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.
Showing posts with label Beliefs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beliefs. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
A Case of Eisegesis
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
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:
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.
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.
Friday, September 4, 2009
They are without excuse
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.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why Apologetics?
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
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
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Bearing False Witness
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.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Election
This is something from C. H. Spurgeon's Morning & Evening devotionals for the evening of 29 July.
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.
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” - John 6:37From 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)
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?
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.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
"... according to the Light they have received."
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.
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.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Stumbling Blocks
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.
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.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Defending the Gospel: Using Doctrine
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Being "attacked" by Satan
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.
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.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
God said it, I believe it, that settles it
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.
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.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Blog Title
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.
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
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)