At Land's End

The Apostles' Creed: History and Theology

2011-12-13T09:47:00.000-05:00

The Apostles’ Creed: Theologically Acute

Councils and creeds are an undeniably critical part of Christian history. For centuries they have shaped the church and the faith, to the point that they even pronounced the terms of what could rightly be considered within the realm of orthodoxy, though never so as to replace scripture.

The Apostles’ Creed, as I will show herein, is one of the most acute and theologically dense creeds left for the church from antiquity. It also happens to be the oldest. Through an exploration of its history and theology I will show why this creed is the foundation for so many others that came later. I also hope to show why other creeds founded on this one earliest creed, though meaningful in their own right and context, are superfluous at best.

History

The legend goes something like this: on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles sat around the table, and after being endowed by the Spirit with the knowledge of all tongues, Peter said, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth;” then Andrew said, “and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord;” James said, “who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of Mary the Virgin;” John said, “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;” Thomas said, “descended into Hades, on the third day rose from the dead;” James said, “ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;” Phillip said, “thence He is about to come to judge the quick and the dead;” Bartholomew said, “I believe in the Holy Spirit;” Matthew said, “the Holy Church, communion of the saints;” Simon said, “remission of sins;” Thaddaeus said, “resurrection of the flesh;” and finally Matthias said, “life everlasting.”

As endearing as this legend might be, it is just that. There is no evidence to support this story of the creed’s origin. One must go to historical writings and documents of the early church (first, second, and third century) only to find mere morsels indicating the origins of the Apostles’ Creed.

Amongst tales of its use by the Roman church for baptismal candidates (a use that repeatedly appears) we find the earliest indication of the creed’s origin. Most likely, the Apostles’ Creed developed from this tradition where many early church presbyters record the ceremony of baptism, including creeds of similar form used in a question and answer format. It is accurate then to perceive from the evidence not a single writer nor date of writing, but a gradual development from a simple “do you believe in Jesus Christ…?” progressing gradually to add other statements of doctrine as the desire and/or need arose. This is as plausible a scenario as any since the facts of the matter do not lead us to an author. Neither does the creed lead us to any specific time period, though there are indications of the Apostles’ Creed as early as c. 215 A.D. in the Interragotory Creed of Hyppolitus, which is basically a transcript of a typical baptism ceremony. The baptismal candidate would answer, “I believe” to each set of questions and be submerged three times. Use at this date would necessitate an earlier date for composition (though as we’ve seen, speaking of a single date of composition is not very accurate), prior to 200 A.D. at least, if reasonable time were allowed for distribution.[1] 15 years would prove rather speedy for distribution and so an even earlier date could be asserted.

Arnold Ehrhardt analyzes the need for this creed in his 1962 article Christianity Before the Apostles’ Creed.[2] Ehrhardt deals with the ideas that this and other creeds were used to combat heresy, as a “test” of orthodoxy, and as a confession immediately prior to baptism. He shows logical evidence for the first two reasons (combating heresy, testing orthodoxy) to be rejected. It’s not that fighting heresy and testing orthodoxy didn’t happen and/or were not important, they certainly were as evidenced by the many ecumenical councils gathered to do just that, but that there is no evidence supporting the idea that the creed was ever used in this way. In support of this premise Ehrhardt enters into an exploration of scholarly research investigating how churches in other regions outside of Rome dealt with heresy, if at all. Surely, these churches confronted heresy according to the “rule of faith” embodied by the Apostles’ Creed, but this could hardly be said to be the creed itself. The Apostles’ Creed later proved to be useful in such things but was not used in this capacity right away.

What is certain is that the Apostles’ Creed was used for baptismal candidates in question and answer form prior to immersion. This use does not preclude the creed’s use in other forms, as nearly all of its statements can be attributed to early apostolic teachings from scripture itself.

At no time in the life of the Apostles’ Creed was it ever denounced as heretical, or rejected outright. It has, since its creation (however it was created), been a valuable tool first used as a means to interrogate baptismal candidates. Later it most certainly was used to guide the theological understanding of catechumens under such early church fathers as Augustine and others.[3] There are also reasons to believe that the Apostles’ Creed was not necessarily the mother of the large number of creeds we see today but was instead a sibling and influenced other creeds as such.

Theological Analysis

Since it is my assertion that the Apostles’ Creed represents all aspects of saving faith and, if interpreted in light of scripture which the authors most certainly had in mind, the defensive value of this creed regarding heresy does not require further refining nor revision, it would only be proper to enter into an exegetical analysis of not only the creed, but the source scriptures as well. I will not spend equal time with all points, as I am sure there are a great many points with which all Christians who reside within orthodoxy would agree. Instead I will deal at length only with those articles of the creed that have caused the most conflict over its life.

The Apostles’ Creed has taken a few forms over the centuries. There have never been large variations in its content either. For this reason I will be referring to the form cited below:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth,

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary,

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;

The holy Catholic Church;

The communion of saints;

The forgiveness of sins;

The resurrection of the body;

And the life everlasting.

In this form, the creed has every piece of agreeable and controversial doctrine that has ever appeared in it. Similar creeds surely have parts in common or perhaps missing, but this is inconsequential for the purpose of our study.

Among the more agreeable portions, we begin with the first line: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth. Referent to such passages as Isaiah 44:6 and 45:5 where God defines himself as entirely one, and verses such as Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, and Acts 14:15 (this last verse is in a divergent context, though the implication is still the same: God created everything) dealing with the creation account, here it is presented that there is only one who is over the entire universe, who created all things and appropriately reigns over His creation with implied authority and power. Though Christians through the ages have disagreed with the nature of this claim, finding division over the question of “how,” there is still unity in the idea that as Christians we worship the one God who is. That is, Christians have always asserted with no confusion or deviation that they worship the one true God who actually exists and who calls all things into existence. He is the self-existent one called “I AM” who has no beginning or end. Surely this first article of the creed would have called the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) to recollection for the classically educated Christian of the first and second century.

To say that this first simple line of the Apostles’ Creed would remind the faithful believer of so many passages of scripture is not to presume too much. Students at all levels, upon exposure to this creed, were most likely in one of the most intensive learning programs of their life. Whether the student was a layperson or catechumen, certain supporting scriptures would have been immediately called to memory as the words flowed from his/her mouth. In fact this was entirely the point of this creed. New converts as well as ecclesiastical trainees would memorize such things, not to simply recall the creed, but to be reminded of the words of sacred scripture from which the creedal profession flowed.

Later, the fight against heresy would bring this article of the creed to bear surely on Hellenism just as we may use it against postmodernism today, as well as any other belief system that fundamentally denied God’s sovereign authority and consuming creative power over the entire universe. In a modern context this first article could be effectively brought against Mormonism, specific to the claim that we may all attain to Godhood someday, if the proper criteria is met.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. Jesus Christ (Luke 1:31, 2:11); His only Son (John 3:16, Proverbs 30:4); our Lord (John 20:28, Matthew 7:21, Revelation 17:14). Not only does this line of the creed remind us of the name that is the focus of our adoration, but also the role He plays in the heavenly trinity, and the office He holds on earth. He is Jesus Christ, as that name given him by the angels, according to the Heavenly Father’s decree. He is the Son, only begotten of the Father. He is Lord of all, legally, by lawful purchase according to the now settled debt of all mankind. Lordship more expressly stated ensures that the Son owns those ones for whom He has paid in full.

This line is connected to the previous, realizing that the God of the universe, who is the cause of all things, has determined the just price, not according to justice as if it stood as something separate from himself, but according to the council of His own will as the one who defines Justice. He has determined the price, provided the wage, and determined its efficacy, in order that he might be just and the justifier or those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:26).

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary. Conceived by the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) (Luke 1:35); born of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-27). Preserving the mystery of the incarnation, the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary, and she was pregnant having never experiencing intercourse. Specificity is tantamount to the theological implications of this article. Jesus Christ was conceived specifically by the power of the Holy Spirit, not the Son or the Father. Understanding this line of the creed in the context of Luke 1:35 asserts the Trinitarian activity in the incarnation. If this verse were to be understood any other way than in a Trinitarian framework, any number of heresies could be dreamt up. Arianism is one example.

Mormons once again serve as a target of opportunity. Mormon doctrine says that God actually had physical sex with Mary. Specificity in the creed in this point corrects a multitude of errors. Mary was a virgin even at the birth of Jesus. Even if God had laid with her, she would not have remained a virgin, as the scripture is clear to repeatedly point out that she had not yet laid with a man and Joseph did not lay with her until after the pregnancy. Could God have had sex with Mary and miraculously preserved her virginity? Certainly, but since the text deals with both the miraculous mystery of the incarnation and the physical act of sex as two distinctly different things, there is no reason to assume one is the other or vice verse.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. Suffered under Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:24-26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:23-25, John 19:15-16); was crucified (Matthew 27:33-37, Mark 15:22-26, Luke 23:33-34, John 19:17-27); dead (Matthew 27:45-54, Mark 15:33-39, Luke 23:44-48, John 19:28-30); and buried (Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). The fact that Pontius Pilate was governor at the time of Christ’s crucifixion seems to be some what of a minor point, but it does provide key dating information and so testifies to the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts. That is to say the gospel stories actually happened within the context of the reality of first century Judaism and the Roman occupation of Jerusalem.

The essence of the gospel message revolves around these passages in scripture having to do with Jesus’ crucifixion, seen in scripture as the payment exacted against the innocent, for the sake of the guilty, presided over by the just judge of the universe. Understanding the former lines of the creed is indispensable to understanding this one line, and its strength when used against heresy. To progress from this into probably the most controversial line of the creed, one must understand that it was the punishment dealt by God that Christ agonized over in the garden, not the torture the Romans could dish out. God was the one doing the punishing, not the Romans. If this point is fully grasped, the cross is understood to be far more disastrous toward Christ than mere whips, nails, and spears could ever be. How could Jesus, the God-man, agonize over the same punishment later martyrs would endure while singing hymns? The answer is that Christ was subject to the wrath of the father, not the wrath of the Romans, on behalf of those whom He intended to purchase with His blood.[4] I realize I have repeated myself several times, but understanding this is ever so important if the discussion we are about to enter into is to make any sense at all. Once again, the Father damned Christ, the only one worthy of salvation, on the cross, turning His back upon Jesus as he cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Surely the words of Hebrews 10:31 (which hadn’t been written yet, but surely the Lord knew these words) were never more alive to Jesus than on that day.

He descended into hell. From this we may take up the space of several books, so for brevity’s sake I will represent the arguments of old and new, respectively pro and con.

Wayne Grudem takes up issue with this phrase and does not repeat it when reciting this creed in church.[5] First on his list of objections is the sketchy lineage of this one phrase. It is true, as Grudem points out, that this phrase was not part of the oldest form of this creed “The Roman Symbol.” [6] He accurately asserts that this phrase was added later. There are inherent problems with this view though. There is a logical flaw imbedded within his argument. Just because something is old does not necessarily mean it is right, and vice verse. Something must be tested according to truth, not age, if righteousness and doctrinal correctness are to be determined. The argument is entirely invalid in regards to determining doctrinal correctness. Bringing this point up seems to be merely an attempt to cast doubt in the minds of those who have not caught Grudem’s blunder. At the end of his article addressing this statement of the Apostles’ Creed he even admits that age does not determine correctness, not realizing the irony of his own argumentation.[7] This is not the totality of his argument, but it is an unhealthy beginning.

Grudem continues in his denunciation of this doctrinal phrase, adding analysis of scriptures such as Acts 2:27, Romans 10:6-7, Ephesians 4:8-9, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. In dealing with the first of these verses (Acts 2:27) he acknowledges the fact that the term “hell” (hades in the Greek) is often used to describe the grave or death in general.[8] He seems to be convinced by the implications of this to the verse at hand. This to meets with problems when one considers the preceding verses of the creed already pronounced Christ’s decent into the grave. To say this again would be a useless repetition. Grudem certainly assesses Acts 2:27 correctly, but fails to apply such scrutiny to his assessment of the creed. Acts 2:27, at the completion of his analysis, is rightly seen to have to baring on Christ’s supposed decent into hell.

The same accuracy is displayed by Grudem in his analysis of Romans 10:6-7, Ephesians 4:8-9, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. [9] So convincing is Grudem’s treatment of these verses, one is left wondering if perhaps there is any blatant statement in favor of this doctrine in the whole of scripture. After consideration of these verses, Grudem cites verses he perceives to oppose the idea that Jesus descended into hell. Luke 23:43 seems to suggest that Christ’s spirit when immediately to the Father, the very same day as His death. This is perhaps a presumptuous statement, as understanding this verse in that way largely depends on the placement of the comma by the translator; the comma is not in the Greek text. Changing the placement of the comma would change the meaning from Christ promising paradise that very day(e.g. I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise) , to Christ uttering these words to the thief crucified with him within the confines of that day (e.g. I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise).

Grudem’s interaction with John 19:30 also leaves much to be desired as well. He relates Christ’s cry “It is finished,” to mean that Christ’s suffering and alienation from the father was finished. Likewise, Luke 23:46 where Christ commits His spirit into the hands of the Father is said by Grudem to show that Christ immediately went to heaven. In these few points it would be helpful to first point out that Grudem assumes to know what “it” means in the context of John 19:30. What is finished, and why should we accept the idea that it was the bearing of our sin that was finished? Likewise, though it is agreeable and most likely given the context that Jesus’ suffering was finished as He uttered those words, “it is finished,” why can John 19:30 only mean that Jesus went at once into the Father’s presence? I am inclined to agree with a few of these statements, but it still remains that Grudem’s arguments are not convincing enough to alleviate difficulty. Does the opposite view, where Christ descends into hell, relieve such difficulty? Grudem’s assertion is not and it is clear that he would have this statement stricken from the creed; Calvin came to a decidedly different conclusion in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, 16.8-12.

Most all of the arguments I have shared thus far, I have repeated from Calvin’s own assessment of this evidence many years before Grudem.[10] Besides the logical and evidential arguments we have just been through, Calvin brings yet others of more profound relevance to the table. As I am surely not able to do justice to Calvin’s ability to expound upon scripture and doctrine in such an ageless fashion as he was, I will here summarize what is worthy of careful scrutiny within Calvin’s work. Namely, the gravity of the act of which we speak must be discussed if we are to find any meaning in this statement of the Apostles’ Creed. I described this premise just prior to dealing with the views on this article of our creed. Calvin presents the cross in terms of the punishment that was justly ours, that we have earned, and grace from which we have in no way merited.

One striking feature of Calvin’s scriptural interaction with this idea is that one does not see a single one of the verses outlined by Grudem. No, Calvin does not look for a verse that says, “He descended to hell,” as Grudem seems to want to find. Calvin’s method here is to understand the meaning of verses, use the meaning to develop understanding of function, and progressively build understanding upon understanding to form doctrine. From this Calvin considers questions, though not expressly asked, like, “what was the cause of Jesus’ trembling in Matthew 26:37?” “Was it human death that troubled Jesus’ spirit in John 13:21?” What does it mean to be forsaken by God, as Jesus questioned of the Father in Matthew 27:46?” There are many more questions like this that could be extrapolated from Calvin’s work. I would encourage my readers to examine for themselves both Calvin’s and Grudem’s treatment of this topic to see for themselves which one comes up lacking in potency according to understanding of scripture and logical consideration.

Once again for the sake of brevity, and to pay honor to the lakes of ink that have been spilled on this topic, I will leave this article of the creed with one last statement for consideration that will show where my thoughts fall in this debate. If we as Christians understand that “…upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,” (Isaiah 53:5), if we understand that his punishment should have been ours, yet through his grace and mercy our debt was satisfied by the payment of another on our behalf, we must maintain that He descended into hell. If we don’t, then we are saying that hell is not the punishment for wickedness.

From this point in the creed, there is not much in the way of doctrinal disagreement. I will cover the rest of the creed rather quickly, showing my thesis to be intact in the totality of the creed.

The third day He arose again from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:4). There is not much disagreement on this point. Even dissenting groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons still agree with those within orthodoxy on this point. This in fact is a pivotal point for all belief systems related to Christ that affirm His deity. Verses such as Acts 2:24 assert for us the fact of Christ’s deity and great power over even death, to the extent that physical death could not keep Him from accomplishing the Father’s will. This point is so important, that had it not happened, Christians would have forever been left with nothing to preach. Truly, there would be no Christianity, nor Christians of which to speak.

He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. He ascended into heaven (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:11); and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty (Mark 16:19, Hebrews 1:3). Christ’s ascension into heaven marks the acceptance of the sacrifice, confirmed by Christ’s placement at the right hand of God in the position of honor. Scripture says that he engages in prayer, interceding for believers before the Father. How this happens and what it means is handled differently by some of the groups I have mentioned previously, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. The ways these groups interpreter these verses does not correspond to the rest of the creed, nor scripture, and though one view may seem plausible at one point, the ways in which they treat this verse usually seem to betray a proper understanding of the Trinitarian relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (1 Peter 4:5, John 5:22). At this point, once again we see that few disagree, but many differ as to the function of this scriptural truth. Indeed Jesus will return. It seems that none who assert the heavenly worth of Christ disagree on this. Within orthodoxy there are wildly differing ideas of when, how, where, etc. Pre, post, and mid-tribulation views have strengths within scripture, as well as weaknesses. Though disagreement abounds regarding the specifics, orthodoxy maintains, according to scripture, that Christ will return to judge all people, to include peoples of every nation, language, region; indeed not one person will be left out of His judgment, not even the dead. This article stresses the scriptural reality that Jesus’ righteous judgment transcends even death. The only exception I can think of is once again the Mormon view. They insist that the judgment is not for people, but is that time when God will finally cast Satan and his fallen angels into the pit; judgment is not and never was for humans according to Mormonism.

I believe in the Holy Ghost. (John 15:26, John 16:7-8).

The holy Catholic Church. (Galatians 3:26-29).

The communion of saints. (Hebrews 10:25).

The forgiveness of sins. (Luke 5:23, Matthew 9:5).

The resurrection of the body. (John 11:43-44, Matthew 28:6).

And the life everlasting. (John 10:28, John 17:2-3).

These articles I have gathered together because of their close proximity to each other in the context of our creed and also because they represent the things Christians must do or experience. Not to do or experience any of these is to be decisively not Christian. Some are more obvious than others (e.g. forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting). Without these, there is no claimed benefit to Christ’s sacrifice. These three have to do with the merit of Christ’s work, not our own. This is why, as expressed in Romans 3:27, boasting is excluded from the reality of the Christian. For if we boast then we do so on behalf of another’s work and our boasting is therefore not prideful, but proper worship of God. Because of Christ’s righteousness and sacrificial forgiveness, we are compelled to forgive. For as much righteous condemnation as we hold against another, Christ holds more towards us yet He forgave. Because of the authority inherent in Christ’s identity, we will be resurrected, according to the faith he caused in us. It is Christ’s work alone, finding no cause what so ever in us for honor, which guarantees these things. Ultimately, the believer would be considered a saint, cleansed by the blood of Christ, in which case this title ceases to be earned, and becomes a gift awarded to the faithful, who God chooses. This is no the consenting view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that is thankfully the exception.[11]

The Christian, irresistibly compelled by the Spirit, will always be gathered with other believers (communion of the saints). This was called the “Catholic” church. In the context of our creed, Catholic simply means universal. The idea of a universal church is truly the embodiment of the formation of this creed. The universal church would gather under these doctrines as outlined in the creed and expounded in scripture, as reassurance that all those within the “walls” of the church were brothers and sisters under the one provision of Christ. This universal church was not a call to open the floodgates to all creeds, but to sift the waters so to speak. Belief in the universal (Catholic) church assumes a gathering of people who find no disagreement in these fundamental doctrines.

Conclusion

It is clear that all parts of this creed work together to support each other. No article stands alone on its own merit, but is evident in scripture, in light of the implications of other doctrines emphasized throughout the creed. I have shown how many areas of this creed have been used to combat heresies of every sort, though this does not seem to be its original intent. Used in baptism, historically the creed functionally gathers under the eighth and ninth articles in its use to preserve the purity of the church as it is understood though scripture.

I believe that the reason this particular creed has survived the test of time with so few revisions is due to its doctrinal purity. The beginning of the creed gathers steam and energetically drives the reader’s focus to the central portion where Christ is discussed. Christ is presented in truth and represented as powerful to save those who had not the capacity to save themselves. Ramping down into the last six articles, the result of Christ’s work is briefly, yet meaningfully stated if these last statements are understood in context of what the creed previously dealt with.

In light of the enigmatic history surrounding the Apostles’ Creed, it is ironic that not a single Apostle probably ever had a hand in authoring any part of the creed. In light of this, and understanding that the legend of its origin is merely anecdotal, I think it would be more appropriate to maintain that this creed accurately represents apostolic teaching. This would make it acceptable for the name to remain while also giving due honor to the timeless theology found within its lines. My conclusion then is this: all elements of Biblical orthodoxy were adequately and sufficiently stated in the Apostle's Creed and therefore subsequent creeds, though useful to observe historic creedal development, are not theologically viable over and above this earliest of creeds. This is not to say that other creeds are useless or wrong, as much as it is to say that they owe much, if not all, to the Apostles’ Creed.

Bibliography

1. Augustine, Aurelius. “The Creed: A Sermen to the Catchumens,” trans. Rev. C.L. Cornish, M.A.

2. Berthoud, Alex L. "The Apostles' Creed: the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints." International Review of Missions 45 (1956): 429-435.

3. Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” vol. 2; (16.8-12)

4. Ehrhardt, Arnold. "Christianity before the Apostles' Creed." Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 74-119.

5. Grudem, Wayne A. "He did not descend into hell: a plea for following Scripture instead of the Apostles' Creed." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 103-113.

6. Holland, David Larrimore. "The earliest text of the Old Roman Symbol : a debate with Hans Lietzmann and J N D Kelly." Church History 34, no. 3 (September 1, 1965): 262-281.

7. Lake, Kirsopp. "The Apostles' Creed." Harvard Theological Review 17 (1924) 173-183.

8. Miller, Patrick D. "Rethinking the first Article of the creed." Theology Today 61 (2005): 499-508.

9. Scaer, David P. "He did descend to hell: in defense of the Apostles' Creed." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 91-99.

[1] David Larrimore Holland, "The earliest text of the Old Roman Symbol : a debate with Hans Lietzmann and J N D Kelly," Church History 34, no. 3 (September 1, 1965): 262-281.

[2] Arnold Ehrhardt, “Christianity Before the Apostles’ Creed,” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 74-119.

[3] Aurelius Augustine, The Creed: A Sermen to the Catchumens, trans. Rev. C.L. Cornish, M.A.

[4] David P. Scaer, “He did descend to hell: in defense of the Apostles’ Creed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 92-93.

[5] Wayne A. Grudem , “He did not descend into hell: a plea for following Scripture instead of the Apostles’ Creed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 103.

[6] Ibid, 103.

[7] Ibid, 113

[8] Ibid, 107

[9] Ibid, 107-112

[10] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2; (16.8-12)

[11] David P. Scaer, “He did descend to hell: in defense of the Apostles’ Creed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 91.

Driscoll: Creation Sorts...

2011-09-11T10:43:00.000-04:00

The scriptural data on creation has several views described by Mark Driscoll in his book Doctrine.[1] This is a critical analysis of those views within the framework of what I hold to be true regarding the testimony of scripture. I hope to show not only what I believe is in accord with scripture, but also why it is the most reliable position, and to demonstrate a mature and well-considered analysis of the text.

If I am to be honest to my convictions and transparent regarding my beliefs, I testify here that I am an adherent to “young-earth creationism”. I hold this belief because of the clear evidence of scripture taken in context with consideration for the possibility of other interpretations. Other interpretations have failed to sway me for various reasons. For example, Historic creationism falls on it’s face when we consider that the text certainly may allow it, but the author most likely did not mean for a breadth of time to be considered when he wrote “beginning.” Why? No I do not read or speak Hebrew, but if we look at the word re’shyth (translated beginning) we see that its semantic domain contains beginning, first, chief, choice part. If we look at the flow of thought and realize that even though “it does not connote any specific length of time, nor does it necessarily mean that the next thing stated follows immediately”[2], the narrative does. This is most likely why the translator used “beginning” for this occurrence of this word, knowing that the word “beginning” for the western mind connotes a sequence. The narrative here is sequenced and therefore re’shyth here is aptly used as the beginning of said sequence, where the next occurrence is God commanding light into existence. There are places where one could impose a lengthened period of time on the text, but this is only allowed by what the text does not say. This is the same approach espoused by William Lane Craig[3] and the adherents to his form of philosophical molinism where God looks down the corridors of time and foreordains only that reality which has the potential to yield the most people restored to God, as God chooses not to impose His will upon a supposed form of human libertarian free will. That is a mouth-full, but it is in the same predicament as historical creationism. Scripture never states anything remotely close to molinism, but the text doesn’t deny it either. What the adherent to these axioms finds themselves doing is playing a dangerous game of dancing in the areas where scripture is silent, and somehow verifiably defining them. That is one example of my objection to one of the listed positions on creation posited by Mark Driscoll; my objections to the others are similar and based on the same sort of scriptural analysis.

What of the “biblical difficulties” Driscoll projects onto the young earth view? There are some distinctions that must be made, which Driscoll seems to gloss over. This first difficulty is Driscolls treatment of the creation of light as synonymous with the creation of the sun. These two are separated intentionally in the text. Driscoll imposes “Biblical difficulty” by assuming that the sun was the only thing having the ability to emit light and therefore no light could have existed before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. Further “difficulty” is enumerated in the related error that morning and evening couldn’t have existed without the sun and moon. If we allow the sequencing of the text to speak for itself it becomes clear that evening and morning where descriptive of the waxing and waning of light and dark, and not so much the heavenly bodies called sun and moon as of yet, for they hadn’t yet been created. If anyone is able to separate the sun and moon from the light and the dark, it is our God who is the One who causes them to shine, who gives source to their light. As is evident by my examples of how I interpret these texts, my approach is more literal than Driscoll is prepared to accept.

One issue I had not yet considered is the treatment of re’shyth as an extended period, thereby allowing for an old earth and young humanity. I have not been persuaded by this view of the creation account, as I have already explained. This brings itself to bear on the topic of the age of the universe in the same manner as molinism relates to the text of scripture: scripture merely allows it. Scripture far from intends it. It is more reliable and scripturally sound to assert that “the heavens” effectively means “all else outside of the earth. This is supported later in scripture when “the Heavens” are enumerated, including the entire universe. This too is not outside of the semantic domain of shamayim (the heavens) and in fact is a more likely treatment of the word in context.

That being said, I also find issue with the suggestion that all of this must be reconciled with an old-earth view. An old-earth view is certainly not the measure of relevance and meaningful commentary on creation. To the contrary, an old-earth view is an adaptation for supporting an evolutionary view. A discussion on this topic should rightly address what God’s creating “every creature according to its kind” means, as well as an analysis of the opposing data regarding micro/macroevolution and the effective limitations and realms of observable operation of each.[4]

As can be seen by my stated position, the issue of Biblical authority in this debate is one that is manifest throughout but hardly addressed in an adequate fashion. Or perhaps it seems that we never hear from the folks who can adequately handle the scriptures in such a capacity as to display the foolishness of any other position besides the Biblical one. This is the true power of scripture. Not that every word is true. To be sure it is! But the power of the text is in the fact that a learned approach, with insight into the subject at hand fundamentally asserts the impossibility of the contrary and leaves the one asserting the negative to be grasping for proof, while the word is found to be a never-ending well spring.

