It's that time of year. Parents spending their last on toys or clothes or shoes. Salvation Army volunteers with red kettles collecting money to help those that are in dire straits. Grandmas and Grandpas over-doing it with toys and confections to give to the kids. It's CHRISTmas.
Too many times, we get caught up in the revelry and the routine of Christmas without pausing to understand what Christmas us really all about. We celebrate Christmas to honor the birth of the Savior of the world, Christ Jesus. While December 25th has been ascribed, his actual birth probably varies from that date. Roughly 2000 years ago, He was born and the shepherds knew because the angel told them. The ones that visited Him brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. While I sat in a Christmas Eve service last night at Millbrook Presbyterian church, the preacher kept bring up one thing- THE CROSS! All I could see was Christ, the Savior, taking my place and becoming a sin offering unto God on my behalf. Even the frankincense and myrrh were symbolic in that they were death spices. Christ was born to die for the sins of the WORLD.
I love Jesus for what He did for me. I love Him for His selflessness and his power to do for me what no priest or goat or bull could do- take away my sins and restore me to fellowship with the Father. So I don't say X-Mas or some other code because Christ is the reason for Christmas. Atheists in California have removed the Nativity scenes along the coast in Santa Monica but they don't seem to understand that Christmas doesn't change meanings because the Nativity scene is gone. Christ is still in the hearts of true Christians that understand the reason for the season. Even if you listen to some of your favorite carols, they ALL speak of the birth of the Savior. You can't change that, regardless of how much you protest. If you don't believe in God, don't celebrate Christmas, it's that simple. Don't try to change the meaning to suit some selfish desire to humanize everything. Don't sing, don't give, don't do anything- just ignore us "fools" that understand what the true gift of God was/is to us. Merry Christmas to you all.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Ticked Off
I subscribe to the Nation magazine because politically, I am left leaning. I have always been opposed to the Republican brand of governance which seems only to favor the wealthy and big corporations. I consider myself an independent but I will be voting for Obama again in 2012. The Nation is a good magazine. The articles are insightful and intelligently written. I feel like reading the Nation gives me a side of the news that I won't see on television.
Upon subscribing to the Nation, I started noticing ads and fund raising material for every liberal cause in America coming to my house. Recently I received something to help elect a gay congresswoman. While my political leanings are leftist, I am very much conservative socially. I don't support gay marriage, I don't agree with abortion while I do believe that a woman can do whatever she chooses- I won't answer for them at the judgment, they will answer for themselves. I do not agree with the way the right uses abortion as a hot button issue and how they think they have the market cornered on morality. There are other sins like overlooking the poor, arrogance and pride that those on the "right" glibly look over in favor of homosexuality and abortion. I don't agree with the death penalty either which is another favorite issue on the right.
I think it is funny that in America where there are choices for everything, people are pigeonholed according to the way they vote. It is my understanding that "liberals" are by default atheistic according to popular culture. They don't believe in God, they simply believe in helping their fellow man and doing good to those that are in need. They believe, according to the right's definition, that morality doesn't have to be based on the bible or the 10 commandments but based on the heart of man. One of the atheist's favorite musings is the ability to live a "moral" life absent from God. While that may be possible, it does nothing to address the sinfulness of mankind nor does it address the debt that we all owe because of that sinfulness.
I think that the last straw and my last issue of the Nation came on Tuesday. I received a solicitation for a magazine called "Blasphemous" which, I assume, is a magazine geared towards atheists. What ticked me off about this is the fact that my information would be given to the publisher of this magazine without knowing whether or not I was an atheist. I guess the people that control the distribution of subscriber information assumed that because I was a subscriber to the Nation I was also an atheist. I was offended. The magazine touted itself as "intelligent" as if someone that believes in God is unintelligent. The very word intelligent is derived from a Latin word, intelligentia, that means the ability to discern. In other words intelligence means that I have the power and the ability to choose when presented with different options.
While I choose to vote left that does not mean that my social or even my religious views are "liberal". I made the choice to subscribe to the nation because I am intelligent enough to filter out what they print. If it does not align with my spiritual sensibilities, I do not allow it into my mental environment. Not that I will not accept a logical and sensible argument but when it calls for me to blindly accept someone's word/opinion about God over what I know to be true I push it to the side. My uncle always tells me to listen with a shovel and a rake. Use the rake to bring what is good to me and a shovel to push what is bad away from me. The Apostle Paul said it better in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "test everything, hold fast to that which is good." If there is something that makes sense after examination, I will accept it otherwise, it goes onto the scrap heap.
I enjoy reading the Nation because I like the political arguments and the great analysis of complex social issues. I do not appreciate getting solicitation for atheist communications in the mail. I would never subscribe to such a magazine and while I know that the Nation is not screening my information and they have no way of knowing my religious beliefs- but that doesn't change the fact that I was highly offended by this latest solicitation. It was promptly thrown into the trash. My main beef with atheists is this: Just because you don't believe in God, don't try to sway other well meaning people away from God. I was listening to NPR radio and they were discussing the death of Christopher Hitchens. The host asked callers to call in and discuss a way that Hitchens changed their lives. One man called in and said that whatever religious beliefs that he had before reading the work of Hitchens were dismissed after being exposed to Hitchens' work. I thought that was really sad. If these two were co-defendants in God's court, this would be tantamount to saying "thanks for making sure that I go to hell with you brother!" Another caller promptly called in and said that Hitchens was the "lowest piece of scum on earth." I was not even familiar with Hitchens before he died but reading excerpts from "god is not GREAT" he was a great orator, even if his opinions were off base.
The publishers of "Blasphemous" have every right, according to the 1st Amendment, to print and say whatever they please. They do not have a right to send it to my house. For atheists, you have every right to believe what you want to. I won't argue with you because every atheist that I've ever encountered already knows EVERYTHING and are immediately looking to intimidate and insult me because I am "foolish" enough to believe in God. While it is my sincere desire for everyone to come to the knowledge of Christ and receive the free gift of salvation, I know that everyone will not accept this. There will always be those that refuse to accept the grace of God. That's not novel, and definitely not worth having a magazine devoted to it.
Upon subscribing to the Nation, I started noticing ads and fund raising material for every liberal cause in America coming to my house. Recently I received something to help elect a gay congresswoman. While my political leanings are leftist, I am very much conservative socially. I don't support gay marriage, I don't agree with abortion while I do believe that a woman can do whatever she chooses- I won't answer for them at the judgment, they will answer for themselves. I do not agree with the way the right uses abortion as a hot button issue and how they think they have the market cornered on morality. There are other sins like overlooking the poor, arrogance and pride that those on the "right" glibly look over in favor of homosexuality and abortion. I don't agree with the death penalty either which is another favorite issue on the right.
I think it is funny that in America where there are choices for everything, people are pigeonholed according to the way they vote. It is my understanding that "liberals" are by default atheistic according to popular culture. They don't believe in God, they simply believe in helping their fellow man and doing good to those that are in need. They believe, according to the right's definition, that morality doesn't have to be based on the bible or the 10 commandments but based on the heart of man. One of the atheist's favorite musings is the ability to live a "moral" life absent from God. While that may be possible, it does nothing to address the sinfulness of mankind nor does it address the debt that we all owe because of that sinfulness.
I think that the last straw and my last issue of the Nation came on Tuesday. I received a solicitation for a magazine called "Blasphemous" which, I assume, is a magazine geared towards atheists. What ticked me off about this is the fact that my information would be given to the publisher of this magazine without knowing whether or not I was an atheist. I guess the people that control the distribution of subscriber information assumed that because I was a subscriber to the Nation I was also an atheist. I was offended. The magazine touted itself as "intelligent" as if someone that believes in God is unintelligent. The very word intelligent is derived from a Latin word, intelligentia, that means the ability to discern. In other words intelligence means that I have the power and the ability to choose when presented with different options.
While I choose to vote left that does not mean that my social or even my religious views are "liberal". I made the choice to subscribe to the nation because I am intelligent enough to filter out what they print. If it does not align with my spiritual sensibilities, I do not allow it into my mental environment. Not that I will not accept a logical and sensible argument but when it calls for me to blindly accept someone's word/opinion about God over what I know to be true I push it to the side. My uncle always tells me to listen with a shovel and a rake. Use the rake to bring what is good to me and a shovel to push what is bad away from me. The Apostle Paul said it better in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "test everything, hold fast to that which is good." If there is something that makes sense after examination, I will accept it otherwise, it goes onto the scrap heap.
I enjoy reading the Nation because I like the political arguments and the great analysis of complex social issues. I do not appreciate getting solicitation for atheist communications in the mail. I would never subscribe to such a magazine and while I know that the Nation is not screening my information and they have no way of knowing my religious beliefs- but that doesn't change the fact that I was highly offended by this latest solicitation. It was promptly thrown into the trash. My main beef with atheists is this: Just because you don't believe in God, don't try to sway other well meaning people away from God. I was listening to NPR radio and they were discussing the death of Christopher Hitchens. The host asked callers to call in and discuss a way that Hitchens changed their lives. One man called in and said that whatever religious beliefs that he had before reading the work of Hitchens were dismissed after being exposed to Hitchens' work. I thought that was really sad. If these two were co-defendants in God's court, this would be tantamount to saying "thanks for making sure that I go to hell with you brother!" Another caller promptly called in and said that Hitchens was the "lowest piece of scum on earth." I was not even familiar with Hitchens before he died but reading excerpts from "god is not GREAT" he was a great orator, even if his opinions were off base.
The publishers of "Blasphemous" have every right, according to the 1st Amendment, to print and say whatever they please. They do not have a right to send it to my house. For atheists, you have every right to believe what you want to. I won't argue with you because every atheist that I've ever encountered already knows EVERYTHING and are immediately looking to intimidate and insult me because I am "foolish" enough to believe in God. While it is my sincere desire for everyone to come to the knowledge of Christ and receive the free gift of salvation, I know that everyone will not accept this. There will always be those that refuse to accept the grace of God. That's not novel, and definitely not worth having a magazine devoted to it.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Pain to Glory
Sitting in the chemotherapy clinic you see many things. A wide range of emotions from the glee of finishing a final treatment to the anxiety of getting set up for a first treatment are on display. The families of cancer patients sit anxiously while the treatments are administered behind a heavy wooden door. Hard times have chiseled the faces of the patients and their caretakers. Many look worn out and ragged but there is something else going on here- the healing power of God.
Cancer in various stages can take a huge toll on its victims- but even something as aggressive and destructive as cancer has a remedy...hope. I had a thought driving to the clinic with my mother and my sister that was astonishing. God, in his infinite wisdom placed the cures for some of the world's most dangerous diseases within plants, trees, sea sponges and other natural sources. One of the drugs prescribed to my mother, Taxol, comes from the pacific Yew tree- a tree that, if harvested, takes 100 years to grow back. But God gave wisdom to men like K.C. Nicolaou, E.J. Corey and Robert Holton to isolate, characterize and synthesize this compound in their laboratories at their respective universities. Countless numbers of scientists are committed to the area of medicinal chemistry and biotechnology. In the words of Paul Erlich, there is the constant search for the "magic bullet" in the war against infectious disease.
Looking into the faces of the many people there to take treatments and there for moral support, it's quite possible that they do not care about the science behind their cure. Truthfully, it is not supremely important to me because I know the Scientist that lies behind the science. The Great Creator whom, although the outward man perishes and grief shows on our faces, has the power to strengthen and renew the inner man on a daily basis.
Many of the patients have no clue what to expect, but God says to us through His Word that faith without doubt allows us to pray to the Father and be answered by the Great Physician. I wrote this on a notepad before I typed it and as I wrote it I had to hide my tears. The tears were not from grief or anxiety but from God's Spirit giving me hope that I can hold onto. The Holy Spirit has shown me that in our darkest hours, there is yet hope because God can do ANYTHING!!
Some of these patients may not survive their bout with cancer- but death does not always equal death, especially for those that know Christ. Cancer may just be the facilitator of the glorious transition from corruptible to incorruptible. From Pain to Glory. For those that survive, and I fully expect my mom to survive, the testimony to God's healing power will be great and His name will be proclaimed in all the earth. This is not a storm to be weathered alone, but with God all things are possible.
Cancer in various stages can take a huge toll on its victims- but even something as aggressive and destructive as cancer has a remedy...hope. I had a thought driving to the clinic with my mother and my sister that was astonishing. God, in his infinite wisdom placed the cures for some of the world's most dangerous diseases within plants, trees, sea sponges and other natural sources. One of the drugs prescribed to my mother, Taxol, comes from the pacific Yew tree- a tree that, if harvested, takes 100 years to grow back. But God gave wisdom to men like K.C. Nicolaou, E.J. Corey and Robert Holton to isolate, characterize and synthesize this compound in their laboratories at their respective universities. Countless numbers of scientists are committed to the area of medicinal chemistry and biotechnology. In the words of Paul Erlich, there is the constant search for the "magic bullet" in the war against infectious disease.
Looking into the faces of the many people there to take treatments and there for moral support, it's quite possible that they do not care about the science behind their cure. Truthfully, it is not supremely important to me because I know the Scientist that lies behind the science. The Great Creator whom, although the outward man perishes and grief shows on our faces, has the power to strengthen and renew the inner man on a daily basis.
Many of the patients have no clue what to expect, but God says to us through His Word that faith without doubt allows us to pray to the Father and be answered by the Great Physician. I wrote this on a notepad before I typed it and as I wrote it I had to hide my tears. The tears were not from grief or anxiety but from God's Spirit giving me hope that I can hold onto. The Holy Spirit has shown me that in our darkest hours, there is yet hope because God can do ANYTHING!!
Some of these patients may not survive their bout with cancer- but death does not always equal death, especially for those that know Christ. Cancer may just be the facilitator of the glorious transition from corruptible to incorruptible. From Pain to Glory. For those that survive, and I fully expect my mom to survive, the testimony to God's healing power will be great and His name will be proclaimed in all the earth. This is not a storm to be weathered alone, but with God all things are possible.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Preparation for the Facebook Onslaught
This is the time of year where "super" seniors muster up their last bit of energy (energy they have been conserving all semester as the have not done much more than complain and try to use "senior" status to get by) to get those last few points for a passing grade. Students that have basically lagged ALL semester are now in beastmode trying to "get'r done" as Larry the Cable Guy would say. All for what? In hopes of passing a class that you've had all semester to pass? Why the sudden burst of energy? Why the sudden "need" to speak to the professor who has been waiting patiently in their office all semester for you to show up, who has been sitting in study sessions alone for the better part of 3 months waiting for some student to take the initiative to come in and get some help. But in this 11th hour attempt to look like a student, students end up falling short and blaming their failures on the instructor.
At this point in my academic career, I am no longer interested in being the "friend" of my students. I've come to realize that it is my job to preapare students for the real world AND teach them as much organic chemistry as possible while doing so. "Friendly" teachers quickly lose the respect of their students and the students feel like they can bring any bootleg excuse to you and you will accept it because "you're cool". I'm not out to be a jerk, but the line has to be drawn in the sand such that students respect the student/teacher interface and the student/teacher relationship. "Friendly" teachers are like "Player's coaches" in the NFL- things look good for a while but eventually the inmates will run the asylum leaving the "coach/teacher" hapless and with zero control of the situation. While we converse on many levels outside of class, when in class the relationship is professor/student and business. I often wonder how students can have the mentality of "I will work harder once I get in the real world." when college is preparation for the real world. You don't start training when you get in the fight, you train before the fight. Students that are lazy, disorganized and cannot maintain deadlines carry those bad habits over to the workplace and soon find themselves shuffling from job to job. How can you expect someone to make a huge monetary investment in you when you won't even invest the time that it takes to come to class and get every ounce of knowledge that is possible out of the professor? The litany of excuses has become so boring to me until I almost want to just walk away in mid-sentence. As my old basketball coach, coach Larry Bowman, would say- "it's not about excuses, it's about results!" We live in a results driven society and those that do not produce results get left by the wayside. Lesson 1 for every student that reads this, never make an excuse for something that you are clearly the blame for. Take responsibility for your own actions and in doing so, you will become a better person and learn to make better decisions.
