; of Bible prophecy
• Providing news & websites voicing politics from a Christian perspective.
• Providing websites & discussions exposing deceptive cults, apostasy, heresy, false doctrine, and false teachings.

Nice, right? There is also an extensive post on "Dishonesty" by one of the "super" mods which goes into all the "bad" things people with emphasis on the poor, long suffering mods. Well, having been a "poor, long suffering mod" myself on another (and larger) group of forums, I can understand that part. I always considered it part of the job I had volunteered to do for the community. The last "bump" of this post had an interesting comment:

...we have enough work to do with trolls, but it really hurts my heart when fellow brothers and sisters in Christ sign up in order to cause division on the forum or make the board look unChristian or mean spirited. Very un-Christ like, I think your spirits need to be checked and look at the big picture, not just your personal vendettas. What you do in secret, shows your real character...sadly there are many trees showing rotten fruit, and for what? Think on that.

The problem comes when my "title" is "Shunned One", because despite my being open, I was allowed to be stalked, harassed and vilified by another user with the full and complete cooperation of certain members of the mod team. My "sin" that led me being shunned? I spoke against the use of lies in any "defense" of the Gospel, I showed several "good Christian" posters that they were holding heretical positions and (most important) I showed that several of the members of the mod team were also holding heretical positions. In fact, these mod team members with their statements, covering for violations of forum rules and altering of threads (justified by my "sin" of being a Freemason who happens to do Christian apologetics and able to prove their foolishness) are causing the divisions.

Oh, and I cannot be accused of joining to cause divisions, I was a member before some of these mods (long before) and the "problem" started when I simply corrected some factual errors in an accusation.

"... according to the Light they have received."

2009-04-07T11:38:00.004-05:00

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)

The concept that everyone can be saved as long as they follow the "light" they have received is both true and a heresy. Huh? How can that be? If this is used to justify salvation of nonChristians who have heard the Gospel, then it is a heresy. The only possible "out" in Scripture would be for a pagan (not a Jew before Christ) to follow Truth before he knew it.

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (Romans 2:13-15)

After they have heard the Gospel, then "doing the right thing" in ignorance won't cut it anymore. Note that this does NOT deny Christ as the only Way to the Father, let us look at the definitive passage on that:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Very clear cut there, right? I think so.

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)

Aha, this resolves it, because if there is some "man on an island" who has never heard the Gospel, but responds in accord with God's Will will be one that Christ loves and He "will manifest myself to him."

Everyone receives the Light of God (see Romans 1:20) in their life, but it isn't the basis for salvation. Only when we turn towards that light and follow it can we become His children. We won't be judged on how much light God gives us, but by how we turn towards His light we have and follow it. Remember that when someone tells you that all religion is simply different ways to worship God, all light in this sense will lead back to Jesus. If they are going somewhere else in their beliefs, then they are denying Christ and accepting universalism.

Dealing with the VA

2009-04-05T03:52:00.002-05:00

What is it with government employees in general and the VA in particular? Here I sit stressing in the middle of the night, because after years of work, gathering documentation, trudging up the line of appeals, seeing quacks who write junk and lies that have to be rebutted and finally getting it before a VA judge who makes a ruling raising my rating to the maximum amount allowable by law, the VA decides to send me a letter saying that they want to reduce my rating back to where it was.

The crux of this rant, since I'm not really that stressed yet. Why is it that I can get a letter from the VA that will at a minimum eat up two days of my life, potentially can stress my entire family out seriously and (knowing my wife) is already working on her nerves since she still isn't quite sure on this "be still" stuff and there is no penalty or recourse on the VA (or other government) employee?

However if I shake my finger in their face (let alone give them the arse kicking that their lack of ability to reason their way out of a paper bag truly deserves) then I am issuing a terroristic threat and can be banned from VA facilities?

Oh, because they are "doing their job" and need to be "free from fear"? "Doing my job" is the defense of all incompetents that are doing something wrong. Of course, if they simply did their jobs in accordance with regulations and with PROPER and FULL review of case records (in my case, this actually means some summaries of the issues in my records, so they don't have to dig that far back), then they could live "free from fear".

Amazing, isn't it?! If government employees would actually do their jobs then they could be free from fear! Of course, if they use the excuse to mess with peoples' lives, thereby triggering problems, then I guess they should be afraid. If I were them, I'd be afraid of low stress guys, especially when they make them useless for any valid function in their family.

Antimasonic junk part 2

2009-03-27T19:59:00.003-05:00

A little item that can be found here. It is from Hank Hanegraaff speaking officially from his position as the head of CRI ministry. So, here we go again with the original being in bold:

IS MASONRY OCCULTIC?

Mysterious symbols. Secret rites. Hidden teachings. Is this an accurate portrayal of what Freemasonry is all about? Is Masonry really occultic?

With close to 34,000 lodges around the globe and a membership numbering upwards of 6 million, it is obvious why the Encyclopedia Britannica would dub Freemasonry as the largest world-wide secret society. But just because something is secret does not necessarily mean that it’s occultic. In fact, the majority of Freemasons contend that their organization has no occultic elements whatsoever. However, the deeper we dig into the recesses of Masonic teaching, the more reprehensible the picture becomes.

Christian author John Weldon lists five ways in which Freemasonry fosters occultic involvement among its members: First, Freemasonry supports the now-popular New Age dictum that man houses within himself unlimited power that can be unlocked using specific procedures. Second, Freemasonry espouses a philosophy and a system of symbols which bear a striking resemblance to many of the occultic arts — for example kabbalism, Rosicrucianism, and hermetic philosophy. Third, Freemasonry encourages its members to discover the deeper significance (or “esoteric truths”) lying beneath its ceremonies and symbols. Fourth, Freemasonry promotes the development of altered states of consciousness, an exercise rooted in mysticism. Finally, a number of Masons regard their organization as the vehicle that will lead the world into an age of occultic enlightenment.

“Why are so many Masons unaware of this side of Freemasonry?,” one may well ask. The reason is that a large portion of Masons seldom strive to advance beyond the initial ranks or degrees offered within their organization. But as one progresses to higher degrees, more and more details about the underlying foundations of Masonic ideology are gradually revealed, including its occultic dimensions. It is therefore imperative that we warn others about the dangers brewing beneath the surface of the Masonic Lodge.

On Masonry and the occult, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

Yet more chicken puckey. Same crappy sources that promote the usual lies, but let’s check on Hank’s five points:

1) Really, news to me, but it is interesting how antimasons have so penetrated the “secrets” of Freemasonry that they can always manage to teach something new to Masons about Masonry.

2) Striking or vague? Yes, some symbols are common, but then the cross itself has some pagan interpretations and this says what about the Christian interpretation?

3) News to me, as usual. This one can be considered as having a grain of truth though. There is some urging to think on the meaning of certain symbols, but the meanings are explained, not the attempted New Age link (it was Satanic in earlier decades). For example, the compasses (of Square & Compasses fame) are a symbol to remind Masons to circumscribe their actions and keep their passions within due bounds. Definitely not New Age meditations for esoteric meaning stuff.

4) News to me, really never heard of this.