Bibliography

1. Driscoll, Mark Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe

Wheaton Ill.,: Crossway 2010

2. Lane Craig, William Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

[S.I.]: Pearl Pub. 1995

3. Alpha and Omega Ministries. “Evidence for Special Creation From Scientific Evidence.”

http://vintage.aomin.org/specialcreation.html (accessed August 24, 2011)

[1] Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe

(Wheaton Ill.,: Crossway 2010)

[2] Ibid, 90

[3] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

([S.I.]: Pearl Pub. 1995)

[4] Alpha and Omega Ministries, “Evidence for Special Creation From Scientific Evidence,”

http://vintage.aomin.org/specialcreation.html (accessed August 24, 2011)

J. Daniel Hays: "Principlizing" or Sound Exegesis?

2011-09-11T10:35:00.000-04:00

In his article “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” J. Daniel Hays presents what I would assert is the most profoundly revealing method of Bible analysis academia has ever produced.[1] Founded not upon what one may arbitrarily think a verse is saying, nor upon what is keenly new from an old text, but from a well informed position of history, literary analysis, and contextual consideration. Presented here is no “new” method, and neither is this rightly called “principlising”, as the author terms it. What this is called is no less than sound exegesis of the text, where one reads from the text and not into it (eisegesis) seeking to uncover that which is hidden by the expanse of time, that which is separated from us by the rift of culture: the author’s (both earthly and heavenly) intended meaning. Only from this stand point can we come to the proper, and same conclusion Hays does when we find a universal principle, bridging the old and new testaments, which Hays rightly points out, “These universal principles will often be related directly to the character of God and His holiness, the nature of sin, the issue of obedience, or concern for other people.” Truly the only weakness in this method is from that of the one using it, as we all have presuppositions to which we are sometimes blind, or those by which we are blinded. This method effectively gives the user the best chance at neutralizing their bias, and least chance of emotionalizing or misinterpreting scripture. Why? Because the “universal concepts” are inductively revealed by word meaning, sentence structure, history, culture of the time, etc. in the best and most consistent manner, the author’s message is thereby preserved and honored while the reader’s own ideas of what the text is saying are thereby minimized and he/she is brought into submission to the true meaning of the text.[2]

So, bringing all of that to bear on the subject of the Old Testament’s validity today for the New Testament Christian; it is evident that the text is not in contradiction but harmony. When the text says that the law shall not pass away (Matt 5:17) and then seems to contradict itself when it says that believers are no longer under the law (Romans 7:1 - 6; Galatians 3 - 4), and given the well exegeted treatment of the text by Hays, it is clear that what the law displays of God’s character and holiness will never pass away. That is how the law itself can be no longer valid and yet we turn to it to understand who God is in His immortal qualities; not seeking to obey laws, but seeking to know and love God as we are empowered to do so by the spirit.

This method put to task on Leviticus 26:1-11 brings us into a conditional covenant between God and the people He has freed from slavery, whom He provided for in the desert, a people known by God’s own name. In nationally bearing the name of God there are requirements placed on this nation which may have seemed odd to others, but the Lord merely explains them here by saying “I am the LORD your God.” This is to say that the universal principle is one of God’s decree and righteousness. Merely by virtue of who He is, He is able to command in righteousness that His people do “xyz” no matter how ludicrous it seemed on the surface. He is God, and what He decrees to be pleasing unto him is what will ultimately please Him, and what He decrees to be an abomination is exactly that. These things exist as either good or bad by virtue of God’s decree to make them so. So God expressly states here, do what I tell you because I say so and I am righteous and holy, or you will not reap my blessing.

This is expressly stated by God to be a conditional covenant, so the conditional clause “if” is the portion of this that no longer applies. For later, as in the past, we see that Israel at no time lives out the terms of the covenant. However, God is merciful and later extends a Royal grant to a people who have no other hope and who merit only destruction, a covenant where His own character is at stake if this covenant is to be broken.

This is where the personal application is found; in realizing that any one of us, at any time, according to our own covenants, would be found damnable, and God by virtue of His holiness wields such mercy as to provide a way of restoration for those who could not otherwise survive His righteous judgment. I realize this in my own life as I am unable to live a day without sin, and yet God has cast my sin upon the kipper that I may live and glorify my father in heaven.[3]

Bibliography

1. J. Daniel Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” Biblical Studies.org.uk

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html (accessed September 7, 2011)

2. Duvall, J. Scott and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

3. LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: Willian B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

[1] J. Daniel Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” Biblical Studies.org.uk

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html (accessed September 7, 2011)

[2] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 87-96

[3] William Sanford Lasor et al., Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: Willian B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 96-97.

Why is she autistic?

2011-06-11T22:23:00.000-04:00

My wife brought up an interesting question today which prompted me to be only distantly present during our lunch as my mind raced with the makings of this blog post.

She asked me:

With reformed theology's focus on God's holiness, where is His love?

To put this question into context, we (my wife and I) were saved using the sinner's prayer administered by the pastor of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) church we were attending at the time. As I have pursued my education (BS in Religion, and soon an MDiv) and sought to be consistent in my view of reality and understanding of Biblical doctrine, as spiritual head of my family I have lead us into Reformed Theology (note: we do not believe in infant baptism), which I understand as the only Biblical position one can hold and remain logically, epistemologically, and existentially consistent. Such a system entirely relies on who God is first and foremost. Only then can one glean a proper understanding of His work, in light of His character and attributes. On the basis of this, I will answer the question.

God is holy. No other characteristic of God so totally and entirely describes His being and essence. So consuming is this attribute of God that it defines every other aspect of His character. His will is a holy will; His wrath is holy wrath; His love is holy love; etc. Assuming that you already know what holiness is (otherness: i.e. the consuming uniqueness of God by virtue of His perfection and existential self-reliance), it follows that one would wonder what, or who that makes us (His creatures). In more places than is wise to list here the Bible clearly tells us that man is exceedingly wicked. We don't even have the capacity for good apart from the work of God, who alone is good and imparts such goodness unto His people as He sees fit.

So the reality of human existence is such that God is holy, and we are, by His sovereign decree, wicked and deserving of punishment. You say, "that makes God the creator of evil." Indeed. And here we come to the crux of my writing. What is the purpose of evil, if any? Why do we go through trials even while praying for mercy, only to continue to endure the same thing, as if we weren't praying at all? There are serious implications to how one answers these questions, and others of similar nature.

Did God create sin? YES! If you answer no, then you inadvertently imply that there is a force at least equal to God, the likes of which He can only hope to influence, but never actually succeeds. If you answer yes as I have , you are met with another question. Why would God create sin and then punish people for doing it? This is really two questions. The first is answered by realizing that God has a clear purpose for even sin and evil. Sin and evil and the punishment thereof, as created by God becomes purposeful as the means by which God displays His justice. The second is answered by understanding that God created sin and its punishment so that he would display himself to be just and the justifier (Rom 3:26). He created rules, defined the punishment, then created vessels of wrath for destruction, and vessels of mercy for glory (Rom 9:19-24). Truth be told, both (vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy) end up glorifying God. Vessels of wrath are destroyed, making God just; vessels of mercy are glorified, making God graceful.
The objections to this position illustrate an unwillingness to allow God to be autonomous and instead limiting Him to what we (those who know no good) consider good. This bears itself on my personal situation in a way that only now, with the full force of a reformed perspective, makes sense.

As most of you probably know ( and if not you do now) I have an autistic daughter, and one borderline son, and the probability of more to come as we continue to have children. My wife and I have wrestled with the big questions in this. Did we do something wrong? Why did God do this? Did God do this, or is it Satan, or neither? What if we pray, will things change? I could go on but I think you get the point. The same questions can be asked in the loss of a child or loved one, an unforeseen debilitating circumstance, and on, and on. Again, you get the idea.

The type of theology which starts with human free will has no meaningful ability to stand up to such inquiry. Not only will it require the undue misinterpretation of scripture, but what you end up with is a conclusion you can't live out, or one which doesn't comport with reality. Without tearing that position down, I will here tell you how the Bible guides us to deal with situations like this.

So my daughter is autistic, which is the result of original sin in the Genesis account. It definitely is not a perfect state and therefore is aptly classified as evil, as in not good; not that my daughter is doing anything bad, but the condition itself is a sign of evil in the world, or at least a less than favorable situation. My wife's question was "where is God's love in reformed theology" in the context of our daily hurt in dealing with autism.

If God is sovereign in the sense that there is absolutely nothing He is not in control of, and more so, there is nothing of which He did not foreordain, then this autism could be seen to be caused by God, in an ultimate sense. How does the believer deal with God seeming to be cruel and sadistic? If we believe the Bible when it says that God is Holy (Isaiah 6, amongst others), and we believe that God has planned this by virtue of His sovereignty, then there is only one question left to ask. Can I believe God is good even in this? The answer is, and must be yes. For God's love is found perfected so much the more through a reformed perspective in that, God, the one who alone is holy and sovereign, has declared the believer to be clean through the payment of another. The essence of the gospel is that Christ died on our behalf, therefore God remains just as the sins of those He has elected are paid for, and loving in the sense that He would have been perfectly just if He freely chose to destroy everyone by virtue of their sin. God did not have to save any, but He saved some to glorify himself. This is love as the Bible describes it.

Understanding the nature of the one who has saved us by understanding the nature of first ourselves, and second our salvation we may then understand our trials and the discomfort God produces in our lives.

Why is my daughter autistic? I don't know. But I trust that the sovereign God who spared me from destruction according to the riches of His grace (not the riches of my merit) has a holy purpose for such a situation. Romans 9 handles this situation beautifully. Do I judge God for creating Stephanie as she is? Certainly not. Instead, I realize that He is judge and has judged her state to be pleasing to Him somehow. I don't understand it, just as I wouldn't understand it if I lost a child, but I understand my sin enough that His love displayed in my salvation through faith in His son trumps the discomfort He may put me through. I, the pot, may not look to the potter and ask "why did you make me this way?" Likewise, I, a pot, may not look to the potter and ask "why did you make this other pot as you did?" For if I did beloved, I would surely be satisfied by His holiness, and terrified by the same, saying as Isaiah did "woe is me, for I am undone! I am a man of unclean lips, and I live amongst a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Or again, if I presume to confront God as Job said he would "as a Man" then I will surely be brought low when confronted by the one who laid the foundation of the earth, who commands the dawn, who knows the dwelling place of the light, and surely I shall answer "once have I spoken, I speak no more" lest God challenge me to "adorn yourself with eminence and dignity, and clothe yourself with honor and majesty." Let it not be so LORD.

Let it never be said LORD that you don't answer prayer, for prayer is not meant to let us receive anything (for what more could you give than our salvation) but instead to bring our disobedient hearts into submission under your will through the power of communion with the in dwelt holy spirit. Amen.

The God Delusion Ch. 2 (Cont.)

2011-06-07T20:52:00.000-04:00

On page 58 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins my reading was brought to a screeching halt.

"During the Roman occupation of Palestine, Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus..."

This statement is made in the context of lumping all the "Abrahamic" religions together (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

The absurdity of both statements is evident if one is compelled to be consistent in their treatment of evidence, however let us first consider the post-modern position. Before we can even ask the question "did Jesus exist" we must first realize that modern methods of identification did not exist in the days Jesus supposedly existed. This lends itself to the reality that to "prove" someone existed one would have to consult outside sources of a reliable nature to establish any possibility of existence, let alone an assurance. This is the post-modern position at it's finest. Who can be certain anyone existed before traceable and documentable means of identification? By this reasoning post-moderns assert that not even Socrates certainly existed, so we simply can't be sure Jesus did.

From this I am left with the question, as usual, how? How can we know for certain that Paul existed and Jesus did not? The same sort of evidence exists for them both, so if Dawkins' position were consistent, he would also have to discount Paul. However, since he doesn't do so, we clearly see here his bias towards evidence standing in the face of what he has already decided is true and/or adequate evidence.

It goes without saying that Dawkins discounts the most reliable (based on its track record through history, archaeology, general science, etc.) source of evidence: the Bible. Although given Dawkins' brief (and sorry) synopsis of the history of the three Abrahamic religions, I am not at all surprised to find his treatment of history to be lacking as well.

The assertion "Jesus never really existed" is the only way I can make sense of such an absurd claim as the one I have quoted above. You may have noticed I did not cite any sources in this short response. I have done that so that you can search for yourself. Because not everyone has access to the sort of resources it takes to do this sort of research, I suggest my reader to go to google, type in "Did Jesus ever exist" and start reading. This is where it gets tricky. Read...and think about what is being said. Don't take a few facts someone has written about history as the entire story. Use your intellect and think what that means, how did the author come to his/her conclusions, what are their sources. Sources come in three different sorts:Primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary, in the context of Jesus' existence, would be something along the lines of Pontius Pilates' own journal (if he kept one) detailing his meetings with Jesus as recounted in the gospels; or perhaps King Harod's journals describing his meeting with Jesus. Since such resources are scarce and in other languages when available, a secondary source would be someone's translation and commentary of these items. Tertiary sources would rightly be everything else.

By these standards one may come to the first realization that the Bible is one of the few primary sources for evidence of such things. However, because of the popular (and entirely implausible and inconsistent) belief that the Bible is not to be believed, this source is discounted outright, without ever considering its stature in the community of ancient texts.

The same technique (i.e. thinking about and applying history, not simply reading it) applied to how the Bible was written, preserved, and transmitted yields the reality of why the Bible is the single most reliable document on the face of this earth. Not just because God wrote it (and He certainly did), but because of the manner by which he did so and the natural mechanisms (which He created to begin with) He used in so doing.

I hope you can see that it is the theist who calls you to use your intellect, and the atheist who asks you to just blindly believe.

The God Delusion Ch. 2

2011-05-23T08:34:00.000-04:00

It is somewhat refreshing to know where one stands, however with Dr. Dawkins as he relates to the Christian, the refreshment is lost with the categorization of the entire Bible as fiction. Such categorization only seems apt and deserving when the Bible is approached from popular knowledge and opinion, however this is not the position from which Dr. Dawkins is claiming to approach. He claims a scholarly perspective. I will be just as refreshingly open as to my stance on this second chapter of The God Delusion and tell my readers that Dr. Dawkins here again exhibits a lack of understanding of what Christians believe according to scripture, neither does he display any real understanding of the transmission and preservation (on the part of God as He has power over those systems He created, to work IN them and not always AROUND them as some would prefer christians to claim) of the same.

Just as I ended my last chapter review, I will begin this one by pointing out that Dawkins here resorts to name calling. I will once again ask how this qualifies as scholarly writing? Without listing all the names here, it will suffice to note that Dawkins has no concept of the self-defining, self-existing God of scripture. Even if one does not believe in creation; does it logically follow that one who creates a piece of art has no right to do with it as he/she pleases, even to the extent of destroying it? Of course he/she does. Such is the case with God as He is revealed in the Bible. He alone is free, and He alone is judge. The name calling shows Dawkins' desire to judge God, and thereby he confirms the message of the Bible. People, at their very core, desire to be God; that is why the idea of a sovereign (in the most full sense of the word) God is so appalling to most. How dare God think He can control my life, decide my future, tell me I am wrong, tell me I've sinned, make me feel bad, etc.? No! How dare we think He can't do exactly as He pleases with His own creation. We do not judge God, even if we attempt to or desire to. He remains Holy, as a matter of propositional truth.

Amongst these names is one of the most blatant emotional appeals I have read, given the context of modern culture. Dawkins calls God a homophobe. So according to Dawkins God is afraid of homosexuals. Surely by utilizing the benefits of his doctorate Dawkins could somehow explain why, according to the Bible homosexuality is wrong. Is there room in Dawkins' system for a God who makes rules...and then keeps them, under threat of punishment? Is this not what we do as parents? We make rules we expect to have followed, communicate them clearly, and then inflict punishment when they are not obeyed. I am confused as to the sort of God Dawkins is implying would be better. Would he prefer a God who makes rules, communicates them clearly, and then institutes no punishment against subsequent transgression? I'm fairly certain Dawkins would have a problem with that too. Paul Washer puts it this way:

"If a judge let a proven rapist go free because he wanted to be forgiving, you'd be appalled and would cry out for justice. By all accounts that judge would be as bad or worse than the rapist him/herself."

Why must God exhibit injustice to be counted as a God worthy of honor and praise in our eyes? God punishes those who sin. He must or He ceases to be God. This by no means counts as unforgiveness, but justice.

The logical discourse I just displayed could be put to good use for each title Dawkins wishes God to assume. This name calling is also merely the false judgement of a man who hates the very idea of God, who will not allow for the acknowledgment of any sort of accurate representation of the other side, and who therefore argues against himself. I say again: Dawkins thus far fails to present interaction with Biblical Christianity.

Jealousy is the next charge upon God, and one to which He happily admits. God is jealous in the sense that there is no other like Him and therefore none other deserves honor and glory as He does. We see jealousy as a bad thing because there are others around us who deserve attention, fair treatment, equal consideration, etc. Who else is there with God? Are there other equal beings of whom God must consider the feelings? Are there other gods with whom God simply doesn't want to share, and so His jealousy is pernicious? Obviously I don't think so (according to scripture). But what is odd is that Dawkins later states that the idea of polytheism is, in his eyes, just as absurd as monotheism. So Dawkins couldn't be saying that there are other gods of which God should consider. The only thing left to imply is that we are somehow equal with God and he therefore owes us equal consideration and fair treatment. But does the Bible say we are equal with God so as to expect equal treatment? No. Do Christians believe we are equal with God? No. So one must ask, why is this a valid accusation? It is empty, just as the rest of the list of labels.

Finally a definition!

"any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."

Though I rejoice in the appearance of a definition, I am disappointed in its assumption of authority. One must ask, why should this definition stand as authoritative? Why must it be that a creative intelligence comes into existence only as the end product of an extended precess of gradual evolution? Should we just take your word for it Dr. Dawkins? Forgive me but I am less than inclined to do so given the state of your work thus far, and there are certainly no end notes to refer me to any meaningful research on this definition. From here, neither is there any exposition on the proposed definition; it becomes an assumption upon which Dr. Dawkins continues to build to his climax where God is evolved, and therefore a late-comer in the universe (note this is one of the few times Dawkins does not use a capital "U" for universe), and therefore a delusion, and can't then be responsible for designing anything.

Since Dawkins defers this line of thought to other later chapters I will hold any in depth comment, except to say that there is no defensible evidence for the sort of evolution to which Dawkins refers, where one species becomes a completely different one. I will also say that even if there were this sort of evidence, the logical conclusion does not disqualify God, but requires Him more-so.

Dawkins asserts that the Christian should warm to polytheism because of the doctrine of the Trinity, saying that this should be the case because our explanations of the trinity are non distinct, as he quotes Thomas Jefferson. The first objection to this is happened upon when the reader realizes that Dawkins uses, not scripture as an accurate statement of what is truly believed about the trinity, but repeatedly refers to the Catholic Encyclopedia and certain other monks/theologians of past centuries from the pages of the same encyclopedia. Is the Catholic Encyclopedia a primary source when it comes to scripture? No. Certainly not. Scripture itself is the primary source, especially when commenting on what is contained therein. Short of going into a lengthy synopsis of those scriptures which deal with this topic of the trinity, I will simply say that this, again, is not Christianity Dawkins is addressing but his own presumption of Christianity. For a clear and reasoned treatment of the scriptures and history relevant to the doctrine of the trinity I refer you to The Forgotten Trinity by Dr. James R. White or here for a more brief discussion. In contrast to Dawkins' work which carries no references to supporting research which might solidify his position and satisfy the mind of the inquisitive reader, Dr. White's work does not fail to provide at least adequate references to appropriately support the assertions he makes. In the claims made by Dawkins on the trinity, one need only ask "why" when he presents such quotes as:

"Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them, and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." -Thomas Jefferson (God Delusion p. 55)

Again I ask, why? Why does Thomas Jefferson, and so in agreement, Dr. Dawkins assess the trinity to be non distinct? We are not given an indication as to the founding of this assertion, so all we have here is a meaningless opinion, which as Dawkins pointed (though in the context of religious expertise), could well have been founded on the 'consultation of fairyologists' for all we know.

"The other thing I cannot help remarking upon is the over weening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor could have, any evidence." (God Delusion p.55)

And again, why? Ignorance of the evidence, sir, does not constitute a lack thereof, but an unwillingness to engage with the content of said evidence. The purposed disqualification of scripture (i.e. evidence) and the means by which it is indeed reliable and accurate only demonstrates straw man argumentation and unwillingness to address the real issues thus far.

Seeing as how I have only made it to page 6 or so of a 50 page chapter, and the next section brings up some rather surprising issues from he first sentence on, I will stop this post here and continue my review of chapter two in the next few days.

Book Giveaway!

2011-05-17T19:39:00.000-04:00

After a year or two of the sorriest blog traffic ever, I have decided to have a giveaway. I will be giving away Letters to a Mormon Elder by Dr. James White of aomin.org.

First entry: leave a comment here on this post (not on facebook).
Earn one extra entry for each of these:
- tweet this giveaway with a link
- facebook this giveaway with a link
- follow my blog

Please leave a separate comment for each one you do. Winner will be randomly selected using random.org.

Giveaway starts now and will close June 1, 2011 at noon EST.

The God Delusion Ch. 1

2011-05-09T16:21:00.002-04:00

As I review the first Chapter of The God Delusion I am disappointed to be hearing the same old tune. A tune which we are coaxed to believe is accurate and true. I mean, one who has an advanced degree is presenting this material and you would think this one has learned to do research, and learned to think inductively...right? Sadly no.

After a short anecdote, a quote from Darwin, and Carl Sagan (of which I will comment on later), we find a quote from Steven Weinberg. As a side note, it is interesting that these people’s credentials are sourced in their own work (advanced degrees) or others noticing the like (Nobel Prize). This is the source of their authority, as if that somehow trumps, or even competes with the source of Christian authority.

Steven Weinberg says “Of course, like any other word, the word ‘God’ can be given any meaning we like.”

I’m afraid not Dr. Weinberg! Words have clear and indisputable meaning. Perhaps what Dr. Weinberg meant was that we are free to choose the semantic usage of any particular word? Even so, the only one endowed with that freedom of choice is the original user of the word. However, when we choose the words we use to communicate some meaning, we stand the risk of using them improperly; as does our readership and/or listeners stand the risk of assigning wrong meaning to our words. In such a case, the one using words in err or the one hearing/reading words in err also stands the risk of being corrected. Dr. Weinberg’s statement is a wonderful example of this. Yes, we are clearly able to ascribe the word ‘God’ to anything we like, but we also may very well be wrong, as compared to those authoritative documents which clearly communicate God’s attributes and character. Just as one who asserts that Green Eggs and Ham was written by William Shakespeare is able to easily be proven wrong, so can Dr. Weinberg. Like Dr. Weinberg, one who wishes to ascribe any meaning to any word must thereby realize that the consequences of their desires destroys any meaning of any word. No word has clear meaning, so everything then means nothing outside of what the reader/hearer wants it to mean...or it means everything (semantically) all at once and then loses any authority of meaning. This is the post-modern, relativistic view at it’s finest. Everything centers around the meaning one finds for oneself, but that meaning isn’t and shouldn’t be the same for everyone. Meaning no longer exists, but those of us who demonstrate clear meaning in language and find reasons why any one word can’t mean the other semantic usages in it’s domain are labeled intolerant, disrespectful, and ironically ignorant, amongst other colorful language. Alas, words have meaning, whether Dr. Weinberg, Dr. Dawkins, or anyone else wants them to or not. In the Christian context the word God has a very specific meaning which is so repeated in scripture that one wonders if any of these men have read the Bible. If they have, they are being dishonest to what they have read; if they haven’t, they are being dishonest about their research. Which is it?

What Dr. Dawkins does a great job doing is explaining what he sees atheists as believing. However, one is left with a nagging question. Who cares? Who cares what people believe? Upon what authority is that belief founded, and is the information accurately represented as to support such a belief? These are the important questions. So much of the first chapter of Dawkins’ book assumes the authority of science as interpreted by whomever, Ph.D. holders, Nobel Prize winners. While I admit these people have expertise, they lack any real authority. Likewise their beliefs and statements lack any real authority. At best they refer back to other people. I say this so confidently because all of science points back to God, and therefore Dr. Dawkins’, and Dr. Weinberg’s authority is false and empty.

“Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply.” - Dawkins

“What most atheists believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values - in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.” - Julian Baggini

These statements also beg the question, who cares? Christianity does not rely on “Great scientists” or “most atheists” for its authority, so why do these statements matter or have bearing on the subject? The answer is THEY DONT, which is the very definition of a straw man argument. Once again, Dawkins fails to engage with Biblical Christianity. Without enumerating them (because there are far too many), further statements in this chapter call into question “religion” as a field (though I have never heard of such a field...rather Theology would be the field Dr. Dawkins is speaking of. Who ever heard of a Religiogian? More like Theologian). Other statements try to associate Catholicism with Christianity, as if they were synonymous, when they aren’t even similar. And still other comments seek to rob ‘religious faith’ of rational justification.

I hope I have demonstrated the lack of rational justification of Christianity as it seeks to read and use words accurately and honor the writer’s original meaning. If this is a lack of rational justification, I wonder what is Dawkins’ justification? We shall see in coming chapters.

NOTE: If you are reading along with me, you will do well to notice that Dr. Dawkins’ source for defining God, faith, religion, etc. is “what most (people, christians, deists) believe.” No reliable source has been used and no analysis of ANY religious primary documents has been offered. Doctoral caliber research??? This sort of material would not get me a ‘C’ in even an undergraduate class.

Did you know that unbelief is even an option?

2011-04-26T11:45:00.001-04:00

No further into The God Delusion than the preface to the paperback edition (which is the first of two prefaces) do I come across endlessly repeated misrepresentations of Christianity. I here only address Christianity because I don't believe in other systems, and truthfully would hold them to be as damaging. That being said, and only considering how this book interacts with Christianity, allow me to comment on those misrepresentations.

At the very beginning we are met with the assessment of anyone who says "I am an atheist, BUT", or the related statement "I used to be and atheist, but", to be "unhelpful, nihilistic" and "suffused with a sort of exultant negativity." So there can be no meaningful and/or reasoned position within such a view as Christianity. It is discounted at the outset. This and a few others are the faulty presuppositions upon which both prefaces precariously perch. I will agree with Dr. Dawkins, that far too many use this statements referenced above as some sort of credential, so as to say "you should listen to me because I am coming from your point of view", or some thing similar, but on both parts (Dawkins' and the one making the statement) there is a fundamental ignorance of where epistemic truth comes from. Dawkins presents a straw man argument here (although he says its not later in the preface, he fails to state why it's not). It's a straw man argument because both Dawkins and Christians believe that that statement is no basis of authority, as it is most often attempted to be used. For the Christian, the Bible is the Epistemic basis of truth, and therefore what other Christians are doing or saying is irrelevant. Nothing is here gained by Dr. Dawkins' assessment of these statements. They are therefore truly meaningless, and hardly damning.

Dr. Dawkins states that those of us who believe have never realized or been told "unbelief is an option". Really? It's that easy? Thank you for relieving me of my ignorance Dr. Dawkins. I never once considered that my faith was the result of the inadequacy of our (do you mean ours [America] or yours?) educational system. Clearly I am too ignorant and poorly educated to grasp those things which I've studied, think on them critically, and apply them. Unbelief is an option?! Brilliant!

Much to the contrary, such an assessment is intellectually dishonest as it dismisses weighty, meaningful arguments at the outset by labeling them as unhelpful and nihilistic. Dr. Dawkins couches his convictions of stupidity, ignorance, and dependency in the assertion that what he is saying is not shrill or intemperate when compared to food critics, a sampling of whom He then quotes on page 16. I can't help but think that even in their abrasiveness the food critics are at least honest. They want us to know they didn't like it, and more accurately hated it. Yes, there is a bit of exaggeration there, but the message is an honest one. A better comparison of Dawkins to a food critic would be one who says "I didn't like your food, but you're too stupid to know that making anything better is even an option." Dawkins disguises such statements (unbelief is an option) in this manner to ease the blow and stroke the ego, hopefully making the hearer/reader more apt to listen. Spare us!