With that being said, I am fully prepared for the Facebook onslaught of sly remarks, complaints and other drivel that people resort to when the blame is on them but they refuse to accept it. Here's to you, o whiny ones. If there ever was a time to suck it up and say, "I screwed up.", this would be that time. Post away and rememeber that I don't have an account anymore, lol.
In all seriousness, take your education seriously. Never commend into someone else's hands that which you should take responsibility for yourself. Stop blaming instructors and start taking the initiative to do what it takes OUTSIDE of class so that the performance INSIDE the class shows. God bless and Godspeed on all of your final exams.
At this point in my academic career, I am no longer interested in being the "friend" of my students. I've come to realize that it is my job to preapare students for the real world AND teach them as much organic chemistry as possible while doing so. "Friendly" teachers quickly lose the respect of their students and the students feel like they can bring any bootleg excuse to you and you will accept it because "you're cool". I'm not out to be a jerk, but the line has to be drawn in the sand such that students respect the student/teacher interface and the student/teacher relationship. "Friendly" teachers are like "Player's coaches" in the NFL- things look good for a while but eventually the inmates will run the asylum leaving the "coach/teacher" hapless and with zero control of the situation. While we converse on many levels outside of class, when in class the relationship is professor/student and business. I often wonder how students can have the mentality of "I will work harder once I get in the real world." when college is preparation for the real world. You don't start training when you get in the fight, you train before the fight. Students that are lazy, disorganized and cannot maintain deadlines carry those bad habits over to the workplace and soon find themselves shuffling from job to job. How can you expect someone to make a huge monetary investment in you when you won't even invest the time that it takes to come to class and get every ounce of knowledge that is possible out of the professor? The litany of excuses has become so boring to me until I almost want to just walk away in mid-sentence. As my old basketball coach, coach Larry Bowman, would say- "it's not about excuses, it's about results!" We live in a results driven society and those that do not produce results get left by the wayside. Lesson 1 for every student that reads this, never make an excuse for something that you are clearly the blame for. Take responsibility for your own actions and in doing so, you will become a better person and learn to make better decisions.
With that being said, I am fully prepared for the Facebook onslaught of sly remarks, complaints and other drivel that people resort to when the blame is on them but they refuse to accept it. Here's to you, o whiny ones. If there ever was a time to suck it up and say, "I screwed up.", this would be that time. Post away and rememeber that I don't have an account anymore, lol.
In all seriousness, take your education seriously. Never commend into someone else's hands that which you should take responsibility for yourself. Stop blaming instructors and start taking the initiative to do what it takes OUTSIDE of class so that the performance INSIDE the class shows. God bless and Godspeed on all of your final exams.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Free Will
There is a common belief among those in the camp of election that there is no such thing as "Free Will" or the ability of man to actually choose. According to this camp, man can never choose anything good. Man is totally depraved and has no good intentions nor does he have the ability to make a morally correct decision. In their view of man, it is utterly impossible for man, by his own free will, to choose God at all. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no such thing as "free will". It does not exist. So, they adopt the doctrine of monergism which simply means that man does not do anything and has no responsibility in the process of salvation and God does everything. According to the doctrine of predestination, which most monergists follow, God specially elects a few for salvation, God compels those that are specially elected to accept Him and God makes all the decisions. The doctrine of predestination (tied in with special election) says that God has predestined who will be saved and who will go to hell which I see as one of the most cruel and unforgiving ideas that Christianity has to offer. Yes, God is sovereign and can do whatever he pleases but God is also love and love doesn't send people to hell without, at least, the opportunity for salvation which resides in one making a decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior. That is the subject of another blog post however.
While I agree that man will not (I chose not to say can not because there are atheists that live "morally upstanding" lives although they reject the Son of God and God altogether) choose anything good (John 3:19) and I agree that because of sin, man is depraved and has serious moral defects- I do not agree that there is not a such thing as man having "free will". Man is created in God's image. This doesn't mean that we are "little gods", it means that we take on God's transitive properties and one of those properties is the ability to choose or having volition. God gave us the ability to love, to show compassion, to feel empathy etc. If we have the ability to choose, that would be indicative that man has a will and man can exercise that will. Man, when prompted and guided by the Spirit of God will, at some point, see that it is his responsibility to follow God. That's why the gospel is preached- so that man would hear of the goodness of God AND hear of the error in his ways (SIN) which will ultimately lead to death. God's mercy through Christ's sacrifice, when preached to sinful man causes conviction of those that hear it. However, some make the choice to reject the gospel. Joshua gave the directive, "choose this day whom you will serve". Elijah asked the people on Mt. Carmel, "how long will you limp between two opinons?" These statements indicate that there is a responsibility on the part of man to follow God.
Let's go back to Eden where the whole issue of free will originates in the minds of both sides of this argument. In the garden of Eden, Eve was presented with a question from the serpent regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. While Eve answered by telling the serpent exactly what Adam told her, she also did something else. She doubted God, took the serpent's word over God's Word and finally rebelled against God's command and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In doing so, Eve became complicit with the rebellion of the serpent who was already an outcast and she subsequently placed her will above that of the Father's will. She chose to gratify a desire that the serpent intensified by making her believe that God was withholding something from her. Had there been no free will, not only would Eve not have disobeyed God, the serpent would not have rebelled nor would he have been in a position to cause man to rebel. Martin Luther in his treatise, "On the Bondage of the Will" takes the following position: "If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as—"Free-will!" I would counter this by simply saying that Eve was not ensared by sin because prior to this event in the garden of Eden, there was no sin nor was there enslavement of man to sin. Unless we say that man was created sinful, which we know is not the case, then we cannot rightly say that Eve did not exercise her "will" in the garden. What we can say is that her "will" was easily swayed to rebel against God which is where I wholeheartedly agree with Luther and others that say that the "will" of man will choose evil if given the opportunity and therefore must be pressed upon by God's Spirit to be LED in the direction of God (Added 12/30/11).
Forced love, forced devotion and forced worship is not really worship at all. William Dembski, author of The End of Christianity, makes a very pointed and concise statement about what true worship is: forsaking all else and placing God as head of everything. Worship is a choice and to place God as the head and all other things as secondary is a choice made by those that truly worship Him. The most beautiful thing about the Christian life is the restoration of the fellowship between God and man that was lost because of sin. God does not become less than Almighty by actually having a relationship with man. He is still holy, sovereign and magnificent- even if He chooses to fellowship with man and give man (not force upon man) the opportunity to return that fellowship.
Another question to ponder is this, if there were no such thing as free will , why would God have to call man? If we were forced to serve and worship God, there would be no need to call man out of darkness at all. God would simply force man to serve Him and darkness would not be an option. Actually, there would be no darkness because there would be no sin because there would have been no rebellion in Eden. God calls and gives man the ability to accept that call because of His love. A loving God would not allow man to stay in darkness. Here is where free will is so critical because when God calls, the faith to hear the call and believe is a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9) that man can choose to use or not to use. Once a gift is imparted it becomes the possesion of the one to whom it was granted. The position that I take here is that of synergism. Not in the classical Arminian sense but in the sense that man has a responsibiltiy, albeit minimal, in the fellowship with God. A synergistic relationship is one where two parties are involved and the outcome of the relationship is based on the actions of both parties. Now, the relationship is still synergistic even if God does ALL of the work because as much as God calls, man must hear and take heed. An argument against this point would be to say that I am insinuating that God "needs" man. I am not saying that at all. God does not need anything or anyone, but he desires the fellowship. The bible says in John 4:23 that God SEEKS worshipers that worship Him in Spirit and in truth [added 12/30/12]. Why were we created in the first place? To fellowship with God and to Worship God [added 12/30/11]. One example of this synergistic relationship is the call to repentence in 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says simply "IF (emphasis added) my people who are called by my name WOULD (emphasis added) humble themselves and pray and SEEK MY FACE and turn from their wicked ways- THEN I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land. God calls on man to "seek his face" and he showed himself to man through the the Law, the prophets and eventually through Jesus.
God calls men out of darkness, God gives man the ability to believe however, it is man's decision and responsibility to accept the call. Some would accuse me of minimizing God in favor of man- but I see it as quite the contrary. This is far from a "seeker friendly" gospel. The only responsibility of man is to accept the call of God and even that cannot be done without God endowing man with the ability to believe. Faith is a gift from God, but every gift must be exercised by the one that it was granted to. While God can give man the ability to believe unto salvation(believing faith), He cannot and will not believe for man.
The bible says in John 6:44 that no one can come to Christ except he be "drawn" by the Father. In 1 Peter 2:9 the bible says that those that believe have been "called out" of darkness and into the marvelous light. The fact that a person has to be called to follow Jesus is not something to be taken lightly. It actually answered a lot of questions for me when I thought about it in this way. We all have relatives, friends, co-workers and others that we know and we always wonder "when are they going to 'get their life together?'" They will get their life together when God calls them out of darkness. When will that be? That's not for us to decide but that doesn't mean that we shouldnt' be a living epistle before them nor does it mean that we should not pray for them and share the gospel whenever possible. God is revealed to man through His Word and whenever we proclaim His word, we reveal Him to those that do not yet "know" Him. We who have already been called and have accepted the call are to be salt and light in the world. Paul said in 1 Tim 1:15-16 that he was shown mercy so that in him and his life and conversion, Christ could display His unlimited patience and so that Paul could be an example to others who might see and believe.
Free will is a topic of serious debate. Many speak of the "irresistible will" of God and that it is impossible for man to resist God but the truth is that God calls but there are some that reject that call. If it was impossible to reject the call, why is there scriptural reference to the "grieving" of the Holy Spirit [Ephesians 4:30] or the "trampling under foot of the Son of God" [Hebrews 6] or "profaning of the blood and outraging the Spirit of grace" [Hebrews 10]? These point to the ability of man to accept or reject God's offer of salvation or even, as in the case of Ephesians 4:30, His process of sanctification [Ephesians 4:30 is addressed to believers]. Compare it to God leading us to the waters of grace, showing us flowing streams of mercy and once we get there we decide that we do not want to drink. God is not going to drink for us, however He is merciful enough to lead us to the source which is Christ.
There are countless biblical examples of rebellion of man against God. There are even examples of God hardening the heart of men that rebelled against him so that they were unable to believe, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. According to Jesus in Luke 8:10, and in Matthew 13:11, the people (Jews) that He preached to were unable believe in order to fulfill prophecy [Isaiah 6:9] that said "though seeing they will not see and hearing they will not hear." When the people rebelled and chose something other than God, their punishment was that their hearts were hardened. God called but they did not choose Him, they chose something else and He did not force them to follow Him. He was upset and angry with the people but even in that, he did not force anyone to do anything- the ones that followed God were the ones that saw the evidence (i.e. the Red Sea experience, the waters at Meribah etc.) and believed God. The consequence of choosing anything other than God is death. Jesus said in John 8:24 that unless man believes that he is the Living God he will "die in his sins".
Are there times when free will is suspended? I believe so. There are times when God has a purpose to fulfill and He does so regardless of the feelings or reluctance of those involved. When God called Moses to speak for Him, Moses made a few remarks regarding his inability to speak and his lack of qualifications for the job of spokesperson for Israel. While Moses did not want to go, Moses really had no choice. Jonah is another good example. Jonah was supposed to go to Nineveh but instead boarded a ship to Tarshish. Jonah's free will chose to disobey God and for a while it looked as if Jonah got out of his assignment. But the storm that came up and great fish that came to transport Jonah back to Nineveh would say otherwise. The fish and the storm were both sent by God to let Jonah know that his choice in the matter of prophesying to the Ninevites was suspended.
While there are times when free will is suspended, there is ample evidence for the ability of man to accept responsibility when it comes to worshipping God. God chose man however, man, once chosen must accept that choice/calling. There are those that believe in special election which, in my estimation, gives an elitist and supremacist air to Christianity. Where is the card that goes in your wallet that says that you've been elected? Why would God only choose certain people or give them the option of heaven whereas others are just doomed for hell? Why would God, who is love, not open the doors for all who would believe to come to Him thereby placing the burden of heaven or hell on the one that rejected him? I am not a believer in "election" in the sense of "God has chosen me to go to heaven but you have to stay here" but I do believe that God elects some believers to different places/functions within the kingdom. Herbert Lockyer said it this way, "election is always inclusive, never exclusive. He (God, emphais mine) chooses a few in order that ALL (emphasis mine) may be blessed." All all are called but only certain ones are elected to "offices" to fulfill specific duties within the kingdom of God. God's call to salvation is general in that ALL who would come to believe have the ability and the opportunity for salvation. When John the Baptist preached repentance, everyone in the crowd had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. When Jesus preached the same message, the same scenario was presented- everyone that heard his voice had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. It is not a specific call but a call to all men to be saved. Rejection of that call comes at the peril of the hearer. God's call becomes specific as in the case of Samuel- although Eli was a priest, he did not hear God's voice when God called out to Samuel those three times. That call was meant for Samuel and it was for a special purpose.
Is there a call from God to follow Christ, yes. Does man have a responsibility to accept that call or reject it? If we use the analogy of a phone ringing- if you know it's God on the other end and don't answer, the results could be quite disastrous. When God calls us to repentance and salvation (for those that are unsaved), accept his calling. His kindness leads us to repentance and God has been more that merciful with us all. The bible says that it is God's desire that ALL men be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. His calling to accept the ransom that has been paid on our behalf is the most loving and gracious act in the history of mankind. If God is calling you, pick up the phone, it's your responbility.
While I agree that man will not (I chose not to say can not because there are atheists that live "morally upstanding" lives although they reject the Son of God and God altogether) choose anything good (John 3:19) and I agree that because of sin, man is depraved and has serious moral defects- I do not agree that there is not a such thing as man having "free will". Man is created in God's image. This doesn't mean that we are "little gods", it means that we take on God's transitive properties and one of those properties is the ability to choose or having volition. God gave us the ability to love, to show compassion, to feel empathy etc. If we have the ability to choose, that would be indicative that man has a will and man can exercise that will. Man, when prompted and guided by the Spirit of God will, at some point, see that it is his responsibility to follow God. That's why the gospel is preached- so that man would hear of the goodness of God AND hear of the error in his ways (SIN) which will ultimately lead to death. God's mercy through Christ's sacrifice, when preached to sinful man causes conviction of those that hear it. However, some make the choice to reject the gospel. Joshua gave the directive, "choose this day whom you will serve". Elijah asked the people on Mt. Carmel, "how long will you limp between two opinons?" These statements indicate that there is a responsibility on the part of man to follow God.
Let's go back to Eden where the whole issue of free will originates in the minds of both sides of this argument. In the garden of Eden, Eve was presented with a question from the serpent regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. While Eve answered by telling the serpent exactly what Adam told her, she also did something else. She doubted God, took the serpent's word over God's Word and finally rebelled against God's command and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In doing so, Eve became complicit with the rebellion of the serpent who was already an outcast and she subsequently placed her will above that of the Father's will. She chose to gratify a desire that the serpent intensified by making her believe that God was withholding something from her. Had there been no free will, not only would Eve not have disobeyed God, the serpent would not have rebelled nor would he have been in a position to cause man to rebel. Martin Luther in his treatise, "On the Bondage of the Will" takes the following position: "If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as—"Free-will!" I would counter this by simply saying that Eve was not ensared by sin because prior to this event in the garden of Eden, there was no sin nor was there enslavement of man to sin. Unless we say that man was created sinful, which we know is not the case, then we cannot rightly say that Eve did not exercise her "will" in the garden. What we can say is that her "will" was easily swayed to rebel against God which is where I wholeheartedly agree with Luther and others that say that the "will" of man will choose evil if given the opportunity and therefore must be pressed upon by God's Spirit to be LED in the direction of God (Added 12/30/11).