5) Okay, some “number of Masons” believe this. Since all the secrets are open to the dedicated antimason (otherwise they couldn’t make their pronouncements with any authority), what number? Can it be stated as a percentage or raw number? Can we get an estimate closer than one to some millions? I doubt it, I'm familiar with this kind of argument, it comes from fundy athiests and other lightweights.

Of course, the usual ending of how sincere, devoted Christians, even theologians, ministers and Christian apologists, men of intellectual attainment and spiritual discernment stay members of Freemasonry. How can this be? AHA! They are too stupid and/or ignorant to notice this “problem” with Masonry, even though they are objectively far better qualified than the antiMason is to discern these issues. Oh yeah, if the Mason doesn’t accept this without question, then he just hasn’t “gone far enough” in the degree system. That’s it, case closed. So my question would be: Is it any wonder that the Church today finds itself confused, disoriented and riddled with heresy and heretical teachings?

Stumbling Blocks

2009-03-26T23:21:00.008-05:00

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. (Romans 14:13)

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (Romans 14:20-21)

The entire chapter of Romans 14 is in view here for context, as well as other portions of Scripture (like 1 Corinthians 8). Romans 14 stands up here because it directly discusses the issues between "strong" and "weak" Christians. I've heard Romans 14 referred to more than once as the "law about doubtful things" since it concerns practices and/or beliefs among Christians that are not salvation issues and not otherwise addressed in Scripture.

The first point is that such things are to be left to Christian charity (love) since they do not touch on salvation, God will judge (verses 4 & 12). The second is that the "strong" are not to rub the noses of the "weak" into it (verses 3 & 10). The third is that the "weak" are not to judge the "strong". (verses 3 & 10).

The first point is fairly straightforward, since one of the things that make something doubtful is that there is no direct evidence of bad "fruit" from practice/belief. To determine otherwise and declare it to be something other than doubtful puts the one who declares it in the position of usurping something God Himself has claimed and expressly denied mankind, namely the ability to read the heart of the person.

The second point is so that people new or weak in their faith not be driven away or forced to do things that their conscience does not permit them to do. If you want to give up something for Lent, go right ahead. I'm not going to be one to tell you that you are just practicing papist traditions. If you feel led to it and are doing it through faith as a memorial, then the blessing you reap will be yours.

The third point serves the same point as the second, since both are to prevent the "strong" and the "weak" from tyrannizing the other and forcing them to act against their consciences. In this case, the "weak" cannot simply wave the "stumblingblock banner" and make the "strong" (for the sake of "unity", of course) conform to the "weak" brethren's practices/beliefs.

Misinterpretation of this subject is one of the largest problems in modern churches, where for the sake of "unity" the second point is emphasized and the third point is ignored. Known as reducing to the lowest common denominator, it stifles the growth of Christians and makes for the "seeker friendly" movement which perverts the Gospel in favor of turning churches into clubs where "felt needs" can be "met" without the "nasty bits" of Scripture. Even in church bodies that haven't turned down that road, you can still find the "politically correct" view that one must never give offense! Excuse me?! Just because someone is offended, we shouldn't mention or "promote" (a buzzword for suppress in many cases) practice X? When we have a Message that is an offense to the wisdom of the world? See how it starts?

I'm going to digress a bit here, because those that know me who might be reading this could get the impression that I consider myself one of the "strong" and not one of the "weak". In some things, I do consider myself "strong" (although I've had that opinion changed before as I've gained more understanding) and in others I know myself to definitely be "weak".

For example, reading Scripture and praying should be (and often are) a joy and pleasure. At times though, they seem to be a burden and not worth doing. So I opt out to a "weak" position of simply doing them by rote, because God says to. Why do I do something that could be considered legalistic or Pharisaical (observing the form without regard to the Spirit)? Because experience has shown me that in these cases, if I wait until the mood strikes, it is a long time in coming and I still feel unfulfilled, but when I follow what God says to do, the joy returns much faster and I learn much more.

Now we can move on to the crux of the matter. When does something that is doubtful become something that makes my brother stumble and therefore something I should refrain from doing?

Here we must discern what the issue is. What is its source? How good are the facts backing the issue up? If the issue is offensive because of pronouncements by people, writings or simply something heard (gossip), then we can evaluate. If the claims of doubtfulness on an issue are based on lies, then just because some Christian claims this issue to be a stumbling block for them, should it be considered so? If something is thought to be un- or anti-Christian because of these lies, can stumbling block status be claimed for it? Should we, as Christians, give into a lie in the interests of "unity"? Does the Gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ need to be "defended" by a lie? Does the Church of Jesus Christ need to be kept "pure" by a lie?

I don't think so. A lie has nothing of the Truth in it and so is contrary to Christianity (1 John 2:21). In fact, following a lie and a liar has been spoken against directly: Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:41-47)

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22:14-15)

Should we, as Christians, when we find a situation like this based on a lie give in to the "offended" ones in a congregation or point out the lie?

If we do give into the lie for the sake of the "offended" ones who are in ignorance of the truth instead of educating them in the truth (perhaps because it is easy that way), then do we put a block in front of the brother who is the one who has the "offensive" issue?

I know, some will say "just go find another church", but I'm one who doesn't believe in that kind of "buffet Christianity". Most especially when I know that the place that I am at is the place where He wants me to be.

Antimasonic junk part 1

2009-03-26T22:35:00.006-05:00

This appears to have been lifted from some Presbyterian group report in 1942, but the antimasonic website I originally got it from had no citation for where it came from. Points from the document are made in bold.

Some opening points:

1) Even though well written, this document fails utterly to consider the basic fact that what any Mason says about Masonry is simply that Mason’s opinion when he writes in areas outside of the landmarks and basics of Freemasonry. This is most especially true when speaking of "mystical" areas.

2) As a Mason, I find it sad that despite the claims of writers such as these to be godly and impartial, I can usually immediately or with a trivial amount of research spot omissions and glossing over of portions of rituals and Masonic books that make points like these obviously self-refuting. It gives the appearance that the writers are ignorant at best and liars at worst.

3) The scholarship of the antimason rivals the scholarship of pop antiChristian writers. If one agrees with the level of scholarship in The Da Vinci Code, then this is no problem. Change contexts and redefining terms into something other than their original meaning is not honest scholarship.

Masonry also lays claim to universalism, but its universalism differs radically from that of Christianity in that it denies Christian particularism and exclusivism.

No, it does not deny it, it simply does not address it. Masonry acknowledges the Creator (“Grand/Great Architect of the Universe” or GAOTU) as He reveals Himself in nature. From the Christian perspective this would be a preChristian belief not something in “competition”. It is simply why every man is not excused because creation itself declares the Creator.

Christianity claims to have the only true book, the Bible. Masonry places this book on a par with the sacred books of other religions.

Correct since Masonry does not elevate itself to make those kinds of distinctions since it is not a religion in and of itself. This is a category error since Freemasonry specifically does NOT choose to operate at that level organizationally, but leaves such determinations to the individual Mason.

Christianity lays claim to the only true God, the God of the Bible, and denounces all other Gods as idols. Masonry recognizes the Gods of all religions.

No, it only recognizes the Creator and leaves the rest of the “details” to the individual Mason. Again, this goes beyond the scope of Freemasonry to judge.

Christianity describes God as the Father of Jesus Christ and of those who through faith in Him have received the right to be called the sons of God. The God of Masonry is the universal father of all mankind.