Granted these were just he prefaces, but if Dawkins insists on finding an epistemic basis for the truth of Christianity in what most Christians think or do or say, I am afraid the rest of this book will be simply addressing objections that aren't really there...the very definition of a straw man. There is no demonstration of even an attempt to understand the Christian position, so Dr. Dawkins goes to bat against something which he has constructed and therefore knows how to demolish. This is not Biblical Christianity that Dawkins presents.

Both of Dr. Dawkins' prefaces (without considering the convictions of stupidity, ignorance and dependency) can be combatted with the simple retort: "have you ever considered that belief is an option?" It will be disappointing if the full force of Dr. Dawkins' doctorate, as applied in this area amounts to these few straw man arguments. I refuse to think that Dr. Dawkins can't understand, and I will not call him stupid, but I will say that perhaps he won't understand, which is an indication of the assertion of his will in accordance with his clear bias. I continue to read and remain hopeful, however knowing what I do about the author and his work, I doubt that things will get better as I progress.

Chapter one coming soon.

Richard Dawkins' God Delusion

2011-04-11T07:06:00.000-04:00

As an off shoot of my last post, oh so long ago in January of this year, I will be reading Richard Dawkins' God Delusion. As I read I will respond to each chapter as best I can, taking into consideration the arguments and subjects used therein.

Since you all know that I already stand at odds with Richard Dawkins' work, it is rather obvious that I will be presenting refutations of Dawkins' arguments, answers to his questions, and hopefully (if I can find resources) counters to his research. My goal will be to show how even someone like me (barely educated compared to Dawkins), using a Biblical position and that as my presupposition, can show such people as even Dawkins to be the embodiment foolishness itself (1 Corinthians 3:19).

I will use the same sort of contextual analysis I do with the Bible to do my best in representing Dawkins position accurately.

Stay tuned in...this should prove interesting.

Instinct, Faith, Routine

2011-01-01T00:37:00.000-05:00

I will approach these words with the following presuppositions:

1. The Bible is historically accurate.

2. The Bible is internally consistent

3. The Bible is reliable as to what is observable in reality, with respects to both believers and unbelievers.

Since these things are empirically provable and have been demonstrated over and over again to be propositionally true; such presuppositions are safe and equitable over and above any other view founded in relativity. In fact, all other views, at least partially rely on God's identity as revealed in the Bible as a basis for their assertions. Since this is off topic I will leave such a discussion for a later time, suffice to say that the Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Muslim, etc. relies on God's identity, as described in the Bible, for the very existence of their argument, as they all appeal to morality, and principles of which God is the author.

That being said, when I hereafter refer to God, I mean specifically God as He is described in the Bible.That God whose identity is not merely love, but more-so holiness, justice, and righteousness as those qualities which define the context of His love. I will also hereafter combine Agnostic and Atheist positions, since both represent a desire to equate self as God. So, when I say Atheist, I also mean Agnostic. Since I presume this to be the position of my audience, and to promote focus and specificity, I will not address other religions aside from those I have just mentioned (Atheism/Agnosticism).

Instinct

In Genesis we read the account of original sin. Here first, and many times after, is demonstrated man's innate sinfulness as Adam and Eve both follow the leading of the serpent to eat of the tree of the the knowledge of good and evil. Why? In Genesis 2:5 we see that Eve, and then Adam both ate of the forbidden tree for many reasons, the culmination of which was their desire to be "like God." Early in the Bible we come across the reality that people, when left to appeal to instinct, will seek to be God: absolutely free and autonomous.

The desire to be God transcends all of humanity as we observe atheists who deny even God's existence and reality alike, yet appeal to morality in a construct of relativity where morality cannot exist except individually, and therefore not at all in the context Atheists use the term. Since morality is then relative, the individual becomes God to self, determining what is right, wrong, just, unjust, etc. After which, if the Atheist is being consistent in his/her view, no morality can be imposed unless approved by their God: self. Since each one would then have their own morality, ultimate morality breaks down and ceases to exist. As we have now uncovered, the Atheist's appeal to morality is the very definition of inconsistency. In their appeal to ultimate morality Atheists assert that each one holds their own morality

Does the Biblical position present a cure for such inconsistency? Certainly! Since, according to the Bible, it is the innate condition of man to be sinful to the last, ultimately seeking to be God if not influenced by an outside, more powerful force; we here have a sufficient explanation for "instinct," or what I am treating as "what man does naturally."

To explain further, God created each person with a knowledge that He at least exists. Simply through observation of the world before us (Science) everyone has sufficient knowledge to know that God exists as a propositional truth (Psalm 19). Because we all naturally seek to be autonomous and free as God, we suppress that truth through our desire for power. Even going so far as to try to control God, which is an abject impossibility. From the perspective of people being innately sinful and seeking to be God, the Bible presents God’s decree against that, His system of diagnosis, and His prescription treating it.

From the Bible we have the innate sinfulness of man and instinctual desire to be God. God decrees that we “shall have no other God’s before me” (Exodus 20:3). God does not qualify this decree, and therefore applies it to all things which we could and/or would offer dedication and worship to, including ourselves. Since we are at best sinful and seek to be that which God decrees (as sovereign creator) to be evil, we have all wronged Him and must therefore make amens.

The declaration of God’s Lordship (represented in the name Yahweh, I AM) is one of power over all creation and therefore bears itself upon believers and unbelievers alike. Both believers and unbelievers share the same nature (instinct): sin. Because the Bible teaches that Jesus is God (indeed the three of the trinity are one in essence), then we see that God has authored sin (as a means by which He may display his justice), provided recompense (payment for sin, making sinners righteous, thereby displaying his mercy) for those He has foreordained will believe (elected; showing his power and sovereignty to cleanse only those whom He wills). Those whose pleasure it is to bask in sin, people whose great pleasure it is to submit to God’s election in their disbelief will ultimately believe and be the ultimate means by which God’s justice is demonstrated as He punishes evil.

Therefore salvation comes by God’s declaration of the depth of man’s sin (i.e. man’s instinctual nature to be content in depravity), the influence of God’s spirit upon that sinful one so much as to impress the gravity of that sin, and the power of God’s spirit to produce a change in that one towards greater purity over the course of a lifetime, so the sinful person more and more hates the sin they once loved and cherishes the God they once hated. This is not evidenced by a prayer someone says on any given day (i.e. the sinner’s prayer) but is evidenced by the believer’s willful adherence to God’s standards as presented in the Bible.

So we see here a system based on God’s identity, which works to effectively address the consequences of instinct. Are there consequences to instinct? Surely! Certainly one cannot assert that in our highly social world, that via the relative appeal to morality, one will surely not impose their own morality on others? If one interprets the actions of another as against their morality, would it be wrong to seek an apology (i.e. recompense)? If yes, then the consequences will come in the form of animosity between the two parties (the wronger, and the one wronged) or something similar. If no, then the consequences will manifest in the “wronger” feeling poorly about his/her actions, or perhaps the “wronged” not receiving the apology and consequently feeling betrayed or taken advantage of. Whatever the outcome, there are certainly consequences which speak to the inconsistency and absurdity of such relative standards. Contrastively, God’s standard serves to address and relieve the ultimate consequences of man’s instinct, and gives cause for equitable treatment of others since each one is no different than the next: a sinner. And since Christians don’t know who the elect are, and since they know of the depths of their own wickedness, they are commanded to tell everyone of Jesus’ work on the cross, and thereby be the means by which the elect are called to repentance. The key is to think not in terms of what man is free to do, but what God is free to do. For apart from God’s absolute sovereignty we are, can do, and will be, nothing.

Faith

In the construct of God’s identity, the standards of living He has revealed in His word, and the power of His decree to preordain (elect) those who will be in heaven, faith ceases to be that thing we use to explain our doctrine, as if to say “I believe it because I have faith.” NO! I believe it because it’s true, which produces faith within me that the things I have no capacity to logically deduce (such as miracles), or that which I cannot see (such as heaven), will make sense, and I will see. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” What is hoped for? What is not seen? Does this possibly refer to the existence of God? No, because we are told elsewhere in the Bible that all people have sufficient knowledge of God’s existence. Why then, would this verse be saying that faith is exercised to produce belief in God’s existence? The answer is that this verse does not say that. Since the author of this book of the New Testament is speaking to Jewish people (Hebrews, and thus the name of the book) who believe in God anyways, and since the author never expressly argues for the existence of God but uses it as a presupposition, it would follow that this verse is talking of things (specifically the raising of the dead) which require faith to believe. So the argument here is something to the effect of “because we know God exists, and because the scriptures are true, we have faith that only through Jesus may we enter into heaven.”

Then the author goes on to explain how people like Abraham and Moses would be credited with saving faith. Just as Christians today cannot explain the inner workings of how Jesus remained fully God and yet fully man, but accept such a conundrum by faith, Abraham and Moses accepted similar things by faith, which I have already demonstrated is based on the repeated support of empirical data. The nature of that data would have been different for Moses than it would have for perhaps Paul, but the end result was the same because the data had the same cause and overwhelmingly pointed to the same verdict.

So faith is not how we believe, but the means by which we believe the more spectacular claims of the Bible, as we are supported in all other areas by hard evidence which imputes it’s truthfulness into those same spectacular areas in scripture.

The Atheist would do well to point out that truth cannot be imputed in such a way, yet we in America use the very same standard in court when determining the authenticity and reliability of a document. I agree that this supposed imputation is logically flawed, but is that not synonymous with the definition of faith I presented to begin with?

Routine

If by routine you would join me in defining it as that which is normative for the Christian, I would have to turn to such books of the New Testament as 1 John where we are given the way by which one may observe regeneration (change in one’s desires from being content to continue in sin, to the desire to honor God by obeying His word) in the life of one who professes salvation has taken place.

Therefore routine for the Christian is such things as letting go of any ideas of success which are foreign to the Bible, not trusting in their ability to ear money for their sustenance but trusting God’s identity and promises, unreservedly loving other members of God’s elect no matter what, fighting against the urge to sin in the same ways and frequency as you once did, loving the God you once hated, etc. Truly then, routine becomes almost anything that makes the “rest of the world” take notice, and most often say “you fool” or something equally abrasive. For the world knows not the father, nor does it desire to. In fact the Bible says that the one who loves the world and it’s ways is an enemy to God. So that is routine to the Christian, hating the world and it’s principles and touting God’s above all, even unto death if needs be.

You notice that I did not say that sinlessness is routine for the Christian. Indeed it is much to the contrary. Sin is very much routine for the Christian, as it is for the unbeliever. However the Christian has the motivation and the means to sin less and less, whereas the unbeliever is a slave to sin. The unbeliever serves their sin, while the believer, through God’s influence and power, persecutes their sin. And because of the perfection of God as displayed in the person of Jesus Christ credited to those whom God has chosen, believers will be forgiven of their sins as a demonstration of God’s mercy, while unbelievers (evil) are punished as a demonstration of God’s justice. So the position of the believer is infinitely better than the unbeliever.

This is not the same as pascals wager. There is indeed a God. He is the God of the Bible. There is no two ways about it and therefore no wager.

Conclusion

What is the connection between all this? It is the very essence of the gospel: the fact that Jesus died as a payment for sins we all commit, he arose from the dead as the fulfillment of a promise and as a display of God’s power over even death, and that He provides reconciliation to God for only those He intends to.

So the question is not about instinct, faith, or routine. As Paul Washer tends to put it: The questions is, as you have been reading about the gospel, has God done such a work in you that you are ready to die to self, hate the sin you once loved and love the God you once hated? If so, then go now and produce fruit in accordance with repentance! (i.e. go read your Bible, pray to God, and obey His word). If not, I encourage you to call out to God as if your life depended on it, because it does. Ask him to save you. If he doesn’t answer, ask again. If he still doesn’t answer, ask again. And again, and again, and again, until he either saves you, or you go to hell. You’ll either be saved and absolutely know it, or you’ll ask for a lifetime and one day go to hell and then know. Either way, God will be good, God will be righteous, and God will be holy, for he is the same yesterday, today, and always. No matter what or whom anyone wishes Him to be, He will remain the God of the Bible.

Peter & John Vs. Joseph Smith

2010-12-17T23:55:00.000-05:00

It is the purpose of this paper to illustrate the differences between Peter and John’s unschooled state in the context of Acts 4:13, as compared to the Mormon assertion that Joseph Smith was unlearned as he endeavored to comment on all of scripture. Specifically, I will demonstrate how Peter and John were endowed by the Holy Spirit in such a way that it gave them the ability to communicate the truth of scripture so that the Jewish leaders could not disagree, though they were gentiles and had never even set foot in a temple school. In contrast, I will show why it is uncharacteristic of God and unsupported by Christian scripture, relative to the situation surrounding the nature of Joseph Smith’s knowledge, that God would uniquely endow one who had the means to study and understand that which God had already revealed in His word.

Mormon Scripture Exegesis
According to Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5, those things a Mormon prophet says under influence of the Holy Spirit are recorded and held as scripture, in addition to The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, etc. Therefore it is no small task to search through the volumes of text to find pertinent information. However, it is all touted as scripture, considered by Mormons to be equal to, and in many cases greater than the testimony of the Bible. The following will be a fair and equitable analysis of these texts.

Historical Context
Joseph Smith testifies by his own words that his family experienced an increased level of religious excitement in the place where they lived. So intense was this excitement that many people were converted to various denominations, and Joseph Smith and His family found themselves wondering the same thing as most other people of the time: “which church should we join?” According to The Pearl of Great Price this question seems to have manifested more individually in the Smith family, and therefore found young Joseph Smith more-or-less on his own to determine his own mind on which church to join. Rightly so, this lead him to follow the advice of the book of James and enquire of the Lord.
Aside from what Joseph Smith did to settle this unrest in his mind, what was the nature of the excitement in mid-1800 northern New York State? A new preacher with a startling and controversial new style had begun preaching and managed to stir up such a frenzy that at one point his preaching style almost cost him his life. This new preacher was the former Lawyer Charles Grandison Finney. In 1824 Charles was ordained into the Presbyterian Church and began his ministry in the area that is today known as “the burnt over district”; this name is suggestive of the fact that people in this area were fed up with religious discussion due to the fervor experienced in a relatively short time.

In The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith testifies to religious excitement being stirred up around his fifteenth year, which would place the activities in the year 1820, and perhaps extending into 1821. Compared to the disturbance Charles Finney instigated as he began preaching in 1824, and the somewhat local vicinity of Finney to Smith, it would be safe to assume that these two men are recalling the same events, from the same area of the country, around the same time. The language in The Pearl of Great Price, as communicated by Joseph Smith himself, is rather vague and could feasibly account for the discrepancy if one were inclined to believe that statements such as “during this time” actually represent a number of years. Suffice to say that the record of this book of Mormon scripture (The Pearl of Great Price) is not in agreement with established historical records which place this religious excitement closer to Finney’s first use of an alter call.

If we proceed with the understanding that the religious excitement was most likely caused by a number of factors, the largest of which, given the Smith family’s vicinity, was Charles G. Finney. Such a deduction is safe when considering the time-frame, locality, and the claim that parts of Joseph’s family joined the Presbyterian Church during this time; the very denomination of which Charles Finney was an ordained minister.

What we should gather from this deduction is that the Smith’s were at least aware of, and/or familiar with Finney’s doctrine and the emotional responses he seemed to effortlessly generate. Such a time would be volatile, confusing and troubling even for one whose faith was firmly decided, let alone one as undecided and unguided as young Joseph Smith. Who amongst us at age fifteen is prepared to tackle such deep and profound thoughts as those of eternity?

Literary Context
When considering the many statements made regarding Joseph Smith’s knowledge, we are afforded the luxury of having the Mormon scriptures originally written in English. While this would be debated by a faithful Mormon, who would undoubtably bring up the point that the gold plates were written in something called Reformed Egyptian (though there is no record of any such language or writing) and later translated by Joseph Smith under guidance of the Holy Spirit, we do not have the plates to verify the accuracy of their translation (as we can do with the Christian Bible [Gen.-Rev.]) because they have supposedly been taken back to heaven. I will therefore consider the English language as the original form of these texts and derive meaning from its usage by Joseph Smith in the context of typical mid-1800 usage, which has conveniently not changed much. This will be an equitable treatment of the text because Joseph Smith’s translation is considered by Mormons to be perfect due to the translation act’s divine nature.

Joseph’s own mother (Lucy) states of his academic practices, “[Joseph] seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.” This statement seems contradictory at first glance, unless the reader consider’s that Lucy was using the word “study” to mean contemplation, instead of the accepted modern usage relating to the work of a student. So the statement here is that young Joseph was given to deep thought. This is supported by the noun “meditation” which precedes “study” and lends the idea of prolonged thought. Thought on what, we are not told. However, if we consider that according to his mother’s account, Joseph was not overly compelled toward the “perusal of books” we can safely gather that the content of books was not uppermost in his mind.

Does this ambivalence toward reading extend to the Christian Bible? It is hard to say. Immediately before the aforementioned quote, we read that Joseph likely received religious instruction at home, one would assume from his parents. There is no commentary on whether or not Joseph enjoyed this instruction, was a good student of the Bible; truly there is no qualifying statement which would lend itself to the assertion that he was instructed properly, or effectively, or that he actually heeded the lessons. Would it be presumptuous to think an 8 year-old boy could hear a lesson, and yet not grasp it? Of course not. The testimony of the reality of even our own schooling corroborates that much. None the less, the context of this passage communicates that Joseph had nothing more than a common knowledge of the Bible, typical of most children of the time. There certainly is no language in the cited passage to suggest some sort of great knowledge beyond that which was common place. Moreover, the language of the passage is meant to communicate Joseph’s average and humble beginnings.

Also commenting on Joseph Smith as unlearned is Marion G. Romney, cited from page 37 of the April 1946 General Conference Report, “Some people have said that Joseph Smith was an unlearned man . . . in the things of the world, but the day he came out of the grove, following the first vision, he was the most learned person in the world in the things that count.” The context of this statement is difficult to determine since I was unable to find anything more than this quote from this General Conference Report, but if we allow it to speak for itself we can asses some things in a fair fashion. First, the translation of the plates reportedly didn’t take place for quite some time after the first vision, so Smith couldn’t have been given the knowledge required to translate the plates at the first vision. If he was, this is not indicated in any Mormon scripture. Second, in the first vision it was revealed to Smith that none of the denominations he was considering joining were true, and that he should not join any of them. This is hardly all-encompassing knowledge of “the things that count.” In verse 20 we read “and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.” Perhaps this is where the knowledge of “the things that count” is accounted for in the context of the first vision? Whatever was said and classified as “many other things,” we’ll never know, and neither did Marion G. Romney know.

John Taylor also comments on Smiths learnedness in a Deseret News entry on July 30, 1884; an article which seems to be missing from the Deseret News’ online historical archive. Taylor says, “Joseph Smith was . . . uneducated when he was a boy. . . . The Lord took him into His school, and He taught him things that I have seen puzzle many of the wisest scientists, profoundest thinkers, and the most learned men” (The abbreviation indicated by “...” in this case is not my own but from the cited source). This quote at least accounts for the passage of time and does not limit itself to the context of the first vision, thereby allowing for the context of subsequent divine visits. Since I was unable to find the original article I cannot determine the context of how Taylor uses “uneducated” except to say that it would appear he is using it in a general sense. If that is the case then he would be discrediting Joseph Smith in the sense that Smith attended school and could hardly be considered uneducated in the general sense of the term.
What all this evidence gathers to show is that the claim to be unlearned has absolutely no bearing on whatever subject to which the Mormon user is attempting to relate. Since there is no other explanation for this term to be used over and over again, it would seem to the Biblical Christian that the Mormon is attempting to present Joseph Smith as equal to the Apostles (who are described as unlearned in Acts 4:13) in order to lend credit to their system as being Christian. Can this connection be made accurately? No matter the answer, how can one tell? The answer is in the same treatment I have given the Mormon scriptures, brought to bear on the Bible.

Bible Exegesis on Acts 4:13
We enter the book of Acts after reading of Jesus’ death and resurrection. As a second book written by Luke, Acts serves almost as a continuation of his gospel. Jesus ascends into heaven, Matthias is chosen to replace Judas who dies in a most gruesome fashion in the middle of the field he bought with the money eared from his betrayal of Jesus. From this point there is a promise of a helper that is to soon come, which is the Holy Spirit. We read of the Spirits coming and endowment of the disciples on the day of Pentecost and the conversion of 5,000. Peter heals a beggar, and then he and John are arrested for preaching Jesus to the people. They are brought before the Sanhedrin to be questioned regarding the healed beggar and Jesus.

Historical Context
The sole source of spiritual learning in the times described in the book of Acts was the Jewish temple. There, a boy of verifiable Hebrew birth would be schooled in the scriptures and proper doctrine from the Torah, the Prophets, and Writings. Also, one would be taught to adhere to the law carried down by Moses in order to be Holy. Only a boy of proper birth could participate; others were called gentiles and were bared from attending. By this context we can see why the religious authorities of the time would have been surprised to hear Peter and John quote Psalm 118:22. These were gentiles who had never been to the temple schools, and yet they displayed a proper knowledge of the Jews’ most beloved devotional book. In this way the apostles were unlearned, yet endowed by the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ, to speak the truth of scripture.

And, lest we forget, these were the very ones who put Jesus to death, and indeed held the power to demand Peter and John’s lives, and yet they were courageous in the face of such authority. Two poor fisherman were now before the Sanhedrin in almost a teaching capacity.

Literary Context & Semantic Analysis
In verse 13, the pronoun “they” is referent to the “rulers, elders and teachers of the law” from back in verse 5. “They” saw Peter and John’s courage. Another condition “they” observed was that Peter and John were “unschooled”. These two conditions (courageous, and unschooled) instigate an action in the members of the Sanhedrin (“they”). The verbs “astonished”, and “took” describe the actions of “they”. Given the context of the cultural norms in the temple, “they” were astonished that Peter and John were so courageous and knowledgable, for unschooled gentiles being questioned by those who could legally kill them. “They” were astonished and took [note]. Of what? They took note that Peter and John were with Jesus. Why is this stated? Why does this have anything to do with Peter or John’s knowledge and/or courage? The last phrase of the verse gives us the only explanation for the courage and knowledge Peter and John displayed. They had been with Jesus, under his tutelage; he who stood before the Sanhedrin in the same way, who suffered death and yet conquered it by raising again to life, therefore they had no fear of death for they knew its master, and they had learned at the feet of the author of all things.

So the literary context bears forth two key words of which we would do well to rightly explore the meaning and semantic domain: unschooled, and courage.

Looking at the term “unschooled”, we see that this is the one and only time this term is used in the entire Bible. That, in itself has no bearing on the task at hand except to say that the meaning and semantic usage will be extremely limited. Truly, the usage of the greek word agrammatos carries the sense of not having a formal education. Given the historical context, the only formal education available at the time was in the temple schools. So the meaning of the citation of agrammatos is rightly translated as unschooled, although the translator could communicate slightly more effectively if “formally” were added, bearing out “formally unschooled.”

If the term unschooled (agrammatos) is a laser, then courage (parresia) is a flood light. Throughout the New Testament, this term is used to express the confidence, courage, assurance, boldness, and fearlessness of those who rely on Christ as their Holiness; sometimes even being used to describe the manner by which we are to approach God’s very throne, as those who are clean and therefore parresia. Likewise, those who exhibit such parressia communicate openly, clearly, and publicly. All this is true of Peter and John as they spoke before the Sanhedrin and the “they” took note of it, crediting it to them being with Jesus.

Conclusion
All of the aforementioned points, considered together, show how the attribution of unschooled regarding Peter and John is a statement of fact, not opinion. It is a fact that Peter and John had not been to the temple school. Indeed they were not allowed! What’s more, is that this has immediate influence on the content of the communication in this verse. And what’s still more, is that the truth would still remain and be weighty in the meaning of this verse, even if this had not been stated. Peter and John were unschooled, whether or not the verse said so, because they were gentiles and were not allowed into the temple schools. This is significant because they were being questioned by the equivalent of Supreme Court Judges. It would be similar to entering into your own defense in the Supreme Court against a team of not just great lawyers, but the judges themselves, and yet mastering their profession, with no training what so ever, so thoroughly as to force an acquittal.

By comparison, the attribution of unschooled,or uneducated, or unlearned to Joseph Smith has, by the very same method of analysis, been shown to be very much opinion. Not only has it been shown to be opinion, but also very subjective and relative to the one making the statement. Furthermore, in no way does it further the intent of the communication in any meaningful fashion what so ever.

In the case of Joseph Smith, this information is merely to relate a similarity between Smith, and every other person of that era. A great many people were farm raised, poor, with an average education, at which they managed average grades, and set about afterwards to average means. While Joseph Smith in no way set about to average means, it was not in any way due to some association with his humble start. Neither was his supposed selection as the seer of this vision based in any way on his background, or humility, or claimed unlearned nature. The information that Joseph Smith was supposedly unlearned is superlative at best, and malicious at worst in that it would seek to connect a wholly un-Christian system to Christ’s very namesake.

While this Mormon claim of Smith as unlearned communicates similarity, the Christian citation of the same unlearned state in Acts 4:13 seeks to point out differences. Truly to accentuate them. The point of Peter and John being unschooled is to point out the difference between them and the members of the Sanhedrin; to make an example of and condemn those who are learned and confident of their own works, compared to those who are confident not of themselves, but of Christ and who He is.
The two passages could not be more different. One seeks to unify, the other to cleave toward Christ. One is meaningless, and the other indispensably meaningful. One compliments nothing (not even itself), while the other compliments the whole of scripture.

Not much more can be said, except: the evidence speaks for itself.

Bibliography
Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Christianhistory.net. “Charles Finney: Father of Americal Revivalism.” p.1.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/evangelistsandapologists/finney.html

Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints - Seminaries and Institutes of Religion. “Church History in the Fulness of Times Institute Student Manual.” Ch. 2 - Joseph Smith’s New England Heritage.
http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-01-05-2.asp

Doctrine and Covenants. Sections 21 & 135.
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament?lang=eng

Goodrick, Edward W. and, John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Joseph Smith Resource Center. “Witnesses/Apostasy.”
http://lds.org/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=4061001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&topic=%2FResource+Center%2FApostasy

Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History. “Extracts From the History of Joseph Smith the Prophet.” History of the Church Vol. 1, Ch. 1-5.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

2010-11-06T16:18:00.001-04:00

Now that I am faced with the end of my military career, I would like to share a few things that I've learned...

1. Sleep is in fact optional. Many a days have gone by with little to no sleep and I have managed fine with the right attitude. Attitude over aptitude!

2. The same goes for Food. The human body is far more physically resilient than we realize or experience in our sheltered modern life

3. Pain does not have to be shown. However this does reap the consequence of disbelief once serious injury results from such cover up.

4. A plan does no have to make sense to be effective; all it requires is belief and/or obedience, preferably both. Efficiency is another story all together.

5. Artificial enthusiasm goes a long way in some cases, both professionally and personally.

6. Though not the optimal circumstance; the greatest lessons we learn are most often by witnessing the wrong way.

7. Most often, the right example goes unnoticed and unrewarded and is poorly substituted for what is easy. Doing right needs to be internally motivated and not based on reward.

8. Discomfort is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary for growth.

9. There's the right way, the logical way, and then there's the military way (which frequently makes most people go, "huh?").

...last and certainly not least...

10. No matter how thick an institution's doctrine, people need a reason outside themselves, and outside the institution for that matter, which causes them not to be the butt-heads they are naturally.

More Premortal Existence References

2010-09-06T16:49:00.000-04:00

I want My readers, as well as Sofia to know that I have found the rest of the Bible references Sofia has given in support of premortal existence. I will soon be posting each in turn, giving each a serious and sober consideration based on proper context (historical, cultural, and literary) and lexical study.