Forced love, forced devotion and forced worship is not really worship at all. William Dembski, author of The End of Christianity, makes a very pointed and concise statement about what true worship is: forsaking all else and placing God as head of everything. Worship is a choice and to place God as the head and all other things as secondary is a choice made by those that truly worship Him. The most beautiful thing about the Christian life is the restoration of the fellowship between God and man that was lost because of sin. God does not become less than Almighty by actually having a relationship with man. He is still holy, sovereign and magnificent- even if He chooses to fellowship with man and give man (not force upon man) the opportunity to return that fellowship.
Another question to ponder is this, if there were no such thing as free will , why would God have to call man? If we were forced to serve and worship God, there would be no need to call man out of darkness at all. God would simply force man to serve Him and darkness would not be an option. Actually, there would be no darkness because there would be no sin because there would have been no rebellion in Eden. God calls and gives man the ability to accept that call because of His love. A loving God would not allow man to stay in darkness. Here is where free will is so critical because when God calls, the faith to hear the call and believe is a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9) that man can choose to use or not to use. Once a gift is imparted it becomes the possesion of the one to whom it was granted. The position that I take here is that of synergism. Not in the classical Arminian sense but in the sense that man has a responsibiltiy, albeit minimal, in the fellowship with God. A synergistic relationship is one where two parties are involved and the outcome of the relationship is based on the actions of both parties. Now, the relationship is still synergistic even if God does ALL of the work because as much as God calls, man must hear and take heed. An argument against this point would be to say that I am insinuating that God "needs" man. I am not saying that at all. God does not need anything or anyone, but he desires the fellowship. The bible says in John 4:23 that God SEEKS worshipers that worship Him in Spirit and in truth [added 12/30/12]. Why were we created in the first place? To fellowship with God and to Worship God [added 12/30/11]. One example of this synergistic relationship is the call to repentence in 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says simply "IF (emphasis added) my people who are called by my name WOULD (emphasis added) humble themselves and pray and SEEK MY FACE and turn from their wicked ways- THEN I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land. God calls on man to "seek his face" and he showed himself to man through the the Law, the prophets and eventually through Jesus.
God calls men out of darkness, God gives man the ability to believe however, it is man's decision and responsibility to accept the call. Some would accuse me of minimizing God in favor of man- but I see it as quite the contrary. This is far from a "seeker friendly" gospel. The only responsibility of man is to accept the call of God and even that cannot be done without God endowing man with the ability to believe. Faith is a gift from God, but every gift must be exercised by the one that it was granted to. While God can give man the ability to believe unto salvation(believing faith), He cannot and will not believe for man.
The bible says in John 6:44 that no one can come to Christ except he be "drawn" by the Father. In 1 Peter 2:9 the bible says that those that believe have been "called out" of darkness and into the marvelous light. The fact that a person has to be called to follow Jesus is not something to be taken lightly. It actually answered a lot of questions for me when I thought about it in this way. We all have relatives, friends, co-workers and others that we know and we always wonder "when are they going to 'get their life together?'" They will get their life together when God calls them out of darkness. When will that be? That's not for us to decide but that doesn't mean that we shouldnt' be a living epistle before them nor does it mean that we should not pray for them and share the gospel whenever possible. God is revealed to man through His Word and whenever we proclaim His word, we reveal Him to those that do not yet "know" Him. We who have already been called and have accepted the call are to be salt and light in the world. Paul said in 1 Tim 1:15-16 that he was shown mercy so that in him and his life and conversion, Christ could display His unlimited patience and so that Paul could be an example to others who might see and believe.
Free will is a topic of serious debate. Many speak of the "irresistible will" of God and that it is impossible for man to resist God but the truth is that God calls but there are some that reject that call. If it was impossible to reject the call, why is there scriptural reference to the "grieving" of the Holy Spirit [Ephesians 4:30] or the "trampling under foot of the Son of God" [Hebrews 6] or "profaning of the blood and outraging the Spirit of grace" [Hebrews 10]? These point to the ability of man to accept or reject God's offer of salvation or even, as in the case of Ephesians 4:30, His process of sanctification [Ephesians 4:30 is addressed to believers]. Compare it to God leading us to the waters of grace, showing us flowing streams of mercy and once we get there we decide that we do not want to drink. God is not going to drink for us, however He is merciful enough to lead us to the source which is Christ.
There are countless biblical examples of rebellion of man against God. There are even examples of God hardening the heart of men that rebelled against him so that they were unable to believe, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. According to Jesus in Luke 8:10, and in Matthew 13:11, the people (Jews) that He preached to were unable believe in order to fulfill prophecy [Isaiah 6:9] that said "though seeing they will not see and hearing they will not hear." When the people rebelled and chose something other than God, their punishment was that their hearts were hardened. God called but they did not choose Him, they chose something else and He did not force them to follow Him. He was upset and angry with the people but even in that, he did not force anyone to do anything- the ones that followed God were the ones that saw the evidence (i.e. the Red Sea experience, the waters at Meribah etc.) and believed God. The consequence of choosing anything other than God is death. Jesus said in John 8:24 that unless man believes that he is the Living God he will "die in his sins".
Are there times when free will is suspended? I believe so. There are times when God has a purpose to fulfill and He does so regardless of the feelings or reluctance of those involved. When God called Moses to speak for Him, Moses made a few remarks regarding his inability to speak and his lack of qualifications for the job of spokesperson for Israel. While Moses did not want to go, Moses really had no choice. Jonah is another good example. Jonah was supposed to go to Nineveh but instead boarded a ship to Tarshish. Jonah's free will chose to disobey God and for a while it looked as if Jonah got out of his assignment. But the storm that came up and great fish that came to transport Jonah back to Nineveh would say otherwise. The fish and the storm were both sent by God to let Jonah know that his choice in the matter of prophesying to the Ninevites was suspended.
While there are times when free will is suspended, there is ample evidence for the ability of man to accept responsibility when it comes to worshipping God. God chose man however, man, once chosen must accept that choice/calling. There are those that believe in special election which, in my estimation, gives an elitist and supremacist air to Christianity. Where is the card that goes in your wallet that says that you've been elected? Why would God only choose certain people or give them the option of heaven whereas others are just doomed for hell? Why would God, who is love, not open the doors for all who would believe to come to Him thereby placing the burden of heaven or hell on the one that rejected him? I am not a believer in "election" in the sense of "God has chosen me to go to heaven but you have to stay here" but I do believe that God elects some believers to different places/functions within the kingdom. Herbert Lockyer said it this way, "election is always inclusive, never exclusive. He (God, emphais mine) chooses a few in order that ALL (emphasis mine) may be blessed." All all are called but only certain ones are elected to "offices" to fulfill specific duties within the kingdom of God. God's call to salvation is general in that ALL who would come to believe have the ability and the opportunity for salvation. When John the Baptist preached repentance, everyone in the crowd had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. When Jesus preached the same message, the same scenario was presented- everyone that heard his voice had the opportunity to hear, repent and be saved. It is not a specific call but a call to all men to be saved. Rejection of that call comes at the peril of the hearer. God's call becomes specific as in the case of Samuel- although Eli was a priest, he did not hear God's voice when God called out to Samuel those three times. That call was meant for Samuel and it was for a special purpose.
Is there a call from God to follow Christ, yes. Does man have a responsibility to accept that call or reject it? If we use the analogy of a phone ringing- if you know it's God on the other end and don't answer, the results could be quite disastrous. When God calls us to repentance and salvation (for those that are unsaved), accept his calling. His kindness leads us to repentance and God has been more that merciful with us all. The bible says that it is God's desire that ALL men be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. His calling to accept the ransom that has been paid on our behalf is the most loving and gracious act in the history of mankind. If God is calling you, pick up the phone, it's your responbility.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
What I am Most Thankful For
Galatians 3:19-20 "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one."
Galatians is one of those books of the bible where reading it is comparable to peeling an onion. It is just layers and layers of doctrine and knowledge. As was preparing to preach this Sunday at 8AM, I had been studying Galatians and Hebrews (especially Hebrews 7-10, another onion). The text that actually preached from was Job 33:23-24 and the premise was that we all owe a debt to God because of sin- but none of us are able to repay it. The scriptures read as follows:
"“If there is an angel as mediator for him,
One out of a thousand,
To remind a man what is right for him,
Then let him (the angel, emphasis mine) be gracious to him, and say,
‘Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom’;"
The whole idea of an angelic mediator "finding" a ransom for a man who is on the verge of tasting death quite in intriguing. First of all, I had to begin to search the scriptures to find evidence of "angelic mediation" on behalf of men which led me to several places, but Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2 in particular. Both scriptures talk about the giving of the Law and how the Law was "mediated" by angels. The scripture in Galatians says specifically that the Law was ordained by angels through a mediator, who scholars believe to be Moses. With evidence of angelic mediation in hand, I began to ask myself several questions, namely, "why angels?", which brought something else to my attention. The fact that angels acted as intermediaries between man and God points to something profound, that there was great distance between God and man. The distance was created by sin and idolatry. The whole notion of intimacy was lost because of sin. That's not to say that God did not have intimate relationships with men and women of the Old Testament, but they were very few and far between.
This brings me to my point. What I am most thankful for is that although the Law was given through angels, the promise to Abraham was given directly to him! The promise that the world would be blessed through his "Seed" and redeemed from the curse of the Law is something that we should all be thankful for. The "Seed", Immanuel, God with Us is a far cry from having to hear from angels through a mediator! That makes the name Immanuel even more special because God kept his promise from Leviticus 26:12 and walked among his people. What I am most thankful for is my relationship with God through Christ Jesus! Now the same intimacy that Adam and Eve once had, I can have too. I can talk to God without using a middle man because Jesus restored the fellowship that was lost because of sin. Having a personal, intimate relationship with God is more precious that silver and gold. Knowing God for ourselves is a greater privilege that any of us could ever imagine. Christ went behind the veil and now we have unprecedented access to God! That's what I am thankful for- not my "religion" which is based on formalities, but by "relationship" which is based on the blood of Christ! To add to this, my "ransom" was paid in full by Jesus! 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave his live as a ransom for many! So, I guess I am thankful for two things because I also thank God for seeing the need for a ransom, going through the mediators and the priests (which is what the angelic mediators foreshadowed) and coming down to the One that could pay the ransom in full, once and for all! Christ has "perfected (or is perfecting) for all time those that have been sanctifed" through one sacrifice, one act of ransoming us back from the clucthes of death! That's good news, or as we preachers like to call it, the gospel!
Give thanks to God in all things. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise. Be thankful unto Him and bless His name! For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations. Be blessed!
Galatians is one of those books of the bible where reading it is comparable to peeling an onion. It is just layers and layers of doctrine and knowledge. As was preparing to preach this Sunday at 8AM, I had been studying Galatians and Hebrews (especially Hebrews 7-10, another onion). The text that actually preached from was Job 33:23-24 and the premise was that we all owe a debt to God because of sin- but none of us are able to repay it. The scriptures read as follows:
"“If there is an angel as mediator for him,
One out of a thousand,
To remind a man what is right for him,
Then let him (the angel, emphasis mine) be gracious to him, and say,
‘Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom’;"
The whole idea of an angelic mediator "finding" a ransom for a man who is on the verge of tasting death quite in intriguing. First of all, I had to begin to search the scriptures to find evidence of "angelic mediation" on behalf of men which led me to several places, but Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2 in particular. Both scriptures talk about the giving of the Law and how the Law was "mediated" by angels. The scripture in Galatians says specifically that the Law was ordained by angels through a mediator, who scholars believe to be Moses. With evidence of angelic mediation in hand, I began to ask myself several questions, namely, "why angels?", which brought something else to my attention. The fact that angels acted as intermediaries between man and God points to something profound, that there was great distance between God and man. The distance was created by sin and idolatry. The whole notion of intimacy was lost because of sin. That's not to say that God did not have intimate relationships with men and women of the Old Testament, but they were very few and far between.
This brings me to my point. What I am most thankful for is that although the Law was given through angels, the promise to Abraham was given directly to him! The promise that the world would be blessed through his "Seed" and redeemed from the curse of the Law is something that we should all be thankful for. The "Seed", Immanuel, God with Us is a far cry from having to hear from angels through a mediator! That makes the name Immanuel even more special because God kept his promise from Leviticus 26:12 and walked among his people. What I am most thankful for is my relationship with God through Christ Jesus! Now the same intimacy that Adam and Eve once had, I can have too. I can talk to God without using a middle man because Jesus restored the fellowship that was lost because of sin. Having a personal, intimate relationship with God is more precious that silver and gold. Knowing God for ourselves is a greater privilege that any of us could ever imagine. Christ went behind the veil and now we have unprecedented access to God! That's what I am thankful for- not my "religion" which is based on formalities, but by "relationship" which is based on the blood of Christ! To add to this, my "ransom" was paid in full by Jesus! 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave his live as a ransom for many! So, I guess I am thankful for two things because I also thank God for seeing the need for a ransom, going through the mediators and the priests (which is what the angelic mediators foreshadowed) and coming down to the One that could pay the ransom in full, once and for all! Christ has "perfected (or is perfecting) for all time those that have been sanctifed" through one sacrifice, one act of ransoming us back from the clucthes of death! That's good news, or as we preachers like to call it, the gospel!
Give thanks to God in all things. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise. Be thankful unto Him and bless His name! For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations. Be blessed!
Saturday, November 26, 2011
A Gift from Above
God works in mysterious ways. That's an old adage that will never go stale. This weekend, I had a chance to see that firsthand. A patient of my wife's sent me an obscure message about a month ago regarding some books from his mother's library. He's an older gentleman, quite distinguished in his military service and one that likes to conversate on things that are intellectually stimulating. I was not taken aback by this offer from him to look through these books, but I almost forgot to respond.
I finally got a chance to respond and actually gave him a call this weekend. I didn't really know what was in store but when I got to his home, which was nestled back into a wooded area, I found something quite amazing. When I walked into his own home library, I found a mix of books ranging from the civil war to reptiles and amphibians. The collection that he brought back from his mother's library was astounding. There were all of these Christian books, some with notes written in them from his mother, others with little cards tucked into the pages. His offer was even more amazing...if I chose to, I could take ALL of the books home with me! His rationale was that because I was in ministry, the books would assist me more than they would assist him. We split a duplicate set of books on Hebrews and he allowed me to pick through volumes and volumes of Christian literature. It was not the books, but the content that was so amazing. His mother had to be very deep and very theological because these were heavyweight books.
As I looked through these books, and started filling paper bags with them- my friend revealed the true reason that he called me, of all people. He said that because I have spent my academic career doing something other than seminary, these books would be ideal for me to increase my theological wherewithal. My jaw dropped because I know that this was a moment directed by the Spirit of God. He didn't know of my desire to attend seminary, a desire that I have held for quite some time. He didn't know that I have always desired to increase my theological information base. All he knew was that he had to be obedient to the Spirit of God. I felt guilty taking so many books, but he reassured me that God had indeed asked him the question, "What are you going to do with the gifts that I gave you?".