As Christ, the last Adam, died for all men (although not all will receive His sacrifice), so all men are descended from the first Adam and are made in the image of God. To deny this would be to repeat the error of Cain when he asked if he was his brother’s keeper. I addressed the other issue with this kind of comment here. Simply put, God is my Father and all Christians are to be my brothers, but what do I call the man who provided the genetic material to make me? (IOW, "fathered" me.) What do I call fellow veterans from the military? What do I call my male siblings? Am I damned to hell and a questionable Christian because I call my male siblings "brother" and the man responsible for half of my DNA "father"?

Christianity holds that only the worship of the God who has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture is true worship. Masonry honors as true worship the worship of numerous other deities.

Again confusion about where Freemasonry draws the line. Masonry, as an organization, does not make this distinction, but leaves it to the individual Mason. It seems a definition error also. Any man can truly worship anything, but as to whether or not it is valid or simply praying to the dark is beyond the scope of what Freemasonry judges.

Christianity recognizes but one Saviour, Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. Masonry recognizes many saviours.

No. Same error again between organizational position and individual position.

Christianity acknowledges but one way of salvation, that of grace through faith. Masonry rejects this way and substitutes for it salvation by works and character.

No, Freemasonry has no plan of salvation, that is left to the individual Mason’s religion to outline. I’m mildly surprised by this continual “missing” of the point of James’ discussion of faith and works. Faith saves, but faith without works is empty. You do not do works to be saved (as a Christian), but a proof of your salvation is your works or fruits.

Christianity teaches the brotherhood of those who believe in Christ, the communion of saints, the church universal, the one body of Christ. Masonry teaches the brotherhood of Masons and the universal brotherhood of man.

Same error. Big difference between brotherhood in the body of Christ and the brotherhood of all humanity made in the image of God.

Christianity glories in being the one truly universal religion. Masonry would rob Christianity of this glory and appropriate it to itself.

No. Masonry stops at general revelation (that the creation reveals a Creator) and does not get into special revelation such as given in the Bible (or any other writings). This also appears to be forcing a particular definition on the phrase "universal religion", mainly for effect. Last I heard, Christianity considers itself to be the one true religion, but not to be the universal one. After all, I can point out a few people who might just disagree on that. They happen to not be Christians.

Christianity maintains that it is the only true religion. Masonry denies this claim and boasts of being Religion itself.

Freemasonry’s level of religion, including not being a religion, can be considered the one universal one knowable to all men regardless of knowledge of any other special revelation (see Romans 1:20). The most base pagan has access to this level of religious knowledge as well as the most holy Christian saint. What Christianity has is the special revelation given us in the Scriptures. Masonry does not judge that level.

What gets me, I have pointed out a number of things that appear to be either ignorance or lies in these points. So, if you are trying to make a case to me and the first things I read are false, what does that say about the rest of your "case"?

Defending the Gospel: Using Doctrine

2009-03-12T21:04:00.007-05:00

Exposing false teachings, correcting understanding and refuting false accusations can be done using Biblical doctrine.

Stephen: Acts 6:8-7:60

Stephen is one of the first deacons and part of what he did was dispute with members of the synagogue of the Libertines (6:8-9). This is an interesting synagogue since the reference to Cilicia (where Tarsus was located) and his appearance later means that this was probably the synagogue Saul was a member of and overseen by the Gamaliel the Pharisee (see Acts 5:34-40), teacher of Paul (see Acts 22:3).

The key verse for this first part is verse 10: And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake. There were two things mentioned, wisdom and Spirit. Spirit we know as Christians, but what is this wisdom? Since Spirit is already mentioned, it isn't the speaking of the Spirit, it must be something else.

After being refuted the Jews paid off people to be false witnesses while seizing and dragging Stephen before the council to be accused of blasphemy. When questioned, Stephen responded with the speech in Acts 7:2-53 in which he summarizes the way Jewish doctrine leads to Christ and how the Jews killed Him like they do all the prophets God sends. (see Luke 20:9-15). Stephen handily refuted not only the original Jews but the council itself. The result?

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (Act 7:54)

Then the Jews martyred Stephen for having a vision of the glorified Christ which the Jews rejected since they had already rejected Christ.

So, the source of the wisdom of Stephen? Yes, in the end it is God, but that would be excluded since the Spirit is also mentioned. So it is knowledge of Scripture and the Biblical doctrines contained in it.

Being "attacked" by Satan

2009-03-04T22:10:00.002-06:00

One often hears of a believer being "under attack" by Satan. It might be a family, group, church, city, country or denomination. Although it does happen (and I think more frequently than most know), I don't like the term or the claim in regards to a situation, at least as I normally hear it applied to anything other than perfectly smooth sailing in life. Why?

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. (Mark 3:29-30)

Matthew 12:31-32 and Luke 12:10 have similar verses but I find this one the clearest, because it most clearly states that attributing the works of the Spirit to Satan is the unpardonable sin. Remember that God will also correct us and that it is a correction to be borne:

Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee. Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him. (Deuteronomy 8:5-6)

My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
(Proverbs 3:11-12)

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12:5-11)

Is the struggle you face now the Lord chastising you? Is it the Lord strengthening you for further duties down the road? Is it the Spirit working on you for your growth? If yes, then by claiming it as a "Satanic attack", you are skirting closely to blaspheming the Spirit at the very least.

Remember, this isn't to say that Satan isn't attacking you, but don't fall into the habit of blaming Satan for everything that happens to you.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it

2009-02-12T10:52:00.003-06:00

For the Christian believer, this is the core of their apologetic. Nothing more is needed, except some study if you find a passage hard for you to understand. As a Christian, any defense of the faith (as required in 1 Peter 3:15 and Jude 3) does not require some kind of fake "neutral" ground. One example I've seen repeatedly is a demand to "not use the Bible", but how can we as Christians give up what is to be the rule and guide of our faith?

It is not our job to open the heart of the unbeliever, simply our duty to present the reason for the faith that is within us and contend earnestly. It is God's prerogative to bring conviction on them that they might be saved.

Job 22:21-28

2008-12-29T20:03:00.003-06:00

I'm looking over the passage in Job 22:21-28, I saw verse 21 which struck me in reading a couple of days ago. So much so that I actually remembered the exact chapter and verse correctly today. Remember that Job is considered by many to be the oldest book written for the Bible. Yes, the beginning of Genesis recounts history much older, but it is also considered as having been written down by Moses from older writings, with Moses serving more as editor than author. In any case, even though Job doesn't mention the Law, it does bring up some very "advanced" theology for such a "primitive" knowledge of God.

The setting is Eliphaz the Temanite's speech to Job starting in verse 2. Eliphaz is accusing Job of numerous things, apparently by "reading" the "fruit" of Job's life by the misery Job is in now. So, Eliphaz begins by pointing out that we have nothing to give to God that is not already His by right, says Job was an unjust magistrate among other things, accuses Job of thinking God cannot see his sins from way up in heaven (perhaps implying Job is an atheist) and finally references the "old world" from before the Flood. Which brings us to the passage in question.

Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee. Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart.
(Job 22:21-22)

The "him" here is God and the suggestions from Eliphaz are those good for any Christian to remember. I believe that there were numerous writings and accounts of God and His interactions with people even before Moses. Even in the Scriptures we have mention of books that we no longer have any record of and wouldn't know about if they weren't mentioned or quoted in Scripture. Eliphaz calls on Job (and by extention, all people) to aquaint themselves with God and be at peace towards God and His will (i.e. not disobedient). Specifically, receive the law from His mouth and lay up His words in your heart, so you will know obedience. By this good (blessings) will come to you.

If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, thou shalt put away iniquity far from thy tabernacles. Then shalt thou lay up gold as dust, and the gold of Ophir as the stones of the brooks. Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defence, and thou shalt have plenty of silver.
(Job 22:23-25)

Eliphaz is calling for Job to repent and return to God. God will bless him again with worldly goods to go with that peace. The Almighty will be his defence when you trust Him.

For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty, and shalt lift up thy face unto God. Thou shalt make thy prayer unto him, and he shall hear thee, and thou shalt pay thy vows. Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways. (Job 22:26-28)

Looking always to God, He will hear your prayers because you will be one of His children, as is promised in Scripture. Paying your vows refers to one sense of taking the Lord's Name in vain and bearing false witness and is referred to in the New Testament when told not to swear to the creation (as the Jews often did to avoid taking His Name in vain). Decreeing a thing and having it happen refers to binding and loosing and being able to ask anything and God give it to you, even to casting a mountain into the sea. This was not something new with Jesus, but was well known in Jewish thought with the provision that anyone who was that much in line with God would also never ask anything outside of God's will. Light shining on all your ways is a generic blessing where God will show you the path and direct your steps in the best way. All things work together for good for those that trust in the Lord.

Joseph and Mary

2008-12-22T20:48:00.002-06:00

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. (Matthew 1:18-19)

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: (Matthew 1:24)

Just something that had not occurred to me before did so after looking at the Nativity story again. Of course we know why Joseph acted as he did in the end and the good result from it, but think about what was said here.
1) Joseph was going to put Mary away quietly so she and her unborn Child would not be killed in the manner of the Law for the sin of adultery. If he did not accuse her, then there was no witness to testify against her.
2) Joseph evidently had a reputation for being a "just" or righteous man, observant of the Law. In putting Mary away quietly, he would have not only gained honor for not marrying an adulteress but also for showing her mercy in her weakness. Joseph was showing "meekness" by not using the power he had (to have Mary killed).
3) When Joseph decided to marry Mary, the natural assumption was that the baby was his since he was going through with it. Which meant that Joseph, with his "good name" for being a just and righteous man would have been tarnished, since he would have been engaging in sinful sexual activity with Mary.
4) Of course, those in the small town of Nazareth who knew the real story would have hung the even worse dishonor on him of taking some unknown man's child to be Joseph's primary heir.

Discernment : What is truth?

2008-12-20T07:16:00.004-06:00

Pilate's age old question and still applicable today. Note that in Scripture, Pilate knew that there was nothing in Jesus worthy of execution or even punishment. Well, He had caused a riot by existing, so maybe a little flogging would have been appropriate from Pilate's point of view. In the end though, Pilate bowed to the will of the howling mob led by demagogues, despite that fact that he knew that Jesus was innocent.

As Christians, we are to stand for truth, and especially Truth, despite the will of the crowd, the opinions of noisy people and the price we have to pay. It is a Scriptural duty to correct the errors of those who profess Christ, just as Paul rebuked Peter. So how do we know what is true and what is error? By discerning the truth in the light of Scripture and the Spirit.

There are three simple tests to determine truth using rational discernment. I'm not going to touch on spiritual discernment other than to point out its misuse since spiritual discernment in Scriptures does not contradict Scripture. For example:

Mat 16:15-17 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

What are these three tests? They are the same ones I used in the example in the presuppositional lesson. One proviso in these tests relates to the seriousness of the issue. In my first example below, unless you are soliciting my advice on goat raising, it is a trivial matter and doesn't need such precision in discernment. However, in the second example below, that is a critical issue for Christian doctrine and requires much more precision.

1. What are the objective facts? This means getting down to the primary sources. If I say or write down as a fact that I am raising goats, then you should either be able to visit my place to see the goats I am raising or have verifiable evidence, like pictures, of the goats I am raising. If someone says that Jesus endorsed the OT eye for an eye laws, then they should be able to give a citation to that effect like:

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

See, it was just confirmed in Scripture, wasn't it? You should now go look at the Scripture as the primary source, and see what the context is:

Mat 5:38-42 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Aha! It seems this position is untrue and quoted out of context, which if very common among false teachers since full disclosure and operating in the open would destroy their teachings, but to discern this, you must check the primary sources. Otherwise you are just basing your acceptance (or rejection) on hearsay. Depending on the seriousness of the issue, hearsay may be acceptable, but if it is serious, then even if you implicitly trust your nonprimary source, it is your responsibility to check the objective facts from primary sources before making a call on the subject on nontrivial (salvation, doctrine, etc.) issues.

2. What is the quality of the testimony? Character counts. If the one providing the witness is a known liar, then you should obviously not weight his evidence as much in comparison with someone well known for their truthfulness. Look at what style the “evidence” takes, if it is sketchy and contradicted, gossipy sounding or way over the top, look even closer. Ask what price the witness paid for giving his testimony. Ask if there were any material rewards for giving the testimony he did. If you see lots of ignoring of critical points, refusal to do anything more than assert or accuse, appeals to bad logic or incorrect axioms, ranting, changing of the testimony (especially to make it 'stronger' relevant to the position being claimed), etc., then you should question or discount the testimony you are receiving from this witness. If they are unfaithful in small things, can they be trusted in large ones? See Matthew 25:21, 23 and Luke 16:10-12

3. Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is virtually always the correct one. Even involved issues can have a simple explanation. One favorite conspiracy concerns the oil companies and their constant “gouging” of the public. Yes, they are in it for the money and yes, it is their duty to their stockholders to maximize profits, but on the ground at the gas pumps, the oil companies often have little to do with the price. If four stations are along a street and one raises prices, then invariably the rest will follow suit. When I worked for 7-11, I saw it all the time. The manager would drive by the oil company station and then raise/lower our prices to be one cent cheaper than they had. Nothing changed about the gas in our tanks, but it gave us the reputation of being the cheapest on gas. For the last few hurricanes, the distributors (not the oil companies themselves) chose not to lay on extra trucks to meet demand locally claiming that they had to “keep reserves”. So for the day or so before a hurricane, prices jump up by a large margin, unleaded runs out and only midgrade or high octane are available. Within a day or two of the storm making landfall, prices drop and unleaded becomes available again. For the conspiracy theorist, it must all be the evil CEOs of the oil companies or their master who is controlling every last gas pump price in the world. So watch for the moving goalposts, the quoting out of context (“a text out of context is a pretext for a proof text”), requirements for enormous complicated conspiracy theories, etc.

Remember that no lie can be of the truth and wherever a fundamental doctrine is denied or twisted, even if it is just one little thing, eventually all of the fundamentals of Christianity will be denied since a little leaven will leaven the entire lump.