Continued in private

2010-09-04T13:44:00.000-04:00

As you can see by the title, this post will be a series of private messages my Mormon friend and I have exchanged since I inadvertently offended. I have gotten consent from my Mormon friend to post these messages in their entirety so that all may learn from our exchange and those in each faith may be strengthened by the following:

In response to the comment (note that the confrontation was settled politely) left on this note (Exegesis of Jeremiah 1:5) on Facebook, originally posted to FB Aug 16, and first commented upon on Aug 19; continued in private...

Justin:
Before you publicly denounce me as misrepresenting Mormons, perhaps you should have come to me in private, as I am to you, with your concerns. I am still interested in a meaningful exchange, but if you feel that is unwise, I understand. I have two requests, no matter if you choose to end our correspondence or not:

1. Please tell me exactly how my research is misguided as to shadow truth
2. Please educate me as to how I have misrepresented Mormons and/or the LDS Church

Please understand; truth is, by it's very nature, able to be seen and understood by all, not just those with the same belief system as you or I. Whether or not they want to is another issue all together. I pray you will consider that statement in it's fullness and understand the implication.

Sofia:
First off, let me apologize. I am in no way trying to disrespect you. However, you are seriously and grossly misrepresenting mormons because you are saying we are not Christian. How can you, who are not a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints profess to "know" what we believe?

It's like a car mechanic going into a bakery and telling them how and what they are using to make their cakes. He knows a lot about cars, he's even met a few bakers here and there... but he never went to pastry school, he never spent hours and hours pouring over recipes, and in fact, his heart's just not in it... he like cars. And that's OK because you know what, God loves bakers and mechanics just the same.

As for truth, I believe truth is not able to be seen or understood by all because not all will open their eyes or ears. Some blindly refuse to acknowledge truth... case in point atheists. Or republicans :) Just joking on that one. I believe in an absolute truth, not one that varies like the different religions scattered all about and whose doctrine changes like from marriage between a man and a woman to God accepts homosexual marriage. Truth to me does not change like that. There is one truth like you said whether we have the same belief system or not... all I'm saying is that our Church has the fullness of all truth, it has been restored by miracle from when Christ walked the earth and since the dawn of man.
I think the best definition of truth is found in John 8:31-32 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

The main point is, yes, you can't speak for the church. You can give your opinion on what you believe, but that belief is not what we believe. Our very first declaration of faith is "We believe in God the Eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ." Our 8th declaration of faith is "We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." You have repeatedly said we are not Christian. You judge wrongly. You miss the spirit of Christ as you condemn instead of love and appreciate others for following the Savior and trying to live their lives the best they can as disciples.

Justin, where are temples? Where are the prophets? Where is baptism for the dead? Joseph Smith was not a sinful man. We don't worship him and he never tried to replace God, he only wanted to become like Him as I do... as Jesus asked us to be perfect. Can we achieve this in our lifetime, you better believe not! But it doesn't mean we don't try the best we can.

I'm trying to be as patient as I can, but you are saying things that attack the very core of who I am and I do believe you are shadowing truth. It's fine that you don't believe in a pre mortal existence, but that is an absolute truth. Yes, others are wrong. Now do I judge them? Not a chance. I'm down with whoever (for the most part) to have dinner, talk, watch a movie, let the kids play... I just feel like you're not. I could be mistaken. Computers only take us so far and if we had private jets, this wouldn't even be an issue. We could talk over non-alcoholic margaritas on the beaches of cancun while the kids play. It's hard to get the feel of what type really implies. I feel like you don't really like Mormons or respect them, because if you did you wouldn't try to put down our prophet or attack (and I do say attack, because to say one isn't Christian is a pretty harsh thing to say) us. I mean, does the car mechanic thing make any sense?

I look forward to your response, although I also do understand if our conversation needs to end. I really am sorry if I offended you in any way. I don't feel strongly about my religion, it's not my opinion or some belief... Christ is my life, so I take our chats very seriously. What does Sandy think about this? My husband says I should just drop it, he served a mission in Dallas Texas and said Born Again Christians aren't willing to discuss. I told him he's wrong and that you're different. I hope I'm right... because really, sometimes a wife just needs to be right :)

Much love, Sofia

...(again, note the polite reparation of the line of dialogue after the initial confrontation)

Justin:
"How can you, who are not a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints profess to "know" what we believe? "

I cannot know "anything" about what Mormons believe without being a member? Surely you can see the absurdity of this statement. I am not able to read the same things you do and understand them?

"but he never went to pastry school, he never spent hours and hours pouring over recipes, and in fact, his heart's just not in it". Must one go to pastry school to be able to intelligently and coherently comment on pastries? Certainly not. And how would one know if his or her heart were not in it? Have I not spent hours upon hours pouring over Mormon recipes? I can tell you I have, and yet you assert I don't understand.

"I believe truth is not able to be seen or understood by all because not all will open their eyes or ears. Some blindly refuse to acknowledge truth". Yes, but this does not change the truth. Again, truth by definition, stays the same and cannot be changed, or shadowed. It merely can be agreed with, or not. Truth is not belief, neither is belief truth. The truth merely is. It cannot be shaped, except by God. I do agree with you that God does allow some to have eyes to see and ears to hear, yet even that does not change truth; it only changes someone's response.

"all I'm saying is that our Church has the fullness of all truth, it has been restored by miracle from when Christ walked the earth and since the dawn of man." Why? This is a crucial question I have been asking since the beginning, yet you insist on explaining Mormon beliefs which I already fully grasp. Please explain to me why, outside of a prayer (which anyone can do and come to their own decision), you believe the way you do? It is my assertion that the Bible doesn't support the doctrine you have presented. I have shown you that a few times in concrete terms, and will continue to do so. I still eagerly await the same from you.

The nature of my statement that Mormons are not Christians is founded in the sufficiency of the Bible, and that alone! No other writing compares, and therefore must submit to what is found therein; including the book of Mormon. So, when you say that Job had a premortal life, I say that takes away the entire meaning of the book. When you cite the story of the man blind since birth as evidence of the doctrine of premortal existence, I can concretely demonstrate it is indeed about God's purpose even in what we view as bad. You cannot claim to be Christian and believe contrary to the Bible, as well as what God has to say about Himself. You cannot claim to be Christian and deny the very nature of Christ! Did not Christ condemn? He certainly did, as was His right as God.

"Justin, where are temples? Where are the prophets?" My Temple is the gathering of faithful believers, as the Bible says! My prophets are found within the pages of the independently sufficient Christian Bible, not to include the Book of Mormon or other such documents.

"Where is baptism for the dead?" This is indeed on of your more offensive (read: toward God) doctrines. Let me simply state for record that, according to the Bible, baptism has no salvific value, though it is encouraged as an ordinance of the Christian church.

"Joseph Smith was not a sinful man. We don't worship him and he never tried to replace God". If Joseph Smith was a man, then he was sinful. I never said you worship Joseph Smith, or that he was trying to be God. I said that he grossly misunderstood scripture and has passed that on. The sinful condition of man manifests itself in such a way as to make each one to desire to be God...to determine their own destiny so-to-speak; to be God! That is what I meant by the human tradition of man making himself God. This has happened over and over through history and God has stood in opposition to all perpetrators. He is the only God, and will remain the only God. We may not become Gods, nor will we. The Bible is clear on this. You need the Book of Mormon to get anything different.

It's not that I don't like Mormons, its that I hate misrepresentations of Christianity. I love you enough to speak truth to you. I don't expect it to be well received. The Bible says that sinful man hates the light. The fact that you are discomforted by my words is evidence that the truth is inescapable and your spirit is in opposition to it. Discomfort is the beginning of salvation. When someone is in disagreement with the truth, the truth tends to impose itself upon that person's spirit because the truth doesn't change, nor does God. But a person may, from opposition of the truth, to harmony with it.

More to follow...I have to leave for an appointment

Remember, love is not just touchy feely. It is sometimes uncomfortable so that we may grow and mature.

Sofia:
Justin... have you ever even attended an LDS church on Sunday? Would you like me to start writing papers with a "Born Again Twist" because I've read a bit, know a few friends with the belief and watched the movie Saved? Could I then be considered an expert or is that an absurd thought?

I'm glad you love me, I thought you were perhaps being a little judgemental or condeming me... but I'm glad it's out in the open. I am a sinner Justin. I make mistakes. Are you saying I hate the light? Do you really know my soul? Gee Justin, I thought we were getting somewhere and then you bring us back to square one. I'm not discomforted by your words at all, in fact I've told you on more than one occasion I feel you (and your family) are special and that's why I've chosen to answer your questions... although the last one feels like an attack, thank you Miss Sinful :) I'm more sorrowed at your lack of Christ-like charity and compassion.

I think the answer to your questions (as far as the bible and concern members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints aren't Christian) can be found in the last article I sent you. I can't say it better than the apostles. Also as far as Baptism, we believe it to be of extreme importance not just something handy-dandy. I can send you some articles if you like. And also on a doctrine of the sealing powers (used by Elijah) that is found only in God's true church. Again, only at your request.

Hope all is well and that you guys are hanging in there with the whole house business. The banks are completely insane. If there is anything we can do to help (even though we're so far away) please let us know.

And as far as love, I understand. I'll be using your line when my kids are teenagers! :)

Much love, Sofia

Justin:
I will continue to address the scriptures you present in such a way as to let them speak for themselves. Hopefully it will soon be clear that Mormon doctrine is imposed upon the Bible, not found within it. The only way to get Mormon doctrine from scripture is to let the Book of Mormon, as well as other key Mormon writings, to speak above scripture in such a way as to only view the Bible in light of the such writings.

I do want to reassure you that I do enjoy talking like this, but I will not accept things that just don't make sense. You may assert all you want, but this is my area of study and I have done considerable research. It is my goal to present accurately the material, whether it promotes Mormon doctrine, or Christian. Thank you for your candor in all this. Sorry if I am a bit assertive, but there are things which simply cannot be escaped.

...(double response here)

Justin:
Today I was consumed by our conversations as I partook in communion.

You must understand that each one of your key doctrines as a Mormon profoundly damages who God is, and therefore who Jesus is. There is no charity to be allowed in such areas. Either God is sovereign, or He's not. Either we can be God's or we cannot.

What salvific value is there in Baptism? Even Jesus was said to be the lamb who takes away the sin of the world BEFORE his baptism. Surely you don't suggest we can somehow be better than Jesus through faith in Him? Baptism is not a precondition for Heaven. If it were then people could presumably do something to merit heaven. As it stands, we cannot merit heaven because each of us is sinful and worthy of damnation apart from the atoning work of Jesus. And as we can see from scripture, Baptism is an act of obedience to publicly declare our commitment to be joined with Christ in His death and resurrection, by our confession of faith and outward SYMBOL of death and resurrection, I ask how a dead person can obey in such a fashion? Where in the Bible does it say anything about one's ability to stand in place of another to baptize them? Please don't think you can rightly cite 1 Corinthians 15:29; it is blatantly obvious that Paul is speaking on the senselessness of adhering to such a practice. Why would God allow such a practice when it is one's faith in Christ (which God decides anyways) which admits one into heaven? Your doctrine takes away God's freedom to chose. What if that one you are standing in place of for baptism has been sovereignly chosen to be one who does not believe? Does man's performance of substitutionary baptism trump God's will? I surely hope you would say no.

How could one possibly assert that there was a premortal existence? Who created our spirits? Why would God be married when the very institution of marriage is made to show His relationship with the son, and the son's relationship with the church? To say that we were existent with God before creation, in a very real sense undoes His Holiness! The very thing which, most of all permeates His entire essence and being. It is from His holiness that such things as love, justice, and righteousness flow.

While "sealing" a family seems to be endearing, it is an affront to God's purpose in eternity, as He reveals in the Bible. If anything could be better than being a family here on earth, it would be the fact that we (earthly family) will not be an earthly family any longer, but a heavenly family which includes all believers who will be in heaven when all is said and done. And our purpose is not to have more spirit children and somehow continue some odd cycle of creation; our purpose will be to worship God, the one and only in His fullness and direct presence for all of eternity, with our heavenly family (all those in heaven),all to His glory FOREVER! It is even plausible to think that we will not even recognize our earthly family in heaven, except as those who shares in the praise which belongs to God for all eternity. (granted this is an interpretation [as far as whether or not we will recognize our family members as our sons, daughters, etc.], but the fact remains that the point of existence is to honor God and be counted amongst those who will be exalted above the angels, and given the privilege to worship the God of ALL, forever, in His direct presence).

So, what if God has sovereignly chosen that one in your family would not believe in a manner described in the Bible? What happens to the "seal" placed on your family then? Does God win, or does man?

These are no idle questions your doctrine raises.

I believe the way I do because of a few things:

The Bible is historically reliable/accurate
The Bible is Archaeologically reliable/accurate
The Bible accurately comments on the heart of people
The Bible accurately comments on reality
The Bible is internally consistent
The Bible is scientifically verifiable
The Bible has never been in the hands of one single person who could change anything in any meaningful way
The Bible is logically consistent

These are the things which PROVE something. ANYTHING of which ANYBODY would say represents propositional truth would have to FIRST exhibit these things, and probably some others I am leaving out. The Holy Spirit does not verify truth. That would be a redundancy in vocation as far as the Godhead is concerned. God creates truth, of which people are told (in scripture) plainly speaks God's glory. The Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who, by God's sovereign election, delivers eyes to see and ears to hear. God has created truth at the beginning of time. Why would He need another to verify that truth on behalf of people if His scripture says that God's truth (as far as His existence) is seen in all of creation? He wouldn't and He doesn't. If so, then we see a logical inconsistency and a great portion, if not all of the Bible must be disregarded.

To deny the way propositional truth is observed is to deny the very manner by which God made His creation. I pray you will stop asserting what you believe and start explaining it, as I have attempted here. Again, I am open to another system. However, that other system has the deck stacked against it since the Bible fulfills all I could ever dream that God's word might provide.

In regards to Prophets, apostles, priests, the true church, etc...

God's revelation is CLOSED. The Holy Spirit still influences the hearts of believers THROUGH HIS WORD! How could scripture ever more thoroughly comment on the entire range of human existence and experience? It can't, and therefore has been closed by God as being representative of ALL one needs to know to please God and be in heaven on the last day. That being said, the only prophets who have or will deliver God's word are found within the pages of scripture. ANYONE presenting ANYTHING as something God has communicated to them, must first be found to be in harmony with scripture. In this key area, Mormon prophets, even starting with Brigham Young, cannot meaningfully comment on any of God's word (i.e. the Bible) so much as to present some new doctrine; nor can anyone within evangelical circles.

As far as priests go, I am surprised to hear you quote from Hebrews, for it is within that letter from Paul where we are told that Christ is our High Priest. There needs be no others. And how could there? We have a High Priest who sits at the right hand of the father, praying for us. The calling of a priest was representative of what Christ would do at Calvary. Christ has once and for all entered into the Holy of Holies, made eternal sacrifice for the sins of the people of God, and then He tore the veil to represent the division between God and His people, via a priest, was no longer needed. If you assert that the temple, and priests are still needed then what sacrifice (which by covenant must be of blood) do they bring every Sunday? And why do you worship on Sunday when the temple sacrifices were made on Saturday?

Apostles are, by your accurate portrayal, ones who were endowed by the Spirit to teach proper doctrine. However, I only know of 12 (13 by some counts), for all time. They have given us, in the New Testament, all the teaching we need to be able to avoid EVERY heretical teaching. That is why there are no more apostles. How much more could they teach, about which the Bible doesn't already exhaustively comment? The apostles served their purpose, and then they died, all to the glory of God.

As I have said before, the true church is the faithful gathering of believers. Believers who understand that they cannot be God and that their worship, just as all of creation, is to bring God glory through the way God has provided in the Bible.

The only key figures to be provided from within the church are that of Deacon, and Elder. The Elder is responsible for the proper teaching of all God has provided in scripture, to include an accurate delivery of the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament. Today, since we speak different languages, that includes STUDY! Study not of what your heart "feels" (the Bible says the heart is eternally wicked), via the Holy Ghost, but study of original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) as well as textual analysis/criticism. The failure of people to do this (which started immediately after the apostles died) brings the result of which you speak, where the Bible has been misinterpreted, misrepresented, and therefore there are thousands upon thousands who are responsible for false teaching. Great is the punishment for such false teaching!

As you can see, it is from that context I am so assertive and careful to speak truth as it is presented in the Bible, and be a stanch opponent of falsehood. I cannot let false teaching stand, if not simply out of love for those who might utter it; for I would not wish to see anyone subject to the repercussions of false teaching. However, I know there will be and has been those ones who will be.

If you grasp nothing else from all this, understand this: The Holy Spirit does not deliver, verify, or influence in any way TRUTH. God creates truth. The Holy Spirit opens people's eyes to see that truth.

All I can do, and all I will do is continue to expose the truth of scripture to you. If you cannot accept what God's word says then it is clear that you stand in opposition to it, until such time as the Spirit makes it impossible for you to resist and you are forced to either believe or verify God's justice. I am not able to make that decision so please don't misunderstand and think I am saying you are going to hell. God has either ordained you as a believer, or not. That fact doesn't change my job of proclaiming truth to you.

Sofia:
OK, so did you miss my questions?
1. Have you ever attended an LDS church on Sunday?
2. Are you and your family hanging in there with the whole house bit?

I of course (respectfully) disagree with you completely :)
1. "There is no charity to be allowed in such areas." Justin, I fear you have missed the greatest doctrine ever given by Christ. He even gave His life to teach us the profound principle of charity ALWAYS. Thank you 1 Cor.13: 1-4, 8, 13 keyword "charity NEVER faileth" I don't blame you, I tend to also lean toward the side of justice and judgement. One of my favorite stories is when James is trying to prepare for Christ in a Samaritan city and they won't recieve Him. "James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" I would have said the same!! Yet Christ in His infinite wisdom responds, "But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." (Luke 9) Point: We should ALWAYS have charity and love.

2. Baptism: John 3:5 " Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." How can you say you believe the bible and not believe in the extreme importance of baptism? Talk about irony Justin. Christ, who was perfect, showed us the way and example by being baptized Himself. Did He just walk around doing stuff for the fun of it? I don't mean to be too sarcastic but the whole fact that you say Bible this!!! And then don't understand the concept which is so absolutely clear in the bible makes me wonder.
I'd give you some articles from our prophets on baptism if you like.

3. God's revelation is "closed". What a sad thought. He must have loved people before us more if we get the shaft today. I wonder why the ancient Israelites who worshipped golden calves were so much more special than us. Hmmmm.... perhaps you should think a little deeper on this one my friend. How can He be a consistent God if this is the case? He would be a respector of persons... you like to bring up logic a lot. I urge you to strongly think that one through logically.

4. Premortal existence: I don't understand the difficulty. I've given you a lot of scriptural references yet you disagree and can't prove to me that we didn't come from God. So.... yeah.

5. Sealing Powers- guess that was just a fluke in the bible. Story of Elijah just a neat reference. Rom. 15: 28,John 6: 27,2 Cor. 1:21- 22,Eph. 1: 13,Eph. 4: 30, just have the word seal in there for ?? Also logically, where would be the sense. You love your wife more than words could ever say, but death will seperate you and ?? You'll just be good friends in the afterlife? Buzzer:Wrong."While "sealing" a family seems to be endearing, it is an affront to God's purpose in eternity, as He reveals in the Bible" And where was your scripture reference? You know you rarely use them my friend, go back over our conversations and let's see who's actually used the bible.

I think I'm gettin a bit uppity. I better pause and pray for a more patient heart. Please forgive me.

What do you mean the Holy Ghost doesn't "deliver in anyway truth". Truth just floats around and we catch it? We can't give utterance without the Holy Ghost. Luke 12:12. Acts 15:8 the Holy Ghost does verify truth "bare them witness". Romans 15:13.... culminating scripture of the purpose of the Holy Ghost. Just joking... real culminating scripture 1 Thes. 1: 5-6 "For our gospel came not unto you in WORD ONLY, but also in POWER, and in the Holy Ghost" so God does DELIVER witness by the Holy Ghost. Perhaps you meant to say something different, because you're clearly not supported by the bible on that one.

I accept God's word. All of it. There's quite a bit out there, but that is why I study so often. And reference it so often. And don't worry, I know I'm not going to hell. I really believe there are few and far between who end up there. But we reference it to "outer darkness". We believe that there are 3 degrees of glory to those who end up in heaven (kind of like 3 different heavens) which is 99% of the people out there. :) Look forward to our discussion on that one!!! I seriously wish we could do this talking though. I get pissy then I calm down and I don't know if the way I type conveys that... I hope you don't feel like I'm being judgemental of you in any way. I also don't see my educating you on the topic of God's church as a job, this has been a real priveledge. May the angels record the words I've given as witness! I look forward to standing before my maker and saying, "Lord I tried!!" :)

Justin:
1. I have never attended...is it required of me if I am then able to read the Book of Mormon? As a side note, my pastor and I will be attending this winter, as well as Jewish, Catholic, and other services around our area. Now that this unrelated issue is resolved, can we proceed?
2.The house is still in limbo so-to-speak. We are working hard to keep it though we area just as willing to give it up. It does not define us nor does it comment on our faith, so we are not overly concerned. It's just a house, and the money is just money. Nothing of any value what-so-ever is associated with it.

Since we are getting nowhere simply stating our own beliefs to each other, I will take this public once again, with your consent, to address the many scripture references you have brought up. I will not publicize these exchanges unless you would prefer that. If you consent, I will post this exchange on my blog and it will remain unaltered from it's original content. If you do no consent, it will remain private and I will simply address the scripture references, only referring to this exchange as a "private exchange".

Sofia:
Justin, yes it is required of you to attend church at least once or twice before you can say you know a smidgeon of what we believe. Haven't you heard the saying you can't know a man unless you've walked in his shoes? It's like me saying I know all about the army without actually going to boot camp. :) Which there is way on earth I'd ever survive that one. God bless you all and thank you for our service to our country.

You guys are great and more people need attitudes like yours. Our best friends lost their house... it's frustrating because the banks are so twisted in their policy and lack of care. I hope and pray all works out for you with the least stress possible.

And don't be so stuffy. Of course I consent to going public. :) Does the military make you so formal or have you always been that way?

...(double response here)

Sofia:
Sorry... typo in first paragraph NO WAY I'd ever survive

Justin:
It's interesting; I would never venture to say you MUST attend a service in my church before you could accurately comment on what we believe. Everything you could ever want to know about how we worship or what we believe is clearly stated in scripture. You need only read the Bible in it's own context and you would have an exhaustive knowledge of what we believe...no attendance necessary.

Thank you for the consent. I am not formal due to the military, but out of consideration of your rights and/or feelings. I wouldn't want to post something publicly which you intended for private. I also use more formal vernacular in my writing in a concerted effort to communicate effectively. I am admittedly not the most eloquent man.

...(double response here)

Justin:
As you patiently wait for me to post our previous conversations on my blog, I wonder if you would answer a few questions?

Is God created?

Is God eternal?

Is God ultimate (is He the only one)?

Sofia:
Hey Justin-

I could answer them, but not as well as one of our Apostles, President Boyd K.Packer. I hope you don't mind me giving you an article that is very clear instead of using my own meager words. Hope it can be of help to you.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3bf405481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

You know what's weird... You never know what life will bring. Who would have thought 10 years ago we'd be having such deep conversations. I for one am grateful. I was quite the neurotic and spastic teenager. It's good to know God is patient. Although, I must admit I'm quite disturbed tonight. I just watched a Dateline presentation of a kidnapping in Mexico. He was held for 7 1/2 months in a tiny box, starved and beaten and shot.... I sometimes wonder about the suffering of our Savior in Gethsemane and can't help but conclude it just isn't fair. The sorrow is just too much. Do you ever feel like you want to do more to help people, but don't even know where to begin? Like how could I go about helping kidnapping victims in Mexico?

Please give my love to Sandy.
Much love, Sofia

Justin:
So, there is only God (Father - Elohim), but there are multiple Gods, represented in the godhead (savior, and holy ghost)?

Once again, I understand the doctrine you have. This is not new to me. So tell me why then, if you say it only refers to the father, in Hebrew Elohim is plural.

I am not trying to insult, but for one who claims the office of apostle (which no longer exists) this man has such a surface level understanding (really misunderstanding) of scripture that it is difficult to believe he is teaching others. Please understand that I am not insulting anyone, just say that he has misunderstood.

There area great many things in that letter that distract fro. The subject I have promised you to address so I will simply not delete this email, so as to refer to it later.

One last question...I have read everything you have given me, except for, admittedly, the web site of apologetic material (I just haven't had time...could you supply it to me again). Have you read anything from the website I gave you?

Second chance alert ;) www.aomin.org. Click on articles and take your pick.

Sofia:
Hey Justin!

Boyd K. Packer has spent his entire life (almost 80 years now) a man of God. He is much older and wiser than most. He claims nothing, he has rightly been bestowed the office of Prophet and Apostle which does exist today. (Because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow) President Packer does not misunderstand. Christ spoke to His disciples and said, "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despisest him that sent me." Luke 10:16 Another poignant scripture is the rejection of prophets found in this verse, "And he (Christ) said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

On a different note-

http://www.aomin.org/articles/statement.html
I found this a nice article. It's great to see people of faith acknowledge God no matter what religion... to me personally.
One quote that I didn't understand was "Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin." According to your faith, when did we rebel? Are babies full of sin? Or is it that we are punished for Adam's transgression in the garden of Eden?

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4145
This one I found sad. We're such a sue happy people.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4143
First, I was a little scared... I have issues with shaved heads, hello I'm married to a black man. But I agreed with a lot of his words. I disagree with his missionary tactics. I would rather show a person Christ by my actions and deeds (Thank you 1 John 3:11) than verbally shove it down their throats.Very dramatic music for the ending,but nonetheless enjoyable :)

Hope you are having a good weekend. Did you guys do anything fun?
Much love, Sofia

Justin:
80 years huh? Wow! It is even more astonishing then that in all that time he has missed so much, even represented in such limited context as this article. Again, not to insult. The truths of the Bible are not merely anecdotal, as this man presents. This is a difficult trend to counteract since there has been nearly a century of such surface level, emotionally based preaching. It hails back to the influence of Charles Finney, who was the inventor of most of this (not Mormon doctrine, but the criminal mishandling of God's word). It is unmistakable that his influence is seen in the LDS Church as well. Since this style appeals to people's emotions it is rather difficult to address anything without arousing such emotional responses.

As to your questions regarding original sin...our nature is inherited through Adam, which by divine decree is inescapably sinful. This includes babies. Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that a baby goes to hell; who am I to make such a determination. But the Bible is clear, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23; and "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12. In the context of these verses, all means all. Just as sin came to us through one man, so did salvation. They are direct mirrors of each other.

...(messages continued under a new series of messages since original thread was getting lengthy)

Sofia:
So you think your own children are sinful full of evil ways and thoughts?

Justin:
I do indeed. They prove it at every turn. That is why they need Godly guidance and up-bring in the ways of God. If they are perfect, sinless and God honoring at birth then why would they need a sinful guide (parent) to intervene in that perfect sinless state?

Sofia:
To help provide sustenance for them. They need food, water, etc.

...(double response here)

Sofia:
I feel sorry for you that you believe that way. I pray you never lose a child.

Justin:
Since the Bible does not specifically comment on this I must bring other issues to bear upon this.

1. The doctrine of all people being sinful is well established in the Bible
2. Since babies are people they are included in this sinful state
3. Salvation is given through none other than Christ
4. Apart from this we are told that no person has an excuse because all of creation speaks God's glory
5. One might ask, "what about those who never hear about Jesus, or what about babies who die very young and who presumably can't have faith?"
6. Matthew 7:2 Gives us reason to believe that the one who has not heard of Jesus will have no excuse before his creator and will be held accountable by the very standard he used to judge others. The same could be said of babies, but a very different result could be presumed. Since babies cannot judge (judgement assumes foreknowledge of right and wrong so as to make an assessment based on that knowledge) nor do they, it would follow that neither are they judged; or, more precisely, they are judged using the same standard they judged others, which is none at all, so they are found righteous according to that standard.