All of that being said, I came home with at least $500.00 worth of books for the price of spending a few moments on a Saturday afternoon with a man that was being obedient to God. I gained so much from this experience. To listen to this man talk about God, I knew that he also was quite learned and that he spent a lot of time with God. This gave me a new found passion to know as much as possible about God- which he also intimated- at one point in the conversation, he said this: "There are going to be times when you have to answer very difficult questions and people are going to need detailed and precise information- it is possible that these things will help you with that." Another indication that this man had heard from God and was not simply doing this to get closer to his doctor, who happens to be my wife.
At the end of the day, I left enriched both spiritually and intellectually. This man added to my library and also added to my spirit. The scripture in Isaiah 55 has never been more true, when God says that His ways are not our ways. I always knew that, but Saturday confirmed it.
I finally got a chance to respond and actually gave him a call this weekend. I didn't really know what was in store but when I got to his home, which was nestled back into a wooded area, I found something quite amazing. When I walked into his own home library, I found a mix of books ranging from the civil war to reptiles and amphibians. The collection that he brought back from his mother's library was astounding. There were all of these Christian books, some with notes written in them from his mother, others with little cards tucked into the pages. His offer was even more amazing...if I chose to, I could take ALL of the books home with me! His rationale was that because I was in ministry, the books would assist me more than they would assist him. We split a duplicate set of books on Hebrews and he allowed me to pick through volumes and volumes of Christian literature. It was not the books, but the content that was so amazing. His mother had to be very deep and very theological because these were heavyweight books.
As I looked through these books, and started filling paper bags with them- my friend revealed the true reason that he called me, of all people. He said that because I have spent my academic career doing something other than seminary, these books would be ideal for me to increase my theological wherewithal. My jaw dropped because I know that this was a moment directed by the Spirit of God. He didn't know of my desire to attend seminary, a desire that I have held for quite some time. He didn't know that I have always desired to increase my theological information base. All he knew was that he had to be obedient to the Spirit of God. I felt guilty taking so many books, but he reassured me that God had indeed asked him the question, "What are you going to do with the gifts that I gave you?".
All of that being said, I came home with at least $500.00 worth of books for the price of spending a few moments on a Saturday afternoon with a man that was being obedient to God. I gained so much from this experience. To listen to this man talk about God, I knew that he also was quite learned and that he spent a lot of time with God. This gave me a new found passion to know as much as possible about God- which he also intimated- at one point in the conversation, he said this: "There are going to be times when you have to answer very difficult questions and people are going to need detailed and precise information- it is possible that these things will help you with that." Another indication that this man had heard from God and was not simply doing this to get closer to his doctor, who happens to be my wife.
At the end of the day, I left enriched both spiritually and intellectually. This man added to my library and also added to my spirit. The scripture in Isaiah 55 has never been more true, when God says that His ways are not our ways. I always knew that, but Saturday confirmed it.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Pacquiao Wants NONE of Floyd Maweather
Say what you will about Floyd Mayweather, but one thing is for certain, he is the BEST boxer in the sport, bar none. After watching Manny "Jesus in boxing boots" Pacquiao fight Juan Manuel Marquez on tonight, I can say with certainty that Manny wouldn't stand a chance against Floyd Mayweather. Marquez was robbed of that fight, however he could have changed the outcome had be been more aggressive in the later rounds. Marquez is 6 years older than Pacquiao but he did not show it at all. He was catching Pac-Man and timing his right hands perfectly- so much so that Pacquiao's corner felt that he was losing the fight.
As I watched, I know that Mayweather watched as well. He should be salivating after such a lackluster performance by Manny Pacquiao. Manny did not even sound confident at the post-fight interview about winning against Marquez or about fighting Floyd. Marquez gave Manny fits all night with his counter punching and head movement. He ducked at least 10 right hooks from Pacquiao which showed that he studied a ton of film and that he was well adjusted to Manny's speed.
Floyd Mayweather would not only beat Manny, I believe that he could even knock him out. Floyd is faster, bigger and stronger than both Pacquiao and Marquez. Couple all of those factors with this: he is an even better counter puncher than Marquez and you have a recipe for certain victory. If Marquez was able to catch Manny with hard overhand rights all night, how many will Pacquiao eat from Mayweather, who is blindingly fast, even at 34 years old? You don't have to worry about Floyd laying an egg either, this brother trains incessantly and he doesn't take any opponent lightly. Aside from the brashness and the bravado, Floyd Mayweather is a model that any athlete could learn from. His dedication in the gym is unmatched by any athlete in any sport. He often asks rhetorically, "who works harder than me?" He is the Michael Jordan of boxing just like Tom Brady is the Michael Jordan of football or like Tiger Woods WAS the Michael Jordan of golf.
Steroids or no steroids, Manny Pacquiao is just Felix Trinidad with better footwork. Technically skilled fighters with good defense that do not get overwhelmed by his punch output can hang with him. He also has 3 losses on his record, something that Mayweather hasn't even conceived of yet. Pacquiao is a product of the American Hype Machine. Jim Lampley went on and on about his footwork yet was completely oblivious to the fact that Pac-Man was eating right hands as he darted in and out against Marquez. If Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao do fight, I don't see how anyone could pick Pacquiao to win. I don't even see how Marquez was a 9-1 underdog, which probably explained the scorecards- you know, Vegas will always be Vegas. I wonder if Floyd put money on the fight. If he and Pac-Man square off in May, he should probably lay a fat stack of cash on himself to win by knockout.
As I watched, I know that Mayweather watched as well. He should be salivating after such a lackluster performance by Manny Pacquiao. Manny did not even sound confident at the post-fight interview about winning against Marquez or about fighting Floyd. Marquez gave Manny fits all night with his counter punching and head movement. He ducked at least 10 right hooks from Pacquiao which showed that he studied a ton of film and that he was well adjusted to Manny's speed.
Floyd Mayweather would not only beat Manny, I believe that he could even knock him out. Floyd is faster, bigger and stronger than both Pacquiao and Marquez. Couple all of those factors with this: he is an even better counter puncher than Marquez and you have a recipe for certain victory. If Marquez was able to catch Manny with hard overhand rights all night, how many will Pacquiao eat from Mayweather, who is blindingly fast, even at 34 years old? You don't have to worry about Floyd laying an egg either, this brother trains incessantly and he doesn't take any opponent lightly. Aside from the brashness and the bravado, Floyd Mayweather is a model that any athlete could learn from. His dedication in the gym is unmatched by any athlete in any sport. He often asks rhetorically, "who works harder than me?" He is the Michael Jordan of boxing just like Tom Brady is the Michael Jordan of football or like Tiger Woods WAS the Michael Jordan of golf.
Steroids or no steroids, Manny Pacquiao is just Felix Trinidad with better footwork. Technically skilled fighters with good defense that do not get overwhelmed by his punch output can hang with him. He also has 3 losses on his record, something that Mayweather hasn't even conceived of yet. Pacquiao is a product of the American Hype Machine. Jim Lampley went on and on about his footwork yet was completely oblivious to the fact that Pac-Man was eating right hands as he darted in and out against Marquez. If Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao do fight, I don't see how anyone could pick Pacquiao to win. I don't even see how Marquez was a 9-1 underdog, which probably explained the scorecards- you know, Vegas will always be Vegas. I wonder if Floyd put money on the fight. If he and Pac-Man square off in May, he should probably lay a fat stack of cash on himself to win by knockout.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Is the Dope Game the new Jim Crow?
I was listening to the Joe Madison show this morning and Dr. Michelle Alexander was his guest. It was a previously recorded show, but the topic was her book, "The New Jim Crow". I listened to her and while I agreed with a lot of what she was saying, I disagreed with a few things. To be honest and fair, I have not read the book but I plan to order it this weekend- but what I gleaned from her interview is that she made excuses for bad choices rather than calling it what it is. At some point, it becomes less about the "man" and more about the "man in the mirror".
Dr. Alexander kept saying that there are scores of "non-violent" offenders that are locked up for drug crimes. If she means addicts- the fact that they are non-violent is partially true. Anyone that has ever seen a crack fiend with no money and no crack knows that they will do whatever it takes to get high- including robbing, stealing or even killing. I don't consider that non-violent, but they need treatment and not incarceration so we agree there. Where I do not agree is that drug dealers that get caught with crack or powder or weed should be considered non-violent offenders. The drug game is the most violent enterprise on the planet. If you are a drug dealer, street level, you have to carry a gun or at least have muscle that carries guns. You have to be willing to use that gun if someone messes with the money or the product. So the question is, is there really any such thing as a non-violent drug offender? I think not. If you want to find out how non-violent a drug dealer is, mess with the money or the product. Start selling dope on a corner in his territory and then you will find out first hand how non-violent these folks are. Houses get sprayed up with machine guns, brothers get murdered over drug debts and innocents fall in the crossfire- and this is all stuff that I have witnessed first hand. I have a hard time seeing anyone involved in the drug game as "non-violent". It is an ugly, nasty and cut throat enterprise. As a scenario, let's say that you are delivering 10 kilos. The person with the money is trying to figure out how to get the product as well as keep the money. The person delivering the dope may or may not have the same intentions. How does it all end? Either the transaction goes smoothly and no one pulls out guns, or a robbery/rip-off happens and someone winds up dead. Either way, the potential for violence is very high in these situations.
She went on to say that there are scores of young men being rounded up and it is racial and political rather than criminal. I have an issue with that as well. Is the justice system skewed to disproportionately lock up African-Americans? I would say, yes. The drug laws of the 90's were horrifically designed and politically motivated to create a panic in white America. The stereotypical thug with an assault weapon was promulgulated and believed to exist on every urban block in America. However, there were some folks that just lived in these areas and had nothing to do with anything criminal- but they were caught in the crossfire. Iran-Contra and the flooding of inner-city streets with high-grade cocaine was a detriment to black America and America as a whole! But having said that, drugs are a choice- not a mandate. Is the system designed to keep African-Americans down in some aspects of society? I would again answer, yes. So, is the high number of drug arrests in poor and depressed neighborhoods directly connected to race- I would say, no. Neighborhoods that are econmically depressed are that way because they are normally high in crime already or crime gradually increased driving businesses out. If the streets are lined with droves of criminals and drug dealers, businesses are not going to come there. The amount of criminal activity that occurs, in my opinion, is directly proportional to the dearth of jobs in a particular area.
So, are these young black men being forced to sell drugs? Again, I would say NO. People that sell drugs do it for the money. The love of money is a root of all types of evil. I know people that have sold drugs to make ends meet, and not one of them has gone to prison. The ones that DID go to prison are the ones that were trying to be "ghetto superstars". They love the money, the cars, the women, the jewelry, the parties, the power and the "respect" which is really fear from others. By the same token, people that get high do so, not because they are forced to, but rather because they enjoy getting high. A life lived for pleasure will end abruptly, that is for real.
I wouldn't really call this Jim Crow because Jim Crow of the 50's and 60's was inescapable. The social and political barriers that African-Americans faced during the Civil Rights movement were phenomenal. Education was limited, access to equal and adequate resources was limited and people were genuinely oppressed by the government. With the advances that have been made, [particularly in the area of education] we have no excuse now. Racism is alive and well, but there are choices to be made as it relates to what occupation we undertake. Selling drugs is an easy way out but it is a trap. The ones at the top never go to prison, only the ones at the bottom. The drug game is set up just like the economy- the top 1% takes in all the profit and the 99% at the bottom give it to them. In the drug game, it is designed for the mid level and bottom feeding players to lose while the ones at the top (including corrupt politicians and government officials that work conjunction with cartel leaders, etc.) never spend a day in prison and never have to show their face.
The way to level the playing field is through education- at least in my opinion. Sure, the school may be crumbling- my high school was, at least- but what's on the pages of the book is the same at every school. The way to escape the trap is to never enter it in the first place. Interview 100 drug dealers or offenders and 95 of them will tell you that they did not complete high school. What we have to do a better job of is prevention. We need to teach our babies at an early age that education is power in America. You want respect, earn a Ph.D. and watch the respect flow down like a mighty rushing river. If you want to live comfortably, manage your income well and avoid going into debt via credit cards etc. We need to start training our youth how to be self sufficient, how to milk this rotten education system for all it's worth and how to find different avenues to channel their energies into. We need more prevention, more teaching at home and more encouragement of our young people. We also need to help them see that an education, while it may not ensure a job, it will make you more competitive. It is something that no one can take away from you and it something that everyone has to respect. We need to develop a spirit of economic empowerment such that we don't need to grovel and beg for employment because we are the employer.
So, is the drug game or the "war on drugs" the new Jim Crow? Only if you choose to play that game.
Dr. Alexander kept saying that there are scores of "non-violent" offenders that are locked up for drug crimes. If she means addicts- the fact that they are non-violent is partially true. Anyone that has ever seen a crack fiend with no money and no crack knows that they will do whatever it takes to get high- including robbing, stealing or even killing. I don't consider that non-violent, but they need treatment and not incarceration so we agree there. Where I do not agree is that drug dealers that get caught with crack or powder or weed should be considered non-violent offenders. The drug game is the most violent enterprise on the planet. If you are a drug dealer, street level, you have to carry a gun or at least have muscle that carries guns. You have to be willing to use that gun if someone messes with the money or the product. So the question is, is there really any such thing as a non-violent drug offender? I think not. If you want to find out how non-violent a drug dealer is, mess with the money or the product. Start selling dope on a corner in his territory and then you will find out first hand how non-violent these folks are. Houses get sprayed up with machine guns, brothers get murdered over drug debts and innocents fall in the crossfire- and this is all stuff that I have witnessed first hand. I have a hard time seeing anyone involved in the drug game as "non-violent". It is an ugly, nasty and cut throat enterprise. As a scenario, let's say that you are delivering 10 kilos. The person with the money is trying to figure out how to get the product as well as keep the money. The person delivering the dope may or may not have the same intentions. How does it all end? Either the transaction goes smoothly and no one pulls out guns, or a robbery/rip-off happens and someone winds up dead. Either way, the potential for violence is very high in these situations.
She went on to say that there are scores of young men being rounded up and it is racial and political rather than criminal. I have an issue with that as well. Is the justice system skewed to disproportionately lock up African-Americans? I would say, yes. The drug laws of the 90's were horrifically designed and politically motivated to create a panic in white America. The stereotypical thug with an assault weapon was promulgulated and believed to exist on every urban block in America. However, there were some folks that just lived in these areas and had nothing to do with anything criminal- but they were caught in the crossfire. Iran-Contra and the flooding of inner-city streets with high-grade cocaine was a detriment to black America and America as a whole! But having said that, drugs are a choice- not a mandate. Is the system designed to keep African-Americans down in some aspects of society? I would again answer, yes. So, is the high number of drug arrests in poor and depressed neighborhoods directly connected to race- I would say, no. Neighborhoods that are econmically depressed are that way because they are normally high in crime already or crime gradually increased driving businesses out. If the streets are lined with droves of criminals and drug dealers, businesses are not going to come there. The amount of criminal activity that occurs, in my opinion, is directly proportional to the dearth of jobs in a particular area.
So, are these young black men being forced to sell drugs? Again, I would say NO. People that sell drugs do it for the money. The love of money is a root of all types of evil. I know people that have sold drugs to make ends meet, and not one of them has gone to prison. The ones that DID go to prison are the ones that were trying to be "ghetto superstars". They love the money, the cars, the women, the jewelry, the parties, the power and the "respect" which is really fear from others. By the same token, people that get high do so, not because they are forced to, but rather because they enjoy getting high. A life lived for pleasure will end abruptly, that is for real.