Discernment : Types of Discernment

2008-12-20T07:13:00.003-06:00

Discernment, for the Christian, has several different names in use. Many times these names overlap or replace one another so they need to be defined. Some of the terms I've seen in use are: Wisdom, Knowledge, Spiritual, Biblical, Worldly, Rational, Christian, Learning, Judgment, Instruction, Understanding, Prudence. For my purposes I'm going to consolidate them into three types: Spiritual Discernment, Rational Christian Discernment, Rational Human Discernment. Some could consider the second one to be a hybrid or subtype of the other two where creation and Creator mix, but let's go with these definitions and see what we get.

Rational Human Discernment (RHD): This is the only one we don't find in a positive sense in the Bible. Many are the verses that speak of the foolishness of the wise when compared to the things of God. You will find some who profess Christianity and misuse these verses to rail against any education throughout history and even up to today. They are wrong as we will see below.

What is Rational Human Discernment? Simply put it is that understanding given to all men from God. See Romans 1:18-25. God has given every man that much discernment, to be condemned for willfully failing to follow God. Some will give the excuse that they don't see enough, but at the correct time they will stand convicted in the Presence. Is there any use to RHD? Yes, because as stated in the passage above, it leads directly to God. In fact, anyone who has spent time studying philosophy should marvel at the glories of human reason. It isn't always so, but the best of it is so beautiful and sublime that it looks like it could almost touch God. Almost. I'll say that again, Almost. When viewed through the eyes of the ones who call themselves wise in worldly wisdom, they think they have achieved all truth, but from the eyes of the Christian, that 'almost' is a gulf that cannot be bridged and the greatest that can be done will still be nothing before the Almighty. It should still give some insight into the motivations of those not of the faith, because until they come under conviction, they cannot turn.

Rational Christian Discernment (RCD): Used in day to day living as the Holy Spirit leads us. Most of the mentions in the New Testament about discerning, regardless of the word used, are about this kind of discernment.

What is Rational Christian Discernment? It is the type of discerning that all Christians are commanded to learn in many places (Matthew 7:12-23, Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, 14:29, 1 John 4:1) and spoken about in Hebrews 5:11-14. It is a large portion of the maturing process all Christians are to go through as they are made perfect (mature) in Christ so that they are no longer tossed about (Ephesians 4:13-14) and stay true to the Gospel. Learning to use and exercise it brings forth the fruits of the Spirit as given in Galatians 5:22-23, Ephesians 5:9 and 2 Peter 1:5-8. It gives not only the ability to tell truth from lie, but to decide between what is trivial, important and essential. Simple example, the number of angels who can sit on head of a pin is a bit on the trivial side. Other examples abound, but a usual signal that the point is trivial is when people try to use their discernment to decide something that God has said is His to judge. The issue of salvation is a basic one and an excellent example for misuse since we cannot decide who is written in the Book of Life, only He can. He may let you know about you, but all you can do is declare it, not prove it objectively. Beware of misuse of this, since as soon as anyone says “How could any true Christian...” they have fallen into error as they are actually usurping God's authority and setting themselves up in the place of God to judge the hearts of others when they cannot even know their own (Jeremiah 17:9-10).

Spiritual Discernment (SD): It is special knowledge given to you by the Holy Spirit that could not be learned by human means. It will not contradict Scripture or reason, at least in the form of RCD, it may contradict reason in the form of RHD. See Matthew 16:15-17 for the clearest example, but also 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and Ephesians 4:11-13.

What isn't Spiritual Discernment? Yes, this is a slightly different question than the other two, but it is the most misused claim by those that profess to be Christians. While the Spirit does direct Christians and He does so more and more as they mature, there is no Spirit “bell” in anyone that tells them everything, which is why we are to test every spirit (1 John 4:1) and teacher for false doctrine (Romans 16:17-18, 2 John 9). Of course, such doctrine isn't downloaded into all believers by magic and revealed to them by their feelings (I like calling it the twinge in the “Holy Ghost elbow”.), it comes from the study of Scripture. Although it is possible to know something is True by feeling it is, it will not be something that contradicts Scripture since God is not the author of confusion and those that claim it the most are those that come up with something that contradicts RHD, but also RCD. Often enough, they claim that all reason and logic is against faith (IOW, they buy into the world's view), they make claims about others' salvation, and refuse correction when they are caught in error and simply carry on while acting like they never got busted. Yes, this sounds like childish behavior, but we are talking about a maturity issue and for some reason this is the most claimed gift. As soon as you hear “I just know”, citing the testimony of others without Scriptural basis (or a contrived and shaky one) or claims of special knowledge not found in Scripture, be very, very careful because this is almost assuredly not Christian.

First, why do we want discernment/judgment/wisdom/understanding? Because not only do we have to discern between true and false, but to decide relevant and irrelevant (see Romans 14). Some games are simply not worth the candle and Satan must love Christians getting caught up in side issues while witnessing or on the other side, get so caught up in “pure” preaching of the Word that we forget the fact that part of our walk includes taking care of others (James 2:15-16). Of course, as noted in Scripture, we are commanded to seek it (Proverbs 4:5, 7; 16:16).

Second, how can we tell how we have a Christian level of discerning? Not necessarily simple, but we can do it by being fruit inspectors (Luke 6:43-44) for others and the Spirit will let you know when you have it, or at least all you can handle at this time remembering always that all spirits must be tested and that Scripture cannot be contradicted.

For me, it is simple as I have learned as the years go by, but hard to explain. The key revolves around the insights I get from Scripture, the peace that passes all understanding and seeing the Hand of God in all the ways of my life. It may include (and frequently does) turbulence on the worldly level, but the surety and Scriptural confirmation shows it to continue to grow. Am I finished and perfect (fully mature) in Christ yet? Given my past, I think not, but as I need more, it will be given to me, whether I take it peacefully or have it hammered into me.

Discernment: Cults and Conspiracy Theories

2008-12-20T06:59:00.004-06:00

Another Title would be: How to Avoid the FUD Trap.

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD is an attempt to influence people using vague information framed in a negative manner, almost invariably as disinformation that cannot be verified, or if it can be verified, turns out to not mean what the FUD pusher says it does. Silly example would be that Christians are ritual cannibals.

Cultic teachings often focus on the fact that they have the 'true' way. Among the heretical Christian cults, the Bible has often been 'corrupted' and this 'true' way is all about the 'real' Jesus. Note that this includes not only formal Christian cults, but can be found in individuals and loosely connected informal groupings within the Church. They always have their own special version and/or addition to add to Scripture. Sometimes the additional material is text, sometimes it is verbal and sometimes it is a mixture of both. This is why one must get them to define themselves and their teachings, because if it is not of Christ, then they will end up convicting themselves out of their own mouths and/or by their actions. The spirit that moves them cannot do otherwise. Vagueness of positions, cherry picking of proof texts, quoting out of context, ignoring of all contradictory evidence and appeals to emotion are hallmarks of this mindset. They have a strong tendency to be authoritarian and into group think practices.

It might be a formal structure with a leader, subleaders and followers in some variation or it can be an informal structure where all of the 'individuals' simply look or sound the same when pressed on their subject. I recall talking to some young girls several years back. They had wild makeup, wild hair, jeans with unpatched holes ripped out of the knees, more holes in their shirts and scuffed up shoes. These weren't old or cheap clothes, they were of decent or good quality and relatively new, the damage was inflicted by the kids. I asked them why they were dressed as they were and they told me it was to be 'different' and 'be themselves'. So I got them to watch with me while their peers came through a public area and even though the details might have been different, everyone was dressed the same in similarly mutilated clothing, some version of wild hair and (for the girls) excessive and wild makeup schemes. After getting them to really look, they realized that even though they thought they were being 'different', they and their peers were all just wearing the same 'uniform' with 'authorized' variations and none of them were really different or being themselves.