For the record, this is all speculative and based on a proper understanding of many verses that, in and of themselves, do not directly comment on the issue. Either way, I believe it is a Biblical position to state that it would be unreconcilable with God's character revealed through scripture, to even imply that babies are even in danger of going to hell. Although, I would also say that if God were to somehow choose to send a baby to hell, however unlikely it may be, He would be perfectly justified and within the scope of His authoritative freedom as creator. Since this would contradict God's nature as revealed in scripture, the above statement becomes purely hypothetical and therefore irrelevant.

Even with this issue, there needs be no appeal to emotion so far as to let it overshadow God's word. I am also not saying that you are playing to emotion, but rather that many do in this area and succumb to the temptation of allowing that emotion to rule, instead of God's word.

I too pray I don't ever lose a child and I am truly sorry you had to experience such a loss. I want to reiterate that I DO NOT believe babies go to hell, or are in any danger of going. In fact I believe the opposite, but for decidedly different reasons than you. In the end, the very idea of babies going to hell, or being in danger somehow of doing so, is entirely unreconcilable with God's character.

Sofia:
Justin, thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with you, I think it's unreconcilable with God's character.

The whole feeling bit. I wanted to go through my scriptures because I think we have different perspectives and I'm not too clear on what you think. My point: Promptings and feelings given to us by the Holy Ghost are of extreme and utmost importance.

The whole Old Testament is full of proverbs and psalms taking about the "heart". A couple of my favorite scriptures having to do with emotions are Proverbs 16: 23 "The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth, and addeth learning to his lips." and also Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Notice how heart was used and not mind? A great lesson was given to us by the Pharoh of Egypt when he hardened his heart against Moses. How much destruction could have been avoided if he allowed himself to feel the power of God? Yet he was past feeling.

Granted, the mind is very important. Our mind and heart must both be reconciled to God. I just know we can't downplay the importance of faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit and His guidance in our lives. Now, I realize I am a woman. Women are crazy. It's the hormones. (Although it is interesting Christ would show Himself to a woman first after the resurrection... food for thought on emotion again) But I'm wondering if you can clarify if I misunderstand you- you don't think emotions or feelings are important when it comes to finding Christ?

Also, this is hypothetical. But if there were to be a historical discovery of writings of John the Baptist, and they were proven to be his words... would you accept them as scripture?

Hope you had a wonderful day at church? Are you a teacher? And also is your church called the Alpha and Omega church? I teach the 8&9 year olds and my husband does scouting with the Young Men. One thing I love about our church is there is no paid clergy. We all just work together to help the circle go round. And!! I noticed you have a shaved head.... please ignore my fear comment from earlier :) Do your children love going to church? What are your feelings when people say organized religion is not important? And yes... I hope you answer all my questions, all 2,000 of them. Sheesh.

Here is mormanity.blogspot.com. He does a lot of historical proof on the Book of Mormon which I thought you might find interesting. But my favorite of late is this
http://seminary.lds.org/scripture-mastery/find.asp. It is a wonderful tool to help memorize scriptures...

...(double response here)

Sofia:
http://seminary.lds.org/scripture-mastery/

Sorry the link I gave you was for quick finding. This one has the tool to help memorize. If you have any websites to help memorize I'd love to know about them. I need things other than just repitition to help me remember, I don't know if you're the same way.

Justin:
Yeah, that's a lot of questions ;) but I'm a big boy so I'll just have to muddle through them.

"I'm wondering if you can clarify if I misunderstand you- you don't think emotions or feelings are important when it comes to finding Christ?"
First and foremost I believe that we do not find Christ. We were given to Him at the beginning of time; if one who is preordained to believe does not believe at a given point, the Holy Spirit imposes grace upon that person in a supernatural way which cannot be resisted. So, though it seems as though that person was an enemy of God, or at least a non-believer, he/she was in fact predestined to believe, and will according to God's sovreign decree. That is why I cannot say someone is going to hell, or apostate, or any other ultimate determination. This is not the same as being a judge of proper doctrine and a contender for the accurate presentation of scripture. That is every believer's job: to judge each other so as to ensure we all are living in a manner worthy of the name of Christ so as not to bring him dishonor, though that is exactly what you see in modern churches due largely to a lack of God honoring study, or a greater commitment to human tradition beyond the commitment to accurate scriptural exposition.
Second, I think that the playing towards emotions to "win souls" is the most debase of practices. While I feel that emotions are important (as in showing our adoration toward God and our emotional pleas of anguish or hurt or pain, etc.) I must say that there has been a trend to abuse them for the cause of Christ, which pains me to even type. Proper emotion in regards to salvation is merely the prompting of the Holy Spirit to make that grace which is being placed upon a person irresistable. All emotion must be toward God in such a way as to make us dependant on Him, satified with Him, longing for Him. So, while many, many people manipulate emotion to get conversions, man only does so in danger of attempting to be God (and man can certainly not be God), manipulating what is rightfully God's to serve man, to glorify man, to worship man. Emotions are not bad when they are directed at God.

"if there were to be a historical discovery of writings of John the Baptist, and they were proven to be his words... would you accept them as scripture?"

Honestly, probably not. Why? Because the Canon of scripture is closed. Of course to even accept that they were his words would involve A LOT of questions that are too lengthy and involved than would prove worth while to bring up here, suffice to say that even if they were proven to be John's words it would merely be something interesting to read and study. Ultimately, such writing, as with ALL other writing, could only be taken in light of scripture, and if found to contradict it (as it is my assertion the Book of Mormon does) would be disregarded in light of the ultimate authority of the Bible.

"Hope you had a wonderful day at church? Are you a teacher? And also is your church called the Alpha and Omega church?"

I did have a wonderful day at church, though even if I didn't, it is not a time of comfort and entertainment, but a time of worship (which often involves discomfort when confronted with my sin in the presence of a Holy God) and prayer. I do teach the Jr. High Youth of my church but we save that for sunday night at my house. No my church is not called the Alphand Omega Chruch. Alpha and Omega is merely the name of James White's ministry. My church is called North Country Fellowship Church www.ncfchurch.org.

"One thing I love about our church is there is no paid clergy. We all just work together to help the circle go round."
So, you disobey scripture? The office of elder and deacon are mandated in scripture; an elder for the proper teaching of scripture, and deacons to ensure the congregation is cared for. Furthermore, the body is mandated to support the elder's needs (needs, not wants) so that the elder may fully devote himself to the study of God's word and the guiding of His people. That is what the tithe is for; it is mandated in scripture that the tithe go to the elder, as it did in the OT to the priest. I must say the way your church is run is grosely unbiblical.

As far as the shaved head goes...no worries, it's hunting season so I am growing my hair out to keep warm. We routinely see temps in the negative 20's so I have to do all I can to stay warm. But, when January rolls back around it comes off again because thats the way Sandy likes it. ;)

"Do your children love going to church? What are your feelings when people say organized religion is not important?"
They do love going to church, but at this point even if they didn't, they would go anyways because that is just how it's gonna be in my house (Joshua 24:15). As far as people saying organized religion is not important, I must deffer to the Bible once again. In Hebrews 10:25 we are exhorted to continue meeting together to love each other, encourage one another, and it is the practice of our church that this is when we have communion too; not always, but at least once a month. The idea of organized religion is throughout the Bible and is just as inescapable as original sin. There are no lone ranger Christians...show me one and I'll show you a person in unrepentant sin, and possibly not a true beleiver.

...(double response here)

Justin:
mormanity.blogspot.com...this is not the same one you gave me earlier in our talks, though I will keep and explore this too.

Sofia:
YOU LIVE IN CARTHAGE!!!!?!?!?

Wow. Ok. Maybe you don't live in Carthage. Am I getting ahead of myself? Yes. I went on the ncf website and tried to look up finding a church. And saw the map with Carthage as it's location. Wow. Carthage is where Joseph Smith was martyred. Never been there but hear it's a beautiful area.

Ok, your prayer list is the coolest thing ever. We also have prayer lists, but they are called prayer rolls and they aren't public... to maintain privacy whatnot. But I like the whole idea of having an area to actually see what is going on. Very cool. I hope Joanne is doing better. Also loved the them Love God. Love others. Share Jesus. You know, we're really not that different.

Sorry about the website. I can't remember everything I send.

I haven't gone back through our chats here, but I did want to bring up a scripture "“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (Ps. 127:3.) I think that clearly answers the question why God places children in our care. They are our reward, not some sinful pains in the rear... although some might be questionable :) You are absolutely right, we have sacred responsibility to bring them up in the knowledge of God. Children refine us and help teach us of the relationship we have with our Father. Of course we also have scripture that clearly states, "They (as in children) cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me.” D&C 29:47. Some may say it contradicts what the bible teaches, but the bible also teaches God is merciful.... so.... where do we go from here? Hopefully not to hell :) We don't believe in the original sin dooming us to misery, instead we declare as one of our articles of faith, We believe man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. How would God be considered just if He did such a thing?

Can I ask why you don't believe baptism is a saving grace with scriptures to back up the claim? I've always thought the good ol' book was pretty clear, but I'm open to seeing what scriptures you have.

I've gotta tell you, last week I had to teach my church class about Solomon. That was a fun one. Teacher, what's a concubine? :) I hope my answer of "kind of like a 2nd wife, and ask your parents" was Ok! We did a cool analogy of water through a collander. I put in a couple toys, a ring and then the water. The water is our knowledge and the collander is death. We can't take anything with us but our knowledge. And of course, Solomon was full of that. I always get so sad when it comes to him and David. Which brings me to another question, in your opinion, were they chosen of God? Because the scriptures say they were, then they sinned and fell from grace. So why didn't God stop them? It's a foreign concept to me because we believe so strongly in agency.

Sorry, I'm probably babbling.
Here is a reference to tithing and what we pay tithing for.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=77e69207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Also paid clergy:
In Matthew 10:7-8, it reads, "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give."

Justin:
I certainly do live in the village of Carthage. Palmyra is right down the road too.

...(quadruple response here)

Justin:
My bad, Joseph Smith died in Carthage, Illinois, not New York. But palmyra is still around the corner from us.

Justin:
Based on the Bible, God is not and has never been a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9). He is a spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 57:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and immutable (or unchangeable in his being and perfections; see Ps. 102:25–27; Mal. 3:6). He did not “progress” toward godhood, but has always been God.

Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).

The Bible teaches that the yearning to be godlike led to the fall of mankind (Gen. 3:4ff.). God does not look kindly on humans who pretend to attain to deity (Acts 12:21–23; contrast Acts 14:11–15). God desires humans to humbly recognize that they are his creatures (Gen. 2:7; 5:2; Ps. 95:6–7; 100:3). The state of the redeemed in eternity will be one of glorious immortality, but they will forever remain God’s creatures, adopted as his children (Rom. 8:14–30; 1 Cor. 15:42–57; Rev. 21:3–7). Believers will never become gods.

Biblically, the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” refers to his being the Father’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary’s conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20).

The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1–4; 22:1–5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13–15).

Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam’s sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16–19; Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15–16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22–24; Eph. 2:8–9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God’s presence (Matt. 5:3–8; John 14:1–3; Rev. 21:3–7).

All material taken from http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/08/30/an-faq-on-the-difference-between-mormonism-and-biblical-christianity/

These are not my words but I find nothing to disagree with here. Also this is not one from my church or congregation, but this is another faithful believer in true Biblical doctrine; that much is clear from the material above.

Justin:
Upon review, I noticed that I have properly address both (all) scripture references you have cited in support of premortal existence and shown them to be non-indicative of such a claim. Are there anymore you can cite for this doctrine so I may allow for a fair representation? If not, I will do a survey of the resources you have given me, as well as some Mormon websites I have found myself, and present an analysis of the passages cited therein in the same manner I have with Luke 2:21 and Jeremiah 1:5. Thanks.

WHEW!!!!! So, as you can see, my counterpart has been very gracious and the discussion continues. I apologize to my readers and Sofia for the delay in getting this posted publicly, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her candid responses and perseverance. Thank you to my readers who persevered in reading all that :-)

In an effort to be entirely transparent and be "above reproach," I would like to invite Sofia to confirm that what I have posted herein is in no way changed (misspellings and all) from its original, and that it accurately and fairly represents (truly duplicates) the conversation we had via FB private messages.

Thank you Sofia, and I pray that our correspondence will continue as I find it terribly valuable.

Exegesis on Jeremiah 1:5

2010-08-16T21:47:00.000-04:00

I would like to start this post, the next in a series looking at the Biblical support (or lack thereof) for the Mormon doctrine of spirit children, by quoting myself so my readers may understand the context from which this post is derived…
"It was recently put to me in a Facebook conversation most of you probably saw from my post on June 6 at 8:13 am, to address some key doctrinal claims of Mormonism. It is my assertion that Mormonism is essentially not Christianity. In an effort to be completely transparent I will let all my readers know at the outset that I believe Mormonism to be a complete misrepresentation of the Christian Bible. Likewise, I believe the Book of Mormon, as well as supporting texts like the Pearl of Great Price, to be heretical and simply unhelpful and confusing to a correct understanding of the Christian Bible. All Mormon texts are decidedly NOT God’s word. The proceeding commentaries will be proof of my statements.
For the purpose of promoting understanding we must first define a few things. Within the bounds and context of this writing, when I refer to anything as Christian, I mean not Mormon. That is not to say I am also referring to all things not Mormon, but the distinct differences between Mormonism and Christianity. As is necessary with Biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning from scripture, as opposed to imposing meaning upon scripture), the reader must keep in mind the definitions I have presented above while reading, since it is I who determine the meaning of my words, not the reader. The same is true with scripture. It is the original writer who determines the meaning of the words written, not the reader."
That being said, we must give respect to the author of Jeremiah by stating that the Old Testament book of Jeremiah was written to record the prophecies of Jeremiah, damning God’s people for their disobedience. As a prophet, it is plainly seen that Jeremiah is obedient to his call, yet he also loves those people to whom he pronounces condemnation. Even through his best efforts to cause the people to repent and turn to honor God, Jeremiah still proclaims the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed this prophecy comes to pass, after which we hear very little from and/or about Jeremiah. The people of Jeremiah’s time were used to the babbling of prophets as there were a great many false ones whose messages were similar. This did not help Jeremiah’s task of proclaiming God’s just wrath upon an exceedingly, and repeatedly disobedient people. Jeremiah’s job then was to tell the people that God’s wrath was imminent! There was no escaping it, though Jeremiah warned them. It was decided, and God gloried in it. This represents the cultural and historical context of the book of Jeremiah. This is where one may find insight as to a proper application of the text to a modern context.
Verses one through four give us a precise timeframe in which Jeremiah’s prophecies took place (roughly 625-586 B.C.). Since we have already established historical and cultural context we can press on to verse 5.
Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
-This verse is submitted by Mormons as proof positive that we are God’s spirit children, who existed with him before creation. How else could he have known us right?
Here in Jeremiah 1:5 we see a few words we would do well to address. Such words as “before”, and “knew”. Since these words are so broad in their application and usage it would be an exercise in exhaustion to explore their semantic domain. For our purposes we can rightly approach this text if we consider “before” as merely “prior to a given time”. “Knew” will be harder to address so let us start with “before”.
Before what or when? The text answers this question as before “I formed thee in the belly” and before “thou camest forth out of the womb”. If we overstate this for the sake of clarity we could say, “Before your father’s sperm fertilized your mother’s egg” and “Before you exited your mother’s uterus”. Even this explanation is lacking, for surely God is able to determine which sperm met with that egg. Here in verse 5, before is open ended. Before what or when? Everything! At this point the Christian has no grounds to disagree with the Mormon. We both agree that whatever happened, it happened before everything was.
So, what happened “before”? “I knew thee”, “I sanctified thee”, “I ordained thee.” Here is where we see the fatal error of Joseph Smith. Where does the text even imply that WE were existent before creation? The text stops at saying that God knew Jeremiah, God sanctified Jeremiah, God ordained Jeremiah. And for what? To do what? To be a “prophet unto the nations.” The context is explicitly indicative of Jeremiah AND NO OTHER. Verse 5 starts a conversation between God and Jeremiah. What purpose would it serve for God to tell Jeremiah that he knew everyone before they were conceived, truly before creation? Well, in the context it would make no sense what so ever. If that were the case then Jeremiah would never get the call to announce condemnation, for the point of the text would be that God knows everyone, even before creation…end of story…end of book. What a clear example of Joseph Smith having no meaningful and/or accurate understanding of scripture. If we take the Mormon interpretation of this verse then we must assume that God is unable to know us unless he has been around us, with us.
“I knew thee” gives a compelling commentary on some of what God knows. When I say that Joseph Smith has no meaningful and/or accurate understanding of scripture, it is because the doctrine of spirit children as it relates to Jeremiah 1:5 fundamentally limits what God is able to know, and consequently sticks out like a sore thumb as a man made doctrine. What I mean is this: if the way in which God knew us was only accomplished by us physically (or spiritually, etc.) being with him before creation then he is limited in his knowledge to what he experiences. Thankfully God is not limited in this way, as we are. God is all knowing (omniscient) and so it is well within the realm of His ability that He knew us without us existing, neither before creation nor after; with him or not. His knowledge is not limited by our existence, whether in spirit form or otherwise. So, the “knew” in verse 5 is also open ended in that God’s knowledge is never ending with regards to time and space, and in every other conceivable way for that matter. To say He knew us before he formed us in the womb is to say that before we were existent, He knew us. Any other interpretation of that statement limits God and is therefore simply wrong.
For good measure I will also bring up another word which has bearing on this subject, such that a Mormon might use it to support the idea that God “knew” us, “before”, as children. I am referring to verse 6. In verse 6 we see the Hebrew word na’ar. The semantic domain of this word is also quite exhaustive, yet we can choose a few translations to emphasis our point. Within the semantic domain of this word (ways in which it can be used/translated) are usages like: youth, young man, servant, child, assistant, boy, young officer, and others…these are all proper usages of the Hebrew word na’ar. Verse six is a continuation of the conversation between Jeremiah and God which lasts for the entirety of the chapter. In the context of this conversation God informs Jeremiah of his purpose (to be a prophet unto the nations) and quickly commissions him and sends him out. The conversation is immediate in it’s application. God tells Jeremiah who he is, and then says, in essence “GO NOW!” So, although God’s knowledge has no bounds within space-time, God is able to confront His creation at any point while making His message immediately applicable. That being said, it would not follow logically that God sends out a child (as the KJV interprets the word). If we have a proper understanding of how words are translated then we can see how the words surrounding any single word, at least some-what, determine the meaning of that word. In this situation, the context demands that na’ar be translated not as “child” but as some sort of early adult; young man perhaps, or maybe youth. Such a translation would be in-keeping with the context and time frame of the verse as we can easily see that Jeremiah is in fact a “youth” (i.e. not a child) when he is commissioned. If he was not a child then there can certainly be no grounds for a doctrine of pre-existent spirit children. Such a doctrine is an abomination to God’s true nature.
Both these words (KJV Translation - child/Correct Translation - youth) are within the semantic domain of the Hebrew word na’ar and are indicative of yet another problem with Mormon doctrine. Mormons hold the KJV of the Bible over and above any other translation. This is a critical failure, yet again, of Joseph Smith, to enumerate a translation. The KJV is nowhere near a perfect translation, and in fact it has been proven to be grossly inaccurate in major areas. It once was that the KJV was the most accurate of any translation, based upon the manuscript evidence which was available in 1611 when it was penned. However, with the discovery and consequent studying of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the KJV has been shown to be significantly lacking in the area of ancient manuscript support.
The issue of the KJV will be next on my plate unless my Mormon friend has more pressing issues I should address. I say “more pressing” because the KJV thing is really a non-issue…the evidence is far too vast and damning to allow anyone who has sincerely sought out the truth to hold to the idea that the KJV is the most perfect translation.
I hope my readers can see that Mormonism is a clear case of misunderstanding being propagated through the years as “Gods truth”. It (Mormonism) is nothing more than sinful man’s human tradition to love himself and make himself God. It is decidedly not Christian, and therefore not the true church, nor the true word. God is not merely God of this planet. He is GOD OF ALL! There is, are, and never will be others like Him. He alone is God and, as such, is worthy of all praise and adoration. He is the God of every planet, everywhere, everytime. One God. One creation. One savior. One eternity.

25 X Awesome

2010-07-26T22:18:00.001-04:00

1. She is beautiful (first and foremost)
2. She is an awesome mommy
3. She is an amazing wife who blesses me on a daily bases, without thinking twice
4. She is passionate towards people
5. She thinks I'm funny (no accounting for taste right?)
6. She is tough
7. And yet transparently vulnerable (if you know what to look for...and since I do...)
8. She makes me want to be more than I am just by being herself
9. She affirms me in front of the kids when I'm not present and I can tell by their attitudes when I get home
10-14. She has bore me 5 children
15. And is just as excited as I am to have more
16. She loves her mama
17. And teaches the kids how to do the same
18. She works hard with our finances
19. And has single handedly repaired our credit
20. And seen us through the most financially trying time in our lives
21. She cleans my mom's house every week just because
22. She poors love into everything she does
23. She is wonderfully girlie and feminine
24. Did I mention she's beautiful...like really...from her eyes to her feet...breathtaking
25. She loves God

She's my Sandy, made special for me at the foundation of the universe, by the one mighty God. Your love for me Father is evident everyday through her. Above all men I am truly blessed!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Not there...

2010-06-30T22:48:00.000-04:00

In the end, will it all have been worth the missed sports games, the absence of Daddy at the recital, the lost hours that might have been better spent merely being together to SHOW them "YOU MEAN MORE THAN ANYTHING TO ME!"? No, it won't. Not if your actions tell them something different. And at that point "it's my job" won't be medicine enough, because all they will hear is "I had better things to do". Quit your job if you have to, but don't fail raise your kids. Jobs and careers don't matter here; relationships and people do. Even more than that; family matters. And above that; God.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

2010-06-29T20:50:00.002-04:00

Interesting and revealing...worth the length!

Exegesis on Luke 2:21

2010-06-26T15:28:00.003-04:00

It was recently put to me in a Facebook conversation most of you probably saw from my post on June 6 at 8:13 am, to address some key doctrinal claims of Mormonism. It is my assertion that Mormonism is essentially not Christianity. In an effort to be completely transparent I will let all my readers know at the outset that I believe Mormonism to be a complete misrepresentation of the Christian Bible. Likewise, I believe the Book of Mormon, as well as supporting texts like the Pearl of Great Price, to be heretical and simply unhelpful and confusing to a correct understanding of the Christian Bible. All Mormon texts are decidedly NOT God’s word. The proceeding commentaries will be proof of my statements.
For the purpose of promoting understanding we must first define a few things. Within the bounds and context of this writing, when I refer to anything as Christian, I mean not Mormon. That is not to say I am also referring to all things not Mormon, but the distinct differences between Mormonism and Christianity. As is necessary with Biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning from scripture, as opposed to imposing meaning upon scripture), the reader must keep in mind the definitions I have presented above while reading, since it is I who determine the meaning of my words, not the reader. The same is true with scripture. It is the original writer who determines the meaning of the words written, not the reader. With that, let’s get started looking at the correct meaning and analysis of Luke 2:21.
Verse 21 of the second chapter of Luke actually starts back in Genesis 17:10 where God tells Abraham to circumcise all male children eight days or older, whether they were biological children, foreign born, or slaves. All males amongst the people of Israel were to be circumcised. In Luke 2:21 we see Jesus’ parents adhering to this command. The scripture says, “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child.” This calls attention to Jesus’ Jewish heritage and initially sets the stage for Jesus’ blamelessness. Even at this tender early age Jesus was being molded as the unblemished lamb. Had he not been circumcised, Jesus certainly would have been in violation of the covenant made between Abraham and Yahweh in Gen. 17:10. This covenant was given by command from God and therefore, any defiance of that command would carry the title of transgression. Transgression is called also by the name sin. We see here that even as early as eight days after his birth Jesus was sinless. He was certainly sinless for the eight days before this but here we come across evidence that Jesus remained sinless, as he did for the remainder of his life.
After this we see that scripture says “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” There is a lot going on in this verse so stay with me as we discover the only possible meaning of this verse.”
First we read “his name was called JESUS.” This is the name Iesous which is Greek for Jesus, Joshua (referencing the Old Testament Joshua whose name in Hebrew [Yehosua] translates into English exactly the same way as the Greek Iesous), all of which are literally translated to English as “Yahweh saves.” It is no accident that this name appears throughout scripture. It is specifically given to Jesus as a name by the angel Gabriel who spoke to Mary as referenced in Luke 1:31. In this verse, God sends Gabriel to tell Mary to name her baby Jesus, or “Yahweh saves.” The angel would also be the announcer of the baby. Not the deliverer, but merely the announcer. By Gabriel’s own words recorded in Luke, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” By the full force of God’s power, Mary now had a child in her womb, having never experienced sexual activity. So we see here that God gave Mary a baby and gave her the name. We know that the name came before Jesus was placed in her womb because Gabriel gave her the name first; only after she asked “how shall this be” did Gabriel tell her how it would happen. Never are we told exactly when Mary became pregnant. The story in Luke immediately goes to Mary visiting Elizabeth, at which point it seems to be assumed that Mary is already pregnant. Either way it was certainly after the proclamation of the boy’s name.
So here we see the plain truth of these verses. God, through Gabriel, gave Mary the name Jesus for her child, as well as impregnated her, in the same manner as Elizabeth and Zachariah were given the name of their baby, though Zachariah was the biological father in that situation. The past tense nature of the “before he was conceived in the womb” statement simply refers to the pronunciation of Jesus’ name when given to Mary by Gabriel.
You may be asking yourself “what does this have to do with Mormon doctrine?” Our verse is a verse cited by a Mormon friend of mine to support the existence of spirit children, existent with god before the creation of the world. I pray I am accurate to the Mormon doctrine here as I would hate to misrepresent all Mormons. In this doctrine we find that all of us, including Jesus, were existent before creation, with god, as his spirit children. This would, in a way, make Jesus the half-brother of Satan, according to Mormon doctrine. I say according to Mormon doctrine because it is nowhere present in the Bible. Luke 2:21 is cited as one proof text of this, though there are supposedly more. The question here has to do with what exactly “before” means. Since the Greek form of this word (pro) simply carries a relative sense of time, as in “before I got in my car”, we all can see how this could be confusing if we were the ones determining the meaning of the words written here. Also, since “before” is non-descript in and of itself, we need to look somewhere else for what the author really means. When we read “before”, we logically ask “when?” The answer to this question is rightly found in the text itself, which is not limited to this verse, but the entire text of Luke. Within the construct of that context, it is entirely inappropriate and illogical to deduce that the author is saying “before creation.” The creation of the world at no time enters into this text as we have read thus far, so why would a reader assume that is what is meant by “before”? More plausible a meaning for “before” here would be “when Gabriel told Mary.” Even the grammar of this verse refers to the past tense as that time when the angel gave the name Jesus to Mary for her baby in verse 1:31. Let’s look at the grammar:
“which was so named”; who was so named? Jesus. Who named him? “the angel” (though it should be said that the context of verse 1:31 implies that God named the baby and the angel only delivered that name). When did the angel name him? “before he was conceived in the womb.” The angel of verse 1:31 did not give the name before creation, but right then and there, face to face with Mary, at that point in time, after creation. Mormons would mistakenly point out that God may have given the name before creation as 1 Peter 1:19-20 seems to imply. However, the statement of 1 Peter is something entirely different than what we have been dealing with here and is not contextual to this matter and therefore confuses the issue. If you are Mormon I will not expect you to take my word for it. As I have done here, I will also do with Jeremiah 1:5, as well as 1 Peter 1:19-20. So, as it was put to me…“you don’t have to agree, but if you sincerely want to learn more just be patient.”
What I have presented here is not my own words but an analysis of the words already in scripture. The truth is plain. If you are open-minded, and not bound by your own human tradition, you will see that the Mormon tradition absolutely CAN NOT be accurate as the text clearly does not support such imaginative interpretation. The book of Mormon is also not synergistic with the Bible in this area and therefore stands at odds with the revealed word of God. It logically follows that the Mormon texts ARE NOT the word of God, for God does not contradict himself.
It is also worth noting that what I have presented cannot be taken as “an” interpretation, as if to imply there is another way to apply these verses. This train of thought is exactly what leads to misinterpretation and the distorting of the truth. There is only one meaning, unless the author intended his words to have more than one meaning.
I am praying for the Mormons reading this right now. It is a frightening thing to come into the presence of the God of scripture. It is all the more frightening to know you have stood in stark contrast to His word. The truth of scripture comes with force and cannot be ignored. Study well, and know God.