I wouldn't really call this Jim Crow because Jim Crow of the 50's and 60's was inescapable. The social and political barriers that African-Americans faced during the Civil Rights movement were phenomenal. Education was limited, access to equal and adequate resources was limited and people were genuinely oppressed by the government. With the advances that have been made, [particularly in the area of education] we have no excuse now. Racism is alive and well, but there are choices to be made as it relates to what occupation we undertake. Selling drugs is an easy way out but it is a trap. The ones at the top never go to prison, only the ones at the bottom. The drug game is set up just like the economy- the top 1% takes in all the profit and the 99% at the bottom give it to them. In the drug game, it is designed for the mid level and bottom feeding players to lose while the ones at the top (including corrupt politicians and government officials that work conjunction with cartel leaders, etc.) never spend a day in prison and never have to show their face.
The way to level the playing field is through education- at least in my opinion. Sure, the school may be crumbling- my high school was, at least- but what's on the pages of the book is the same at every school. The way to escape the trap is to never enter it in the first place. Interview 100 drug dealers or offenders and 95 of them will tell you that they did not complete high school. What we have to do a better job of is prevention. We need to teach our babies at an early age that education is power in America. You want respect, earn a Ph.D. and watch the respect flow down like a mighty rushing river. If you want to live comfortably, manage your income well and avoid going into debt via credit cards etc. We need to start training our youth how to be self sufficient, how to milk this rotten education system for all it's worth and how to find different avenues to channel their energies into. We need more prevention, more teaching at home and more encouragement of our young people. We also need to help them see that an education, while it may not ensure a job, it will make you more competitive. It is something that no one can take away from you and it something that everyone has to respect. We need to develop a spirit of economic empowerment such that we don't need to grovel and beg for employment because we are the employer.
So, is the drug game or the "war on drugs" the new Jim Crow? Only if you choose to play that game.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
From Big Bang to Evolution...
I am not a proponent of evolution. I am a strong advocate of creation. Creation itself is a difficult undertaking considering that there are "old-earth" creationists that call for a kairological reading of Genesis and "young earth" creationists that say that the earth was created with the appearance of age. The young earth stance doesn't resolve the issue of dinosaurs and other pre-historic data that say that the earth has been here for millions of years. I think I fall somewhere in the middle of these two views.
Science has waged war against those that they label as "creationists" with the singular shout that there is NO God and therefore there is no Creator! Many scientists believe that all that we see rose from a primordial ooze that contained all of the genetic material necessary to create every life form on earth. This is where I have a problem. While I can agree on the big bang, which is a very important occurrence to scientists, I cannot agree that life sprang from a single cell amoeba.
The reason that I cannot submit to the evolutionary mindset is quite simple. If the solar system, the planets and the earth all came out of the big bang- and the amoeba, that lived on this planet, and from which all life, according to evolutionists, sprang from-- it stands to reason that the amoeba also came out of the big bang and began the evolutionary process to become monkeys, dogs, fruit flies and eventually man. I am not saying that these evolved from one another, simply that the single celled organism became ALL of these, according to evolutionists.
Here is my position on what was discussed in the previous paragraph. The big bang began from an infinitesimal amount of energy and that energy was converted into matter. That energy contained no information, though. Energy and information are two distinctly different things. Information is "the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence" whereas energy is "is the capacity of a physical system to perform work". The energy that existed at the beginning of time was more than likely, light. Of course, other forms of energy such as heat and kinetic energy existed as well.
Why am I making such a big deal about energy and information? Because if the amoeba came from the same informationless energy that everything else came from, where did the genetic information within the amoeba come from? How is it that evolutionists can claim that all life evolved from this amoeba and yet the amoeba couldn't have contained any information because the matter from which it was constructed was informationless? Energy is material. Einstein's theory of relativity equates energy with the mass of an object multiplied but the square of the speed of light (E = mc^2). The energy of a photon of light is Planck's constant multiplied by the frequency of the radiation in question (E = hv).
Now, let's consider information which is immaterial. Information may be known about matter, but there is no information in matter- unless of course, the information is implanted by an outside source. We can describe matter but matter cannot describe itself. We can know the size, speed, velocity, acceleration etc. but they are all calculated from the outside. So again, the question can be raised, where did the genetic information that the amoeba possessed come from?
In order for the amoeba, which would by default come from the same matter that everything else came from at the seminal moment of the "bang", to contain any information, it would have to be implanted from an outside source. This is my beef with evolution being placed over creation. There is a thought experiment that tries to link energy and information which is commonly called Maxwell's Demon. Images depicting this thought experiment are shown below.
According to this thought experiment developed by James Clerk Maxwell [a Christian who believed in creation], there is a way to violate the second law of thermodynamics. The image shown consists of two containers, one housing hot particles and the other housing cold particles. The hot particles, moving at a higher velocity as evidenced by their temperature pass through the "trap door" which is operated by the "demon". As he allows hot particles to the cool side, the hot side begins to cool down and the cool side begins to heat up- thereby transferring information about temperature from one side to the other. The way that this violates the second law of thermodynamics is that the sides, according to the second law, should reach an equilibrium and reach the same temperature and not exchange conditions i.e. hot side becoming cold and cold side becoming hot. Also, by some of the hot particles escaping, the entropy of the hot side is decreasing. To his credit, Maxwell admitted that this could only happen if a "being that could do what we (humans) could not do" and if this being is able to follow "every molecule in its course". This is only a thought experiment and there are several real, physical factors that preclude a system like this from every being set up (for a good analysis of this idea, see (http://www.imsc.res.in/~sitabhra/research/persistence/maxwell.html). The conclusion: there is no information in energy therefore no information can be transferred between energy. There has also been an "experiment" conducted that concludes that there IS indeed a way for information be transformed into energy (http://www.livescience.com/8944-maxwell-demon-converts-information-energy.html). After reading the article however, it is quite clear that the outside information input drove the experiment and the authors didn't actually convert information into energy.
Interestingly enough, many of the proponents of such a system like Maxwell's demon do not find it difficult to believe in a demon sitting by a trap door letting hot molecules pass through. It is commendable that Maxwell himself was actually a Christian. What they do find difficult is believing in a God that not only provides and produces energy and matter via creation, He also endows that matter with information that tells it what it is. When God created man in His image, God gave man specific traits and characteristics. When God created animals etc., each of them was endowed with specific genetic information that made them different. There was no amoeba, there was a Creator with the intelligence and the wisdom to create everything that we see around us acording to its own kind. The genetic code of every living thing did not originate within a single celled organism but within the mind of the Great Architect of the Universe. Scientists that dispute this fact are simply living in denial of the truth. There is no information within energy unless it is implanted by an intelligent being. God is that being.
Science has waged war against those that they label as "creationists" with the singular shout that there is NO God and therefore there is no Creator! Many scientists believe that all that we see rose from a primordial ooze that contained all of the genetic material necessary to create every life form on earth. This is where I have a problem. While I can agree on the big bang, which is a very important occurrence to scientists, I cannot agree that life sprang from a single cell amoeba.
The reason that I cannot submit to the evolutionary mindset is quite simple. If the solar system, the planets and the earth all came out of the big bang- and the amoeba, that lived on this planet, and from which all life, according to evolutionists, sprang from-- it stands to reason that the amoeba also came out of the big bang and began the evolutionary process to become monkeys, dogs, fruit flies and eventually man. I am not saying that these evolved from one another, simply that the single celled organism became ALL of these, according to evolutionists.
Here is my position on what was discussed in the previous paragraph. The big bang began from an infinitesimal amount of energy and that energy was converted into matter. That energy contained no information, though. Energy and information are two distinctly different things. Information is "the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence" whereas energy is "is the capacity of a physical system to perform work". The energy that existed at the beginning of time was more than likely, light. Of course, other forms of energy such as heat and kinetic energy existed as well.
Why am I making such a big deal about energy and information? Because if the amoeba came from the same informationless energy that everything else came from, where did the genetic information within the amoeba come from? How is it that evolutionists can claim that all life evolved from this amoeba and yet the amoeba couldn't have contained any information because the matter from which it was constructed was informationless? Energy is material. Einstein's theory of relativity equates energy with the mass of an object multiplied but the square of the speed of light (E = mc^2). The energy of a photon of light is Planck's constant multiplied by the frequency of the radiation in question (E = hv).
Now, let's consider information which is immaterial. Information may be known about matter, but there is no information in matter- unless of course, the information is implanted by an outside source. We can describe matter but matter cannot describe itself. We can know the size, speed, velocity, acceleration etc. but they are all calculated from the outside. So again, the question can be raised, where did the genetic information that the amoeba possessed come from?
In order for the amoeba, which would by default come from the same matter that everything else came from at the seminal moment of the "bang", to contain any information, it would have to be implanted from an outside source. This is my beef with evolution being placed over creation. There is a thought experiment that tries to link energy and information which is commonly called Maxwell's Demon. Images depicting this thought experiment are shown below.
According to this thought experiment developed by James Clerk Maxwell [a Christian who believed in creation], there is a way to violate the second law of thermodynamics. The image shown consists of two containers, one housing hot particles and the other housing cold particles. The hot particles, moving at a higher velocity as evidenced by their temperature pass through the "trap door" which is operated by the "demon". As he allows hot particles to the cool side, the hot side begins to cool down and the cool side begins to heat up- thereby transferring information about temperature from one side to the other. The way that this violates the second law of thermodynamics is that the sides, according to the second law, should reach an equilibrium and reach the same temperature and not exchange conditions i.e. hot side becoming cold and cold side becoming hot. Also, by some of the hot particles escaping, the entropy of the hot side is decreasing. To his credit, Maxwell admitted that this could only happen if a "being that could do what we (humans) could not do" and if this being is able to follow "every molecule in its course". This is only a thought experiment and there are several real, physical factors that preclude a system like this from every being set up (for a good analysis of this idea, see (http://www.imsc.res.in/~sitabhra/research/persistence/maxwell.html). The conclusion: there is no information in energy therefore no information can be transferred between energy. There has also been an "experiment" conducted that concludes that there IS indeed a way for information be transformed into energy (http://www.livescience.com/8944-maxwell-demon-converts-information-energy.html). After reading the article however, it is quite clear that the outside information input drove the experiment and the authors didn't actually convert information into energy.
Interestingly enough, many of the proponents of such a system like Maxwell's demon do not find it difficult to believe in a demon sitting by a trap door letting hot molecules pass through. It is commendable that Maxwell himself was actually a Christian. What they do find difficult is believing in a God that not only provides and produces energy and matter via creation, He also endows that matter with information that tells it what it is. When God created man in His image, God gave man specific traits and characteristics. When God created animals etc., each of them was endowed with specific genetic information that made them different. There was no amoeba, there was a Creator with the intelligence and the wisdom to create everything that we see around us acording to its own kind. The genetic code of every living thing did not originate within a single celled organism but within the mind of the Great Architect of the Universe. Scientists that dispute this fact are simply living in denial of the truth. There is no information within energy unless it is implanted by an intelligent being. God is that being.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Let Bygones be Bygones
Romans 8:38-39 "38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Reading this passage, we see that it is nearly impossible for us to be separated from the love of God. God's love is pervasive, however not everyone desires it and therefore some choose not to accept it. I want you to read this passage carefully, especially the highlighted section. The Apostle Paul speaks of MANY things that are unable to separate us and two of these references are related to time. Notice, Paul says things PRESENT nor FUTURE (i.e. things to come). With respect to time, it seems like something is missing. I'm sure that you've figured it out by now. Paul says absolutely nothing about the past!
Is that not good news that of all the things that could TRY to separate us from God's love, our past is not one of them? I almost shouted this morning as I read this. Paul wrote this letter to believers and the one thing for ALL believers to come to the knowledge of is this: Once God has forgiven your sins, they are buried!
Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins." This passage of scripture says very clearly that God wipes out transgressions- not because of us but because of Himself! Psalm 103:12 says "As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." Theoretically, if you continue east and were able to walk off the earth, you could literally walk east for infinity and never come into contact with the west!
How is it that the past is the past and bygones are bygones? Because God's love for us is not performance based. God's love for us comes out of His grace and His benevolence. We cannot work for God's love nor can we make Him love us anymore than He already does. God is love and His love was demonstrated in Christ Jesus. Christ is the reason that your past is buried. Christ's death on the cross was the atoning sacrifice for our sins. When you made the decision to follow Him, your past immediately became obsolete and your sins were immediately forgiven because of His shed blood. Christ's righteousness has become your own righteousness and your past no longer factors into your present or future. That's why Paul could exclude the past from this passage- because to God, it doesn't matter.
What is our responsibility? Repentance. Repentance is us telling God that we have divorced the past and we are committed to living out the present and the future for Him! Repentance or "metanoia" (Greek) literally means "change of mind". Repentance represents a shift in thinking which subsequently leads to a shift in lifestyle. The renewing of the mind is an awesome transformation. When the mind is renewed, the walk will be renewed, the talk will be renewed and the light of Christ will shine through us. Paul says in Ephesians 4:23 that we are to be renewed in the "spirit of our minds". What this means is this, the very thing that gives our mind its energy must be changed. This is not something that we do consciously. Rather, it is carried out by the Holy Spirit as we undergo the transformation that results from being born again. The tense of the verb "renewed" is in the infinitive which indicates that this is not a one time renewal but a constant renewal. Repentance is a way of life for the believer and results from being able to recognize sin as sin thereby turning away from it. A renewed mind allows us to see sin for what it is.
The only person concerned about our pasts is Satan. The devil uses the past to guilt trip us into believing that we are not good enough for God. A true believer understands that even with a sterling past, we will never be "good enough" for God without Christ. Whenever Satan tries to throw your past in your face, remember this scripture and the fact that our past is not even factored into God's love for the believer.
God bless!
Reading this passage, we see that it is nearly impossible for us to be separated from the love of God. God's love is pervasive, however not everyone desires it and therefore some choose not to accept it. I want you to read this passage carefully, especially the highlighted section. The Apostle Paul speaks of MANY things that are unable to separate us and two of these references are related to time. Notice, Paul says things PRESENT nor FUTURE (i.e. things to come). With respect to time, it seems like something is missing. I'm sure that you've figured it out by now. Paul says absolutely nothing about the past!
Is that not good news that of all the things that could TRY to separate us from God's love, our past is not one of them? I almost shouted this morning as I read this. Paul wrote this letter to believers and the one thing for ALL believers to come to the knowledge of is this: Once God has forgiven your sins, they are buried!
Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins." This passage of scripture says very clearly that God wipes out transgressions- not because of us but because of Himself! Psalm 103:12 says "As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." Theoretically, if you continue east and were able to walk off the earth, you could literally walk east for infinity and never come into contact with the west!
How is it that the past is the past and bygones are bygones? Because God's love for us is not performance based. God's love for us comes out of His grace and His benevolence. We cannot work for God's love nor can we make Him love us anymore than He already does. God is love and His love was demonstrated in Christ Jesus. Christ is the reason that your past is buried. Christ's death on the cross was the atoning sacrifice for our sins. When you made the decision to follow Him, your past immediately became obsolete and your sins were immediately forgiven because of His shed blood. Christ's righteousness has become your own righteousness and your past no longer factors into your present or future. That's why Paul could exclude the past from this passage- because to God, it doesn't matter.
What is our responsibility? Repentance. Repentance is us telling God that we have divorced the past and we are committed to living out the present and the future for Him! Repentance or "metanoia" (Greek) literally means "change of mind". Repentance represents a shift in thinking which subsequently leads to a shift in lifestyle. The renewing of the mind is an awesome transformation. When the mind is renewed, the walk will be renewed, the talk will be renewed and the light of Christ will shine through us. Paul says in Ephesians 4:23 that we are to be renewed in the "spirit of our minds". What this means is this, the very thing that gives our mind its energy must be changed. This is not something that we do consciously. Rather, it is carried out by the Holy Spirit as we undergo the transformation that results from being born again. The tense of the verb "renewed" is in the infinitive which indicates that this is not a one time renewal but a constant renewal. Repentance is a way of life for the believer and results from being able to recognize sin as sin thereby turning away from it. A renewed mind allows us to see sin for what it is.