After you learn their jargon and sources and use them to debunk their false teaching, they still keep firm in their presuppositions, since it simply 'must' be so. When you push them on it, they always have a way of moving the goalposts of the debate until they find one that you cannot refute, usually framed in vague, unsupported allegations that call for a massive conspiracy. It doesn't matter, for them, the assertion is simply enough.

You also see it outside of Christian heresies among the Christ mythers and Christ deniers, they use the exact same tactics of making an assertion that could possibly be true, then denying any evidence that contradicts their presuppositions, counting the mere possibility as absolute proof. Commonly know as “Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

Regardless of whether they are antiChristian, antiBible, Christian heretical cults, heretic hunters, political conspiracy theorists or any other group, how do you identify these practitioners of the hypervictim mentality of conspiracy theorists? Look for some simple traits this mindset has in common.

They know the 'Truth'. It is special knowledge that has been revealed to them. Oh, they may claim it is Biblical, but it isn't. Or maybe it is just something 'proven' by science. In any case, the root remains pride.
The “other guys” aren't real bright, are deceived or just aren't rational.
Logic doesn't matter much, various fallacies based on emotional appeal are used. Over the top sensationalist claims are often made.
Reliance on personal revelation instead of Scripture. When Scripture is used, it is often twisted or used as trump cards with masses of verses being tossed out without commentary.
Lack of primary research done. They will claim it, but if you call them on it, they obviously haven't done it. Refusal to acknowledge any sources contrary to their positions. Refusal to explain themselves.
Use of forged documents or editing actual documents for proof texts (quoting out of context). Using definitions rigidly, see # 1.
Ask questions aggressively and keep asking them, no matter how many times and ways they are answered until they get the answer they want.
If they do find themselves getting refuted, they will resort to making assertions without backup or that logically contradict their claimed worldview. Tantrum throwing.
They fail to use the simplest explanation, instead it must be even more and more convoluted to get beyond refutation. They keep moving the goalposts of what needs to be proven/disproven. If need be, everyone else is a liar and they are right, see #1.
Strong ends justify the means flavor to their position(s) if you develop them by interacting. They don't care that they are wrong, as long as they are pursuing a 'righteous' cause. Fanaticism, not zeal.

If you are not familiar with the tactic of moving the goalposts, here is an example where antiBible Lite evolutionists try to 'prove' their point against young earth creationists:

“Creationists aren't scientists.” (Proof provided that there are YEC scientists.)

“Well, creationists aren't real scientists with real degrees.” (Proof provided that YEC scientists have real degrees.)

“Well, creationists don't have degrees in the relevant fields.” (Proof provided that the degrees are in relevant fields.)

“Well, creationists don't get those degrees from real schools.” (Proof provided that the degrees come from top scientific universities.)

“Well, creationists don't get published in refereed scientific journals.” (Proof provided they do.)

“Well, those aren't real refereed scientific journals.” (Proof provided they do publish in 'real' refereed scientific journals, as defined by the evolutionist.)

“Well, those papers don't having anything to do with creationism.” (Proof provided that they do.)

“Well, creationists don't understand how science works.” (Umm, your degree is in what? Your documented body of work if you don't have a degree? Your sources to back up your assertion?)

“Well, they just have to be wrong since there is a consensus against them.” (Point out how every current scientific theory and law was at one time a minority position.)

“Well, it cannot be scientific because it is just goddidit!” (As opposed to itjustgrowed?)

“Well, religious nuts cannot be expected to understand science!” (When the basis of modern science directly rests on the doctrines of Christianity?)

“You know, everybody knows it is just lying for Jebus!” (Any proof?)

“Well, there is that dinosaur park guy!” (Who isn't a scientist and who has been publicly corrected by YEC scientists for his use of disproven theories and unscientific stances, too bad evolutionists don't police themselves up a tenth as well.)

“Well, it is just lying, Dawkins and Gould said it, Professor Fuzzybrain at school said I should think more for myself, don't accept authoritarian religious controls, and believe in evolution totally! All creationists are liars!” (Uh, well, what do you do in the face of someone who has their mind made up and isn't interested in the facts.)

Other ways besides attacking credentials include finding smaller and smaller groups and shifting the groups around who are 'really in control' or making it a case of smaller and smaller geographical areas. In both cases, no matter what the personal testimonies of numerous people who should be “in the know” according to the conspiracy theory, those testifying must be either liars, not part of the 'in' group or in the 'right' geographical spot to see the conspiracy and are therefore deceived.

This is all about seeing the pattern. At times and places, several of those traits I listed above can be used legitimately by people, but you can usually tell from the context of the conversation which one is ranting and which one is simply telling them to put up or shut up. Again, the context will give you the pattern and when you see the pattern, hold onto your wallet. They may not want your money, but often enough, they do.

Discernment : Symbols, Uses and Interpretations

2008-12-20T06:38:00.010-06:00

Symbols mean what the user of them wants them to mean. Many times there are symbols with common meanings to most in society, but even those can have a different meaning to individuals or small groups. Symbols have been used in all societies to convey meaning and all people use symbols to remind themselves of things. In fact, what you are reading is composed of symbols arranged in a certain order to provide meaningful communication.
Since writing is a subset of symbols, much of the advice given about understanding language applies here. You must find out what the user of the symbol means by it and sometimes it varies widely. Take for example the modern peace sign. An upside down forked symbol in a circle. What does it mean? Well, the original creator of it took the flag semaphore symbols for N (a man holding each arm down at a 45 on each side) and D (a man holding one arm straight down and the other straight up) for Nuclear Disarmament. It didn't take hold until they added a circle around it.
Now, what does the modern peace symbol mean? Here is a partial list: identifying sign for the Nuclear Disarmament group in the UK, the footprint of the American Chicken, a dove's print in a circle, a broken cross, the sign of the Antichrist, an rune of life inverted to symbolize death, Nero's cross, a symbol of the devil and other variations. Speaking of people incapable of discernment:

PEACE SYMBOL - Also known as the Cross of Nero. Many people are not aware of the origins of this symbol or how it became to symbolize peace. This is the cross of Nero, a broken and inverted cross, enclosed in a circle which represents Nero's vision. Nero believed that there would be world peace without Christianity, thousands of Christians were martyred under the rule of Nero. This is what the "peace symbol" represents regardless of what it means to you.

Their way or the highway, despite well documented historical evidence that it was created by a man who wanted a simple symbol for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. You see that often in marginal groups, they force a definition linking similar symbols and assert their authority, but if you actually check, the symbols in question were created years or decades apart with no connection between the two sources. Somehow, someway, somewhere, there simply MUST have been some communication though, because it fits the group's agenda.

When I see an old kungfu movie filmed at an old temple in China, do all the swastikas about mean that the worshipers there were proto-Nazis, they were just using a good luck symbol in their decorative work or were the producers of the film neoNazis?