Bigotry and Murder

2010-06-22T18:02:00.001-04:00

I recently came across a gruesome and ghastly YouTube video that graphically shows the after math of abortion for both child and mother. I will spare my readers the horror of this video as the content almost made me vomit. In fact I am ashamed to say I did not, for I know attrocity far too well. Upon reflecting on what I had just seen and realizing the position of pro-choice, I was struck with a thought.

Let's presume that a pregnant woman chooses to abort her "fetus". Knowing what those phrases are meant to conceal I have a hard time realizing the disconnectedness it promotes but allow me to relate it to you in a way that will expose your own inconsistencies and sin if you hold to a pro-choice position.

Let's now presume that YOU take a pair of BBQ tongs, or a hook of some sort, or merely some tool for grasping, and you gently slide it into your pregnant dog's vagina with the intent and sole purpose of pulling out the puppy that is in her before he or she was full developed, or maybe already developed to the point of having legs, a tail, paws; perhaps moving, or not. Is the thing you pulled out of your dog another dog, or a fetus?

IS your heart racing? Mine is just from describing such horrifying thoughts.

I feel as though it would be pretty safe to assume that most in our society today would have a problem with the scenario described above. How revealing is this as to our contempt as a society for humanity? What a double standard! We should all be ashamed.

If you are a Christian I would challenge you to organize a ministry team armed with the sword of the word, and go stand outside of your local abortion clinic to intervene on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. Be a voice for the silent. A father to the fatherless. Stand in the gap, for they are many and wide in our country. Your faith is not about you! Get off your couch, get out of your computer chair and make a difference! Where are those Christians who are going to jail in this country for their faith? I know of only a handful across this country. God help us for being so comfortable.

Development of the Canon of Scripture

2010-06-06T23:47:00.000-04:00

It is a cultural reality that many consider the Bible to be a flawed collection of man-written books whose meaning and contents has been changed to suit the will and whim of man. It is because of this issue, combined with personal experience that most would not set foot into a church much less engage in meaningful dialogue with a dreaded Christian. Instead of the bearers, keepers, and announcers of truth, Christians have, by design, become the whipping boys of our modern pluralistic culture. The design of our culture is such that it turns propositional truth in to a fantasy, history into a fairytale.
Since we boldly claim to have direct access to ultimate truth in the pages of the Bible we must know for certain where it has come from if we are to preserve that truth with any effectiveness. In an attempt to do exactly that, this will be a brief description of the process by which the Bible we hold in our hands today came to be. While some would tell a story about the many books written as gospels that are not included in the modern day Bible, or the story about how the council of Nicea (A.D. 325) was convened to “write” the Bible (actually convened to address Arianism) , these stories are by no means supported by any evidence that would stand up to serious inquiry.
So as not to perpetuate more stereotypes, let us start with the apostolic period. This period spans the entire first century on into the second, though not completing the second. During this time all the books of the New Testament (NT) were already in existence. This is evidenced by the fact that there are references to other books of the NT within the pages of NT books that are verifiably dated to the first century. If these books make reference of the other NT books, it is safe therefore to assume that the authors couldn’t have quoted those books had they not existed. Also, it is important to point out that the apostles themselves, in their writing, used the heading “scripture” when talking about Deuteronomy as well as Luke, Psalms as well as Ephesians, etc. The apostles own testimony substantiates the ascription of the title of scripture to at least the gospels, but perhaps more likely the entire NT writings as we know them today. This is significant because it shows that the apostles themselves held certain NT writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (OT) scriptures. This was the beginning of the Canon of NT scripture.
Even earlier than this (A.D. 95) was a letter from Clement of Rome to the Christians in Corinth on behalf of the Roman Christians. There is evidence that suggests Clement was familiar with, and sometimes quoted, Mark, Luke, Hebrews, Romans, Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and Ephesians. The application of this finds its worth in modern apologetics to counter the claim that the Bible was written too long after the events it describes to be at all accurate. We have sufficient evidence to reasonably prove that these scriptures were penned perhaps even when Jesus was alive, if not then certainly by eye witnesses and/or within one generation. There is no other ancient document that can even remotely claim such a thing.
From the apostolic period we see the upholding of the Gospels as authoritative scripture, and perhaps the epistles as well. The next period rounds out the second century and moves almost half way into the third. We enter this period with the Canon of the Gospels firmly settled amongst the churches as well as the epistles and Acts; here referent to Irenaeus who considered all these just as much scripture as the OT. Testimony of Clement and Irenaeus represents the wide spread acceptance of these books as scripture, encompassing eastern and western kingdoms. It is not because of these men that the Canon was determined, but they were simply the most vocal ones talking about what was already happening. More and more people were accepting these books as authoritative. Irenaeus and Clement simply said out loud what everyone else was demonstrating. The most empirical evidence available testifying to what was considered Canon in this period is represented in the Muratorian Fragment. In this document we have a list encompassing the Gospels, Acts, all the Pauline epistles, Apocalypse (Revelation), 1 and 2 John, and Jude. This is important because it gives us a snap-shot of sorts of the Canon at the close of the second century.
As we progress through the centuries there is slower movement and less to tell about by means of major developments because the bulk of scripture had already been affirmed as Canonical. I would be remiss in my exposition here if I did not mention Origen. Although he was the most prolific figure of the third century in the context of the third century church, he did not further the development of the Canon, suffice to say that he did affirm, almost exactly, what was already considered authoritative. Through such notable figures as Dionysius, Cyprian, and Eusebius, what was considered scripture had not changed very much at all and was essentially the same books as Origen listed. It was not until Athanasius (A.D. 367) that we see the affirmation of all 27 books of our modern day NT, though there was much debate over the apocalypse. How could there not be debate over a book of such a nature as Revelation.
The Council of Carthage convened at the end of the fourth century and presented a list of, now declared to be, Canonical books of the NT. Thereafter was some divergence between east and west as to what was accepted as scripture but the influence of Constantine in the east, and Jerome/Augustine in the west, using different methods, largely settled the matter for both regions.
So what we see here is a gradual recognition, even from the beginning, of the entirety of scripture being touted as such, at least by Christians, if not by religious figure heads as well. The authoring of these books, therefore, seems to be the criteria of consideration, and the application the judge. As these books and letters were written they were added, one by one to the Canon of scripture. “Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century a collection of "New Books", called the "Gospel and Apostles", was already a part of the "Oracles" of God, or "Scriptures", or the "Holy Books" or "Bible".” It seems, therefore, that the trouble with the development of the Canon was that of persecution and time. To explain that, let us think of the context surrounding all this empirical history.
Christianity, no matter how beloved or condemned, has always been, more or less, persecuted. Within that context we see untrained yet faithful believers laboriously working to painstakingly copy the volumes of text any one church may possess so as to bring other letters of verifiable apostolic origin to another church, perhaps their home church. I have stated above, essentially that the books of the Bible as we have them today were all in existence by the end of the first century, however they existed in different areas. As believers traveled amongst churches, such as we see with Paul’s missionary journeys, they also copied whichever letters and/or books they did not yet possess. In this way, the rapid, uncontrolled dispersal of God’s message of salvation was guaranteed in such a way as to ensure its sincerity and adherence to the originals. As a side note, the mistakes we observe in these copies are therefore understandable given the context. So if we approach this from a multifaceted view, we can see how the entire testimony of NT scripture, as we have in our modern day Bibles, was present in the first century and all books were considered, at different locations, to be authoritative. Therefore, the development and agreement upon what is scripture becomes merely a function of time and location. As the documents spread, along with corresponding verification of authenticity, the scriptures as we know them took shape.
Just as it is observed in the issue of transmission of the text of scripture, there is one story the world tells, and then there is the plain empirical truth. There is the story of how the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) convened to settle the Canon and some would say “write” the scriptures. There is also the story of how all these other gospels were left out simply because they did not represent convenience to the Council that defined the Canon (most will say Nicea), while the rest that spoke to the Council members’ pet motivations were kept. We can see how this is a creation of modern speculation and a withholding of truth. Just as some will say, in regards to transmission of the text, that the Bible has been changed far too much and those changes have been far too drastic for it ever to be seriously considered reliable. This is a more complex lie but a lie none-the-less. The fact that there was never any one person in control of even a fraction of the existent Bible refutes that claim at the outset. Likewise, the claim that any one Council, or fallible, man-made institution or system somehow determined what was God’s word and what was not, is utterly untrue. The truth is evident. The documents we know to be modern scripture existed at the same time, though in different locals, and were credited with the same authority: God’s.
It is evident to me that in all things authoritative, God does not use people to decide on anything. God did not let people determine who would get the scriptures, nor did he let people determine what was going to be considered scripture. In a very real sense, through circumstance, God worked his creation in such a way that his word was made inescapably sacred.
Part of believing is obedience. If we can trace the Canon of God’s word back to any human authority to choose, then there is essentially no enduring call to obedience, and certainly no conviction of perseverance of such obedience. In God’s wisdom He has beautifully orchestrated our role in his design, aptly as audience members. We can, by observing history, view God’s character. We are merely objects of His work and recipients of His grace if we believe.

Bibliography
http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield2.html accessed on 3 June 2010
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html accessed on 4 June 2010
http://bible.org/question/how-did-we-get-our-bible-who-wrote-it-and-who-decided-what-order-put-it accessed on 3 June 2010
Jonathan Hill, Handbook to the History of Christianity (Lion Publishing Plc., England 2006) 80

Exegesis on Romans 8:28-39

2010-05-15T08:15:00.002-04:00

This paper will address the theological and modern cultural implications of Romans 8:28-39 through a proper analysis of the words, context, and thus appropriate application of this scripture to today’s culture.

Romans 8:28-30 sets the tone of this portion of scripture by first and foremost making God the active subject. This is stressed by the verbiage of what God is doing within the context of these verses. He works, He foreknows, He predestines, He calls, He justifies, and finally and ultimately He glorifies. It is my intent to show that throughout these verses there is nothing the person must do. Indeed it is only what God is doing that matters, that keeps us, that justifies us, that glorifies us, and more importantly, that glorifies Him. Our first section (Romans 8:28-30) enters with a magnificent statement of how mighty is our God. Never do believers enter into the context of this verse unless we are willing to see them as objects. God is the subject!

8:31-35 displays for us the power of the one who we just learned is active in the life of those He has chosen. He is also effective. It is exemplified here that through the relationship of Christ and the Father within the Trinity and because of God’s great power, there exists a bond that nothing can break. Once again we see the triune God doing the work of retaining those He has chosen. Those who believe remain an object, although an object of God’s action.

Only in verses 8:36-39 do we come to terms with our role and worth in this heavenly relationship. You see, there is an intended order to these passages. It is outlined similar to this: Because God is who He is and does what He does (Romans 8:28-35), this is who we become then (Romans 8:36-39). If the meaning of this passage is seen to be “who a person is” in relation to God then the meaning is certainly lost. What I mean is that if we start with ourselves and look up towards God presenting to Him who we have found ourselves to be, then we miss who He is all together because we don’t yet know who we are. Neither can we know who God is until we are willing to die to self daily; for it is by God’s personhood we become in touch with our own personality. That is, we must start from the opposite perspective; we must know who God is to know who we are. He created us; how could He not be able to tell us who we are? When we start with a keen sense of who God is, only then do we come to a full and faithful revelation of who we are. We are most often taught the opposite. We learn from a young age to be unique, different, an individual, and we are essentially told to know God by knowing ourselves. In this system exists the very definition of Humanism: to find ourselves in everything and let ourselves be everything, including God. Romans 8:28-39 astutely leads us to a place where God does and where we simply be and live…believe! Let’s explore the depths of these verses, word by word, phrase by phrase; all the while giving the author the honor of allowing him to determining the meaning of his own words.

We have to consider the context in which Paul’s letter to the Romans was written. By considering the historical situation that Paul writes from, we can possibly find more insight into the deep theological concepts he presents in this letter. We can also find profoundly applicable insight from observing the literary context. That is to say we will be looking at the purpose Romans 8:28-39 plays in the greater scheme of the entire book. By this method we will honorably treat the scripture and give adequate consideration to what the author was communicating to his original audience.

Paul writes his letter to the Roman church from Corinth expressing his desire to visit, ultimately on his way to Spain (Rom 15:23). His letter is carried to the Roman church by Phoebe, a woman, who presents controversy in our modern context. The controversial question is if she was a deacon or simply one who served in the church. Michael A. Harbin, in his book The Promise and the Blessing: A Historical Survey of the Old and New Testament, finds evidence that she was a deacon.

“In the Greek text of Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a diakonos, “servant, minister, deacon” (for the later, English has the feminine form, deaconess). Both the NIV and NASB translate it as “servant.” There is debate whether this designation means that she was the wife of a deacon, or that she was a female who occupied the position of a deacon within that church. It is most likely the latter.”[1]

This seems to have no direct bearing on our discussion of Romans 8:28-39, however, just like some of the principles we will discuss, this shows how some of our human traditions influence the way we read scripture. Are women Deacons permissible in scripture? If so what is their scope of authority? What about the testimony of the New Testament on the subject? These are apt questions but must be abandoned for another time as they are not specifically addressed in the verses we are observing. It still remains that we must approach with our assumptions thoroughly destroyed so as to let scripture, indeed to let God shape us.

There seems to be as many views on the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Roman church as there are people who comment on it. They range from a simple introduction to the Romans who hadn’t met Paul yet, a mere product of opportunity since Phoebe was going to Rome anyway, greeting of old friends, and more intrinsic purposes such as giving the Roman church their first apostolic teaching. The latter seems to me to be the more plausible purpose. It would have been increasingly more difficult for the leaders of the church in Rome to resist and counter other influences within the church from the Roman culture. As it was, there were already divisions between Gentile and Jewish believers. Jewish believers still felt compelled to adhere to the dietary laws and sacred days while the Gentile believers entirely rejected this on principle as well as the Jews who held such views. Given Paul’s call to unity within the church, stated in other letters he wrote to other churches, this text, taken in that context, would be consistent with many of Paul’s other teachings.

In terms of literary context we can observe that Paul writes what is in essence a theological essay. This letter addresses many of the theological topics that have filled many books since. Within that construct we can see chapter 8 to be a treatment of the Holy Spirit’s role in the believer’s life and who that produces in them. Paul instructs us on the spirit controlled life. He tells us of what a life lead by the spirit of God looks like. In emphasizing the difference between the sinful mind and the mind controlled by the spirit, Paul tells us “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.” (Rom 8:7) This brings me to expand on my initial point. I said earlier that the person must do nothing, contextually emphasizing that it is God who does, who acts. Here we have a supporting statement that progresses my earlier statement, in fact to a condition of inability. The person apart from God CAN NOT do anything relating to salvation. If the unsaved cannot submit to God’s law then who is it that does the work in one’s initial confession of faith?

Here in these same initial passages of Romans 8 we also have the relationship between sin, our bodies, the spirit within us, and our behavior. We are told that our bodies are dead because of sin, if Christ truly lives within us. Our spirit is said to be alive because of righteousness. Paul steps us through even this basic teaching so that we may not misunderstand. When he states in verse 11 that our spirits are alive because of righteousness he is not referring to any righteousness that could be credited to us. The emphasis is still on God. It is God’s spirit inside us which impregnates us with righteousness, and that not of ourselves. Only then does Paul show how “the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead” may “also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you” (Rom 8:11). So in 8:1-11 we see the evidence and effects of the spirit placed within believers. Verses 12-27 then are a powerful glimpse at the hope that belongs to those within whom God has placed His spirit. Paul describes this as a hope for what we do not have. “…Who hopes for what he already has?” (Rom 8:24).

In Romans chapter 9 Paul expands on his teaching of God’s work in each individual believer and increases it to the congregation of believers. Differentiating between Jew and Gentile, Paul shows how obedience to the law earns nothing in this new covenant, and in fact has become a stumbling block, while also showing how the Gentiles, “who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it”. The emphasis is on faith. Faith in what? God’s work!

So our literary context yields thusly: God places his spirit in the believer who is then credited with God’s righteousness, through the righteousness of the spirit there is hope as an heir of God, God has chosen those whom will be heirs and this not according to any merit of any person, the faith that God compels one to have according to His eternal calling is what saves.

From here we can proceed into analysis of Romans 8:28-39 with a clear conscience, knowing that we have considered the context in which the writer penned this letter, as well as the context in which the intended audience would read it. Let us now consider the specifics of these verses.

Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

In verse 28 we start out with the conjunction “And”, which connects the following statement to the previous verses. By “And” Paul is communicating an addition to the previous ideas of the Holy spirit placed within believers to deliver hope. What is Paul adding? He is adding the concept of God’s work and the permanence of that work. Paul uses the pronoun “we” to imply all who believe. This would include not only himself but his audience as well. So, when Paul says “we know” he is saying “believers know.” Then we have the present tense verb “works” which refers to God and what He is doing. God works, not believers. What does he work? He works all things! Does this have a limiting modifier? No it does not. All things are worked by God. And for what? We read that he works all things for the good of those who love him. So we see that God works good. Does this even account for trials and what we determine to be bad? By the description of “all things” it most certainly does. We may also observe a cause and effect relationship respectively between loving God and Him working good for those who love Him. Loving God is here stated to be the sole condition for God working good in the life of the believer. Next we see that the pronoun “who” refers once again to believers, but now is in the context of yet another of God’s acts. We read that those who believe have been called. By whom have they been called? The statement “his purpose” implies that God has called the believer, and for a specific purpose. The past tense nature of the verb “called” emphasizes God’s action before the believer’s action of loving him. So verse 28 tells us that God calls us to love Him and then works good for those who love Him, not only for their good but for His purpose, which is perhaps why we may not see our trials as good; because he is working them for His purpose, not ours.

Verse 29 introduces us to the scope of God’s work within time. Such words as “foreknew” and “predestined” call attention to God’s eternal nature, both in terms of the future and the past. Proginosko (Foreknew) and Proorizo (Predestined), in all occurrences pertaining to God’s action, both carry with them the sense of God’s work happening before any and all action. 1 Corinthians 2:7 puts this emphatically, “…that God destined for our glory before time began.” In this verse we see the same sort of hope of glorification with Christ delivered through the Holy Spirit, except here God’s framework of time is quantified as being “before time began.” We can astutely relate our verse to this in such a way as to see that God’s foreknowledge and predestination of those who would love Him happened before time began. What, exactly was it that God foreknew and predestined? Verse 29 blatantly states that God foreknew and predestined those who would be “conformed to the likeness of his Son”. God chose, before time began, all those who would love Him. From the idea of predestination follows God’s call from before time began. In regards to the word “called” (kletos, or kaleo), The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance states,

“the authority of the speaker dictates the nature of the calling.”[2]

Since the “speaker” here is God, the nature of the calling would be of ultimate authority. All occurrences of this word, in either form (kletos, or kaleo) imply God’s imputation of righteousness for each one called.

In verse 29 there is also what seems to be a phrase out of place which directly relates Christ-likeness to God’s call. Indeed it is likeness of the Son to which God calls each believer, so as to ascribe the Son’s qualities and characteristics to them. It is evident by who is doing all the work so far (God) that crediting believers with Christ’s righteousness has nothing to do with the believer but has everything to do with God’s power to influence His creation and His capacity to act outside of time.

Verse 30 presents a sequenced list that flows appropriately towards heaven; starting with God before time and ending with glory. Working within the context cited from 1 Corinthians 2:7 “before time began” we gain an appropriate perspective on the work God is doing. He predestined us to Christ-likeness, calling us to righteousness through our relationship with the Son by our shared spirit with him, He justified us in the image of Christ as a means to legally and morally establish again a right relationship with Him, and He glorified us as a means of glorifying himself. Since it is all God’s work in us there is no glory to be had for ourselves. The proper perspective of God’s work must be present at the end of verses 28-30, with no credit of work going to the individual believer; for in our next few verses (31-35) we will see dramatic consequences if we are not reliant upon the perfect work of the triune God in causing salvation for those He has chosen before time began. We may assign no act of will or cause of salvation to the believer, not even in a decision to believe, if Paul’s next statements are to be true. To credit the believer with any work thus far is to effectively make Paul’s statements hereafter entirely false.

Romans 8:31-35

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Once again, as in verse 28, here in verse 31 we start with a conjunction connecting the flow of communication back to the preceding verses. Paul is asking a question related to the fact that God does all the work in saving those He has designated. “What, then, shall we say in response to this?” In Response to what? The response is in the context of God’s work and the finality of that work. To paraphrase: what does God’s work in his act of saving those he has chosen mean to us? In a very ultimate sense, we next read what cannot happen to believers because of God’s power and work. Through rhetorical questions we are implicitly guided to an understanding of what God’s perfect work prevents. It prevents a complete breakdown of the perseverance of salvation by virtue of God’s defining characteristics. God is, by definition, perfect in all ways knowable. This quality permeates the work He is displayed to be doing in Romans 8:28-30. God is also, by definition, all powerful; no one and nothing can undo what God has done. This quality also permeates God’s work. It therefore logically follows, as Paul implies, that no one can stand against those whom God has chosen to love Him, so as to undo the righteousness God has given them; nor can they condemn those God has called to righteousness. God has the power to save, and he does, for eternity.

If we were to credit the believer with any part of salvation, to include the final act of confession, we would fundamentally flaw the structure of salvation and the entire thing would crumble like a house of cards. If at any one point within salvation man’s imperfect and incongruous nature were to impose itself, it would necessitate the vulnerability of the whole. Man does not possess perfection; nor do we have all power. Simply for the lack of those two necessary attributes, if reliant upon human action, salvation becomes an imperfect institution void of any idea of permanence. If people influence salvation then Paul’s question “who can be against us?” truly is answered, “whoever has greater authority and/or power than man.” Likewise, Paul’s later question “who is it that condemns?” is also answered in the same way. There are several beings in scripture that have greater power and authority than man. The only one who operates in defiance of God, and therefore the only one who would condemn or be against those who love God is Satan. If God’s salvation is limited by human decision (will) then Satan would have already succeeded and salvation would have been doomed to failure at the outset. The very existence of the biblical ideal of salvation is solely reliant upon man having no part in it, or it truly ceases to exist in any effective or meaningful way. So, here in verses 31-34 we have the effect of God’s work in saving those whom He chooses and the idea that none are able to contest God’s decree. As Paul powerfully states, “it is God who justifies.”

Verse 32 seems confusing considering who is being referred to by the many He’s and him’s, but if we follow the pronouns we can see a reaffirmation of a previous statement that is here expanded upon. “He who did not spare his own Son,” obviously refers to God. What is He doing here? He is graciously giving “all things” to those who love Him, even though He already gave his son. “Son” in verse 32 connects forward to the next “him” in the second part of the verse implying that God gave up his Son for us all. Note that “us all” connects back to “we” from verse 31, therefore meaning all those believing, and not all people. And we now see Paul’s logical deduction of God giving those who believe all things, along with his Son. It would follow that we could accurately say God did not withhold his Son from those who love him, so we can expect that the one who even gave his Son would give us “all things”. “All things” being spoken of here calls back to verse 28 where we learned earlier that God works good in all things for those who love him. This is reminiscent of that same statement. We see that God gives us all good things, and we were assured earlier (verse 28) that this is all according to his purposes.

We also find an affirmation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in verse 34 as a means of supporting the claim that he “is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance gives two other words for “interceding” that could very well be interchangeable in this context; they are appeal and petition.[3] Though it may be amateur and cliché to do so, I will quote Webster’s dictionary in designating an appeal as “a legal proceeding by which a case is brought before a higher court for review of the decision of a lower court.”[4] Also, petition is defined as “an earnest request.”[5] I feel that the legal atmosphere is fitting given the legal implications of God’s justification of those he predestined. In this way Jesus makes an earnest request of the father, who needs only consider who he predestined when rendering his judgment. Seated at the place of honor next to the father, with him in heaven, Christ loves us and requests of the father on our behalf. It is fitting that we see Paul change from talking about our inseparability from God, to that of Christ. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Certainly the one seated at the right hand of God, interceding for the saints, who died and was raised to life again, and who has been given by the father to those who love him, would be capable of retaining the ones who believe in him.

Verse 35 starts a list that is short of exhaustive but seems to be intended to carry that very idea. Paul imputes God’s power to Christ through a logical sequence that parallels what we learned in preceding verses. God’s work is perfect and cannot be undone by anything. Likewise Paul says that nothing can separate us from Christ, as if to say that Christ shares God’s power of keeping those he has called over-and-above any other earthly power. This is evident by Paul’s listing of things that are indeed bigger than anything or anyone on earth yet fully within God’s power to control. Beginning with abstract things (trouble, hardship, persecution) Paul does a good job of painting a picture that negates any other power except God’s in being able to influence any one of these things. This idea repeats in verses 38 and 39 when Paul lists most powers one could think of which might have the unlikely ability to affect our call to Christ-likeness. It is transparently clear at the end of verses 38 and 39 that we must not have a single thing to do with our salvation or the powers listed therein (death, life, angels, demons, present, future, height, depth), all of which are greater and more powerful than we are, could surely overcome us. It is only by a power greater than all of these we are saved, kept, and glorified.

Romans 8:36-39

As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In verse 36 Paul cites Psalm 44:22 where the Psalmist cries out to God to save them, to redeem them so they may triumph once more as their fathers did “long ago”. Paul then, in verse 37 says this is not the case with us. We have been declared as heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). How can you be more than conquerors, you may ask? A conqueror defeats the nation and forces the people into submission. Conquerors take their plunder by force, probably never earning true allegiance and loyalty. An heir carries with him the name of the king and the alliance of the people. How can we be more than conquerors? We are heirs to the throne of grace. We needn’t take it by force, nor can we; it has been given as a gift of love to those whom God has elected before time began according to his purposes.

The truth of these verses would have resonated with the people in the Roman church since they were used to being subjugated. They would have looked with excitement on God’s ability, beyond that of their oppressors’. Conversely, in our culture we have trouble letting go of our precious free will to decide if we want to follow God. Our apprehension is understandable given the men, women, and children who fought to deliver to us the freedoms we enjoy. In this way we plow head-long into the most acute human tradition we face: pride. One of the defining songs of our country states “…and I’m proud to be an American…”. It is this sort of pride that compels us to place our patriotism over our faith; to identify ourselves first as Americans instead of Christians. Enjoyment of one’s country is not a bad thing but we toe the line when we try to impose our national tradition on God’s power. When I approach God with a capacity to choose if I should follow him or not, I am fundamentally telling God to woo me. “Convince me to follow you Lord, you’ve done some pretty impressive stuff already but I’m harder to win than that.” No! God has decided, and none can contend with him. So clear your schedule, cancel your appointments, clear out your savings account, and sell all your possessions; because if God wants you there is no way to resist. He will have his way. We will not have ours. We must not, or all is lost.