The only person concerned about our pasts is Satan. The devil uses the past to guilt trip us into believing that we are not good enough for God. A true believer understands that even with a sterling past, we will never be "good enough" for God without Christ. Whenever Satan tries to throw your past in your face, remember this scripture and the fact that our past is not even factored into God's love for the believer.
God bless!
Monday, November 7, 2011
What Influence are You Under?
While driving home from work, I received some very sobering news about a person close to me. When I received this news, I didn't look for an escape route from life nor did I seek shelter from some illicit activity. I did what I always do when I get bad news, I turn to God and smile and say "God, I know that you are in control and that all things are under your supervision. Work with this situation as only you can."
Many times, some other outlet is sought to deal with anxiety or pressure. Some turn to alcohol. Other turn to narcotics. Some use sex as a means of escape. Whenever any of these routes is chosen, we have to ask what the motivation is. None of these things can actually fix the problem- they really worsen it because once you come back to reality you realize that you've participated in an activity that had zero benefit. Not only that, being under the influence of some foreign substance takes you out of your mind. I can recall the days when I drank heavily- not as an escape, but because I actually enjoyed drinking. I remember some of the decisions that I made and some of the words that I muttered. Many of the things that I did and said were bad decisions that ended up hurting people. Is this any way to endure a situation? Does being under the influence of a foreign substance make things any better? All you do is end up saying hurtful things, doing stupid things and tuning out mentally. Your emotions are deadened and you actually miss what God is doing through that situations. Trials develop perseverance, perseverance develops proven character and proven character develops hope (Romans 5:4)! If you are high or tuned out, how will God get glory? How will you see the spiritual growth that follows every trial?
There is an alternative. The Spirit of God has an influence on us and can put us in a position of being able to rest on God's divine strength. God's spirit can put words in our mouth that we did not know were inside of us. He can give us peace and calm in the middle of the worst storm. God's Spirit is not called the "comforter" or the "paraclete" by chance. Those words describe one of His roles in the lives of believers- he is the encourager of the weak! In our weakest moments, God is strong. The bible says in Ephesians 5:18-20 says simply "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father..." It is important to note that dissipation (asotia) here refers to literally "without saving" or something that is worthless or unsalvageable. Therefore the alternative to this is to be filled with the Spirit. When we are, we are able to speak to one another in hymns and songs and we are able to bless God and thank Him in ALL things!
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be under the influence of the Spirit of God so that at the opportune moment I may speak grace to those that need to hear it. Pray that you follow the influence of the Spirit and that the other seductive spirits do not drive you away from God in times of crisis. May God bless you and keep you, may He make His face shine upon you--may He be gracious to you and give you peace.
Many times, some other outlet is sought to deal with anxiety or pressure. Some turn to alcohol. Other turn to narcotics. Some use sex as a means of escape. Whenever any of these routes is chosen, we have to ask what the motivation is. None of these things can actually fix the problem- they really worsen it because once you come back to reality you realize that you've participated in an activity that had zero benefit. Not only that, being under the influence of some foreign substance takes you out of your mind. I can recall the days when I drank heavily- not as an escape, but because I actually enjoyed drinking. I remember some of the decisions that I made and some of the words that I muttered. Many of the things that I did and said were bad decisions that ended up hurting people. Is this any way to endure a situation? Does being under the influence of a foreign substance make things any better? All you do is end up saying hurtful things, doing stupid things and tuning out mentally. Your emotions are deadened and you actually miss what God is doing through that situations. Trials develop perseverance, perseverance develops proven character and proven character develops hope (Romans 5:4)! If you are high or tuned out, how will God get glory? How will you see the spiritual growth that follows every trial?
There is an alternative. The Spirit of God has an influence on us and can put us in a position of being able to rest on God's divine strength. God's spirit can put words in our mouth that we did not know were inside of us. He can give us peace and calm in the middle of the worst storm. God's Spirit is not called the "comforter" or the "paraclete" by chance. Those words describe one of His roles in the lives of believers- he is the encourager of the weak! In our weakest moments, God is strong. The bible says in Ephesians 5:18-20 says simply "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father..." It is important to note that dissipation (asotia) here refers to literally "without saving" or something that is worthless or unsalvageable. Therefore the alternative to this is to be filled with the Spirit. When we are, we are able to speak to one another in hymns and songs and we are able to bless God and thank Him in ALL things!
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be under the influence of the Spirit of God so that at the opportune moment I may speak grace to those that need to hear it. Pray that you follow the influence of the Spirit and that the other seductive spirits do not drive you away from God in times of crisis. May God bless you and keep you, may He make His face shine upon you--may He be gracious to you and give you peace.
The Biology of Christ
I was listening to a song by Casting Crowns this morning and something struck me. The song is called "If we are the body" and the lyrics of the song simply say this:
But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?
And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them there is a way?
There is a way
It's a powerful message in the song and it made me think of a body in a biological sense. The body of Christ, according to the apostle Paul is made up of many members but each member has a different function (1 Cor 12:20; 1 Cor 12:12; Romans 12:4). So the hands of the body are there to touch the world and heal the sick. The arms of the body are there to be the compassion of Christ, to hug those that are in need of love and compassion and the embrace all who come to Christ out of a dying world. The feet are there to take the gospel to remote nations and to the lost in the world. The feet are shod with the gospel of peace and the bible says in Isaiah 52:7 "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!"" Then the biological impulse kicks in- there are some that are the enzymes in the stomach. Let us follow this analogy to its logical conclusion- when food enters the stomach, enzymes and acids begin to break the food down into something that the body can actually use. Those enzymes and acids convert the food and transform it into energy, etc. In the same way, there are those within the body of Christ that are used by the Holy Spirit to assist with the transformation of new believers and to bring them to a point of spiritual maturity. Many of us have been placed as stewards over other believers to watch over their transformation from babes in Christ into spiritually mature Christians that are not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Many of us have also benefitted from spiritual mentors that have sown seeds of righteousness into our lives as we follow Christ.
All of these processes are overseen by the head which is Christ. He gives the hands the ability to touch and heal. He gives the arms the compassion for world. He is the gospel for the feet to carry to wherever His Spirit might lead. His Spirit catalyzes, facilitates and brings about the transformation which is wrought in the believer. Christians that have been entrusted with the task of discipling others are there throughout this transformation and they assist by being planters and waterers while God gives the increase. His eyes see and direct us to bring the gospel to those that need the gospel- including preaching the gospel to oursleves. His mouth speaks words that give eternal life (John 12:49-50) and as we repeat those words to others, we also speak eternal life to them, if they are willing to accept the gospel.
While there are many members and many functions, all of us have been called to love one another. We've been called to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We've been called to be light in darkness and salt in a world that has been deadened by sin. I thank God for the diversity of the members of the body of Christ and although a biological/anatomical analogy makes things easy to understand- the Holy Ghost is responsible for all revelation. God bless!
But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?
And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them there is a way?
There is a way
It's a powerful message in the song and it made me think of a body in a biological sense. The body of Christ, according to the apostle Paul is made up of many members but each member has a different function (1 Cor 12:20; 1 Cor 12:12; Romans 12:4). So the hands of the body are there to touch the world and heal the sick. The arms of the body are there to be the compassion of Christ, to hug those that are in need of love and compassion and the embrace all who come to Christ out of a dying world. The feet are there to take the gospel to remote nations and to the lost in the world. The feet are shod with the gospel of peace and the bible says in Isaiah 52:7 "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!"" Then the biological impulse kicks in- there are some that are the enzymes in the stomach. Let us follow this analogy to its logical conclusion- when food enters the stomach, enzymes and acids begin to break the food down into something that the body can actually use. Those enzymes and acids convert the food and transform it into energy, etc. In the same way, there are those within the body of Christ that are used by the Holy Spirit to assist with the transformation of new believers and to bring them to a point of spiritual maturity. Many of us have been placed as stewards over other believers to watch over their transformation from babes in Christ into spiritually mature Christians that are not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Many of us have also benefitted from spiritual mentors that have sown seeds of righteousness into our lives as we follow Christ.
All of these processes are overseen by the head which is Christ. He gives the hands the ability to touch and heal. He gives the arms the compassion for world. He is the gospel for the feet to carry to wherever His Spirit might lead. His Spirit catalyzes, facilitates and brings about the transformation which is wrought in the believer. Christians that have been entrusted with the task of discipling others are there throughout this transformation and they assist by being planters and waterers while God gives the increase. His eyes see and direct us to bring the gospel to those that need the gospel- including preaching the gospel to oursleves. His mouth speaks words that give eternal life (John 12:49-50) and as we repeat those words to others, we also speak eternal life to them, if they are willing to accept the gospel.
While there are many members and many functions, all of us have been called to love one another. We've been called to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We've been called to be light in darkness and salt in a world that has been deadened by sin. I thank God for the diversity of the members of the body of Christ and although a biological/anatomical analogy makes things easy to understand- the Holy Ghost is responsible for all revelation. God bless!
Sunday, November 6, 2011
A Piece of My Love
I was listening to an old favorite of mine on the way to the Kalamazoo airport Saturday morning. It made me think something serious. Wisdom and age are something else. The song by Guy called “A piece of my love” had never come across like this before. I listened to Aaron Hall croon away telling this woman, whoever she was, lies and more lies. He was seducing her and his whole MO was to convince her that a piece of him was better than none of him. Here was a man that was obviously in a relationship, he had someone else that he refused to talk about, and he did not want this woman that he was seducing to ask him any questions. So he offered her a “piece” of his love instead of all of him. As a side note, love cannot be broken up into “pieces”- that is to say, you cannot “love” two people romantically at the same time. Sorry, but that’s not biblical love. One may be love and the other lust or infatuation but the ability to love is from God because we are made in His image. If God is love then love must, in fact, be perfect. Therefore, the love that we have for the one that God gave us belongs only to that person. Anything else is an imperfection- a distortion of love. Don’t take my word for it; check the lyrics out for yourself:
When God created Adam and Eve, God created them for one another- totally. There was no piece of Adam that Eve was offered. When God brought Eve to Adam, Adam said, “this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh…” He readily accepted her as his wife. Adam’s descendants (us) have seemed to miss this. There is no such thing as a “piece” of love. Brothers are quick to offer up a piece of themselves instead of committing wholly to the one that God brought them. Women are quick to settle for a piece of a brother instead of leaving themselves available to be brought, by God, to their mate. Love between a man and a woman is mutually exclusive and it is all or nothing. Lust, on the other hand, can never be satisfied. We confuse lust and love all the time. Love remains in good times and in bad times. Love never fails. Lust fades after the first argument. Lust stays as long as the “feeling” is good but as soon as the feeling is gone, lust changes targets and looks for another to satisfy the feel-good.
baby you can't have all of me 'cuz i'm not totally free
i can't tell you everything that's goin on, baby
there's a few things in my past; that should not be explained
i'm askin you baby
be with me----for a lil while
please hush- no questions asked
lay back and relax girl-
i can't tell you everything that's goin on, baby
there's a few things in my past; that should not be explained
i'm askin you baby
be with me----for a lil while
please hush- no questions asked
lay back and relax girl-
now kick off your shoes
Now put your head down
since we're here now baby
I'm giving you a piece of me you can have
Now put your head down
since we're here now baby
I'm giving you a piece of me you can have
What Aaron Hall did in this song was exactly what many black women deal with and settle for every day. They would rather have a piece of man than no man at all. It doesn’t matter if he’s married, if he has a family, if he’s in a committed relationship or if he’s not worthy of their time- he’s a man and “I need a man”. I couldn’t help but wonder what type of woman this was to accept this half-hearted attempt to get in her panties- and according to the song, it worked. He made the terms clear: you can’t have all of me, I’m not totally free- but just lay back and don’t ask any questions. How arrogant is that? Here is a man telling a woman- don’t ask me any questions, just give me the goods and in return, I will show you a good time. What happens after the good time is over? He goes back to his main squeeze leaving the woman to go on about your business.
Songs like these subliminally convey to us that it’s ok to be in these dysfunctional relationships. They tell us that illicit, unfruitful and unproductive relationships are ok as long as “the loving (lust/sex) is good”. The bible tells us that a man and a woman are to be brought together by God. It also says for a man to drink from their own cistern [Proverbs 5:15]. This could also apply to a woman. A cistern, which is an underwater man-made reservoir, could be of considerable size which means that there should be MORE THAN ENOUGH water in the cistern to satisfy the drinker. God gave us to one another, each to his/her own. Each one is a cistern to his/her mate. 1 Corinthians 7:2 says that each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband. A woman that settles for a piece of man, especially a man that is married, does not see her own value. If she knew her value, she would not take a piece of a man’s “love”. A piece of love or a piece of man is unacceptable. As a matter of fact, it he could not give her all of himself, she would promptly leave regardless of how good the lust is. There are some things that a woman has to realize about a piece of a man: he’s not going to leave home for you, you will never be number one and he’s only going to continue to string you along and repeat these same lyrics to you- “please hush, no questions asked…lay back and relax…” That can’t possibly be something that a real woman desires.
The devil is one that is always encouraging us to settle for less. He also distorts those things that God made perfect. God made love perfect, to be enjoyed between a man and a woman. Don't settle for a lie from Satan. Jesus said that Satan has been a liar and a murderer from the beginning. God made a mate for all of us- it takes prayer and patience to allow that mate to come to us. While Aaron Hall sounded good, his view of love is quite faulty- if you come to Christ, He will love you completely. You don't have to settle for a piece of Him, you can have all of Him.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Facebook is Dead
So, after toying with the idea for quite sometime, I have finally made the decision to bury Facebook. For many, Facebook is an idol god that is worshipped via i-Phone, Blackberry, Android or the plain ol' desktop. What solidified my decision to leave Facebook was a combination of 1. getting tired of having to decipher ebonics 2. having the liberty to "not have to read it" which some smart aleck would undoubtedly and eventually comment 3. I spend way too much time there and it's just time for something different and 4. If I am only interested in things that are spitirually edifying, why should I continue to mix light and darkness?
So, blogging is free, I usually write stuff that is too long for a status (lol) and this gives ME the autonomy and control to post whatever I want to post, whenever I want to post it. I don't have to scroll past naked pictures, babymama drama tirades, babydaddy bashing, profanity laced jokes or look at food on styrofoam plates ever again. I feel quite liberated. I thank God for leading me in this direction and for His Spirit pushing me to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.
With that being said, I pray that anyone that visits will find this blog uplifting, informative and challenging. So long to being a "pew" Christian- we all need to challenge ourselves to live out God's Word and to be a light to others. There is so much "blending in" in society. We spend our entire Christian lives with one foot in the Kingdom of God and one foot in the kingdom of the "prince of the air". There are also a lot of so-called politicians that try to politicize Christianity but end up generalizing it to the point of it simply becoming religion. Some of their views are valid but the ultimate measure of a Christian is not whether or not you read Harry Potter but whether or not you would feed Harry Jackson if you passed him hungry on the street. It's not whether or not you are pro-life, but that are you pro-Christ! You don't bomb abortion clinics, you witness to those inside and show their sin to them through God's word. You don't walk up to abortion doctors and kill them in church, you show that doctor the error in his ways through the Word of God.
Please pray for me as I embark on this new endeavor. May God bless you and keep you, may He make His face shine upon you. May He be gracious to you and give you peace. One love.
So, blogging is free, I usually write stuff that is too long for a status (lol) and this gives ME the autonomy and control to post whatever I want to post, whenever I want to post it. I don't have to scroll past naked pictures, babymama drama tirades, babydaddy bashing, profanity laced jokes or look at food on styrofoam plates ever again. I feel quite liberated. I thank God for leading me in this direction and for His Spirit pushing me to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.