Often people and groups use such rigid definitions to force a conclusion in line with their presuppositions. Research the symbology of the snake or serpent in Scripture. Is it Satanic? Or is it wisdom? What about the Son of Man being lifted up?

How about the circle? Is it a female symbol? Symbol of the One God? Eternity?

Is the triangle the Trinity? A doorway for demons?

How about the famous fish symbol? A symbol of Christ? Or a female symbol?

Shall we go to the cross itself? Did it have a Christian use before Constantine saw the Chi Ro vision? Did it have any other symbolic uses prior to Christ? I actually find this one sadly amusing. I read a post by a lady railing against a group using what she described as “Babylonian sun symbols” as some kind of proof about something. In her signature was a cross, the earliest use of which was in Babylonian sun worship. It also was a fertility symbol from the pagan beliefs about the sky 'fertilizing' the earth.

Now, some people do define some of these symbols in a negative fashion, I'm not saying they don't, but until you know what they mean to the one using them, you cannot call it that.

Discernment : Grammar, Vocabulary and Misunderstanding

2008-12-19T16:12:00.002-06:00

How something is said can sometimes be more important that what is said. People bring presuppositions to their use of language. Language can be misunderstood by the hearer and conclusions can be jumped to. One must be very sure of what the person talking is saying to them. This can cut both ways, as a heretical cultist might say that 'Jesus saves', thus sounding good, but if you question them further you might find that they consider other possibilities for salvation.

Language changes over the centuries and translations don't always catch the full flavor of the original, even when you are dealing with the same language. For example, the word 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28 has been used to justify the gap theory of creation since it means to 're – plenish' or 'plenish again'. The problem with that is that back in the day the KJV was written, there was no such word as 'plenish' and replenish didn't mean 'fill up again', but simply to fill or make complete.

It is very important when attempting to discern the message someone is giving to find out how they define the words they are using. Putting your definitions on someone else's words can lead to some serious misunderstanding about what they are saying. Learn to ask what they mean when you are not sure about what they are saying. If there is no mutual understanding of what is being said then the discussion can degenerate very quickly into a “yes you did say that”, “no I didn't” match.

If you find that someone is saying things differently that you would and won't budge, you should charitably try to speak their language using their words. Then you can show them the lack of difference (or major difference) between your positions. It may be that you have a better way of saying it or it may be that they do. It might even be a trivial difference that isn't important.

This is a fairly common bit of advice given in writings on counter cult sites specifically for discerning what is being said. It is very useful at all times whenever you encounter something you don't understand. Don't charge in, find out what they mean. If, in the end, you find them in error and they will not change, then stronger measures can be taken.

Many times people use words to try to make a point where their logic is weak. They force a definition to gain an illegitimate connection between groups or ideas. For example, many religions have a lustration ceremony for symbolic purification. Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians are among that number. The Christian specific one is baptism, John the Baptist used one as he prepared the way for Jesus, there are other purifications ceremonies in Judaism and examples abound in pagan cultures. People who try to find any sort of connection between pagan beliefs and Christian ones (the so-called 'pagan christs') often take any sort of lustration ritual (of which there are many) and immediately name it 'baptism' in their writing, then redefine it as a 'stolen' item by Christianity from a pagan religion.

Be careful of those who insist that their definitions are the only possible ones for words or phrases, most especially if they deny the full range of definitions available in the dictionary. Make sure they are discussing something not only in literary context, but historical and cultural context, note again the 're-plenish' example of error I used above.

Discernment: Presuppositions

2008-12-19T16:07:00.002-06:00

Presuppositions are nasty things. They hide deep within you and color your entire worldview. For many, they cannot deal with their own presuppositions or step outside of them. When you see those that cannot step aside from their own presuppositions, it is a mark of immaturity, whether it be a child in their youth, a babe in Christ or anyone else. They cannot deal with the "given this, then that" thought process. One example would be someone who rails against the Jews on the basis of them considering Christianity simply a heretical cult of Judaism.

While from my presuppositions (being a Christian), the Jews are wrong, given that the orthodox Jew has certain expectations of what the Messiah (the Christ) is to be, then Jesus failed to meet some of those presuppositional expectations. After all, He didn't blow out the Romans and institute the Kingdom right then, did He? Therefore, from the point of view of the orthodox Jew, Christianity is a heretical cult of Judaism (or Jewish heresy if you prefer).

When you confront immature people on their presuppositions, you will find them reacting as a child and throwing tantrums. They will not be able to step outside of them, defend them by being purely offensive and repeat mantras of "truth" over and over again, no matter how much you show them that by their own standards they are wrong. They will fall back on assertions and rely on convoluted chains of “proof” that require some serious suspension of disbelief.

How do you test presuppositions? The usual method is threefold: find out what the objective facts are from primary sources, consider the character of those who interpret those facts and if they are being honest (this could be literally or logically honest) and then apply Occam's Razor to the interpretations since the simplest explanations are almost invariably right and interpretations that require jumping around and changing the goalposts rarely are right.

Example: Christians presuppose that Christ arose from the dead.
1) A review of the actual literature (Gospel and outside accounts) finds that there is strong evidence for something happening to Jesus' body. The quantity and quality of the ancient copies of the Gospels surviving to the present testify to its truth.
2) Those that reported the resurrection died for their belief in it, those that railed against tried to kill those who reported it.
3) The simple and straightforward reading is that Christ arose. The objectors made up different tales, some more wild than others, some requiring actions that would have resulted in death for those who presented evidence against. The need for such conspiracy theories to disprove the resurrection point to the falseness of the claims (swoon theory would require the punishment of the Roman executioner in charge of the crucifixion, the disciples stole the body theory would require Roman soldiers to admit being asleep on watch which was again an executable offense, saying that the Gospel accounts "don't count" is special pleading not called for against any other ancient document, etc.).

When you encounter something that challenges your presuppositions (worldview), you evaluate it and decide to incorporate or reject it, each of which choices has an effect on your future life. Watch what people do when you challenge their presuppositions.

Discernment: An Introduction

2008-12-19T16:00:00.002-06:00

There is a symbol that rules our lives. It is rarely noticed, but it permeates our society in the secular and religious areas. You find it everywhere, there is no escaping it. It is all over buildings all over this country and in many other places in the world. Politicians use it, the military plans with it in mind, workers follow its instructions, Christians mindlessly go along with it, preachers give sermons using this symbol for the passage to the afterlife. Children learn to recognize it at an unconscious level from an early age. There is nowhere we can go that the symbol is not there controlling our actions and forcing us to follow it. It tells you that when you are finished, you are to go this way. Followers of the Emergent Church are emerging from their temples of heresy under this symbol. You find it even in churches that consider themselves orthodox. It is frightening.