The permanence of God’s call is so beautiful. Why would anyone ever want to impose fallible human standards upon such a heavenly relationship as exists between our Lord and ourselves? I suppose it would be a product of a misunderstanding of that relationship. Knowing that God, before he created time, decided to set me aside for his own pleasure and purpose, that all I would do on this planet during this life would have eternal purpose and perspective, is amongst the most profound thoughts a human can think. A being that can and does exist in-and-of himself, because of himself, and for himself, could never “need” me; but he wants me. In Romans 8:28-39 we find such profundity as to define the meaning of life itself. If 1 Corinthians 13:13 says “the greatest of these is love” and Romans 28 says that “God works for the good of those who love him” then it would follow that the greatest good is to love God. Life: purpose found!

Bibliography

Michael A. Harbin, The Promise and the Blessing: A Historical Survey of the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan 2005)

Edward W. Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger III; The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan 1999)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appeal (accessed 14 May 2010)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petition (accessed 14 May 2010)

[1] Michael A. Harbin, The Promise and the Blessing: A Historical Survey of the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan 2005) 512.

[2] Edward W. Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger III; The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan 1999) 1561.

[3] Edward W. Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger III; The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan 1999) 1549.

[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appeal (accessed 14 May 2010)

[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petition (accessed 14 May 2010)

The Reality of Our Reality

2010-03-14T17:57:00.000-04:00

Since only 19 responses were logged, representing 18 opinions, I can't very well send the results to my legislators. The results are far from conclusive but more than 60% of those who posted were pro-life. What I am more interested in is the number of posts I received. 19 posts, in my mind represent a lack of interest. In the months since I posted this blog topic I have received well over 19 visitors. A small fraction of those who visited actually commented. What's more is that 19 people actually took the time to comment, but that is where it seemed to stop. I realize that my blog is less than a decisive tool for civil action but the reality is that our society doesn't care about abortion enough to change it. Don't read that wrong. Individuals may be passionately against abortion but that passion seems to stop once an attempt is made to bridge the gap between principle and action.

When Jesus started his earthly ministry his actions were characterized by an individual call out of apathy. The same happens today. When we finally surrender to Christ we are called out of lives where we are content to sit and play video games all day. We are called out of lives consumed by shallow pleasures. We are called to go into the world and speak truth. We must stop making concessions for those who would give themselves license to kill. Let us not forget that we have the market cornered on truth and morality. We may not concede to others’ opinions and treat them as truth. God is the law giver. He alone determines what is right and He has made no such provision for abortion. Fear God, not man!

Abortion

2010-01-22T08:09:00.002-05:00

There have been those who claim that the pro-life view is in the minority and that Row vs. Wade still stands because that is what the people of our country want. It is my view that to think the people still speak in America today is incredibly naive. That will be the subject of another post soon enough but for now please post your stance (Either pro-life or pro-choice), your city, state, and registered political affiliation. This is somewhat an actual survey so please send everyone you know to my blog and leave comments here. If I get enough responces I will send the results to my legislators.

- Posted using BlogPress

Daddy in Heaven

2010-01-13T13:30:00.000-05:00

Something happened at home yesterday that immediately convicted me in such a profound way that I could not escape the thought. It was made painfully obvious to me that I was not reacting and leading my children in a Godly manner. The premise God gave me is that our impression of God as Father is largely influenced by our earthly fathers. The ways we understand God as Father can either be hindered or helped by our earthly fathers. So it struck me. Do I approach my responsibility to display God as Father to my kids as a burden, or a blessing. Do I "have to" or do I "get to." The difference is entirely in my approach. The idea is not to have to live up to this perfect image of Dad, though I am indeed imperfect. It is that I am a servant, of God, of my wife, of my children. So I get to ask myself, based on what His word says, how God might respond to me in the same situation. I can't fool myself to think that the things my children do are isolated to their behavior. I behave the same way just in different environments. How does God handle me when I disobey, when I act out, when I disrespect Him? I get to show the kids not how good a father I am, but how good a daddy they have in heaven. Amen!

Rebuke, Repentance, Restitution

2010-01-10T13:41:00.003-05:00

"The only one who can accuse me is God!" We have all heard those words at one time or another. No matter where they come from they are representative of one thing: pride. This post is about repentance; that little thing which initiates our salvation. It's an admittance that something is wrong. Indeed that a person is wrong, broken, in need of forgiveness.

Salvation comes by the confession from one's mouth that they are a sinner (this confession is called repentance) and an additional confession that Jesus is the only one who can forgive the admitted sin. If this confession is not only confirmed by one's lips but made real in one's heart, then Romans 10:9 says you are saved from hell and given a place in heaven. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," Romans 8:1. Once one is saved from hell, there is no condemnation to be suffered. Christ suffered all condemnation on the cross, for we who believe. Does that mean that we who are saved may sin freely? Absolutely not. The Apostle Paul writes on this very thing in Romans 6:1. Do we who are saved sin? Yes we do. Frequently I might add. Yes, even I. Romans 3:23 confirms that much. The key here is repentance. Just as at the point of salvation, we are to say...sorry. Is that really it? Yes. Mind you, it is to be accompanied by a corresponding shift in action and attitude (the active portion of repentance), but that really is all that is required.

What of those who won't repent? May I remind you that real repentance is not merely the feeling of guilt or the admittance of guilt; it is all that AND the action proving reformation of a key part of one's being: the heart. This is called restitution. So those who won't repent, are they simply left in limbo? Not hardly. Are they still saved? I am not the one to say that, but I know what the Bible says to do. Matthew 18:15-17 prescribes the correct action for this circumstance. Notice the language of verse 17"...treat him as you would a pagan..." Other translations use "heathen." This has some interesting implications. If we look at 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 we can see that we are not called to judge those who don't believe, but those who do. So, putting this together; if the church were to treat an unrepentant believer as a heathen then there would be no judgment (also known within the church as accountability, described in Proverbs 27:17 and Hebrews 1:24-25). At this realization, nobody in the church would be able to say anything to rebuke or correct this person because they would merely be acting in a tolerable heathen fashion. It is important to remember that before this happens there must be numerous witnesses brought and the end result can only be determined by church elders.

Here I am more concerned with the directions given to believers in Matthew 18:15-17. As Christians the only right we have is to love. This is the only correct state of our character; the only condition in which our hearts are to exist. The question then becomes, does love rebuke? In the verses I have already cited it is clear that the answer is a profound yes. In Genesis 3 we can see how God rebuked Adam and Eve. He did not destroy them as He was fully capable of doing. He loved them, let them live, and yet sent them out of the garden. Love rebukes its own. I would argue that where there is no rebuke there is no love. This is not the only attribute of love but it is the operable one for this text. Matthew 18:15 gives us clear directions in any situation when believers sin. We are commanded to bring it to their attention, to confront them in love and call them to repentance. This is what real love looks like.

When we hear those words, "Only God can judge me," from a believer we must confront them as boldly as is needed to influence true repentance in that person, for something far more sinister awaits them if we do not. Allow me to explain that last statement. If one spreads this teaching, "only God can judge me," then they are in fact a false teacher. False teachers do not merely get kicked out, or declared to be heathen; Galatians 1:8-9 prescribes proper treatment of ones who would teach false doctrine. The Greek word here is Anathema. "...let him be DAMNED." (emphasis added). This is not condemnation from men or the church but God! This is eternal damnation.

I am not prepared to let my brothers and sisters, for whom Christ died, be eternally damned because I did not have the courage to confront them with their sin and call them to repentance. That doesn't sit well with me. So what if I am met with threats that my rebuke won't be received well. It's better to be hated and share heaven with my brothers and sisters than see them cast out of the church, or worse, eternally damned. I would expect no less than that if I were in sin.

So if this teaching does not come from the Bible where does it come from? There is an attitude of apathy and glorified depravity that belongs to the world in which we live. An attitude that shuns others for caring enough to tell a friend they're wrong. An attitude that is detestably all too common in the church today. Perhaps this attitude comes from areas of our lives we have not fully given to God? I don't know. I do know that God demands that HIS PEOPLE judge each other. The Holy Spirit does not condemn, nor does He do the job of believers. He does convict people in their conscience and convince them of the need for repentance but it is nonetheless the job of each believer to hold each other accountable, all with an attitude of love.

I urge all my readers who call themselves Christian, let no sin dwell among you that could be squashed by loving rebuke. Love your brother or sister enough to obey Matthew 18 and perhaps save them from shame and/or eternal damnation. Lives are at stake here! Be courageous, and humble. Know that you are no better but still must do your brother/sister this service, as scripture commands. I end this with a solemn prayer that you would sense the gravity of what I say and know that it is not I who made this standard, but God. I am at peace with the teaching I have presented here so if you somehow disagree I would urge you also to search the scriptures. If I have sinned I open myself to rebuke and will humble myself before my God and His people.

Discriminately Similar

2010-01-07T15:00:00.002-05:00

I have made a few changes; some noticeable, some not so much. This heralds a redirect in approach for not only my blog but more importantly for my life. Here one may still find the same focus on family and relationships, only now newly expanded to include the application of these and other biblical principles as related to our country and its doctrine, our culture and its ideology, and our faith. Stay tuned in, as I host discussions on basic constitutional "interpretation" and application, cultural devolution, the "religion" of sex, and how we can find our place within all these as Christians who strive to honor God in word, deed, and thought. These are just a few of the subjects we will explore, bringing them to an intersection at the foot of the cross. Many of you have seen the motivation for this on my Facebook wall. This is a continuation of those discussions in a forum that is a bit more tolerant of wordy answers. I hope you all will be as excited to discuss these topics as I am. All posts will be pushed to Facebook but I urge you to post comments here as I have made provisions for all comments to be seen within the main page and accompanying each parent post. Enjoy!

Birthday Scouting

2009-10-12T12:56:00.002-04:00

Now this is what I call a nice B-day. Happy birthday dad! We spent all day together in the woods. This, ladies and gentlemen is the picture of hunting. Nothing could say it better than this picture.

Signs and Miracles

2009-06-25T22:16:00.003-04:00

Sorry about the absence...been busy with work and school and family...worthy excuses if you ask me. Not that anyone did, but it's my blog and I can say that...so there. Here is a paper I have recently turned in for your reading enjoyment. It was a 6 page paper so please bear with me, it really is worth it.

Signs and Miracles of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John

Jesus is God. He was the active participant in creation and the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit that came down to dwell amongst men. In His supreme authority over all of creation He magnificently displayed His glory by way of signs and miracles. One who claims oneness with God would have to back up that claim with some pretty astonishing evidence that is not subject to prejudice or interpretation. Evidence that would make others take notice and ask themselves, “how did He do that?” Even we are skeptical when we see magic tricks. We see someone or something disappear and we are wondering where the secret passage or compartment is. We know better than to take something at face value and instantly believe that this man has some sort of power over nature so as to make someone disappear. So how do we know when to believe and when to dismiss? If we forget that the Bible offers clear guidance on what to do when people try to deceive us and simply look at the signs and miracles Jesus performed, I believe our instructions become spelled out for us.
In Cana Jesus attended a wedding with His mother and disciples. As they feasted and drank, the wine ran out. Jesus’ mother (who is not yet named and remains nameless until later in the scripture), as though she had some responsibility in the feast, approached Jesus to tell Him. Running out of wine would have meant great dishonor for the family and perhaps the end of the marriage ceremony even before it had begun. Jesus replied with a firm but respectful “My hour has not yet come.” Adam Clark puts it quite humorously in His own words as if speaking as Jesus to Mary, “we are not employed to provide the necessaries for this feast: this matter belongs to others, who should have made a proper and sufficient provision for the persons they had invited.” Though sufficiently rebuked Jesus’ mother seemed to have enough trust and faith in her son to know He would not disappoint, for the next thing she said was to the servants, “Do whatever He tells you.” The scriptures do not say “some time had passed” or “later”, it merely goes on to Jesus telling the servants to fill up the six stone water jars that were there to properly observe Jewish cleansing rituals. When Jesus commanded “Fill the jars with water” the servants obeyed and filled each one to the brim. Tasting the wine the master of the feast proclaimed “Everyone serves the good wine first…But you have kept the good wine until now.” To those busily eating and drinking this was a statement of the glory of the hosts. To those who had witnessed this sign, the feast master’s announcement was no less than an invitation to worship. Jesus had given a glimpse to His disciples of who He really was and even though the scriptures say “his disciples believed in him” I am doubtful they fully knew whom they had believed in. Even though their mouths cried Lord, Lord, and their hearts ached, I still wonder if they believed because they saw a sign or if they truly knew Him as God.
It is here in this biblical record of the wedding at Cana that we see a first glimpse of Jesus as God by His authority over mere inanimate objects. The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus touched the jars or even said a prayer. He spoke to the servants and just as Dr. Towns suggests, I believe it is in their obedience that the water turned into wine. No, God does not need our obedience to exercise His power but He does desire it. In fact that is the entire reason Jesus was there and ultimately did what He did: to emphasize God’s desire for our worship and fellowship and to provide a way for the sinful to even approach a Holy God. Jesus provides that cleansing and turns what is inside the clay jars (us) from what is common into something truly extraordinary.
Jesus had gone other places and done other things that lead Him back to Cana in Galilee via Sychar in Samaria where he talked with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. There in Cana once again He revealed His glory in much the same way. John 4:46b says “And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.” This high official, full of pride and nobility, humbled himself before Jesus on behalf of his son. How did he know Jesus could help? Did he hear gossip of Jesus’ miraculous healing power and if so, what did most people say about that? We are not given the answers to these questions. There are no answers because the questions don’t matter. The fact is that this official went to the God of the universe (the source) to solve his problem; scripture says he begged. Matthew Henry says in his commentary, “The greatest men, when they come to God, must become beggars.” In response we can see something perhaps surprising. Jesus seems frustrated. It seems that for a moment Jesus allows His flesh to influence Him ever so slightly. He says "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, you will never believe." Even so, He heals the official’s son displaying His authority over even His own fleshly tendencies. The official asks Jesus to “come before my son dies,” you see he believed that Jesus could only heal his son in person. Jesus tells him “Go; your son will live.” I can imagine the conflict that must have taken place in his head. Sometimes the limits we put on Christ stand in the way of the greater reward. Although this man had underestimated Him, Jesus used this opportunity to show His glory once again. I am unsure whether it was the utterance of his son’s healing or the mere thought in Jesus’ mind that healed the boy, but the boy was healed that very moment by Jesus without physical contact.
This entire situation tells tremendous things about the character and deity of Jesus. He is not only Lord of His own feelings and flesh but He is Lord and has authority over each and every body. He gives healing to those who, like the rich official, seek and have faith. Though he doubted, Jesus knew the official had faith that He could at least help the child, if not heal him. Jesus’ character was revealed here as well. The very character of God was revealed. In His long-suffering Jesus still showed compassion, mercy, and grace. The official and his son never deserved to be healed. They certainly didn’t earn it. It was a free gift from God given to tear down the hearts of the proud and turn them to Jesus.
From one who was rich and proud we now see a man who is outcast and destitute. Some time had passed and in His travels, at the pool of Bethesda Jesus came across a man who had been cripple for thirty-eight years. When asked if he would like to get well the invalid told how he could not get into the pool when the water was stirred (a superstitious belief that the first in would be healed). In this man’s answer was an attitude of hopelessness and defeat. To contrast the rich official who had hope and prosperity in his high position, it is plain to see that this man did not even have his health. This man had such little hope that he was no longer looking to be healed. From the hopeful yet needy, to the hopelessly lost and downtrodden, all are made equal in Christ. With all power Jesus commands this man “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” The inflection is wonderfully spelled out for us in the use of an exclamation point. Jesus gave this man a command in quite the same manner as an Officer would command his troops. There was no question what was expected and Jesus gave no room for interpretation. Once more we see no physical contact in the exercise of Jesus’ mission. The words of life spoken by Jesus have all that is needed to heal by virtue of the one speaking them, for by those same words He gave birth to all that is.
Now this healing was done on a Sabbath and it is here that we see yet another quality of Jesus’ Lordship over all. The Jewish leaders wanted to stop the man from carrying his mat through the temple. It is easy to miss the miraculous here. When this “unclean” man was confronted by the Jewish authorities to not carry his mat he responded with “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’” When asked, the man couldn’t tell them the name of who it was that healed him. He didn’t know. The miraculous thing is that even though this man was confronted by the Jews in authority over him, he knew he had just been healed by one with even more authority though he did not even know His name. The Bible does not say that he put down his mat and continued on. It seems to be that he kept it and continued walking, not in defiance of the Jewish authorities but in obedience to Jesus who had commanded him. The Jews would have it that nothing is done on the Sabbath, that according to the law the Sabbath day is kept Holy, for they are in subjection to the law. Jesus shows us by this miraculous healing that He is Lord of even the Sabbath day and in-fact all time. Jesus claims this authority by insisting, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Later we find Jesus at the Sea of Galilee. It was Passover and a large crowd had been following Jesus when he sat down with His disciples. Seeing how many had come to follow Him Jesus’ asked Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” With a simple question Jesus’ initiates an opportunity to show His followers more about who He really is. He knew that doubt was still in their hearts and that they did not fully understand who it was they were following. Though the Bible says this was a test for Philip, Jesus never does anything that merely has first order effects, so I believe this was intended for a greater purpose then to merely test Philip. We see the second and third order effects start to align when Andrew brings to Jesus a boy with “five barley loaves and two fish.” Jesus tells everyone to sit down, and after the giving of thanks Jesus has His disciples serve the bread and fish to all who are seated. Once everyone had enough, Jesus commands “Gather up the left over fragments, that nothing may be lost.” What started out probably in one or two baskets now fully occupied twelve. Through a simple test of Philips faith Andrew was given an opportunity to put his faith into action, and all were fed. Even more importantly, Jesus displayed who He was for all to see, so that God might be glorified.
Feeding the entire crowd Jesus spoke to the heart of Philip, Andrew, the other disciples, and the entire crowd. He tore down the doubt of Philip by showing Himself to be enough for even the crowd. He encouraged Andrew by honoring his faith. He so thoroughly tore down the hard hearts of the crowd that they wanted to make Him king right then and there, but Jesus slipped away to be alone. You see His time still had not yet come and He would not be robbed of, or forced into the task He came to perform. By feeding the crowd Jesus proclaimed His authority over creation. He was telling Philip and all who were there to see that even though they might need money, He needs nothing. From Him come all things, and nothing that is seen exists without Him. I think that after He gave thanks He created the bread, fish and baskets in much the same way He created everything else in this world: by speaking it into existence. Even Peter testified, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Peter knew that Jesus’ words gave life.
After Jesus had gone to be alone, the disciples continued on their way crossing the Sea of Galilee. In the dark, a storm had risen on the water and His disciples were busily fighting to keep the boat together. Jesus had not yet joined them. Walking on water Jesus came to them in what must have been the most dramatic experience of their time with Jesus so far. Jesus came walking on water and the scriptures say they were terrified, but Jesus reassured them saying "It is I; don't be afraid." When they heard this they let Him in the boat and immediately set out once again for where they were headed. In the storm the disciples only saw trouble and perhaps destruction as they fought to survive. Without Jesus our troubles and situations seem so much worse than they would if we would just let Jesus in the boat with us. Once the disciples let Him in the boat they were then able to continue on. The Bible doesn’t say if the storm ceased but given the slow progress of the boat before Jesus boarded I would think that it had. If it hadn’t stopped then it would follow that the mere presence of Jesus in the vessel gave them new vitality, either way it seems they made much more than “three or three and a half miles” progress. Once again showing His glory in spectacular splendor, walking on water showed in no uncertain terms His Lordship over nature.
The next miracle Jesus performed was the healing of a man who had been blind from birth. As He and His disciples came across this man some of the disciples asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Obviously they lacked the perspective Jesus had and still needed guidance, for Jesus corrected their thinking by explaining to them that neither this man’s sin nor his parents caused his blindness. John 9:3 says, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” What a statement! This man was created blind at the beginning of time, purpose built as a conduit for the manifestation of God’s glory. I am certain the blind man didn’t know this. He didn’t need to. His existence was all that was required for Jesus to reveal his magnificence. This passage has always spoken to me because of the beautiful relationship represented here between God, Jesus, and the blind man. We are not told of this blind man’s faith or even if he had faith but Jesus “saved” him anyway. There was no act of belief or telling situations revealing this man’s heart. All we are told about is his affliction; in-fact the most acute attribute of this person. I think this was the one thing keeping him from believing. Jesus took away all that defined him as a person. He was not known as so-and-so’s son, or the man who did such-and-such; he was merely the blind beggar. Jesus did not care. It is not the world which determines your identity, but God. The world knew the blind man as nobody, but Jesus knew him as one who would call attention His glory to the world. This is how Jesus revealed Himself to be Lord of everyone’s life. Though this man may have had plans, or an idea of what he might do with the future Jesus had other plans because He was Lord over the blind man’s life. He was the one who created him and made him for this purpose, and despite all that was going on Jesus took control of the blind man’s life as only one with authority can. In His weakness the blind man did not resist, but even if he was perfectly healthy, how could he. Proverbs 19:21 says, “Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.”
Though I said that walking on water was Jesus’ most dramatic miracle since calling His disciples, this next miracle arguably holds to be a close second. Jesus was given word that the brother of the one who poured oil on his feet and dried them with her hair was sick. Though Lazarus was sick Jesus decided to stay where He was for two more days, saying “This sickness will not end in death.” In what seems to be a contradiction Jesus then tells them in plain words that Lazarus is dead, but also that He will go and “wake him up.” Upon Jesus’ arrival there were many who were still mourning Lazarus’ death. Deeply moved, Jesus cried alongside those He loved, as if to say, “I wish I had been here with you;” He had other things in mind though because earlier He said to His disciples, “…for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe…” We tend to think that death is the end of everything and we mourn just as Lazarus’ friends and family. Jesus had already said that death was not the end and He did not disappoint. Faced with minor doubt from Martha, Jesus rebuked her and had His command to remove the stone carried out. Just as Jesus exercised His authority over life and after giving thanks to God, Jesus gives another command saying, "Lazarus, come out!" Just like His command to the cripple to “pick up your bed and walk,” Jesus gives no room for mistakes or confusion. He was telling the dead to rise and live; at the same time His words called the spiritually dead witnessing this miracle to believe what they were seeing and live by the words of Christ. Jesus: Lord of even death. Everyone there had very few clues that Jesus was in fact preparing them for what they were about to see. Next to come was the willing sacrifice of no less than Jesus, Himself. By this time they had seen so much and come to understand Jesus’ claims to be indeed God. He had shown them so much, even raising the dead in the hopes that they would understand what He was sent for and about to do. Now He would complete His work and fulfill His purpose in obedience to His Father.
After Jesus had been crucified and resurrected we find Him waiting to catch the attention of His disciples at the shores of the Sea of Tiberias (The Sea of Galilee) where He had filled the baskets and fed the crowd earlier in His ministry. It is fitting that the disciples had gone back to fishing, for even when they were with Jesus they were told they would be fishers of men. Now they had returned back to the only thing they knew, as though nothing had happened and Jesus was hopelessly still in the tomb. Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples were in the boat all night and had caught nothing when we see Jesus enter the scene. Jesus calls to them, “Children, do you have any fish?” Remember that it was the small boy who brought Him the bread and fish at that very same spot years before. Jesus tells these experienced fishermen who had been fishing for hours to cast their net on the other side of the boat. You could imagine the annoyance Simon Peter must have felt as this person told them to just cast on the other side of the boat to find the fish that had eluded them all night. Once again I believe it is in their obedience that the fish appeared, or swarmed in that area. The Bible says their catch was so abundant that they could not haul it up onto the boat and had to resort to dragging it behind until they made land. At the sight of the astonishing catch and the affirmation of another disciple, Simon Peter leapt into the water and swam to shore even before the boat. When they found Peter and Jesus on the beach there was a fire with some bread and fish already cooking. They ate there on the beach with Jesus where He gave Peter his commission to feed and tend his sheep. This one and final miracle has characteristics of other miracles Jesus had performed. I suppose this is how the disciples recognized it was Him. Just as He had for the crowd, Jesus had provided for them, being their portion when there was none. He called them Children maybe as a reminder that He would give them the gift of being called sons of God. He spoke to their still nagging doubts when He advised them to throw their nets on the other side. Jesus had risen. He had conquered death as He did by raising Lazarus but this time He had died and raised Himself from death into life.
Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” Indeed He is the way to be near to a Holy, and entirely set apart God. Indeed He is the truth of all creation, shedding light upon all His hands have touched. Indeed He is the life that infects my soul and causes me to be completely other than I would on my own. Better. Complete. Purpose built to Glorify God in all the earth. We can now see the instructions so clearly spelled out for us when we are faced with the question of when to believe and when to dismiss. If Jesus said it, it’s true. If Jesus did it, it’s real. “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Deuteronomy 8:3. All else may be dismissed.

Humanism

2008-11-25T20:01:00.003-05:00

I had to write this paper for Psychology a.k.a. Apologetics...thought I would share it here.