With that being said, I pray that anyone that visits will find this blog uplifting, informative and challenging. So long to being a "pew" Christian- we all need to challenge ourselves to live out God's Word and to be a light to others. There is so much "blending in" in society. We spend our entire Christian lives with one foot in the Kingdom of God and one foot in the kingdom of the "prince of the air". There are also a lot of so-called politicians that try to politicize Christianity but end up generalizing it to the point of it simply becoming religion. Some of their views are valid but the ultimate measure of a Christian is not whether or not you read Harry Potter but whether or not you would feed Harry Jackson if you passed him hungry on the street. It's not whether or not you are pro-life, but that are you pro-Christ! You don't bomb abortion clinics, you witness to those inside and show their sin to them through God's word. You don't walk up to abortion doctors and kill them in church, you show that doctor the error in his ways through the Word of God.
Please pray for me as I embark on this new endeavor. May God bless you and keep you, may He make His face shine upon you. May He be gracious to you and give you peace. One love.
Stillborn
In John 3 Christ told Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God. Part of the salvation process is also the rebirth process. Rebirth gives us a new nature- God is not going to clean up the “old us” he is going to recreate us spiritually (see also 2 Cor 5:17). BECAUSE OF THE FALL OF MAN, EVERY DESCENDANT OF ADAM IS MORALLY AND SPIRITUALLY CORRUPTED!
Becoming reborn has serious implications. Without changing the NATURE of man, it is like putting a new dress on a pig…that pig, because of it’s nature, will always return to the slop. Regeneration now gives us an escape from the power of sin! It gives us a new nature to contend with the flesh.
If our old bodies are corrupted by sin, there must be a way for God to eradicate sin and FREE us from its power and its effects. We are freed from its penalty by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross! But what of the lingering effects? Why do many remain in the same beat up, messed up state after we are reborn?
From a practical perspective, growth is supposed to occur after birth however, there are a ton of folks that are “reborn” but they do not go past the floor of the delivery room- in essence they are “still born”. There are many that say that they are been born again but show NO signs of regeneration/renewal nor are they making any efforts to do so! They stay in the fetal position forever, and have no problem with it. This includes preachers, politicians, leaders and ALL who are Christians in name only. These are the ones that Christ commands to “depart from me, you workers of iniquity…I never knew you!”
Why are there so many Christians that are “stillborn”? There are some key concepts that many do not understand but if these concepts are understood then the Christian walk becomes much more doable. Many walk down the aisle to “join church” with no understanding of what walking that aisle really means- it means we are uniting with Christ and renouncing old ways in favor of new ways. It does not mean we are uniting with Bishop so and so or Pastuh so and so but with Christ!
There are several concepts (Holiness, Grace, Repentance and Sanctification) in Christianity that are misunderstood, poorly taught or not taught at all. As it stands, these misconceptions keep churches full of immature Christians with the desire to hear a man-centered gospel rather than the true gospel which is Christ centered!
God is HOLY! 1 Tim 6:16 says that God lives in unapproachable light! Isaiah, when in the presence of God said that he was undone! When he beheld the Holiness he immediately understood his uncleanness! Only those with clean hands and a pure heart shall ascend up the hill of God!
Not only is God’s holiness not preached about, our pursuit of holiness has been shelved for a gospel of prosperity and dominion without any regard for sanctification. Holiness is an action word. The pursuit of holiness is not the pursuit of perfection, but the pursuit of becoming more like Christ and less like ourselves. True holiness removes the concept of competition with others and focuses on self in relation to God and should be the aspiration/desire of everyone that follows Christ. Christ commanded it in Matthew 5:48 and its pursuit shows reverence for God! We don’t reach true “perfection” until death BUT we can/should strive for holiness in life.
Grace is God’s unmerited favor and love towards man. It enables us, strengthens us, saved us but is not license for sin! Sin and iniquity cannot come from grace because only good things result from God’s grace. Forgiveness and Salvation (justification) result from God’s grace (Romans 5:20-21). Sin and iniquity cause the OPPOSITE of grace (death)—therefore we cannot use grace to EXCUSE sin/iniquity! ONLY GOD CAN USE GRACE AS A MEANS OF FORGIVING US, WE CANNOT USE GRACE AS A MEANS OF FORGIVING OURSELVES! Grace is a blanket that covers our mistakes on the way to holiness, not on the way to iniquity! When we willfully sin, we are in essence calling God a lie and perverting his grace because we are bringing forth sin and iniquity [through our lives] out of his perfect gift of grace! God’s grace was demonstrated in Christ through whom he lavished his grace upon us (Ephesians 1:6-8). Not because we are so great but because of the super abundance of sin!
Grace makes it possible for repentance; Ifgrace is the blanket, repentance keeps it tucked in! Repentance is a sign of regeneration and in Luke 3 we are admonished to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Repentance says to God that we understand that we have wronged Him! Thank God that because of the blood of Jesus, for believers, He no longer holds it against us. Repentance involves A. recognizing sin B. being convicted of sin (2 Cor 7:10) and C. Turning away from sin (1 John 3:8,9; Hebrews 10:26). Many do not want to touch this area – - it may run folks away and decrease numbers.
A lot of the New Testament, outside of the gospels (which mainly chronicle the life of Christ), is devoted to giving instructions on the process of sanctification or becoming Holy before the Lord! We are taught how to live a godly life through God’s word! After salvation occurs, then the process of sanctification begins. Too many churches do not take their members past the baptism pool. You are saved instantaneously but you are not transformed because in order to become a new creature, old things must pass away- but they die hard! We aren’t always taught this! We are sold a lollipop gospel to make us feel “good” on Sunday morning! We must die to self daily (Mark 8:34, Romans 6:17-19, Galatians 2 and 5)! WE MUST submit to the Sanctification process carried out by the Holy Ghost- [Ephesians 4:30].
This is not meant to be mean spirited, but I am tired of seeing our Holy God being made a mockery of by preachers that refuse to tell the truth from the pulpit thereby setting their parishioners up for failure. If the preacher is the one to give the proverbial “slap on the butt” to awaken the new Christian once they are “reborn”, then based on the rampant MESS going on in the church, many are sorely underperforming at their jobs. As for the parishioners, we too have a responsibility to find out what happens next on the Christian walk. We cannot afford to be complacent, stillborn Christians! We need to be actively engaged in the process of sanctification while depending on God to continually help us, through His Spirit, to stay in the race!! It is called dependent responsibility whereby we are responsible to God to obey His word and dependent on Him to HELP us obey it. It is my prayer that a sincere desire to be more like Christ is awakened in churches all across the world! God be with you all.
Becoming reborn has serious implications. Without changing the NATURE of man, it is like putting a new dress on a pig…that pig, because of it’s nature, will always return to the slop. Regeneration now gives us an escape from the power of sin! It gives us a new nature to contend with the flesh.
If our old bodies are corrupted by sin, there must be a way for God to eradicate sin and FREE us from its power and its effects. We are freed from its penalty by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross! But what of the lingering effects? Why do many remain in the same beat up, messed up state after we are reborn?
From a practical perspective, growth is supposed to occur after birth however, there are a ton of folks that are “reborn” but they do not go past the floor of the delivery room- in essence they are “still born”. There are many that say that they are been born again but show NO signs of regeneration/renewal nor are they making any efforts to do so! They stay in the fetal position forever, and have no problem with it. This includes preachers, politicians, leaders and ALL who are Christians in name only. These are the ones that Christ commands to “depart from me, you workers of iniquity…I never knew you!”
Why are there so many Christians that are “stillborn”? There are some key concepts that many do not understand but if these concepts are understood then the Christian walk becomes much more doable. Many walk down the aisle to “join church” with no understanding of what walking that aisle really means- it means we are uniting with Christ and renouncing old ways in favor of new ways. It does not mean we are uniting with Bishop so and so or Pastuh so and so but with Christ!
There are several concepts (Holiness, Grace, Repentance and Sanctification) in Christianity that are misunderstood, poorly taught or not taught at all. As it stands, these misconceptions keep churches full of immature Christians with the desire to hear a man-centered gospel rather than the true gospel which is Christ centered!
A. HOLINESS
God is HOLY! 1 Tim 6:16 says that God lives in unapproachable light! Isaiah, when in the presence of God said that he was undone! When he beheld the Holiness he immediately understood his uncleanness! Only those with clean hands and a pure heart shall ascend up the hill of God!
Not only is God’s holiness not preached about, our pursuit of holiness has been shelved for a gospel of prosperity and dominion without any regard for sanctification. Holiness is an action word. The pursuit of holiness is not the pursuit of perfection, but the pursuit of becoming more like Christ and less like ourselves. True holiness removes the concept of competition with others and focuses on self in relation to God and should be the aspiration/desire of everyone that follows Christ. Christ commanded it in Matthew 5:48 and its pursuit shows reverence for God! We don’t reach true “perfection” until death BUT we can/should strive for holiness in life.
B. GRACE
Grace is God’s unmerited favor and love towards man. It enables us, strengthens us, saved us but is not license for sin! Sin and iniquity cannot come from grace because only good things result from God’s grace. Forgiveness and Salvation (justification) result from God’s grace (Romans 5:20-21). Sin and iniquity cause the OPPOSITE of grace (death)—therefore we cannot use grace to EXCUSE sin/iniquity! ONLY GOD CAN USE GRACE AS A MEANS OF FORGIVING US, WE CANNOT USE GRACE AS A MEANS OF FORGIVING OURSELVES! Grace is a blanket that covers our mistakes on the way to holiness, not on the way to iniquity! When we willfully sin, we are in essence calling God a lie and perverting his grace because we are bringing forth sin and iniquity [through our lives] out of his perfect gift of grace! God’s grace was demonstrated in Christ through whom he lavished his grace upon us (Ephesians 1:6-8). Not because we are so great but because of the super abundance of sin!
C. REPENTANCE
Grace makes it possible for repentance; Ifgrace is the blanket, repentance keeps it tucked in! Repentance is a sign of regeneration and in Luke 3 we are admonished to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Repentance says to God that we understand that we have wronged Him! Thank God that because of the blood of Jesus, for believers, He no longer holds it against us. Repentance involves A. recognizing sin B. being convicted of sin (2 Cor 7:10) and C. Turning away from sin (1 John 3:8,9; Hebrews 10:26). Many do not want to touch this area – - it may run folks away and decrease numbers.
D. SANCTIFICATION
A lot of the New Testament, outside of the gospels (which mainly chronicle the life of Christ), is devoted to giving instructions on the process of sanctification or becoming Holy before the Lord! We are taught how to live a godly life through God’s word! After salvation occurs, then the process of sanctification begins. Too many churches do not take their members past the baptism pool. You are saved instantaneously but you are not transformed because in order to become a new creature, old things must pass away- but they die hard! We aren’t always taught this! We are sold a lollipop gospel to make us feel “good” on Sunday morning! We must die to self daily (Mark 8:34, Romans 6:17-19, Galatians 2 and 5)! WE MUST submit to the Sanctification process carried out by the Holy Ghost- [Ephesians 4:30].
This is not meant to be mean spirited, but I am tired of seeing our Holy God being made a mockery of by preachers that refuse to tell the truth from the pulpit thereby setting their parishioners up for failure. If the preacher is the one to give the proverbial “slap on the butt” to awaken the new Christian once they are “reborn”, then based on the rampant MESS going on in the church, many are sorely underperforming at their jobs. As for the parishioners, we too have a responsibility to find out what happens next on the Christian walk. We cannot afford to be complacent, stillborn Christians! We need to be actively engaged in the process of sanctification while depending on God to continually help us, through His Spirit, to stay in the race!! It is called dependent responsibility whereby we are responsible to God to obey His word and dependent on Him to HELP us obey it. It is my prayer that a sincere desire to be more like Christ is awakened in churches all across the world! God be with you all.
Monday, October 31, 2011
What God?
There is a scripture that Paul used when defending/explaining/sharing his faith with a group of philosophers and people on Mars Hill in the book of Acts. Paul, in the midst of their skepticism, their arrogance and their lack of spiritual understanding made a profound statement and he used one of their own poets to do so...he said in Acts 17:28 "' for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'"
Paul talked to men that "understood" God from a very limited intellectual standpoint but they
had no spiritual connection whatsoever to God. They did not know God personally and therefore they even erected a shrine to "an unknown (i.e. unknowable) god". Paul said what you worship as unknown, I now proclaim to you. This is where we are today: men and women that place science on a pedestal in lieu of God. Science is now the "unknown god". They believe they have a better way of explaining how/why the universe works/exists. While I will be the first to admit that we have made significant scientific advances, nothing will ever replace God.
Professor Stephen Hawking now has a NEW theory that supposedly disproves the existence of God. I am always baffled by scientists that constantly try to remove God from the equation. Why is Stephen Hawking, who is unable to do ANY experimentation other than come up with theories, now the authority on God and creation and whether it did or did not happen? He is unable to collect even the smallest shred of empirical evidence to support his claims because of his disability...but he is the most sought after physicist in the world simply because of the thoughts that ramble through his mind. How? I concede that he is a great thinker but he has gone off his rocker, yet again, with this theory. The central notion of his theory is where the big bang occurred. Listen to him versus God? No contest, God wins hands down and has provided me with all the evidence that I need to have faith that He not only exists but He IS the creator of everything.
To many scientists, the notion of God seems preposterous. Yet a "big bang" where everything just
"appeared" and came together makes more sense? According to Hawking, because the big bang
originated in a black hole (his theory, not able to be proven true) where time didn't exist, there was no time for a creator to exist within because time did not exist prior to the “bang”. Does he not realize that GOD EXISTS OUTSIDE OF TIME?! God is not limited by time. This anthropomorphism leads us to a fallacious belief that God is human like us. To ascribe human characteristics to an infinite, all wise and all intelligent was done by writers of the bible in some instances to help us relate to God. But it is a foregone conclusion that God transcends humanity. Always has and always will. OK, so my question is this, WHO CREATED THE BANG? Standing at a board hypothesizing makes more sense than saying that a being that has unlimited intelligence and wisdom created everything? I can only chuckle and think of 1 Corinthians 1 where Paul says the wisdom of God is foolishness to man and vice versa.
According to Hawking, it is entirely possible for the “universe” to create something from nothing without any outside assistance. According to him, the laws of the universe cannot be broken. So why does he claim that a fundamental law of science can be broken by saying that the “universe” can create something from nothing when the First law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed? According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy can only change forms so my question is this…if energy can only change forms, WHO changed its original form to cause it to ignite during the big bang- which is proposed to occur from an infinitesimal amount of energy? Now if you add God to that equation, God is ALL powerful and is able to create something from nothing because he is the one that can speak those things that are not as though they are according to Romans 4:17. He is not bound by the laws of the universe.
His theory purports that time doesn't exist within a black hole when NO MAN HAS EVER BEEN INTO A BLACK HOLE, which is totally preposterous to me. Science has very little evidence to support such a claim let alone pass it off as though we should all drop our Bibles and just believe them! Science is a gift from God to allow us to understand the world around us; it is not to be placed above the creator. Are there questions that I want answers to? Yes. Do I disregard all of the empirical evidence that God has provided me in favor of a theory that someone deduced one evening in a room with a white board while having a cup of coffee? I think not. In the passage of time I believe that God will reveal everything that I NEED to know and I am perfectly OK with not understanding everything.
Watching "Curiosity" on the Science channel, I was totally amazed at how atheistic this network is and how relentless they are to remove God from the equation of life. Hawking kept talking about the "laws of nature" removing the need for a "God" but my question is always this...WHO CREATED NATURE? WHO SET THE LAWS IN MOTION? We may not need God to explain nature to us, but we SEE evidence for God in the creation (Romans 1:19). Keep in mind this is the same Stephen Hawking that claimed to believe in God a few years ago and later recanted.