I am speaking of the Epsilon Chi Iota Tau. Even the name of the symbol is powerful in its mystical connections to its methods of control. People don't understand what Epsilon Chi Iota Tau means, but still they follow it blindly as they go about their daily lives. Something must be done! We as Christians and citizens must no bow to the dictates of any such symbol that is outside the boundaries of Scripture and curtailing our freedom of movement. People have died while mindlessly following this symbol in emergencies. They didn't think of anything else to do except to follow. Beware the Epsilon Chi Iota Tau. The occultic sound of it reeks of Satanic influence, you can just hear it as you say it. Do you know what it is? I bet you have seen one today and allowed you to be led by it instead of by the Spirit and Scripture. I bet you didn't even think of praying in the Name of Christ as you moved under the power of this symbol, you just did it. There are variations of the symbol, that can only be followed under certain circumstances, but when those times occur, I bet you will follow this unScriptural, nonChristian symbol without question. Beware, for you are following something outside of the Bible and it can lead you down the wrong paths. There are those who say it is harmless and others who say it is useful, but don't believe them. They are deceived about the true meaning of this symbol and the extent of the conspiracy that puts it everywhere in society.

I hope you enjoyed the little spoof. I'm going to be posting a few lessons in discerning truth and this looked like a good way to start since the Epsilon Chi Iota Tau does exist and does have the effects listed, but like Dihydrogen Monoxide, it is the presentation that makes the case for it being ominous. Discerning the flaws in this style of presentation will be of help in identifying false teachings, since nobody seems to teach these basics anymore.

Oh, if you got it, don't post the answer please, just enjoy the chuckle. If you haven't got it, go look up the Greek alphabet on Wiki. If you want to come back and argue about the letter choices, I'll know you didn't read the articles.

Even though it started with humor, this is a deadly serious subject. Lack of knowledge and inability to discern has left the Church in the shape it is in now. Heresies, cults, supposedly 'solid' Christian leaders compromising themselves in the name of pleasing their public, the face of Christianity being left to TV preachers who tell verifiable lies supposedly in the Name of Jesus. This is something I have put together as an outline of lessons, gleaning things from both older study and recent events in my life.

Stephen: Boldness

2008-12-18T21:53:00.002-06:00

Act 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

The Hebrew Jews were getting preference over the Grecian Jews. Hebrew = from Judah, Grecian = from outside Judah. Rather than give up prayer and evangelism, the apostles called for the appointment of seven men to see to the day to day business of the church and minister to the poor. Traditionally, this is considered the beginning of the office of the deacon. Stephen was a noted follower.

Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

The synagogue of the Libertines or Freedmen, was one of many Grecian Jews, including those that had been enslaved and then freed. It was probably the one of Saul of Tarsus and possibly presided over by Gamaliel of Acts 5, reputed to be the teacher (rabbi) of Saul. In their dispute, Stephen refuted them by speaking with wisdom and the Spirit. This points towards us being able to know and refute those who come with objections or seek a reason for the faith we have within us (1 Peter 3:15).

Act 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
Act 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Unable to refute Stephen, the Jews used false witnesses who incited the crowd and grabbed him and brought him before the Sanhedrin where false witnesses again charged Stephen with blasphemy. Stephen’s defense is listed in Acts 7 where he used his knowledge of the Scriptures to outline the history of the Jewish people from Abram to Egypt and Moses. Stephen then spent some time on Moses pointing out how the Jews had rejected him, then mentioned all of the prophets the Jews ignored or killed, even though all of these came from God with His message. This is similar in pattern to the method Paul used on Mars hill in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), except Paul started from Genesis and led to Jesus since he was speaking to Greeks who didn’t know Jewish history.

Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

As expected, speaking with the power of the Spirit and with wisdom, the Jews were condemned by the Spirit. Stephen’s vision again cut them, especially since Jesus was standing in the vision instead of sitting, symbolic of Jesus being ready to receive and greet Stephen.

Act 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

In their desire to no longer hear the words that the Spirit was using to condemn them, they dragged Stephen out of town without the formal verdict of the trial, as an angry mob and stoned him. Stephen remained bold to the end, secure in his faith, committing his soul to Jesus’ care and asking forgiveness for those who were killing him.

Freemasonry & Antimasons

2008-12-18T20:34:00.003-06:00

Once again, there is a swelling tide of antimasonic sentiment, driven by those that claim to be Christians. Again, the problem is lack of knowledge. I've been asked why I remain a Freemason in the face of such beliefs, since I might be the cause of a being a "stumbling block" to some of my Christian brothers and sisters who believe some of the chicken stuff about Masonry. There are several reasons:

1) No lie is of the truth and the Gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ needs no "defending" from any social group by lies. Antimasons who claim to be Christians lie. Some tell outright lies and others simply quote things out of context (and a text out of context is a pretext for a proof text), then build their edifice on this.
2) Many Scriptures are quoted to "prove" the point of the antimasons and in every case I've seen, the Scripture cited does not apply to Masons, but actually applies to the antimasons or requires special pleading for the special case of being used against Freemasonry.
3) As a lay apologist, I've dealt with atheists, Christ deniers, Christ mythers and other dubious sorts. They have a certain pattern to the way they present their case. I've recently studied a few heretical Christian groups beliefs and they share a similar pattern. Guess what, antimasons who claim to be Christian share those exact same patterns.
4) All of the big sources of "Christian" antimasonry have something to sell you. There is evidently some money to be made in a "ministry to Masons" or telling the "real deal". I've caught a couple of items online with antimasonic teachers/preachers who are giving a "real deal" expose of Freemasonry and amusingly enough, within a very few minutes, they let you know you can get the real "real deal" for a donation to their ministry either from the table on the back or by calling their toll free number.
5) Shoddy scholarship. I mean seriously, this is stupid. Dan Brown writing his fictional The DaVinci Code has better scholarship that these antimasons. The Christ mythers who claim that Christianity is nothing more than redone paganism have a lot better case (and you can knock that one over with a feather).

I'm sorry, I do not submit before the self appointed modern Inquisitors of the Faith. I don't care what denomination they are.

Blog Title

2008-12-13T08:05:00.004-06:00

Although the most direct source of the title of this blog is Proverbs 4:7, it is interesting that similar cross references can be found in the Bible: Psalms 119:104, Proverbs 4:5 and 16:16. To me, this is the key to the ills of the world today in all areas of life. Ignorance has been highlighted and people are proud of it with the attitude of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". People don't know history, whether it be the history of science, the history of religion, the history of philosophy or any other subcategory. They have not been taught to think for themselves and adequately discern information. Instead they live in a world clouded by FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) given to them by demagogues who "know what's best" for the "peepul" where the height of "instruction" relies on speaking vague innuendo with an unfavorable slant to it.

There was a reason for teaching the old liberal arts in school, it did teach people to research, think and draw rational conclusions. Now you often see lies being put forth that a tiny bit of research would uncover, but nobody knows how or they are unwilling (for good or bad reasons) to go any further in track down the sources. This results in problems because there is a lot of "smoke" in the air. Now while it is true that where there is smoke, there is fire, it takes discernment (secular or Christian, depending on the issue) to see if the smoke is coming from a firestorm or a smudgepot. Without knowledge, ability to discern becomes strictly limited.

With this lack, I'm seeing an increasing dependency among people in general to cling to authoritarian pronouncements that they accept without question. I'm also seeing more of attempts to simply remove "problems" without knowing the full details of the situation. Of course, I'm not guiltless in this situation, but then it isn't always a bad thing. It does save time if you can trust your people.

Basic Beliefs

2008-12-13T07:51:00.002-06:00

Inerrancy of the Scriptures -In accordance with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ's miracles
Belief in and waiting for His second coming to judge the world.

That does sum it up, although there may be a lot of details that can be asked about.