Humanism presents arguably the most dangerous worldview prevalent today; away from any form of faith other than self. Such a belief brings in its wake a reliance on intellect, science, and most of all a corporate and sort of cosmic human nature as a new universal way of living in peace. Those who would pledge allegiance to “old beliefs” are met with a call to abandon doctrines that are said to have “lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problems of humans living in the Twentieth Century.” Mans’ “increased understanding, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood” are called as evidences of the need to redefine religion into a more functional system. Humanists, in all their realized wisdom make reference to that which they know not, for they don’t know the creator of the brotherhood of which they speak. Walk with me as I present Christ as the answer to that which all Humanists, in their own intellect, seek answers. Appropriately, we will use the Humanist Manifesto I to illustrate the err of a great many doctrine they hold as Humanists.
We begin thick in the intellectual jargon of self-existence. The Humanist holds that the universe is self-existent and not created. Plato and Aristotle both knew it foolish to even imply that the universe was self-existent. This quickly gets out of control when you start contemplating the implications of self-existence, considering that even if the universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to something – some uncaused cause. It is entirely illogical to say, or think for that matter that the universe is because of itself, and for itself. That is to say “I exist because I am, because I can.” This reasoning sounds contemplative and “deep” but proves to be confusing and circular and leaves no explanation or purpose for existence. No reason for existence yields no purpose and leaves chance as both. To exist merely per chance leaves no point to the other issues discussed in the Humanist Manifesto I, because there is no reason to value life, let alone others if we are all chance occurrences. Without purpose we find ourselves back at the beginning, which is ironic because purpose is what Humanists are trying to realize.
Did you see what happened there? We have stumbled across the truth. The truth of the Humanist situation is one of a lonely existence, self-caused, with no value except that ascribed by chance. For the sake of continuing this talk let’s give the Humanist worldview the benefit of the doubt and assume that morality enters into the picture at all. Bound by a belief in continuous natural processes which resulted in Human life, a completely organic view of all life to include people, and assertion that God is merely a side effect of individuals reacting with their native culture, Humanists put themselves in a tight spot; a spot that holds no moral certainties, where acceptable conduct and behavior are determined by their situation. That is to say morality is based on and determined by human nature. The problem is that this is simply not true. In cultures throughout the world we see evidence of a universal standard: don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, help those less fortunate, etc. What seems to be different is the application. By saying that all life is organic, the result of situation, it is an attempt to explain existence. What it does is destroys purpose, which destroys value, which makes us merely organisms as children of mere chance. If chance be our parent then all have the same value: none. The only inherent value would be to that individual, but that is only internal. Where does morality come in? Morality could be defined as right human conduct. In a situational morality nothing is right, nothing is wrong; all is acceptable if the situation permits.
“Is it wrong to kill?”
“I don’t know, I haven’t been put in that situation before.”
Wrong!
“Should I steal this food?”
“I have stolen food before but I was hungry and out of work.”
“I’m not out of work, but I am hungry.”
“Don’t look at me. I don’t know your situation.”
Strike two.
“Should I break into this house? I am cold and it is warm in there.”
Strike three. What do we have for our contestant? A 5 year stay in one of our lovely state penitentiaries; give our contestant a round of applause. Yeah, not so much. I admit that these are extreme examples but they represent the logical end of the Humanist system of morality.
There in their ideals of morality and social affluence comes the religion of the individual humanist: self. “In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.” By stating such things as this, one is allowed and encouraged to engage in only those activities which directly concern oneself. The humanist sees himself as tolerant and accepting, yet fails to consider that which brings even a moment’s discomfort. If you believe in the humanist doctrines why would you subject yourself to others’ needs at the expense of your own? The answer is simply that you wouldn’t unless you had a vested interest in the needs of said person. Sound familiar? This is the mantra of our society as a whole. Principles taught to us since we were barely school aged. The Golden rule is no longer “Do unto others,” instead we say “take care of number one.” Instead of “turn the other cheek” we say “strike first.” The humanist truth is that there is nothing beyond self, yet somehow they profess a commitment to “a shared life in a shared world.” In light of this contradiction we can see why humanists have revised their manifesto twice already since 1933. You see, they knew that human nature is not a nature of kindness and tolerance. In fact, if given the free reign to act according to self and for self, as the Humanist Manifesto I asserts, people have been historically observed to degenerate towards violent and destructive acts. People naturally gravitate toward self-centeredness. We need no incentive toward this, rather one in the opposite direction, toward community and fellowship. Perhaps an example based on selfless love, undeserved forgiveness, and undeniable purpose and value?
I say to the lonely, uncaused, valueless, morally conflicted humanist, there is one who has given you value, companionship, purpose, and who has once and for all defined right and wrong. What would the humanist say to the invitation of one who offers purpose outside of self, outside of others, outside of chance? Set aside the commitment to scientific myths of evolution and natural selection for only a moment to consider with no presuppositions what your own manifesto says you are open to, “humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered.” Consider a reality wherein one of ultimate importance and worth dies to save your life. What purpose would your life hold then? Knowing that even the lowliest of person would give up their life, dying in your place, would you pay attention? Consider a reality where God exists. Even knowing that He took time to create you, as evidenced by your existence in that reality, what value would that give to your life? Now consider what purpose your life would inherently hold if that same God sent His son, but more than that, Himself, to die in your place just so that He could have a relationship with you. Talk to you. Care for you in all matters. What if He valued your relationship enough to want to keep you close for all eternity? What then? You see it takes value to have value. Money does not have value by its mere existence. It’s assigned value through many different means but certainly not based on itself. Likewise, a tool is created for a purpose by a smith or toolmaker. The creator gives it a purpose for existing and a reason for being – to turn a bolt, or tighten a screw, or drive a nail. There is indeed a creator who assigns to all of us the utmost value in that He gave of Himself, out of His own value, to give us life. We have value because the only powerful and perfect God saw it wise and acceptable that we exist. So He created us, placing in us a reason for existing. Not chance put purpose.
By God’s purpose we can look at that reality and see that all would be valuable because all would be creations of God. Therein is the source of the brotherhood humanists speak of. If God values me enough to have created me, then the same value is placed in you merely by your existence. This relationship of inherited value is the active ingredient in our fellowship. I can value you equal to myself because of our existence, and I am only now opening my mind to your point of view as equal to mine. Only through God’s value placed in each of us can we begin to truly act selflessly, with less premeditation towards self. Only then can we consider others as ourselves. In considering this world of divine value, and mutual consideration based on that value we still are without purpose; without direction. The very same One who dies for you in this reality is the One who provides a meaning for life, a direction, an ultimate and divine purpose. By knowing that He died for you He gives you the purpose of telling others what He did. He tells you that because He is indeed God, His death was not just for you but for all those who would believe what you tell them when you speak of His death. He not only says to tell them but to love them as much as He did when He was willing to, and did, lay His life down in place of theirs.
I am telling the humanist of a reality that is the truth of human existence. I am telling the humanist of the truth of the world and of all time. The one who died in place of you, me, truly all, is Jesus Christ. He gives to all the value given Him by God, as God. He is God, and as God Jesus nailed Himself to a piece of wood and died because He valued us so much that it was worth His death.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” John 3:16.
We were so valuable to Him that He was willing to die to have a relationship with us. It is in this seeming contradiction that we have the very definition of brotherhood: love. It took unspeakable love for Christ to do that. Because he loved us, even to death, we are compelled to love each other if we accept that He did in-fact die. A wonderful gift comes if we are willing to accept that truth.
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9
Saved from what? Saved from eternity apart from the one who gives value and purpose.
So the Humanist is left with a decision between solitude and brotherhood, between pointlessness and divine purpose, between selfishness and love. The humanist must truly choose between life and death.

Just my thoughts on the relativistic crap people are spouting today. Hope you enjoyed.

2008-11-05T00:26:00.003-05:00

It is official...Obama is our next President. I don't pretend to know all about this man but there are a few truths that concern me as we enter into this new era of United States history.

If you have read anything of this man's past it is a past steeped in education. Though he was raised Muslim he separated himself from the faith of his childhood soon after high school and on into college. While in college he studied quite a few other religions, never really settling on one, but claims common values and concerns with evangelical Christians. This concerns me for two reasons.

1. I would much rather see a man who believes in something rather than everything...we call that Humanism. To believe (whether displayed vocally or by action) that all paths are correct and good as long as it works for that person, is a highly dangerous place to be. The implications of such a doctrine are far reaching indeed.

"You can't do that!"
"Who says? It feels good to me!"
"It's just wrong!"
"Stop pushing your rules on me!"

If everyone finds what works for them then there is no real truth. If there is no truth or constant aside from that which is discovered by each individual than we have just taken one step closer to Socialism. One step closer to the end. "WOW, that's a bit harsh don't you think?" NO I DON'T THINK SO! The bible says we will have a world government under one rule and law. How do you make that happen without willingness to let everyone have their own truth. Socialism is the only worldly way one can wrangle all nations under one umbrella government while letting all maintain their identity and "system." The other way is of course through the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

and the other problem I have...

2.This man supports abortion. Needless to say this is a controversial issue but an important one none the less. Anyone who believes the bible is truth can see that this is an outward evidence of our country's downward spiral. We are seeing the beginning of a pattern displayed time again in the bible. Murder, the distortion of truth, and the like inevitably manifest themselves into blatant homosexuality and the governmental support of such, bestiality, etc. leading to the ultimate destruction of said society. Read in the Old Testament and see this spiral displayed in Sodom and Gomorrah and other such cities. God has standards and will hold every transgression accountable to that standard.

That is just my point of view so please take it for what it is...the opinion of a bible thumpin' Christian preaching Hell fire and Brimstone...etc. I am not one saying that "THE END IS NEAR" rather one just observing the path our country is on. The path of so many other cultures who no longer exist. Will this change the fact that Christ saves all who call to Him...no. But even Christ condemned cities to which the Good News was given, who did not repent, saying "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for you Capernaum." I hope things change, and yet I don't. This all must be realized if we are to move towards Christ and Heaven.

October Stuff

2008-10-26T03:40:00.003-04:00

We are almost finished with October...whew! This month has been particularly difficult for me. God has tested, convicted, and renewed me all in the span of a month. Although when He does that, He usually sees me and my family to the other side while adding blessing to us...so no hard feelings. Just exhaustion!

This month I had my birthday (27...man I'm gettin' old). To emphasise my age, I found out that one of my soldiers didn't even know about the show In Living Color. One day I turned to him and said "Homey don't play dat" to which he just gazed at me blankly not knowing what I was talking about. I was immediately struck with the reality of my age. I am amungst a generation who knows nothing of, Perfect Strangers, Mork and Mindy, CHiPs, Knight Rider (original series), the A team, Mash, Who's the Boss, Three's Company, Family Ties, when MTV actually played music...etc. I could go on forever. So I will say again...MAN I AM GETTING OLD!

Yesterday we had an "Organizational Day" which roughly translates to mandatory fun. What they hadn't planned on was people actually having fun. About an hour into the days festivities it began to rain. Yes, you read that right...rain...in Baghdad...and how. It was pooring! Did that stop anything what-so-ever? NO!! We went ahead and completed the events in the rain. Inbetween events we even were playing mud football, and soccer. Yesterday was the most fun I have had so far on this deployment. There have been more meanningful times, but none quite so fun. Most of us were covered form head to toe in mud, even as we proceeded to other events. Have any of you ever played dodgeball on a water filled court? I would highly rcommend it. The referees lined the balls up on the center line and the teams each had to sprint from their corresponding side of the court to try and get as many of the balls as possible. So everyone would charge the centerline, water flying everywhere, people sliding across the slick, wet pavement. What a great time. Later we realized that while we played the entire post was turning into a mud bog. Yuck!

I will be coming home on R&R leave soon, though not soon enough. When I am home we plan on not doing much of anything except be a family for the short itme I am home, and perhaps have some dinner with some dear friends. I will only be home for 18 days or so and then it's back to Iraq. Oh, and by the way...Sandy and I will be trying to get her pregnant again while I am on leave...please be praying for us.

Divorce

2008-09-11T12:59:00.005-04:00

Sandy and I are currently discussing a subject that is quite a personal one to me. MARRIAGE! We have come across those who seem to gloss over God's standard by "interpreting" into it what they want it to mean, using phrases like "what I think it says" or "what this says to me." Read on and I will show you where I am going with this...

I was listening to KLOVE today...yes I have KLOVE in Iraq...and within a half an hour three callers revealed to the host that they were in the middle of a divorce, some as fresh as a couple of days. One woman was mother of six children...SIX!!!!! In her case the father had just up and left. She continued to share her story as my heart broke more and more with each passing word. The climax to her story was that the two children she has left at home (yes this father even went as far as to break up the children) got out of the car on the highway to hold each other while they both cried. Yet another woman experienced her husband suddenly leaving her three years prior. He abandoned three children. It was not mentioned where these men were spiritually (I assume not even trying or aware), and I do realize that it is not usually one person that is to blame.

This is what we get when we combine God's word with the relativistic garbage that is being puked aloud (much louder than the Gospel) in our country. GOD HAS ONLY ONE STANDARD, FOR ALL PEOPLES, IN ALL COUNTRIES, AT ALL TIMES! WE are the ones who change with the wind and the blown sands of the desert (Yes me too). If his revealed word means something different for me than it does for others than He is at best perverse and at worst not God. He IS God though and his word IS the same, always. His word is true, in it’s true meaning, in the message it was intended to deliver. It produces only one truth that is universally applicable IN ONLY THE INTENDED WAY, NO MATTER THE SITUATION OR CIRCUMSTANCE. To interpret the word “submit” as anything other than what it was intended to mean (in most cases “obey”) is a forgivable mistake; to then teach others or convict others that it means “share” is, at that point, an abomination.

GOD’S TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE!

· Hebrews 13:8-9a Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Be not carried about with diverse and strange doctrines. KJV

And…so you don’t think I am “one of those Christians” who only use the KJV, claiming that it is the only true scripture…

· Hebrews 13:8-9a Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. NIV
· Hebrews 13:8-9a Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings. NASB
· Hebrews13:8-9a Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings. ESV
· Hebrews13:8-9a There should be a consistency that runs through us all. For Jesus doesn't change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he's always totally himself. Don't be lured away from him by the latest speculations about him. The Message

GOD’S TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE!

How can I make a reference to a verse that talks about Jesus when I am talking about the Bible?
· John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. KJV
· John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. NIV
· John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. NASB

I think you get the idea about the different translations…for simplicity I will use NIV from here on out.

Let’s look at this as it was intended for its original audience. John’s audience was predominately Jewish and thus his intent in writing his gospel was to communicate that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah) and that they could have eternal life through His work on the cross. Now we have the original intent. In fact John gets right to work letting us know who Jesus is. So who is He? He is God, the Christ, the Word made flesh. Here we see an equation: God=Jesus=Word. Working backwards…“the Word was God,” is self explanatory. The only part that is not self explanatory is that the Hebrew for “Word” is “logos” which suggests Christ as well as something written or spoken. There is nothing further, or “deeper.” That is the truth of that phrase…emphatically-“the Christ was God.” Next, “the Word was with God.” Again using the Hebrew “logos,” so “the Christ was with God.” Lastly, “In the beginning was the Word”…”In the beginning was the Christ.” So we now come to the entire revealed truth of this verse…Christ existed, known as “logos” as/with God in the beginning. That is it! Nothing else exists in that verse unless WE create it. As if you need it to be anymore inspiring and hard-hitting than that?

In this analysis we have a startling simplicity, and a direct correlation with our verse earlier…

· Hebrews 13:8-9a Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.

Jesus Christ…a.k.a. “the Word”…is the same yesterday and today and forever. Here the word “same” in Hebrew “autos” means self. So it could read like this: the Word is self, or the Word is the Word, or the Word is the same yesterday and today…etc. Either way you want to translate the Hebrew to English you’re only left with one truth: the Word doesn’t change; the Word is the same as it always has been, is, or will be. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!

In all His love and provision God has made His Word for us and has worked hard to keep it clear enough for EVERYONE to understand. One of the many mistakes of the Pharisees was that they shackled the people with cumbersome burdens “for the sake of the Law.” Let us not burden each other with the task of seeking our truth in scripture, but God’s. God has already provided a truth for us, and that in Jesus Christ. One question to ask yourself when you have trouble accepting God’s truth: Why don’t I agree with God? When He says obey but you “interpret” share, ask Him to give you wisdom (James 1:5) and courage to meet your worldly ways head on and bring them into submission (obedience) with His word. Amen.

So how does this apply to marriage and the ladies mentioned above? When standards are relaxed, or in this case ignored, we are left with something less than holy. Something less than what God intended; something evil. That happened over and over again in the Old Testament and it is happening today. There is no longer a commitment, connection, or relationship in marriage anymore, as we have let the “state” define it for too long. It now more resembles a business agreement that only exists as long as it is mutually beneficial and not so uncomfortable for both parties. Instead of God’s one flesh standard with the husband as the head and the wife as the “helpmeet” we now have a dual flesh standard where there is no discernable head…and as we know, without a head it is hard to tell which way is forward.

Stuff from August

2008-08-31T03:31:00.004-04:00

Well August has come and gone. Nothing has changed so much that I felt I should write except when looking back through the month. In fact things stay so much the same here that I, and some others have taken to wishing each other a happy ground hog's day. I eat the same things most days. I go to the same places each day though at different times, depending on my schedule for that day. I see the same people.

I have gotten to know the Ugandan guards all around this post. They are super nice and most of them are Christians...like 84% of thier population...what a testament to God's work abroad. They have names like John, Ronald, Enoch, Addah, Bernard, etc. Those names don't seem so uncommon to us, but in thier country where Swahili is the local tounge it is as obvious as someone named Carlose. In that counrty those names identify them as Christians just as Carlose would identify someone of hispanic decent in our country. Some of them are here to help support families, while others are here to work up a dowry for the woman they have in mind back home. Out here they earn what would be the equivalent of $2 Million a year. Though they are so far away from home they still bring thier culture with them. At night sometimes they will build a bon fire and dance around it singing with drums. They are so high on life it is infectious. I can't get enough of them as you can probably tell by my rambling. Just wonderful people and true evidence of God's love for all peoples of the world.

I have started school with Liberty University in hopes of earning a Multi Disciplinary Degree. So far I have transfered around 90 credits to this program. I am in Bible 104 and Theology 104 right now. In fact, as I write this I am procrastinating finishing my assignment for this week...don't worry, I will get it done...always do. This will hopefully lead to a commision as a Chaplain. I have been corresponding with Chaplian Jones to get more information into this program. More to come on that one as I progress into my education.

Last night I took the Dixie Band out to Camp Cropper to play for the MP Brigade. Just getting on that post is a chore in itself as they are very watchful who comes on and even moreso who goes off, if you get my drift. We got all set up and started playing, leading off with the MP Song. Sounds appropriate, No?? We finished and everyone applauded as usual but we noticed it was a "oh wasn't that a nice march," sort of applause. We rounded out our set with more traditional dixieland music and then ate dinner with them. The group leader went and talked with the 1SG and Commander to ask if they recognised the first tune we played...after a short pause they answered, "oh yeah, it was some sort of march right?" Later on we had a good laugh at thier expense. The MP's didn't know the MP Song...not even thier General knew it. It is supposed to be thier fight song...like Climb To Glory is my Division's fight song. I know every word! Too funny. The night was not without it's own appreciation...as we left my group leader came up to me and said that he appreciated my hard work and handed me a coin from the CSM and the CC of the MP Brigade we played for. Though it has no actual value it was very much appreciated and will always be something special to me. I tried to upload pics but the internet is routinely stupid out here...sorry.

Well all, that is what has happened in August. Please stay tuned as I will continue to post, no matter how long inbetween.

2008-08-08T13:23:00.000-04:00

I venture to write you a poem of kind
But sitting here blank nothing comes to mind
Do I tell you you're pretty, no that just won't do
Or that you complete me, maybe I love you
I could tell you I'm proud as a king in his court
Knowing his knights are defending his fort
Perhaps shedding a tear might show you my glee
But really, how much fun would that be
Some how I must display my love and esteem
Knowing you I could do that with some chocolate ice cream
A triple chocolate moose cheese cake might do
Who am I kiding, I'd like that too
I would make you a cake with a zillion and one candles
But making fun of your age might loose me everything, and my sandles
Truly I can say you age quite well
For a woman your age you don't even smell
Much
With age comes wisdom, some have said
At your age maybe it's best to just stay in bed
Now that I have lost even my sandles
For your birthday I'll get you a walker with handles
Enough is enough, sorry I teased you
In my jesting I hope that I pleased you
I hope that your smile will rule your day
And that you'll have joy in your spirit
Though I'm away
Happy birthday Sandy
My blessed helper

Black Eye

2008-07-31T00:51:00.004-04:00

I have started going to MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) night at the gym here on post. It has really been a great release not to mention great cardio and strength training. We've been learning to punch, kick and block correctly on "stand-up" days. On "grappling" days we roll around on the mats and wrestle each other trying to choke, or submit the other guy. Choking is self-explanatory; when you "submit" someone you are basically moving a body part like an arm or leg in a manner it wasn't designed to move, thereby putting pressure on the joint or bone itself.

That being said, I was wrestling this guy and we were having a good match...very equally matched. He was trying to control my arms so that I couldn't get him into a postion to submit him. As we were fighting for the dominant position I guess he caught me with an elbow or something. I wound up wining by putting him in a bent arm bar (a submition). We stood up and he said "I am sorry man, I think I got you in the eye". I didn't think so because I never felt him hit me with anything...I got up and looked in the mirror and sure enough he did. Here are the pictures from that night and the following day. Good stuff.

I took a night off last night because my body was just hurting so bad. I feel better today so I will be there tonight.

Truth

2008-07-15T04:10:00.002-04:00

So I came to a startling realization after reading through the first three chapters of "Everyman's Battle" and the associated work book.

I do not value holiness.

I dont personally place value in being irreproachable in my conduct and thoughts.

It is not that I think it is a waist of time. It is not that I think God's standard is optional. I just have not ventured into the battle to claim my desires and intensions in God's name. I still "like" my sin. I want to obey God because my mind knows it's good; I want to continue in sin because my heart wants to. I obey (sometimes) because it is right; I sin (more than obey) because I want to. This is why when I am faced with the choice to stand and fight or give in, I chose to give in. This is why, even though I know His word-His standard, I willingly sin.

I am the worst of men. I despise the same sin in other men but cling to my wikedness still. I hope that the knowlege of this plank in my eye, which truly is newly discovered, is the beginning of something closer to Christ. Something holy. Something righteous. The end of my dual mindedness.

I am sorry if these words affend or hurt any of you. I don't mean anything but to tell the truth of who I am...no matter how ugly it may be. Now you know the truth.

LORD, have mercy on me and cleans me today of this plight, that I may walk in your ways, for they are perfect, just, holy, and righteous. Help me to see myself for who I really am and yet know that you have washed me clean. Make my soul to yearn after you as the deer does the water. Let my spirit rejoice to know your holiness; let it overtake me and change me LORD. I am undone. Lord, here am I.

Balad Air Base Armed Forces Hospital

2008-07-09T20:34:00.004-04:00

Today we were able to leave Camp Victory for the first time and get out to play for some folks on Balad Air Base. We rode a Black Hawk in the morning and a Chinook to get home early the next morning. I say early the next morning but it was really the same night. We set off around 0600 in the morning and didn't get back until 0330 the next day. No sleep...21 hour day folks. What an experience.

By far the best part was playing for the wounded Soldiers and local Iraqis. It was a bitter sweet time though. As we played our set of music the nurses witnessed patients smiling that had never before during thier stay at the Hospital; however we found out later that in the very next room, listening to us play, a US Soldier had died about midway through our performance. I wasn't and am still not sure how to take that. Am I happy he died listening to us? Not really. Do I hope he enjoyed it and that it brought a smile to his fading face? Absolutely. I pray that he knew Christ and that his sole now rests in the Lord's peace. The people at the hospital were very kind to us. They fed us twice and as a thank you, gave us hospital scrubs with thier squadron number and motto on them. This was very nice, and rather unique I must say, in an organization that is notorious for giving "challenge coins" as tokens of appreciation for a job well done.

Yet another memorable moment came when it was time to go back to our post. After waiting in the terminal from 1930 to 0145 for a flight that was supposed to leave at 2150 we finally got confirmation that we were ready to go. We walked out to the Chinooks and got our safety brief. We loaded up and the choppers taxied to the launch pad. In the darkness, backed by the blinking lights of the runway, we took flight. We in the lead chopper had the view of a lifetime as the loadmaster lowered the back door opening the cargohold to the view behind us. Since we were the lead chopper our view consisted of this: the loadmaster sitting on the lowered edge of the rear door hanging his feet over the edge with night vision goggles clamped to his helmet and engaged to watch for any potential threats. From my vantage point, directly over his left sholder you could see the blacked out silhouette of the trailing Chinook against a randomly lit Baghdad backdrop as we maneuvered our way back to our camp.

As I stared out that back door I felt a distinct connection to every Soldier serving before me. It was a calming feeling to know that so many had flow in the same chopper in much worse curcumstances. I felt as though they were riding with us. Though we had ear plugs in and the roar of the engine and the sound of the rotars slicing the air above us consumed every noise, there was a deafening silence. I found myself alone with my thoughts as I gazed out at the broken city below. The faces I panned across sitting next to and across from me all seemed to say the same thing...I AM AN AMERICAN SOLDIER.

Doin's

2008-07-05T00:24:00.004-04:00

Wow...so long without a post! You all must have thought I had fallen off the earth or something. Well I haven't. It's just been quiet here. Only a few things to report in almost a month.
My 1SG (read first sergeant) put a good foot forward for me and got me to a SSG (read staff sergeant) promotion board. So I went before a panel of 5 1SG's and the SGM (read sergeant major) while they grilled me and two other sergeants on all things Army. What a worrisome event. So much pressure and tension. It is actually supposed to be that way though. They want to see how young sergeants will react under intense pressure, direct scrutiny, and stress. I was able to achieve a passing score of 147 out of 150. I am happy that it is over though...it was my last one, ever and I feel like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. The night before I could hardly sleep as my mind coursed with the NCO Creed, Troop Leading Procedures, and so on, from a list of at least 15 subjects, all of which have such a breadth material to study it is difficult to even study it all let alone really know the material. I am so glad that is over.
We (the Dixie Land Band) have had a few gigs here and there at the chow halls mostly but they have been wicked fun. Hopefully playing in the chow halls will give us the exposure to have people invite us to where they work to play for them in a more personal setting. It is fun to play for people who really appreciate it. A lot of people could care less that it is Dixie Land music, which they would most likely never listen to at home. They care that where ever they go they have a chance to hear good live music. Yes there are some that, even though the Dixie Band is playing, will call out "play Freebird", but for the most part people are quite appreciative. We are working on a Dixie arrangement of Freebird by the way...gotta please the audience!
Sandy can confirm that I have had a general feeling of being called to ministry, as she has had a feeling of needing to support me in ministry. Lately, Chaplain Jones and I have developed a pretty good relationship. I have voiced my heart for ministry, specifically Men’s ministries, to him. His face lit up. He told me that the Army has a Chaplain Candidacy program that will help me finish a masters degree and then place me immediately as a 1LT Chaplain. I was hesitant to consider this because I have just barely finished a transition to the Army Band. My heart cries out to play my saxophone everyday. I love it so thoroughly and would be content to stay in my current situation for the rest of my career...promotions or no. The Chaplain quite gently put it into perspective for me though; "when God calls, there is only one answer" he said. I think God was placing those specific word at the exact right time because what popped into my head was from Isaiah 6:8 which says "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" If you know anything of my life since surrendering to Christ you know that these words resound so true in my family. We are a family shaped by God's calling. Every time I, as my family's leader, have responded in my heart with "Here am I Lord. Send me!" He has lead us nowhere but into glory. And now, who knows but Him.
I think it is shaping up to be an exciting, tiring, stressful, wonderful year for both me and my family.
Wendy - You are welcome. I consider it my pleasure, and my duty, to be there for him the same as others have been there for me. What else can I do but love you both.
All - thank you for the comments left here. I may not respond to them all but know that I read them all and they consistently bring a smile to my face whether you mean them to or not. Thank you for the continued prayer and the Godly love and provision you are showing my family in my absence.

This week's providence

2008-06-17T05:42:00.002-04:00

It's the start of a new week. May God's blessings and love reign in my life and that of my family.

We started out this week with Father's day, about which my God-given helper had some very undeserved things to say about me. I love you my darling and long for all of you each day. I fill the days with meager substitutes trying to dull the days hoping 15 months might blur together into one day where I find myself on the other side of a field opposite you counting the mere seconds before I hold you again.

Much by God's provision, and if all goes well (there is your fail-safe honey) we will see the end of this week in our new home. One that is ours! Where we can paint walls, change floors, reorganize, and the like without permision or fear of reprisal or penalty. It's been a long time coming but the light at the end of the tunnel is brighter than ever now. Sandy and her mother have packed more than half the house already. What a bunch of packing Ninjas.

The end of this week will see you, Sandy, living in God's blessed home, prepared specifically for us. All of us. Each of us. Perserver in faith and know that our God will give you strength and see you through this to the end.

Phillipians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me

Psalms 23:6

Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

All in one time

2008-06-13T09:23:00.002-04:00

Today I have CQ duty. For those of you who may be reading this thinking "what the heck is CQ" allow me to enlighten you. CQ stands for "Charge of Quarters", which basically means I sleep in the band hall and guard the building and the equipment and answer any phone calls...amungst other duties. Needless to say there are some boring times while pulling a 24hr CQ shift. I was sitting here listening to KLOVE online and couldn't help but think that Sandy was probably listening to the very same song at that same moment. What an encouraging feeling. To know that I am sharing at least someting with my family, though we are so far apart, is a wonder. The title in this post is represented in the thought that though I am 7 hours ahead and roughly 8000 miles away, there are things that connect us at any given moment. God's blessings certainly do transcend time, distance, and location.

2008-06-08T01:10:00.000-04:00

looky looky what I found http://kozabaptist.blogspot.com/

How amazing is that?

Spoon Tree

2008-06-08T00:36:00.003-04:00

I was walking around post when I first got here and was thinking to myself, ya know this isnt so bad...even the plants are somewhat the same. There are date trees here and there a few scrub bushes and some dried up weeds. In many ways very similar to living in Nevada only you don't get dust storms like here. Just as I was feeling less intimidated by this place I found something I had never seen in my life and probably wont see ever again...A SPOON TREE! MAN THIS PLACE WEIRD!