I am a scientist and I cannot simply take man's word over God's word which is the bible. As a scientist, when you say probably about any proposal, you leave room for someone to come behind you and either prove or disprove what you have proposed. So to hear Dr. Hawking pontificate for one hour and then end the show with "there probably is no God and there probably is no heaven or afterlife" is truly amazing. Years of thinking and the best thing that you can come up with is "probably"? I thank God that He is solid and that there is no probably with Him. He is the One who WAS, IS and IS TO COME. He holds all things together by the word of His power. We exist BECAUSE of Him, not in spite of him or outside of Him. The case that Hawking presents is not only not compelling, it scoffs at the notion that everything has a cause and for me and many like me we believe that the cause is God! I refuse to worship at the altar of science. Cosmologists study the universe without ever going into space. We study God and know God through reality and we see God working EVERYDAY. Just out of curiosity, where did the proposed black hole that the big bang occurred in come from?
Paul talked to men that "understood" God from a very limited intellectual standpoint but they
had no spiritual connection whatsoever to God. They did not know God personally and therefore they even erected a shrine to "an unknown (i.e. unknowable) god". Paul said what you worship as unknown, I now proclaim to you. This is where we are today: men and women that place science on a pedestal in lieu of God. Science is now the "unknown god". They believe they have a better way of explaining how/why the universe works/exists. While I will be the first to admit that we have made significant scientific advances, nothing will ever replace God.
Professor Stephen Hawking now has a NEW theory that supposedly disproves the existence of God. I am always baffled by scientists that constantly try to remove God from the equation. Why is Stephen Hawking, who is unable to do ANY experimentation other than come up with theories, now the authority on God and creation and whether it did or did not happen? He is unable to collect even the smallest shred of empirical evidence to support his claims because of his disability...but he is the most sought after physicist in the world simply because of the thoughts that ramble through his mind. How? I concede that he is a great thinker but he has gone off his rocker, yet again, with this theory. The central notion of his theory is where the big bang occurred. Listen to him versus God? No contest, God wins hands down and has provided me with all the evidence that I need to have faith that He not only exists but He IS the creator of everything.
To many scientists, the notion of God seems preposterous. Yet a "big bang" where everything just
"appeared" and came together makes more sense? According to Hawking, because the big bang
originated in a black hole (his theory, not able to be proven true) where time didn't exist, there was no time for a creator to exist within because time did not exist prior to the “bang”. Does he not realize that GOD EXISTS OUTSIDE OF TIME?! God is not limited by time. This anthropomorphism leads us to a fallacious belief that God is human like us. To ascribe human characteristics to an infinite, all wise and all intelligent was done by writers of the bible in some instances to help us relate to God. But it is a foregone conclusion that God transcends humanity. Always has and always will. OK, so my question is this, WHO CREATED THE BANG? Standing at a board hypothesizing makes more sense than saying that a being that has unlimited intelligence and wisdom created everything? I can only chuckle and think of 1 Corinthians 1 where Paul says the wisdom of God is foolishness to man and vice versa.
According to Hawking, it is entirely possible for the “universe” to create something from nothing without any outside assistance. According to him, the laws of the universe cannot be broken. So why does he claim that a fundamental law of science can be broken by saying that the “universe” can create something from nothing when the First law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed? According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy can only change forms so my question is this…if energy can only change forms, WHO changed its original form to cause it to ignite during the big bang- which is proposed to occur from an infinitesimal amount of energy? Now if you add God to that equation, God is ALL powerful and is able to create something from nothing because he is the one that can speak those things that are not as though they are according to Romans 4:17. He is not bound by the laws of the universe.
His theory purports that time doesn't exist within a black hole when NO MAN HAS EVER BEEN INTO A BLACK HOLE, which is totally preposterous to me. Science has very little evidence to support such a claim let alone pass it off as though we should all drop our Bibles and just believe them! Science is a gift from God to allow us to understand the world around us; it is not to be placed above the creator. Are there questions that I want answers to? Yes. Do I disregard all of the empirical evidence that God has provided me in favor of a theory that someone deduced one evening in a room with a white board while having a cup of coffee? I think not. In the passage of time I believe that God will reveal everything that I NEED to know and I am perfectly OK with not understanding everything.
Watching "Curiosity" on the Science channel, I was totally amazed at how atheistic this network is and how relentless they are to remove God from the equation of life. Hawking kept talking about the "laws of nature" removing the need for a "God" but my question is always this...WHO CREATED NATURE? WHO SET THE LAWS IN MOTION? We may not need God to explain nature to us, but we SEE evidence for God in the creation (Romans 1:19). Keep in mind this is the same Stephen Hawking that claimed to believe in God a few years ago and later recanted.
I am a scientist and I cannot simply take man's word over God's word which is the bible. As a scientist, when you say probably about any proposal, you leave room for someone to come behind you and either prove or disprove what you have proposed. So to hear Dr. Hawking pontificate for one hour and then end the show with "there probably is no God and there probably is no heaven or afterlife" is truly amazing. Years of thinking and the best thing that you can come up with is "probably"? I thank God that He is solid and that there is no probably with Him. He is the One who WAS, IS and IS TO COME. He holds all things together by the word of His power. We exist BECAUSE of Him, not in spite of him or outside of Him. The case that Hawking presents is not only not compelling, it scoffs at the notion that everything has a cause and for me and many like me we believe that the cause is God! I refuse to worship at the altar of science. Cosmologists study the universe without ever going into space. We study God and know God through reality and we see God working EVERYDAY. Just out of curiosity, where did the proposed black hole that the big bang occurred in come from?
Are We "gods"?
I heard Benny Hinn preach last night to his church that they are not human, they are spirits. It blew me away. There is a popular doctrinal teaching that humans are actually gods. It’s called the “Little gods” doctrine. It says that we are superhuman. Here is a popular quote from the popular mega-church pastor Creflo Dollar:
Dollar: "If horses get together, they produce what?"
Congregation: "Horses!"
Dollar: "If dogs get together, they produce what?"
Congregation: "Dogs!"
Dollar: "If cats get together, they produce what?"
Congregation: "Cats!"
Dollar: "So if the Godhead says 'Let us make man in our image', and everything produces after its own kind, then they produce what?"
Congregation: "Gods!"
Dollar: "Gods. Little "g" gods. You're not human. Only human part of you is this flesh you're wearing."
Dollar leads his congregation down a slippery slope and they buy it hook, line and sinker. There is a huge problem with this theology however. There are actually several problems with it, but there is one glaring problem that should have been evident to his parishioners.
Here is the issue, horses, dogs, and cats all reproduce. They engage in a sexual act, a sperm is delivered to an egg and they reproduce. God on the other hand, creates. He does not reproduce, therefore the “Godhead” does not get together and “mate” to make little “gods”. Dollar has blatantly put God, the Almighty in the same category as horses, dogs and cats. Clearly, his view of God is highly anthropomorphic in that he sees God as a man. Kenneth Copeland views God in much the same way, as a man with a given height and weight, etc. God is Spirit and we should worship Him in Spirit and in truth! God is not a man and God does not reproduce! If you think that the virgin birth is reproduction, then that is also incorrect. There was no intercourse, simply the implantation of Christ into the womb of Mary. She was simply the vessel through which God chose to come through and begin his existence as a human being. He implanted himself as the Son and came forth as the Son, never once losing any of his divinity. Man, as a result of reproduction, is not divine at all. Man was not created divine either, but was created from the dust of the earth.
Reproduction does not allow for ones reproducing to input ANYTHING other than the reproductive material. They cannot choose what traits are transferred to the embryo. For example, two parents with sickle cell trait cannot lower probability (50%) that the trait will be passed on to the child that is being produced. They cannot tell the child what color or texture hair to have, what complexion or what color eyes to have. Reproduction, as God intended it, is purely population driven. It is intended for the survival of a species. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.
Creation is totally different. The creator decides what traits are put in and what traits are left out. Just like God could have created Adam and Eve with the knowledge of good and evil ingrained in their mind, but he did not. That was not a property that he wanted them to have. He also could have created them as immortal beings, but in doing that and knowing omnisciently that the fall of man was imminent; God would have basically cursed Adam and Eve to live eternally in sin. The creator says I want them to be this way, and he creates it the way that he wants it. When Genesis speaks of man being made in the image of God, and in his likeness, it is talking about man taking on the transitive properties of God- his love, his compassion, the ability to think, the ability to reason etc. Creation occurs out of the desire of the Creator to share something of Himself. Unlike reproduction which is a survival mechanism, creation is at the discretion of the creator and is not necessary for the creator’s survival. Creation is on such a higher order than reproduction that it is embarrassing for a teaching such as this to be perpetuated or even believed.
Let’s look at it from a different angle. The bible says in Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 43 and 44 is a manifesto from God! He asserts Himself to the chagrin and disdain of all false gods and idols. I am not foolish enough to believe that God would contradict himself by creating little “gods” to compete with Him for His glory. I am not foolish enough to believe that God, who forbids idol worship, would create us to be self-contained idols to be worshipped by others or to worship ourselves.
Without a doubt, someone will come back to me and say, well Jesus said in John 10:34 “Doesn’t it say in your Law ‘I have said you are gods’?” Jesus does not say outright that “you are gods”, he is quoting Psalm 82:6. He is also refuting the Pharisees opposition to him calling himself the “Son of God”. A proper discussion of this statement would look to Psalm 82 and see that when God made this statement, he also followed it up with “yet you will die like men “. Psalm 82 is a rebuke of those in offices that represented Him who did not operate in that office properly. By the nature of their office, they were “gods” or “rulers” as Psalm 82:1 points out. However, their mortality was also emphasized when the scripture says that they would die like men. To further establish the premise that man is not a “god”, Ezekiel 28:2 God says to the king of Tyre through Ezekiel, “…you are no god, although you make your heart like the heart of a god.”
The truth is, we are not gods. We are human. We are created a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7; Psalm 8:5). We are not supernatural, but God is and His power works through us and in us to accomplish His will. The desire to be a “god” is selfish and man-centered. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 speaks of one who is coming, the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction who exalts himself above everything and wants to be in the place of God. I am not trying to imitate that, and we all know who this scripture is referring to. It is easier for us to humble ourselves than it is to try to be a “god”. At what point does the “god” try to exert himself/herself and contend with THE ALMIGHTY GOD to their own folly and destruction? Let God be God. There is a reason that He created us the way that He did. It is to our benefit to trust that God did not make a mistake in creating us. He made us fearfully and wonderfully. We are complex and intricate. He gave us the ability to love Him and others. I’m ok with that. I don’t need to have any special powers or superhuman ability- I just want to serve God with all my heart and to love Him with everything within me. I’m not a god, you are not a god- we are human beings created in God’s likeness, not after his kind- there is but one God.
Dollar: "If horses get together, they produce what?"
Congregation: "Horses!"
Dollar: "If dogs get together, they produce what?"
Congregation: "Dogs!"
Dollar: "If cats get together, they produce what?"
Congregation: "Cats!"
Dollar: "So if the Godhead says 'Let us make man in our image', and everything produces after its own kind, then they produce what?"
Congregation: "Gods!"
Dollar: "Gods. Little "g" gods. You're not human. Only human part of you is this flesh you're wearing."
Dollar leads his congregation down a slippery slope and they buy it hook, line and sinker. There is a huge problem with this theology however. There are actually several problems with it, but there is one glaring problem that should have been evident to his parishioners.
Here is the issue, horses, dogs, and cats all reproduce. They engage in a sexual act, a sperm is delivered to an egg and they reproduce. God on the other hand, creates. He does not reproduce, therefore the “Godhead” does not get together and “mate” to make little “gods”. Dollar has blatantly put God, the Almighty in the same category as horses, dogs and cats. Clearly, his view of God is highly anthropomorphic in that he sees God as a man. Kenneth Copeland views God in much the same way, as a man with a given height and weight, etc. God is Spirit and we should worship Him in Spirit and in truth! God is not a man and God does not reproduce! If you think that the virgin birth is reproduction, then that is also incorrect. There was no intercourse, simply the implantation of Christ into the womb of Mary. She was simply the vessel through which God chose to come through and begin his existence as a human being. He implanted himself as the Son and came forth as the Son, never once losing any of his divinity. Man, as a result of reproduction, is not divine at all. Man was not created divine either, but was created from the dust of the earth.
Reproduction does not allow for ones reproducing to input ANYTHING other than the reproductive material. They cannot choose what traits are transferred to the embryo. For example, two parents with sickle cell trait cannot lower probability (50%) that the trait will be passed on to the child that is being produced. They cannot tell the child what color or texture hair to have, what complexion or what color eyes to have. Reproduction, as God intended it, is purely population driven. It is intended for the survival of a species. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.
Creation is totally different. The creator decides what traits are put in and what traits are left out. Just like God could have created Adam and Eve with the knowledge of good and evil ingrained in their mind, but he did not. That was not a property that he wanted them to have. He also could have created them as immortal beings, but in doing that and knowing omnisciently that the fall of man was imminent; God would have basically cursed Adam and Eve to live eternally in sin. The creator says I want them to be this way, and he creates it the way that he wants it. When Genesis speaks of man being made in the image of God, and in his likeness, it is talking about man taking on the transitive properties of God- his love, his compassion, the ability to think, the ability to reason etc. Creation occurs out of the desire of the Creator to share something of Himself. Unlike reproduction which is a survival mechanism, creation is at the discretion of the creator and is not necessary for the creator’s survival. Creation is on such a higher order than reproduction that it is embarrassing for a teaching such as this to be perpetuated or even believed.
Let’s look at it from a different angle. The bible says in Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 43 and 44 is a manifesto from God! He asserts Himself to the chagrin and disdain of all false gods and idols. I am not foolish enough to believe that God would contradict himself by creating little “gods” to compete with Him for His glory. I am not foolish enough to believe that God, who forbids idol worship, would create us to be self-contained idols to be worshipped by others or to worship ourselves.
Without a doubt, someone will come back to me and say, well Jesus said in John 10:34 “Doesn’t it say in your Law ‘I have said you are gods’?” Jesus does not say outright that “you are gods”, he is quoting Psalm 82:6. He is also refuting the Pharisees opposition to him calling himself the “Son of God”. A proper discussion of this statement would look to Psalm 82 and see that when God made this statement, he also followed it up with “yet you will die like men “. Psalm 82 is a rebuke of those in offices that represented Him who did not operate in that office properly. By the nature of their office, they were “gods” or “rulers” as Psalm 82:1 points out. However, their mortality was also emphasized when the scripture says that they would die like men. To further establish the premise that man is not a “god”, Ezekiel 28:2 God says to the king of Tyre through Ezekiel, “…you are no god, although you make your heart like the heart of a god.”
The truth is, we are not gods. We are human. We are created a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7; Psalm 8:5). We are not supernatural, but God is and His power works through us and in us to accomplish His will. The desire to be a “god” is selfish and man-centered. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 speaks of one who is coming, the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction who exalts himself above everything and wants to be in the place of God. I am not trying to imitate that, and we all know who this scripture is referring to. It is easier for us to humble ourselves than it is to try to be a “god”. At what point does the “god” try to exert himself/herself and contend with THE ALMIGHTY GOD to their own folly and destruction? Let God be God. There is a reason that He created us the way that He did. It is to our benefit to trust that God did not make a mistake in creating us. He made us fearfully and wonderfully. We are complex and intricate. He gave us the ability to love Him and others. I’m ok with that. I don’t need to have any special powers or superhuman ability- I just want to serve God with all my heart and to love Him with everything within me. I’m not a god, you are not a god- we are human beings created in God’s likeness, not after his kind- there is but one God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)